Vengeancia “The right of trial by Jury is a fundamental law, made sacred by the Constitution, and cannot be legislated away.” Vanhorne’s Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (D.Pa. 1795) (Paterson, J, riding circuit).

According to Senator Richard Henry Lee,the primary purpose of the trial by jury in America was to protect the public from corrupt or aristocratic judges:

“The impartial administration of justice, which secures both our persons and our properties, is the great end of civil society. But if that be entirely intrusted to the magistracy,–a select body of men, and those generally selected, by the prince, of such as enjoy the highest offices of the state,–these decisions, in spite of their own natural integrity, will have frequently an involuntary bias towards those of their own rank and dignity. It is not to be expected from human nature, that the few should always be attentive to the good of the many.” Read more.

“Certainly the Founders were concerned about the dangers of popular government, some of them obsessively so. But they were also captivated by its possibilities and in awe of its importance. Their Constitution remained, fundamentally, an act of popular will: the people’s charter, made by the people. And, as we shall see, it was “the people themselves”—working through and responding to their agents in the government—who were responsible for seeing that it was properly interpreted and implemented. The idea of turning this responsibility over to judges was simply unthinkable.” More.

Rule 38. Jury Trial of Right

(a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to [[Page 209]] the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.

As a flesh and blood man or woman standing on American soil, whether or not you have a citizenship by birth or naturalized, you have the unalienable Right, preserved inviolate, to file a suit at common law pursuant to the 7th Amendment, against anyone, including police, sheriffs, attorneys, etc., who attempt to coerce you into contract, or impair your Right to contract and obligate others in accordance with a contract, without your consent.

The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

These so-called “retained rights” of flesh and blood men and women are recognized by the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. Read more at Get Out and Stay Out of Jail. Read about the Common Law and the Magna Carta.

The Seventh Amendment provides the right of trial by jury under the common law
The Seventh Amendment provides the right of trial by jury under the common law

The personal Rights guaranteed by our Constitution can be compromised or ignored by the corporation dba the Govt of the US of A, especially if you CONSENT to appear in THEIR jurisdiction. For example, in United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538, 539 (D. Pa. 1947), Federal District Court Judge James Alger Fee ruled that,

“The privilege against self-incrimination is neither accorded to the passive resistant, nor the person who is ignorant of his rights, nor to one indifferent thereto. It is a fighting clause. Its benefits can be retained only by sustained combat. It can not be retained by attorney or solicitor. It is valid only when insisted upon by a belligerent claimant in the flesh. The one who is persuaded by honeyed words or moral suasion to testify or produce documents rather than make a last ditch stand, simply loses the protection. Once he testifies to part, he has waived his right and must on cross examination or otherwise, testify as to the whole transaction. He must refuse to answer or produce, and test the matter in contempt proceedings, or by habeas corpus.”

District Judge James Alger Fee
United States v. Johnson, 76 F. Supp. 538 (at page 540)
District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Feb. 26, 1947

Let’s assume you have NOT consented, appeared, or retained an attorney. So far, so good! By the way, you don’t need a license to practice “law.” You only get a license to use the corporation’s copywritten and private “law,” really just a bunch of legal gobbledygook if you ask me.

A. The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State Schware v. Board  of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239
B. The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT!
       Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925)

Read more.

Once you file your Suit at Common Law pursuant to the 7th Amendment you’ll be filing 1) summons and 2) subpoenas to demand that the police, magistrates, etc. who violated your unalienable Rights respond to your Complaint and Cause of Action and produce some documents and/or evidence to justify their negligence, breach of duty of care, and failure to observe your non-consent. Be sure to check out these sample subpoena questions.

In this discussion re: subpoena, keep in mind that PEOPLE is contrasted with PERSONS. People have unalienable Rights; citizens, which are legal fictions, have privileges. If you choose not to subject yourself to the jurisdiction of the corp. dba the Govt. of the US of A, then you are a sovran, just as the other people you are suing, who are acting under the authority of the corp., become sovrans and real people whether they like it or not. Even though they may ACT in capacities such as police officer, judge, etc., you still have the Right to sue them personally, as PEOPLE. First be sure to lay a claim OVER your person/citizen/name in caps.

Imagine a bunch of musicians sitting around in a song circle. One musician calls the tune and the others play along, jamming on their instruments. Well, when the corporation calls the tune, you are expected to play along. However, when YOU call the tune, i.e., choose the common law as your venue, then everyone has to play along with YOU. At least, that’s what they’ve sworn an oath to do!

The corporation masquerading as govt. is only sovereign and possesses “sovereign immunity” when you consent to UNDERSTAND or STAND UNDER their private copywritten statutes, which can only become “law” if and when you consent to them. Juris-diction…..who speaks the law?

As Barack Obama admitted in January 2011, all government is by consent. Further, the FRCP itself states that

“A demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without the consent of the parties.”

A subpoena play /səˈpnə/ is a writ by a government agency, most often a court, that has authority to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. There are two common types of subpoena:

  1. subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment. The subpoena can also request the testimony to be given by phone or in person.
  2. subpoena duces tecum orders a person or organization to bring physical evidence before the ordering authority or face punishment. This is often used for requests to mail copies of documents to requesting party or directly to court.

The code says that the Filing Fee is $350 for federal district court here.  One guy I heard once on a radio show says that we can prevent the district court from switching you from common law, lower case d, c, to a corporate jurisdiction, capital D and C, by paying it with an International Money Order. It’s only $5 with a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Information on obtaining a Writ of Habeas Corpus here. If you are broke, you can waive a filing fee.

In our opinion, we the people, shouldn’t have to pay a filing fee to bring a suit at common law. It is our RIGHT inviolate, remember? We suggest you add a blurb to this effect as part of your Demand and just tell them you are broke and therefore aren’t paying anything.

Juries and Trial by Jury in general. Here we see that the 7th Amendment is alive and well, it’s just that the Attorneys never use it.


Rule 38. Jury Trial of Right

(a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to [[Page 209]] the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States shall be preserved to the parties inviolate.

(b) Demand. Any party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by (1) serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue, and (2) filing the demand as required by Rule 5(d). Such demand may be indorsed upon a pleading of the party.

(c) Same: Specification of Issues. In the demand a party may specify the issues which the party wishes so tried; otherwise the party shall be deemed to have demanded trial by jury for all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded trial by jury for only some of the issues, any other party within 10 days after service of the demand or such lesser time as the court may order, may serve a demand for trial by jury of any other or all of the issues of fact in the action.

(d) Waiver. The failure of a party to serve and file a demand as required by this rule constitutes a waiver by the party of trial by jury. A demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without the consent of the parties.


Civil rights and elective franchise (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person:

(1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;

(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;

(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;

(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.

Did you know that there’s a Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

Notice that the Preamble to the Constitution states FOR the US of A…..hmmm….

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The following info. is from Freedom School:

Trial by government is prohibited for real people.

A trial by A JURY OF YOUR PEERS IS A TRIAL BY 12 PEOPLE WHO KNOW YOU and who can judge the law as well as the facts.

The writers of your Constitution had a strong distrust of government tyranny.  A trial by a jury of your peers was intended to replace the inherently unfair trial by government.  A trial by government does not fulfill the Fifth Amendment guarantee to due process of law.  You have a right to a fair trial.  Trial by government cannot be fair.  Inquisition is trial by government.

The book Elliot’s Debates On The Adoption Of The Constitution quotes  (Vol 3, page 579) Patrick Henry as stating; “By the bill of rights of England, a subject has a right to a trial by his peers.  What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well acquainted with his character and situation in life.”

Also in Elliot’s Debates we can read (Vol 2, page 516) where another Founding Father, James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and later a Supreme Court Justice, reassured us that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you: “Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses — where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view — I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury: they hear every thing that is alleged; they not only hear the words, but they see and mark the features of the countenance; they can judge of weight due to such testimony; and moreover, it is a cheap and expeditious manner of distributing justice.  There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or il-founded verdict, but their errors cannot be systematical.”

And again, in Elliot’s Debates, Vol 2, page 110, Mr. Holmes from Massachusetts, assured us that cases would be heard in the local community where the jury of peers could form a judgment based on the character of the accused and the credibility of the witnesses.

That’s right!  Your Constitution was ratified on the reassurance that a jury of your peers would always be 12 people who know you.

Here is further proof that a trial by jury is not a trial by government:  The Metropolitan News, a Los Angeles legal newspaper on October 25, 1973 quoted Hon. L. Thaxton Hanson, Justice Court of Appeals, State of California (ret.):

“In ancient times, the right to trial by jury was called `trial per pals’ – that is, trial by country – or by the people, as distinguished from trial by government”  

Lord Hale, 18th Century English Jurist was being quoted in the US Supreme Court’s case Sparf & Hansen v. US, 156 US 51 (1895)  at page 119:

“… if the judge’s opinion in matter of law must rule the issue of fact submitted to the jury, the trial by jury would be useless.”

Much of your law comes from the English system.  The US Supreme Court, in the same Sparf case at page 117 quotes Englishman John Milton in his book Defense of the People:

” And hence it is that when a malefactor is asked at his arraignment, `How will you be tried?’ he answers always, according to law and custom, `By God and my country, not by God and the King, or the King’s Deputy [Judge].'” 

In the impeachment Trial of US Supreme Court Justice Chase in 1805, your US Government itself fought for the right of the jury to judge the law as well as the facts.  They impeached Justice Chase because he failed to tell a jury in a murder trial that they can judge the law. —  Perhaps juries today do not have the right to judge the law.  Perhaps juries have waived their rights by registering to vote.  All of their rights.  [Government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, and registered voters have consented to be governed].

Supreme Court Justice Chase, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, was impeached for

“… endeavoring to wrest from the jury their indisputable right to hear argument, and determine upon the question of law as well as the question of fact, …”

Your US Government itself, in the Chase Transcript Article 1, section 2, clause 4, argued that Justice Chase did this outrageous thing:

“… to the disgrace of the character of the American bench, in manifest violation of law and justice and in open contempt of the rights of juries, on which ultimately rest the liberty and safety of the American people.”

In 1969 in US v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 at page 1006:

“We recognize as appellants urge, the UNDISPUTED power of the jury to acquit, even if the verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence. … the jury has the power to acquit and the courts must abide by that decision.”

Read more.

One thought on “Trial by Jury

Leave a Reply