Beech Tree News Network

The Bible says “the meek shall inherit the earth” and “my people are destroyed by lack of knowledge” and “the truth shall set you free.”

 The meek does not mean the weak, but it does mean winning peacefully. So how do we accomplish this feat when faced with such an out of control and tyrannical government?

This is how we must take back our God-given rights when those we elect and the state and federal level are either too ignorant to understand the constitutional limits of their authority or too cowardly to adhere to their oath “to support, defend and obey the United States Constitution” and instead want to cater to well-funded special interest organizations, large campaign donors or the whims of the voting majority?

Read on and learn what our government officials and BAR Association members have tried to hide from the American people for the last 100 years.

 A HANDBOOK FOR JURORS HAIL TO THE JURY - OUR DEFENSE - BOTH YOURS AND MINE -AGAINST THE USURPATIONS OF AN OPPRESSIVE AND TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

The MAGNA CARTA, the great Charter of our liberties was wrung from a frightened would-be dictator-king at the point of a sword over 700 years ago, and is by far the most important legal document supporting our Federal and State Constitutions.

You—as a juror—armed merely with the knowledge of what a JURY really is and what your common law rights, powers, and duties as a juror really are, can do more to re-establish "liberty and justice for all" in your State and ultimately throughout all of the United States than all our Senators and Representatives put together. Because even without the concurrence of any of your fellow jurors in a criminal trial, you, with your single vote of NOT GUILTY can nullify or invalidate any man-made law involved in a case that, for one reason or another, ought not to be enforced.

If you feel the criminal statute involved in any criminal case in which you are selected to be a juror is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural God-given inalienable, and/or constitutionally protected rights, you must affirm that the of fending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all —for no man is bound to obey an unjust command or unconstitutional law. If a law is unconstitutional it is actually an illegal law and thus the enforcement of the illegal law is an illegal act by the government officials supporting and enforcing it.

If the defendant has disobeyed some man-made criminal statute and the statute itself is unjust, that defendant has committed no crime. Jurors — having ruled then on the justice of the law involved and finding it opposed in whole or in part to their own natural concept of what is basically right —are bound to hold for the acquittal of said defendant. Your vote of NOT GUILTY must be respected by all other members of the jury —for you are not there as a fool, merely to agree with the majority, but as an officer of the court and a qualified judge in your own right.

Regardless of the pressures or abuse that may be heaped on you by any or all members of the jury with whom you may in good conscience disagree, you can await the reading of the verdict secure in the knowledge you have voted your own conscience and convictions and taken a stand against government overreach and tyranny.

Therein lies the opportunity for the ac accomplishment of "liberty and justice for all." If you, and numerous other jurors throughout your state and the nation begin and continue to bring in verdicts of NOT GUILTY in such cases where a man-made statute is defective or oppressive, these statutes will become as ineffective as if they had never been written. It only takes one juror to effect a verdict of NOT GUILTY in any criminal trial — a fact that could prove to be of more than passing interest to you should you yourself be the defendant and your accuser happen to be agents of the government.

A Jury's Rights, Powers and Duties: The instructions to the Jury in the first jury trial before the United States Supreme Court illustrates the true power you possess as a Patriotic American selected to serve on a jury.

In the February term of 1794, the United States Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall. 1. The instructions given to the jurors by the Chief Justice says it all: "... it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (Emphasis added.) ". . . you have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." (State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall. 1)

 As the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has clearly acknowledged, there can be no doubt that the jury has an "unreviewable and unre-versible power . . . to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge . . ."U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 0972).

Or as this same truth was stated in an earlier decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Maryland: “We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to ac quit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision." U.S. vs. Moylan, 417 F 2d 1002, 1006 (1969).

Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful: “A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.” With these words written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Supreme Court for the first time declared unconstitutional a law passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 wheat) 264 404 5 L. Ed. 257 (1821): “No one can war with the Constitution.”

Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir.2012) declaring a voter enacted State Constitution Amendment unconstitutional because it violated rights secured by the United States Constitution and the Oklahoma State Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates and renders applicable to the States Bill of Rights protections “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty,” or “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 767 (alterations omitted). “If a Bill of Rights protection is incorporated, there is no daylight between the federal and state conduct it prohibits or requires”.

 The prohibitions on government authority embodied in the United States Constitution carries forward protections found in sources from Magna Carta to the English Bill of Rights to state constitutions. Protection against government over-reach and abuse has been a constant shield since the founding fathers created the American system of government for good reason.

Title 18 United States Code §242, [n.3] referring to "the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States," is matched by the breadth of its companion conspiracy statute, Title 18 United States Code §241, [n.4] which speaks of conspiracies to prevent "the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to [any person] by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Thus, in lieu of describing the specific conduct it forbids, each statute's general terms incorporate constitutional law by reference, see United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931, 941(1988); United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 797, 805 (1966).

“While the public has an interest in the will of the voters being carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more profound and long-term interest in upholding an individual’s constitutional rights.” (see Awad versus Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111,1132 10th Cir. CASE NO. 10-6273 (2012)) and G&V Lounge, Inc. versus Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071 (6th Cir. 1994: “As the Sixth Circuit has stated, it is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights”

And again in Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1132 (10th Cir. 2012): “The Tenth Circuit has held that when the law that voters wish to enact is likely unconstitutional, their (public) interests do not outweigh the rights of the individual in having his constitutional rights protected.”

 “The state has no authority to unreasonably burden the exercise of fundamental rights such that the burden compels the relinquishment of such rights in exchange for privileges”. Frost v. Railroad Comm., 271 U.S. 583 (1926).

“The claim and exercise of a fundamental right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. United States, 230 F.2d 486 (5th Cir. 1956).

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation, or rule-making which would abrogate them.” (emph. added) Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436.

The book “The Law” by Frederic Bastiat addresses this well: "Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim -- when he defends himself -- as a criminal. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual rights. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

America is founded as a Constitutional Republic not a socialist or communist country. The entire purpose of our Federal and State Governments are to secure, protect and guarantee the God given rights of each individual.

Sadly most of our elected officials are either ignorant of the limits the Constitution places on government authority or they’re too gutless to actually uphold their oath to support defend and obey the Constitution or they’re establishment deep state traitors of the Constitution that are providing hidden support for the communist based animal rights policies of the nature worshiping United Nations Agenda 21/2030 plan.

Thank you and God bless, 

US Army ret SFC B.L. Cozad Jr.

PO Box 136,

Indiahoma, OK 73552