This letter was sent out 10/5/05 to the North Caucus and all it’s

Associates, subscribers and friends:

Dear all:

Here is an incredibly powerful essay from John Wolfgram. When the NCA restarted in the 1990's, one of our first demands was for juries to start using the nullification process more frequently when they knew the Constituition or BoR was being violated by some ex-post facto or totally unconsitutional law. I'm certain this would be considered "civil disobedience" in that the juries would often be countermanding the bench's instructions, but it certainly should go on our list of Civil Disobedience (http://northcaucus.com/or-else.html). Think how many self defense trials could be affected if Juries were to adhere to the unalienable right to self defense!! It certainly would wreak havoc on the 20,000 or so gun control laws the NRA finds acceptable.

Do read Wolf's essay. It is short and very clear! When you have some time, also read how the whole dismantling of our Republic began over 200 years ago (Wolf's essay listed in the body below), and you will see why Jefferson was so adamant about the need for blood on the Liberty Tree every 20 years. By the time he became President, the courts had dismantled the foundation of the Constitution.

You can also see from Wolf's essay/speech why it is imperative for the government schools to keep our children from understanding the Constitution or BoR, and why it is imperative that we homeschool our children!! http://northcaucus.com/school.html

Many thanks to Wolfgram for allowing us to share this essay.

C. Joyce II

=========================================================================

THE ROLE OF THE JURY IN THE GOVERNING PROCESS

By John E. Wolfgram

Attorney at Law, Blacklisted Lawyer, Legal Philosopher, and a Vietnam Veteran Recon Marine

Good Evening Folks: I'm John Wolfgram.

There are two major influences in my life that bring me here this evening. I'm a Vietnam Veteran Recon Marine, and I am a Legal Philosopher.

There is a strong relationship between the two lifestyles.

In 1964 when President Johnson gave his Gulf of Tonkin Address, I believed him enough to extend my tour to go to Vietnam. Once there, I became very skeptical of government's version of "truth", and that started a life long questioning process.

I did sixty-six long range missions miles behind enemy lines where Vietnamese families lived and farmed and the Viet Cong roamed freely. Day after day, night after night, on point in all kinds of weather, through ambushes, mines and booby traps, close escapes, evading through the night; it took its toll. My reason to over come all natural fear time and again was my oath to support the Constitution.

When I came back to the world I had a lot of questions about what allowed our government to act so shamelessly toward Vietnamese farmers and families who really were not our enemy. My skepticism and my oath became my duty to find the answer. It was a lifetime commitment.

I finished high school, exhausted both Philosophy Departments at the University of Wisconsin, then law school at Southwestern University, and law practice for ten years in Sacramento. Then I ran for judge; and ran head on into what I was searching for: The causes and effects of the arbitrary powers of government; the seeds of domestic corruption and unjust foreign policy.

The commonality between Recon and Philosophy devoted to the same Constitution became a stubborn refusal to compromise constitutional principle and a willingness to face the arbitrary powers over and again, regardless of personal cost. Over the 1990s, I was arrested and prosecuted twenty-six times; and never convicted. Each time I sued the agencies that had abused power, and I lost without ever getting to trial.

Somehow, People sitting as juries, judging government's conduct, had been cut out of the loop. "Justice" was government by government for itself.

Five times I took the issues to the United States Supreme Court; Cert. Denied. But from this adversity I learned how government had stolen our Constitution.

In 2000 I began to write about it. Now I'm challenged to explain the lessons that I learned over ten years of intense adversity, in six minutes.

The First Lesson: While government officers must follow the LAWFUL orders of their superiors, they are sworn to support the Constitution first; and that can only be as each officer best understands it. Sometimes, government officers must refuse orders that are inconsistent with the Constitution, as they understand it.

This results from a simple observation and question. The observation is this: When people, including legislators and judges, are left to their own devices, they interpret the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it, reasonably, but differently. The question is this: If they interpret it differently, how can they apply it consistently with their oath?

Government's answer is "judicial supremacy" and "stare decisis". Those judicial rules then create judge made law; and over time, that judge made law replaces all oaths to support the real Constitutional Rule of Law.

Keeping in mind that the Constitution as it is written, is the Supreme Law and judicial interpretations are not the law at all, through this process, the Oath to support the Constitution becomes an oath to support the "majority Court decision", which cannot be the "Supreme Law of the Land", because "Only Congress can make law."

This transformation of the Oath is unacceptable to anyone who takes their own oath to support "This Constitution", seriously.

The Second Lesson is how Government, through its judiciary, stole the Constitution bit by bit and systematically replaced it with arbitrary powers.

Surrounding each constitutional clause is a gray area that people interpret differently. The reasonable differences of interpreting that area are the arenas of POLITICAL, not LEGAL, dispute in interpretation and application.

But when the Supreme Court decides a Constitutional issue, it changes what was political into an issue of law and through judicial supremacy it imposes that interpretation onto all of government. Through stare decisis, it imposes its political beliefs on to all of the people through the judiciary.

In effect, each time the Supreme Court decides a constitutional issue, it changes by that much, the political life of the Nation into the legal regulation of the Nation. When all that was political is turned into matters of law, that is "Tyranny." When done by and through the judiciary, it is "Judicial Tyranny."

Our choices are: Judicial tyranny or an expanded role for citizens and politicians in the legal/political life of the Nation.

The Third Lesson is how those arbitrary powers once judicially created, became anti-constitutional powers of unaccountability.

The Constitution is the contract between the government and governed, but if only one party to a contract gets to interpret it, is there any question as to why, over 215 years it is so slanted for government and against the liberty and justice of the people?

Let's take a major example of "How the Judiciary Stole the Right to Petition." That article is on the computer disk handed out this evening.

(http://www.constitution.org/abus/wolfgram/ptnright.htm)

The First Amendment declares in part: "Congress shall make no law abridging . the right of the people . to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The issue is "abridgment."

The Constitution doesn't authorize immunity. Yet, in direct derogation of the Petition Clause and without even mentioning it, the Judiciary has created sovereign and official immunities for government and its agents for the injuries they cause incidental to or in derogation of governing processes.

How can "Congress make no law abridging", and yet all of government have immunity from redressing grievances, under the same Constitution?

Major treaties also declare that government immunity is unlawful. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 8, declares the very essence of our Petition Clause:

"Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by constitution or by law".

The International Covenant Article II, 3(a) requires each Nation to ENSURE that persons "shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity".

What is an "effective remedy" for rights violations if it is not the right to sue government for just redress without immunity?

Is it even possible that immunity of government from the governed, outlawed by international law, is somehow an implicit power to annul constitutional rights and justice?

If "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," then immunity from accountability for its use and abuse is the judicially created absoluteness of power that corrupts absolutely.

The Fourth Lesson derives from the first three: It is the Constitutional Balancing Force between government and governed.

As we have seen, Government, through its judiciary, has stolen the plain meaning of the Constitution and with it, much of our political life.

In addition, it has insulated itself from the constitutional judgment of the people by requiring juries to obey the judge's instructions in all matters. This imbalance causes our Nation to evolve into a "democratic dictatorship" with an anti-constitution molded by the judiciary for government.

To return constitutional balance we must recognize the implicit constitutional adversity between government and governed. While each has a role to play in the overall governing process, they have to balance each other; learning from each other what good government and responsible liberty under the same Constitution is.

This lesson is discussed at length in "Democratizing the Judiciary". (http://www.constitution.org/abus/wolfgram/ptnright.htm)

Basically, what "Democratizing the Judiciary" means is tempering the constitutional effect of judicial supremacy with "Jury Supremacy" in each case. The necessary change is only that juries be sworn to support the Constitution, not the judge.

The evolutionary change, as juries demand a copy of the Constitution and parties demand to argue constitutional issues to them, is that the Constitution, as it is written, will play a larger and larger role in the popular understanding of government to governed relationships. As juries wander from government's dogmatic interpretation, they become a feed back system to all of government of what popular constitutional law looks like.

In Conclusion: This slight change in the judiciary of swearing the jury to the Constitution and laws made pursuant to it, is the foundation that will restore popular understandings of the Constitution among the People, and it will create a Constitutional Conscience for the government and its officers.

John E. Wolfgram

(for more of Wolfgram's incredible essays, return to

http://northcaucus.com/wolf.html)