Bronze-level article

Citizen's Rule Book

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I fought the law
and the law won

Icon pseudolaw.svg
us crazy

The Citizen's Rule Book is a ranty, quote mine-filled pamphlet published by, well, somebody (it's believed to have been written by one or more white supremacists)[1] espousing a Christian fundamentalist slant on governing the United States and a juror's right to engage in jury nullification.

As is often the case with propaganda literature involved with right-wing extremist groups, the Rule Book attempts to make a rather muddled case that the US government is founded on Christian principles (the Ten Commandments appear quite prominently), and invokes all the usual bugbears of the 13th (abolition of slavery), 14th (full citizenship to all born in the US, regardless of race), and 16th (income tax) amendments, even going so far as to question the validity of any Constitutional amendment since the 12th (added in 1803), as well as a brief attack on the 17th amendment (direct election of Senate).

As might be expected, it's very popular with Alex Jones and others of his ilk.

WARNING: In cases where the Rule Book or the arguments espoused within it have been brought up, US courts have been known to dismiss jurors for having read the book on presumption of being lawless wingnut whackadoodles. You should read it anyway, on the presumption that it's better to know your enemy.


The Citizens Rule Book JURY HANDBOOK[edit]

LINCOLN said "Study the Constitution!"

"Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice."

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
-John Adams, Second President of the United States
Some might argue that rights come primarily from the social contract. The God of the Bible wasn't exactly a great fan of civil rights. In fact, His very first Commandment forbids freedom of religion.


This is from the original copy and is preserved only for completeness' sake. Please use the wiki ToC instead.






    • Index to the unanimous Declaration
    • Index to the Constitution of the United States
    • Index to the Amendments to Constitution of the United States
The following were not included in the online copy we used for this project and are linked below through Project Gutenberg and the US Government Printing Office.

Copies of this information are available from Whitten Printers


Jury Duty![edit]

The purpose of this information if to revive, as Jefferson put it, "The Ancient Principles." It is not designed to promote lawlessness or a return to the jungle. The "Ancient Principle" refer to the Ten Commandments and the Common Law. The Common Law is, in simple terms, just plain common sense and has its roots in the Ten Commandments. No. The common law is neither "common sense" (a startlingly variable and highly subjective body of knowledge), nor is it in any way Biblical; in fact, the Talmud grew out of the fact that much of the Deuteronomic code was either vague, unconscionably violent, or simply missing critical components that a legal code should have. The gross and staggering misunderstanding of common law on the right-wing fringe as some sort of "natural law" has probably put a staggering number of them in jail for stupid and readily avoided crimes, but they do persist.

In 1776 we came out of BONDAGE with FAITH, UNDERSTANDING and COURAGE. Even against great odds, and with much bloodshed, we battled our way to achieve LIBERTY. LIBERTY is that delicate area between the force of government and FREEWILL of man. LIBERTY brings FREEDOM of choice to work, to trade, to go and live wherever one wishes; it leads to ABUNDANCE. ABUNDANCE, if made an end in itself, will result in COMPLACENCY which leads to APATHY. APATHY is the "let George do it" philosophy. This always brings DEPENDENCY. For a period of time, dependents are often not aware they are dependent. They delude themselves by thinking they are still free - "We never had it so good." - "We can still vote, can 't we?" Eventually abundance diminishes and DEPENDENCY becomes known by its true nature: BONDAGE!!! In 1776, the United States did not exist. A formal declaration had been made in reply to the long series of questionable actions perpetrated by an English ruler against his own subjects. It would take seven years for English troops to be expelled from colonial soil, four more years for the colonists to finally agree upon a system of government, and another war a generation later to completely assert independence and have sovereignty recognized by the former lording state. On a snarkier note, "let George do it" was a great idea when Congress was selecting a commander-in-chief for the Continental Army.

There are few ways out of bondage. Bloodshed and war often result, but our founding fathers learned of a better way. Realizing that a CREATOR is always above and greater than that which He creates, they established a three vote system by which an informed Citizenry can control those acting in the name of government. To be a good master you must always remember the true "pecking order" or chain of command in this nation:
  1. GOD created man...
  2. Man (that's you) created the Constitution
  3. The Constitution created government...
  4. Government created corporations...etc.
That's a very curious evaluation of the situation. First off, even if God created humanity, that has zero legal relevance, as the Constitution specifically disallows any role for religion in law. Second, the Constitution was created not by The People as such, but by members of a government that was failing rapidly after a decade of bumbling through as a barely-functional confederation of often-contentious states. That the People assented to it (or at least the landed male aristocracy who had the opportunity to vote on it) is critically important, but it does not follow that The People actually created it. It's also curious to assert that the founding fathers learned a better way than war or bloodshed, given the events of the American Revolution and the American Civil War.[note 1]

The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.

As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American Citizens have not been informed of their other two votes.

And here we run into the curious idea that "democracy" and "republic" are mutually exclusive. The United States is, by any reasonable definition, a representative democracy, i.e., a republic with democratically elected officials. We'll see this odd distinction again. Another interesting thing to note is that, according to this passage, "democracy" takes power out of the hands of the people. Direct democracy would be people voting directly on each issue, and though there are problems with this, it does at least put the power directly in the hands of, in the words of this book, WE THE PEOPLE. A representative democracy, on the other hand, vests the power in representatives, rather than the people. If these people are elected, it can be assumed that they have the approval of the people, but the actual power is still out of the hands of the people — the exact opposite of the situation as described in the above passage.

Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have ever had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government.

The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in the March 27th 1987 edition noted a purpose of the Grand Jury this way: "A grand jury's purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor."

No, the purpose of a Grand Jury is just what it says in the Fifth Amendment, to weigh the available evidence and to hand down an indictment for the petit (trial) jury to make a decision of fact on. The Grand Jury can act as a check on an overzealous prosecutor if this prosecutor wants to indict somebody for capital murder, but there is only enough evidence to indict the defendant for manslaughter. That said, because of how Grand Juries operate (only the state is allowed to present evidence and question witnesses),[note 2] a good prosecutor could get a ham sandwich indicted for murder…

The third is the most powerful vote; this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck stops" with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting "Not Guilty!" Any JUROR can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law. These people need to look up "mistrial". It's in the dictionary, between "misinformed" and "mystifying". Much more as this document unfolds.


As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" stated:

"At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defence against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation [notion?] survived until the 1850's when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict."

"Then judges began to erode the institution of free juries, leading to the absurd compromise that is the current state of the law. While our courts uniformly state juries have the power to return a verdict of not guilty whatever the facts, they routinely tell the jurors the opposite."

"Further, the courts will not allow the defendants or their counsel to inform the jurors of their true power. A lawyer who made...Hamilton's argument would face professional discipline and charges of contempt of court."

"By what logic should juries have the power to acquit a defendant but no right to know about the power? The court decisions that have suppressed the notion of jury nullification cannot resolve this paradox."

There's no reason a juror can't know about this power. What is questioned is the right of the defense to introduce nullification as an argument.[note 3] The criminal justice system would not be able to function if every jury trial could theoretically become a referendum on the law itself, because the law overall would have no meaning under those circumstances. And by the way, jurors are not above the law, by definition, since they're part of the legal system.

"More than logic has suffered. As originally conceived, juries were to be a kind of safety valve, a way to soften the bureaucratic rigidity of the judicial system by introducing the common sense of the community. If they are to function effectively as the 'conscience of the community,' jurors must be told that they have the power and the right to say no to a prosecution in order to achieve a greater good. To cut jurors off from this information is to undermine one of our most important institutions."

"Perhaps the community should educate itself. Then Citizens called for jury duty could teach the judge a needed lesson in civics."

This information is designed to bring to your attention one important way our nation's founders provided to insure that you, (not the growing army of politicians, judges, lawyers, and bureaucrats[)], rule this nation. It will focus on the true power you possess as a JUROR, how you got it, why you have it, and remind you of the basis on which you must decide not only the facts placed in evidence but also the validity or application of every law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or instruction given by any man seated as a judge or attorney when you serve as a JUROR.

One JUROR can stop tyranny with a "NOT GUILTY VOTE!" He can nullify bad law in any case, by "HANGING THE JURY!"

Well, this is an interesting twist — the advocates of jury nullification can't even get the process right! The only thing that would be achieved by being a lone holdout is a mistrialWikipedia and a retrial of the defendant (with a different jury, of course), as well as a possible (though unlikely) citation for jury tampering. A true effort at jury nullification would involve not stubbornly drawing a line in the sand, but convincing the rest of the jury of the injustice of the law.

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!
Everett Hale

The only power the judge has over the JURY is their ignorance!

"WE THE PEOPLE," must relearn a desperately needed lesson in civics.

The truth of this question has been answered by many testimonies and historical events. Consider the following:


"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, United States supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration
These two statements, seemingly identical, are saying subtly different things. The Jay quote asserts that the jury may question the law itself, while the Chase quote states that the jury may question which law applies. If these quotes are legitimate, Chase is closer to the actual state of practice in modern US law. It's also worth mentioning that it was not the Jay court but the Marshall court 14 years later that established the precedent of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803); a personal opinion on Jay's part (or for that matter Chase's) would not have the same weight as the legal opinion rendered in the Marbury case. In all fairness, right-wing fringers do love to invoke obsolete precedent.

"the jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902
The way Holmes phrases this — "power", not "right" — makes us wonder if the first two quotes are legit. Holmes is not explicitly endorsing nullification or anything like it here. He is simply stating a fact about nullification — it is not a right, it is an artifact of a fairly conducted jury process, an exploit in the system that can't be easily removed without compromising the jury system as a whole.

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. supreme Court, 1941
To the extent that this is true, such a situation is largely a prerogative of the appeals courts, not the jury. Widespread nullification can lead to a legal change, but it has no power of precedent on its own and can easily backfire (as it did in lynching trials during the Jim Crow era, where it led to widespread protests within the southern black community that would ultimately contribute to the Civil Rights MovementWikipedia (much to the despair of neo-Confederates and wingnuts and the joy of everyone else)).

"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..."
U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)


The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succintly stated as follows:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. " Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them quot; Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, in in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, Section 256

This is all true, but even a stopped clock... anyway, this again is a question for appeals courts, not juries; while it is likely a legitimate argument in favor of nullification, the average juror is not likely to have the necessary background in constitutional law to make more than a back-of-the-envelope estimate of constitutionality, and certainly wouldn't have immediate access to all of the relevant previous court decisions.[note 4] Finally, the question of constitutionality of a law is probably something for the appeals courts to decide.


The TEN COMMANDMENTS represent GOD'S GOVERNMENT OVER MAN! GOD commands us for our own good to give up wrongs and not rights! HIS system always results in LIBERTY and FREEDOM! The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are built on this foundation, which provides for punitive justice. It is not until one damages another's person or property that he can be punished. The Marxist system leads to bondage and GOD'S system leads to LIBERTY![note 5] Read very carefully: The Ten Commandments would be an absolutely ghastly basis for a system of law, as our own article on that topic makes clear.

  1. Thou Shalt have no other gods before Me.
  2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
  3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
  4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy.
  5. Honor thy father and mother.
  6. Thou shalt not murder.
  7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
  8. Thou shalt not steal.
  9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
  10. Thou shalt not covet.
This is of course the Protestant numbering. None of those filthy Papists with their dual loyalties now. Nor them Jews neither. And forget what Jesus himself said according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke: there's ten Commandments, not six or five. And the ten that count aren't the set that's actually called the Ten Commandments by name in Exodus 34:12-Exodus 34:26.

Directly above the Chief Justice's chair is a tablet signifying the TEN COMMANDMENTS When the Speaker of the House in the U.S. Congress looks up, his eyes look into the face of Moses.Sounds like somebody needs to take a trip to Washington (the court will let you watch for 20 minutes when it's in session). Right above the Chief Justice's chair is actually a clock! and above all nine justices is a frieze depicting important law pioneers from many cultures, so not only does the court have to answer to Moses, it also has to answer to Hammurabi,Wikipedia Solon,Wikipedia Confucius, Mohammed, etc. as well as a bunch of other allegorical figures. The debate over the appropriateness of such a display continues to rage. In any case, has an extensive discussion[2] on this and other supposedly-religious artworks in Washington.

"The Bible is the Book upon which this Republic rests."
Andrew Jackson, Seventh President of the United States
Jackson was, for better or for worse, a dedicated populist. He should have known this wasn't true, and if he did in fact say this, he was likely, as we say these days, "playing to the base".

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. All the miseries and evils which men suffer from, vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from the despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."
Noah Webster
Noah Webster was a minister, not a politician or lawyer, and something of a humorless priss if his reputation is true. He was as entitled to his opinion then as we are now, but this quote is as pure as the argument from authority fallacy gets.

There is a fundamental problem with invoking the Ten Commandments as a basis for American law: they bear no meaningful relationship to a constitution except inasmuch as the first four (or three) commandments offer an extremely vague outline of a Bronze Age Middle Eastern temple state. "Honor thy father and mother" is a command of hierarchy with a strong implication that the children do not have the same status as the parents, and the rest are little more than a back-of-the-envelope criminal code, something that really has no meaningful place in a constitution, which is essentially metalaw. In fact, even the entire legal content of the Torah still doesn't quite fulfill all the functions of a constitution; the Israelites had no such thing until King Saul began to unite the tribes. The legal tradition of the US comes from several sources — Germanic and English common law, Roman law, native American tribal law — and has little to no resemblance to the ancient temple states from which the Abrahamic faiths sprang.

Furthermore, trying to find anti-slavery arguments in the Bible is a tough task. (And don't get us started on its attitude towards rape.)


The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the Citizens to give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the "common good," but it always ends in a police state. This is called preventive justice. Control is the key concept. Read carefully:This cherry-picking — and heavily slanted — summary of one very small section of the Manifesto is only a small part of a much longer historical analysis; one might be forgiven for thinking that the people who wrote the Rule Book were a bit lazy.[3]

  1. Abolition of private property.
  2. Heavy progressive income tax.
  3. Aboliton to all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels.
  5. A Central bank
  6. Government control of Communications and Transportation
  7. Government ownership of factories and agriculture.
  8. Government control of labor.
  9. Corporate farms, regional planning.
  10. Free education for all children in government controlled schools
No question dictatorships suck, communist ones as well as capitalist ones. Let's make sure we don't go so far in avoiding one that we end up with the other. Incidentally, communist governments implement communal farms, not corporate ones. The US has big corporate farms — they're farms owned by corporations, not the government.


When the people fear the government you have tyranny; when the government fears the people, you have liberty.

Politicians, bureaucrats and especially judges would have you believe that too much freedom will result in chaos. Therefore, we should gladly give up some RIGHTS for the good of the community. In other words, people acting in the name of government, say we need more laws and more JURORS to enforce these laws - even if we have to give up some more RIGHTS in the process. They believe the more laws we have, the more control, thus a better society. This theory may sound good on paper, and apparently many of our 'leaders' think this way, as evidenced by the thousands of new laws that are added to the books each year in this country. But, no matter how cleverly this Marxist argument is made, the hard fact is that whenever you give up a RIGHT you lose a "FREE CHOICE"!

You call that Marxist? We think that's rather generally totalitarian... Anyways, this is in complete ignorance in the social contract.

This adds another control. Control's real name is BONDAGE! The logical conclusion would be, if giving up some RIGHTS, produces a better society, then by giving up all RIGHTS we could produce the perfect society. We could chain everybody to a tree, for lack of TRUST. This may prevent a crime, but it would destroy PRIVACY, which is the heartbeat of FREEDOM! It would also destroy TRUST which is the foundation for DIGNITY. Rather than giving up RIGHTS, we should be giving up wrongs! The opposite of control is not chaos. More laws do not make less criminals! We must give up wrongs, not rights, for a better society! William Penn of the British House of Commons, once proclaimed, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Okay, here's the thing. Libertarianism makes somewhat the same argument, and it only works so far as people are capable of keeping their interests from conflicting. The point of rule of law is to standardize what would otherwise be an incomprehensible (and probably highly unequal) mess of ad hoc social norms into something that applies to everyone subject to it. Someone's got to mediate disputes, and laws allow the tools to do so impartially and consistently. Wide-open freedom for all translates, in practice, to the strong dominating the weak (a.k.a. tyranny), and the effective loss of freedom by the large majority of society while the few who dominate lord it over the others.


NATURAL RIGHTS ARE THOSE RIGHTS such as LIFE (from conception), LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS e.g. FREEDOM of RELIGION, SPEECH, LEARNING, TRAVEL, SELF-DEFENSE, ETC. Hence laws and statutes which vilolate NATURAL RIGHTS, though they have the color of law, are not law but imposters! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators. Further, our forefathers also wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government to keep within the Constitutional limits. The question of whether there is truly such a thing as a "natural right" is an interesting one, and a long-standing debate in ethical circles. On the other hand, many civil libertarians of all political stripes consider the issue to be irrelevant, as a declaration of rights is worthless without enforcement. As for compelling the government to stay within constitutional limits, this is why we have checks and balances, a strong judiciary branch, and the right to vote people out of office. It's critical to the system. Also, slipping in a dig against abortion is sneaky. And wouldn't an abortion ban be one of those laws foisted on the people that these guys so oppose?

In a jury trial the real judges are the JURORS! Surprisingly, judges are actually just referees bound by the Constitution! If this comes as a surprise to you, you either live under a rock or you probably shouldn't be a juror.

Lysander Spooner in his book Essay on the Trial by Jury wrote as follows:

"Government is established for the protection of the weak against the strong. This is the principal, if not the sole motive for the establishment of all legitimate government. It is only the weaker party that lose their liberties, when a government becomes oppressive. The stronger party, in all governments are free by virtue of their superior strength. They never oppress themselves. Legislation is the work of the stronger party; and if, in addition to the sole power of legislation, they have the sole power of determining what legislation shall be enforced, they have all power in their hands, and the weaker party are the subjects of an absolute government. Unless the weaker party have a veto, they have no power whatever in the government and liberties...The trial by jury is the only institution that gives the weaker party any veto power upon the power of the stronger. Consequently it is the only institution that gives them any effective voice in the government, or any guaranty against oppression." The Complete TEXT of The Essay on the Trial by Jury is HERE[4]

Lysander SpoonerWikipedia was a 19th-century US anarchist who produced some of the early work that inspired the modern libertarian movement. The link goes to Gutenberg's e-text edition.


A JURY'S Rights, Powers and Duties:

The Charge to the JURY in the First JURY Trial before the supreme Court of the United States illustrates the TRUE POWER OF THE JURY. In the February term of 1794, the supreme (Supreme is not capitalized in the Constitution, however Behavior is. Art. III) [Conveniently brushing aside the fact that in the late 1700s, capitalization rules in English were rather fluid compared to modern usage and therefore likely irrelevant.] Court conducted a JURY trial and said: " is presumed, that the 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."

"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)

"The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible aquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." (emphasis added)

U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)
Prior to deliberating, the judge will provide a jury with descriptions about the law in order to help them decide the issue in question. The instructions basically read that if all 12 jurors believe that a certain set of facts are true, then it must convict the defendant. These instructions can list possible lesser crimes if the jury believes the defendant did that, or if all 12 jurors believe that the defendant is not guilty of any of the listed crimes, it can acquit the defendant. Jury instructions are not orders, but rather guidelines to help the jury in its deliberations.

Hence, JURY disregard to the limited and generally conviction-oriented evidence presented for its consideration, and JURY disregard for what the trial judge wants them to believe is the controlling law in any particular case (sometimes referred to as "JURY lawlessness" {jury lawlessness means willingness to nullify bad law}) is not something to be scrupulously avoided, but rather encouraged. Witness the following quotation from the eminent legal authority above mentioned: "Jury lawlessness is the greatest corrective of law in its actual administration. The will of the state at large imposed on a reluctant community, the will of a majority imposed on a vigorous and determined minority, find the same obstacle in the local JURY that formerly confronted kings and ministers." (emphasis added)

Dougherty, cited above, note 32 at 1130

"Willingness to nullify bad law" seems like a rather slanted definition. The fundamental problem here is that the jury can't be expected to know the law in the first place except as stated by the court. Unless someone is willing to commit the entire law code of the local jurisdiction to memory before acting as a juror, this severely limits the value of jury nullification as a protest of a law.

The Right of the JURY to be Told of Its Power[edit]

Almost every JURY in the land is falsely instructed by the judge when it is told it must accept as the law that which is given to them by the court, and that the JURY can decide only the facts in the case. This is to destroy the purpose of a Common Law JURY, and to permit the imposition of tyranny upon the people. Actually, there's quite a lot of judicial precedent for disqualifying information about jury nullification. It's a common law thing.

"There is nothing more terrifying than ignorance in action."
Goethe - engraved on a plaque at the Naval War College
Smart advice for all. But it probably doesn't apply the way the authors think it does.

"To embar[r]ass justice by a multiplicity of laws, or to hazard it by confidence in judges, are the op[p]osite rocks on which all civil institutions have been wrecked."
Johnson - engraved in the Minnesota State Capitol Outside the supreme Court Chambers
Everyone's entitled to an opinion. Laws are like bug fixes — they smooth out the routine operation of government.

"...The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
II Corinthians 3 vs 6
Unfortunately, the letter is all there is once you step into a courtroom. Judges take a dim view of arguing the "spirit" as opposed to the letter.[note 6]

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."
Thomas Jefferson
Public relations was probably not anywhere near as well understood in Jefferson's day, but even given that, this is almost unbelievably naive even for Jefferson's times, when it was still possible for a ruler to maintain iron-fisted control on a country despite a rock-bottom approval rating (cf. Myanmar/Burma today). Truth is not always obvious or pleasant anyway;[note 7] when it affects people's lives, it's time for intervention. That's part of the concept of "promote the general welfare" as stated in the Constitution.

The JURY'S options are by no means limited to the choices presented to it in the courtroom. "The jury gets its understanding as to the arrangements in the legal system from more than one voice. There is the formal communication from the 'judge'. There is the informal communication from the total culture - literature, current comment, conversation; and, of course, history and tradition."
Dougherty, cited above, at 1135.
The jury is certainly free to act in any way it sees fit. However, the judge is also free to declare a mistrial in case of jury misconduct. It usually doesn't happen in case of acquittal-by-nullification, but it can if there's evidence of improper influence.


Without the power to decide what facts, law and evidence are applicable. JURIES cannot be a protection to the accused. If people acting in the name of government are permitted by JURORS to dictate any law whatever, they can also unfairly dictate what evidence is admissible or inadmissable and thereby prevent the WHOLE TRUTH from being considered. Thus if government can manipulate and control both the law and evidence, the issue of fact becomes virtually irrelevant. In reality, true JUSTICE would be denied leaving us with a trial by government and not a trial by JURY! Well, here you have a fundamental problem with the authors' thinking: the jury's job is not to protect the accused, the state, the prosecution, or anyone else. The jury's job is to evaluate the evidence in light of the law. If a situation arose where the jury was in some sense protecting the accused, the judge would be well within his or her rights to declare a mistrial because the jury is not being impartial.


Heroes are men of glory who are so honored because of some heroic deed. People often out of gratutude yield allegiance to them. Honor and allegiance are nice words for power! Power and allegiance can only be held rightfully by trust as a result of continued character.

When people acting in the name of government violate ethics, they break trust with "WE THE PEOPLE." The natural result is for "WE THE PEOPLE" to pull back power (honor and allegiance).

So far so good.

The loss of power creates fear for those losing the power. Fearing the loss of power, people acting in the name of government often seek to regain or at least hold their power. Hence, to legitimize their quest for control, laws and force are often instituted. Again, a fairly valid examination of how people seek power. But ...

Unchecked power is the foundation of tyranny. It is the JUROR'S duty to use the JURY ROOM as a vehicle to stem the tide of oppression and tyranny: To prevent bloodshed by peacefully removing power from those who have abused it. The JURY is the primary vehicle for the peaceable restoration of LIBERTY, POWER AND HONOR TO "WE THE PEOPLE!" A jury can do this. Whether it should... well, that's the debate here, isn't it? In any case, there seems to be a fundamental confusion between tyranny and government authority, the same confusion that characterizes much libertarian thinking. Government and laws can certainly be bad; the argument of a statist of any sort is that they are not always or inherently so.


Your vote of NOT GUILTY must be respected by all other members of the JURY -it is the RIGHT and the DUTY of a JUROR to Never, Never, NEVER yield his or her sacred vote - 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 other 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 not those of someone else.YOU ARE NOT A RUBBER STAMP! "NEVER yield his or her sacred vote"? So you're supposed to sit there, unmoved, your mind already made up as the rest of the jury discusses various aspects of a case? Given that a criminal jury requires a unanimous verdict for some very sound reasons, this is the single most foolish and harebrained piece of advice in the entire document.

By what logic do we send our youth to battle tyranny on foreign soil, while we refuse to do so in our courts? Did you know that many of the planks of the "Communist Manifesto"are now represented by law in the U.S.? How is it possible for Americans to denounce communism and practice it simultaneously? We've already seen the authors' grasp of the Communist Manifesto's content. But then "communism" isn't really a system of political thought to these people; it's a snarl word, a thought-stopper.

The JURY judges the Spirit, Motive and Intent of both the law and the Accused, whereas the prosecutor only represents the letter of the law. No. The prosecutor represents the facts of the case as he believes they relate to the law, as does the defense attorney. The letter of the law is the judge's job.

Therein lies the opportunity for the accomplishment of "LIBERTY and JUSTICE for ALL." If you, and numerous other JURORS throughout the State and 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. Well, yes. That's how jury nullification works.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were out [sic] countrymen."
Samuel Adams
Oddly enough, a great many people who might read this pamphlet consistently conflate cash flow with freedom, especially far-right libertarians. While this has very little direct bearing on jury nullification, the irony is palpable nevertheless.



Young Christian lawyer Patrick Henry saw why a JURY of PEERS is so vital to FREEDOM! It was March 1775 when he rode into a small town of Culpepper, Virginia. He was totally shocked by what he saw! There, in the middle of the town square was a minister tied to a whipping post, his back laid bare and bloody with the bones of his ribs showing. He had been scourged mercilessly like JESUS, with whips laced with metal.

Patrick Henry is quoted as saying: "When they stopped beating him, I could see the bones of his rib cage. I turned to someone and asked what the man had done to deserve such a beating as this."


The reply given him was that the man being scourged was a minister who refused to take a license. He was one of twelve who were locked in jail because they refused to take a license. A license often becomes an arbitrary control by government that makes a crime out of what ordinarily would not be a crime. IT TURNS A RIGHT INTO A PRIVILEGE! Three days later they scourged him to death.

We're not exactly clear on what the purpose of this section is. Is it to demonstrate the need for the First Amendment, or does it have something to do with the common right-wing aversion to professional licensure? Well, if the first, that's kind of a truism — we're pretty sure that most people except for those of a totalitarian bent, as well as who think Plato's Republic was the last word on good government, would agree. The licensure thing is more troubling, though — libertarians (as well as many other right-wingers) hate licensure because they see it as an unnecessary barrier to market entry. While the colonial Virginian government's motive was no doubt to insure loyalty to the Church of England, the argument still obtains today, not as a curb on doctrine, but as insurance that a church remains eligible for tax exempt status. However, licensure in general provides a generally-accepted baseline of competence in any situation where life and health are at stake. For further discussion on the value of licensure and market oversight, see health freedom.

This was the incident which sparked Christian lawyer Patrick Henry to write the famous words which later became the rallying cry of the Revolution. "What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know no what course others may take, but as for me, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!"(view complete speech here) Later he made this part of his famous speech at Saint John's Episcopal Church in Virginia. The famous speech actually happened in Richmond, not Culpepper, and while it did happen in a church, there was no religious motivation behind it. The Virginia House of Burgesses (later known as the House of Delegates) had just relocated to Richmond from Willamsburg and needed a place to meet. The assembly was debating whether Virginia should commit troops to the war effort in New England. By that point, Henry was a committed revolutionary and was a well-known firebrand who liked to take on the political establishment.


Our forefathers felt that in order to have JUSTICE, it was obvious that a JURY of "PEERS" must be people who actually know the defendant. How else would they be able to judge motive and intent?

"PEERS" of the defendant, like the rights of the JURY have also been severely tarnished. Originally, it meant people of "equals in station and rank." (Black's Law Dictionary, 1910), "freeholders of a neighborhood," (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1886), or a "A companion; a fellow; an associate." (Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the English Language).

Where on earth are they going with this? You'll see. Oh, and note that they cited Black's Law Dictionary. That can't be a good sign…


Patrick Henry, along with others, was deeply concerned as to who has a right to sit on a JURY. Listen to our forefather's wisdom on the subject of "PEERS".

"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." Patrick Henry, (Elliont,The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 3:579). Patrick Henry also knew that originally the JURY of PEERS was designed as a protection for Neighbors from outside governmental oppression. Henry states the following, "Why do we love this trial by jury? Because it prevents the hand of oppression from cutting you off...This gives me comfort - that, as long as I have existence, my neighbors will protect me." (Elliot, 3:545, 546)

Mr. Holmes, from Massachusetts, argued strenuously that for JUSTICE to prevail, the case must be heard in the vicinity where the fact was committed by a JURY of PEERS. "...a jury of the peers would, from their local situation, have an opportunity to form a judgement of the CHARACTER of the person charged with the crime, and also to judge of the CREDIBILITY of the witnesses." (Elliot, 2:110). What's going ON here with the CAPITALIZATION of certain WORDS, anyway? (Well, when in Rome...) This THINKING by Mr. Holmes was probably a good IDEA at the TIME, but has become OUTDATED in the MODERN ERA because we live in much larger and less personal COMMUNITIES than we did back then; it's simply not PRACTICAL to find twelve impartial PEOPLE who KNOW the DEFENDANT and the WITNESSES on most CASES.

Mr. Wilson, signer of "The unanimous Declaration," who also later became a supreme Court Justice, stressed the importance of the JUROR'S knowing personally both the defendant and the witnesses. "Where jurors can be aquainted 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 expedious manner of distributing justice. There is another advantage annexed to the trial by jury; the jurors may indeed return a mistaken or ill-founded verdit, but their errors cannot be systematical." (Elliot, 2:516). It would be very difficult to find anyone within the criminal justice system other than a defence attorney (and a desperate one, at that) who thinks that having the jury be personally acquainted with both defendant and witnesses is a good idea. In fact, a juror with a personal attachment to the case will almost never be intentionally empanelled, except in case of outright deceit by one side of the case; if such a connection is found out, a mistrial is likely, as well as a possible citation for jury tampering awaiting the counsel responsible. Think about it; would you want someone who murdered a family member of yours tried by a jury consisting of the murderer's friends and family? Also, it's totally not only possible, but arguably inevitable for jury evaluation to have systematic errors. We have a list of those errors here.


"Those people who are not governed by GOD will be ruled by tyrants."
William Penn
Considering theocratic tyranny was precisely the cause of Penn's legal troubles, we find this to be an incredibly inappropriate choice of epigraph.

Edward Bushell and three fellow JURORS learned this lesson well. They refused to bow to the court. They believed in the absolute power of the JURY, though their eight companions cowered to the court. The four JURORS spent nine weeks of torture in prison, often without food or water, soaked with urine, smeared with feces, barely able to stand, and even threatened with fines, yet they would not give in to the judge. Edward Bushell said, "My liberty is not for sale," though he had great wealth and commanded an international shipping enterprise. These "bumble heads", so the court thought, proved the power of the people was stronger than any power of government. They emerged total victors. We don't think you'd find anyone except the most dedicated authoritarians who don't find this to have been a horrifying miscarriage of justice. But what exactly is the purpose of discussing this? Is this merely historical background, or is it a thinly veiled declaration that jurors have absolute freedom to game the system? We won't say for sure either way, but the title "YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!" from earlier in the document makes us lean heavily towards the latter.


The year was 1670, and the case Bushell sat on was that of William Penn, who was on trial for violation of the "Conventicle Act." This was an elaborate Act which made the Church of England the only legal church. The Act was struck down by their not guilty vote. Freedom of Religion was established and became part of the English Bill of Rights and later it became the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In addition, the Right to peaceful assembly was founded.Freedom of Speech, and also habeas corpus. The first such writ of habeas corpus ever issued by the Court of Common Pleas was used to free Edward Bushell. Later this trial gave birth to the concept of Freedom of the press. The authors are attributing too much to the case of R. v Penn. All this case really did was to establish juries as independent from judges or politicians; it also helped bring attention to freedom of religion, an issue which Quakers were concerned with, as well as the doctrine of habeas corpus.

Had Bushell and his colleagues yielded to the guilty verdict sought by the judge and prosecutor[,] William Penn most likely would have been executed, as he clearly broke the law. No, he wouldn't. Penn wasn't facing the death penalty.


Then there would have been no Liberty Bell, no Independence Hall, no city of Philadelphia, and no state called Pennsylvania, for young William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, and leader of the Quakers, was on trial for his life. His alleged crime was preaching and teaching a different view of the Bible than that of the Church of England. This appears innocent today, but then, one could be executed for such actions. He believed in freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to peaceful assembly. He had broken the government's law, but he had injured no one. Those four heroic JURORS knew that only when actual injury to someone's person or property takes place is there a real crime. No law is broken when no injury can be shown. Thus there can be no loss or termination of rights unless actual damage is proven. Many impostor laws were repealed as a result of this case.

The irony of this statement, and the fact that the authors of this pamphlet were likely white supremacists and members of extremely homophobic churches which are prone to taking severe offense to the mere existence of people whose opinions are not 100% identical to their own, should not be lost on the reader. In fact, the reader is highly encouraged to go have some interracial and/or homosexual sex. Go on; this page will be here when you get back. Wear a condom.

Also, this sounds identical to the "common law" espoused by sovereign citizens and freemen on the land, who are known to have a woefully inadequate knowledge of behaviors that society needs to restrict to prevent humanity from dissolving into destructive frenzies of self-centered barbarism. Taking legal advice from them is like eating lead to cure illnesses: it will not end well.


This trial made such an impact that every colony but one established the jury as the first liberty to maintain all other liberties. It was felt that the liberties of people could never be wholly lost as long as the jury remained strong and independent, and that unjust laws and statutes could not stand when confronted by conscientious JURORS. JURORS today face an avalanche of imposter laws. JURORS not only still have the power and the RIGHT, but also the DUTY, to nullify bad laws by voting "not guilty". At first glance it appears that it is almost unfair, the power JURORS have over government, but necessary when considering the historical track record of oppression that governments have wielded over private Citizens.

If you wish to have an interesting debate on ethics and rights, ask yourself or whoever you like to talk about these things with the following: does a loophole that authorities are unwilling or unable to close actually qualify as a right? We're pretty sure there's a book or two to be written on that subject, and The Citizen's Rule Book isn't it.


In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS!

"The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments; but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury." (emphasis added)

The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric.." (1820)

"...the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one....when all little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government which we separated. 1821 (emphasis added)

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

"...judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune, but it saves the Republic..."

First off, conservatives tend to love elected judges because it's essentially legalized retribution for unpopular rulings, and tend to hate judicial review because it creates an entire body of law that never had to go through a legislature. Second, Jefferson was a genius and visionary, but hardly a man of his principles (because let's be honest, if he was, he'd have freed Sally Hemings and her family). One can readily quote Jefferson against Jefferson if needed, but let's just put it this way: there's a reason federal judges are appointed and can only be removed for misconduct. It's possible Jefferson was just flat-out wrong here; certainly neither Congress nor the courts took any notice. Finally, it is not too difficult to see how Jefferson may not like the judicial system, seeing as how his main political rival, John Adams, appointed many judges he didn't like (e.g. John Marshall).



I. Need to dissolve certain political relationships.
II. Need to assume powers which God entitles man.
III. Declaring separation from unjust government.
IV. Self-evident truths elaborated.
A. All men are created equal.
B. God our Creator gives to each unalienable Rights
1. Life, Liberty, Happiness, property, safety, respect, privacy, etc.
C. The purpose of government is to protect the weak from the strong.
D. Right and duty to abolish bad government.
1. Fact: The Revolution was not out of rebellion by the colonies, but rather England rebelled against God's Law by repeated injuries of usurpation and tyranny. The young colonies were forced to defend themselves against the King's tyranny.
a. eg. Bad laws, bad courts, police state (swarms of soldiers), taxes without consent, deprived of trial by jury, deporting people for trial. England declared the colonies out of their protection, rights of individuals plundered.
b. The colonies repeatedly petitioned England, but only received repeated injury.
c. England was warned from time to time.
d. England was deaf to the voice of justice.
V. The colonies appealed to God, the Supreme Judge of the world.
VI. The colonies right to be free and independent.
VII. Under the protection of God they pledged their lives, fortunes and honor.
Unanimous to whom? The signers? There were many, many Loyalists in the colonies when the Declaration of Independence[5] was signed, and for a time not long before the Revolution broke out, they were a majority of the population. As the Declaration of Independence indicates it is actually the unanimous declaration of the members of the Second Continental Congress (representing their respective states). It is very odd that these authors would refer to it by this title instead of what everybody else calls it. In addition, the Declaration, though a critical document in our history, has no legal force in the modern US government.


Preamble: The people hold the power, "We the order to form a more perfect union...and secure the blessings of liberty..."



  1. Legislative powers.
  2. House of representatives; qualification of members; apportionment of representatives and direct taxes; census; first apportionment; vacancies; officers of the house; impeachments.
  3. Senate: classification of senators; qualifications of; vice president to preside; other officers; trial of impeachments.
  4. Election of members of congress; time assembling of congress.
  5. Powers of each house; punishment for disorderly Behaviour; journal; adjournments.
  6. Compensation and privileges; disabilities of members.
  7. Revenue bills; passage and approval of bills; orders and resolutions.
  8. General powers of congress; borrowing of money; regulations of commerce; naturalization and bankruptcy; money; weights and measures; counterfeiting; post offices; patents and copyrights; inferior courts; piracies and felonies; war; marque and reprisal; armies; navy; land and naval forces; calling the militia; District of Columbia; to enact laws necessary to enforce the Constitution.
  9. Limitations of congress; immigration; writ of habeas corpus; bills of attainder and ex post facto laws prohibited; direct taxes; exports not to be taxed; interstate shipping; drawing money from the treasury; financial statements to be published; titles of nobility and favors from foreign powers prohibited.
  10. Limitations of the individual states; no treaties; letters of marque and reprisal; no coining of money; bills of credit; not allowed to make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a tender in payment of debts; no bills of attainder; ex post facto Law or law impairing the obligation of contracts; no titles of nobility; state imposts and duties; further restrictions on state powers.



  1. Executive powers; electors; qualifications; vacancy; compensation and Oath of the president.
  2. Powers and duties of the president, making of treaties; power of appointment.
  3. Other powers and duties.
  4. All government officers are liable to impeachment.



  1. Judicial powers; all judges must have good Behaviour to stay in office; compensation not to be diminished.
  2. Jurisdiction of federal courts and supreme court; trials for crimes by jury except impeachment.
  3. Treason defined; trial for and punishment.



  1. Message to the states; each state is to give full faith and credit to public acts and records of other states.
  2. Citizens of each state shall be entitled, fleeing from justice.
  3. Admission of new states, power of congress over territories.
  4. Republican form of government guaranteed to every state; protection from invasion or domestic violence.



  1. Amending the Constitution.



  1. National obligations; Public debt; Constitution to be the supreme Law of the land; Constitutional Oath of office; no religious test required.


Feel free to follow along at home. The entire history of the Constitution is available here, along with unratified amendments, historical background, and instructions on how to buy a printed copy that won't go to feed some wingnut's propaganda vanity press.

  1. Ratification of the Constitution; George Washington signs as a Twelfthindi, the highest rank in Saxon government, eg. He was the equal of 1200 King Georges, or you as a juror are equal to 1200 presidents, congressmen or judges, local, federal or the supreme Court.
The relevance — or even plain meaning — of this statement is highly questionable. Googling "twelfthindi" or "twelfth indi" produces nothing of interest to even confirm that such a title existed, much less whether it had any meaning under British or US law at the time, or even in the Saxon government (presumably, England before William the Conqueror?), which isn't even relevant. In fact, he just signed his name under where it said president of the convention should sign.


Limiting the federal government: An expressed desire to prevent abuse of federal powers!It is worth noting that the division into "common" and "equity" law is completely spurious, as the Federal judiciary makes no recognition of equity law (though some states do). But then the authors don't really get common law to begin with. Anyway, given that equity law deals in large part with fairness in property and personal disputes, exactly what kind of point the writer of the Rule Book was trying to make with this curious division of the Amendments was probably comprehensible only to him.

Note: For everyone else, this is the Bill of Rights. It has never been known as "Common Law".
I. Religious freedom, both to an establishment as well as the free exercise thereof; freedom of speech, press; right of petition.
II. Right to bear arms.
III. Quartering of soldiers.
These are decent one-liner summaries of the first three amendments.

IV. The right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures: search warrants.
Oddly enough, the authors forgot to mention arrest warrants as covered by the Fourth Amendment.

V. Grand Jury, double jeopardy, no one must witness against himself, no loss of life, liberty or private property without due process.
This one's also about right.

VI. Speedy and public trials, impartial jury; nature and cause, right to confront; compulsory witnesses, assistance of Counsel - (note: does not say attorney.)
But who else would provide counsel except someone whose profession was the law? N.B In a lot of states at the time, the term Barrister was used for a legal expert who engaged in defense and prosecution in court, and so the use of Attorney in the constitution would be unlikely.

VII. Right to trial by jury according to the rules of common law - (note: Ten Commandements [sic] are the foundation of Common Law.)
Manifestly false. Common Law is NOT founded on the Ten Commandments. The concept of common law predates the Christianization of the Germanic tribes who created it. Also, the Seventh Amendment is about Federal civil procedure, not criminal law.

VIII. Excessive bail, fines, punishement etc. prohibited,
IX. Rights beyond Bill of Rights belong to the people.
X. Undelegated powers belong to the people unless given by the people to the states.
Articles I-X were proposed September 25th, 1789, and ratified December 15th, 1791.

XI.Restriction of judicial powers, proposed March 5th 1794, adopted January 8th, 1798.
Actually it sets restrictions on the ability of a citizen of one state to sue a state that he or she does not live in.

XII. Manner of electing the president and vice president, proposed December 12th 1803, adopted September 25th, 1804.

XIII. Slavery and involuntary servitude prohibited, took effect * December 18th 1865.
  • Took effect is used as there is a great deal of suspicion as to the nature of these amendments (common law vs equity), also whether these last 16 amendments are legal, how many were ratified correctly, do they create a federal constitution in opposition to the original, etc. For further studies a good place to begin is with the article by the Utah Supreme Court on the 14th Amendment. 439 Pacific Reporter 2d Series, pgs. 266-276 , and Senate Document 240.
In the places that matter — the Federal courts — there has never been any doubt at all about the legitimacy of this or any following amendment. One author's opinion is that this is either a denial of the legality of the abolition of slavery or a tacit reference to the Titles of Nobility amendment, an early 19th century proposal that was not ratified, but in some newspapers was inadvertently reported as such. In any case, it's sure funny how you never see accusations of these kinds of irregularities against, say, the 23rd amendment.

XIV. Citizenship and status defined, privilege of 2nd, 3rd, or whatever status of citizenship one selects for oneself, as opposed to Freeholder with full sovereign rights: apportionment of representatives; who is prohibited from holding office; public debt. CAUTION: There is serious doubt as to the legality of this amendment because of the manner of ratification which was highly suspect. At least 10 States were held by force of arms until the proper authorities agreed to vote for this amendment. An excellent overview of this was written by the Utah Supreme Court - 439 Pacific Reporter 2nd Series pgs 266-276, and for a more detailed account of how the 14th amendment was forced upon the Nation see articles in 11 S.C.L.Q. 484 and 28 Tul. L. Rev. 22, took effect July 28th, 1868.
Note how the authors gloss over the origins of this amendment in the wake of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Note also that like the 13th, no US court has ever seriously entertained a challenge to this amendment's legality. For what it's worth, despite the assertions by tax protesters and other extremists to the contrary, there is no distinct class of "14th amendment citizens"; the 14th amendment is the benchmark for citizenship. Using this guy's logic, all American citizens are "14th amendment citizens" except for a very few who gained citizenship through an act of Congress. After a little bit of research, the Pacific Reporter case the author is citing is an Utah Supreme Court case where the state reluctantly agreed to let a check bouncer go since the suspect wasn't Mirandized. The part this author is citing appears to be what one editor sees as little more than an Obiter Dictum rant against the 14th Amendment.

XV. Non Freeholders given right to vote, took effect March 30th, 1870.
The Fifteenth Amendment actually says that the right to vote could not be denied on the basis of race or prior condition of servitude. By the mid-nineteenth century, most states had abolished land-holding requirements for suffrage.

XVI. Income tax, took effect February 25th, 1913. [P]ossible only four States ratified it properly. (Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ disposes of such myths of proper ratification in excruciating detail.)
To learn more, see our section about tax protesters.

XVII. Direct elections of senators; electors; vacancies in the senate, took effect May 31st, 1913. This moved us from a complete Republic to a simple republic much like the style of government of the Soviet Union. States['] rights were lost and we were plunged headlong into a democracy of which our forefathers warned was the vilest form of government because it always ends in oppression.
Again with the spurious distinction between "republic" and "democracy". Say it with me: "representative democracy". "Democratic republic". Also, are these people against electing their own representatives? Not to mention, the structure and realities of the US government are nothing like the Soviet government, which was based on the parliamentary system, not the presidential-congressional system. These people might at least do their research before making comparisons to other forms of government.

XVIII. Prohibition of liquor traffic, took effect January 29th, 1920.
XIX. Voting for women, took effect August 27th, 1920.
XX. Terms of the president, vice president, senators and representatives; date of assembling of congress, vacancies of the president, power of the congress in presidential succession, took effect February 6th, 1933.
XXI. Eighteen Article (Prohibition) repealed, took effect December 5th, 1933.
XXII. Limits of the presidential term, took effect March 1st, 1951.
XXIII. Electors for the District of Columbia, took effect April 3rd, 1961

XXIV. Failure to pay any tax does not deny one the right to vote, took effect February 23rd, 1964.
Actually, it is the failure to pay a poll tax (a nasty little fee that many southern states imposed to prevent the poor and black people from voting). Failure to pay, say, income tax is a felony which will negate your right to vote.

XXV. Filling the office of the president or vice president during a vacancy, took effect February 23rd, 1967.

XXVI. Right to vote at 18, took effect July 5th 1971.
There's also the 27th amendment, which requires congressional pay raises to go into effect only in the next congressional term. However, that one was ratified some time after the CRB was written.

JURY:...Petty Juries, consisting usually of twelve men, attend courts to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide both the law and the fact in criminal prosecutions. The decision of a petty jury is called a verdict.. American Dictonary of the English Language by Noah Webster 1828

PROCLAIM LIBERTY! Inscribed on our hallowed LIBERTY BELL are these words " Proclaim LIBERTY Throughout all the Land unto all the Inhabitants Thereof." Lev. XXV X

Of course, the Liberty Bell, like the Declaration of Independence, nowhere carries the force of law, though it does make laudable statements about liberties that we've always had trouble living up to: all men are created equal, and so on.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George WashingtonWashington would be rather puzzled by the use of this analogy to present government as an unmitigated danger, given that fire, as a heating and cooking tool, was a daily part of his life.

"Woe to those who decree unjust statutes and to those who continually record unjust decisions, to deprive the needy of justice, and to rob the poor of My people of their rights..."

Isaiah 10 vs 1-2

"My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge...!"

Hosea 4 vs 6

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Edmund Burke 1729-1797
Seemingly a truism; however, reality makes it rather complicated sometimes. Ask any schoolkid who got in trouble for beating up their bully.

"If My people which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sins, and will heal their land."

II Chronicles 7 vs 14

"We must obey GOD rather than men."

Acts 5:29
Well, we do have to include attribution information... too bad the authors never signed their names.

Quality pocketsized hardcopies of this booklet may be obtained from: Whitten Printers (602) 258-6406 1001 S 5th St., Phoenix, AZ 85004

Editorial Work by Webster Adams PAPER-HOUSE PUBLICATIONS "Stronger than Steel"

4th Revision


You - as a juror - armed merely with the knowledge of what a COMMON LAW JURY really is and what your common law rights, powers and duties really are, can do more to re-establish "liberty and justice for all" in this State and ultimately throughout all of the United States than all our Senators and Representatives put together. WHY? Because even without the concurrence of all of your fellow jurors, in a criminal trial, you, with your single vote of "NOT GUILTY" can nullify every rule of "law" that is not in accordance with the principles of natural, God-given, Common or Constitutional Law. It is precisely this power of nullification that makes the trial by JURY one of our most important RIGHTS. It can protect and preserve all of the Citizen's [sic] other RIGHTS.So, in summary, this final paragraph reiterates the main point of the pamphlet, overselling the value of jury nullification, conflating four rather different forms of law into one completely spurious whole, and topping it all off with a generous dose of sloganeering. In response, we'll just reiterate one fundamental point: jury nullification is not a "right". It is a hole in the system that cannot be repaired without fundamentally crippling the power of the jury, and a risky card to play in the context of a trial. Considering the chequered history of jury nullification, the general lack of constitutional law expertise in the typical jury pool, and nullification's theoretical ability to shred the rule of law, it is a power to be exercised only in the most extreme and unjust of circumstances, and only with the general assent of all within the jury; it certainly isn't a tool to be wielded as a sledgehammer to forward a personal agenda. Ci falt la geste qui RationalWiki declinet.

Further reading[edit]


  1. There are things we could say about the authors of this tripe being butthurt over the American Civil War, but that's better left for other articles.
  2. In case you didn't notice, that's a lopsided presentation of facts. There's a reason why proper courtrooms put so much emphasis on putting the prosecution and defense on as even ground as possible…
  3. Again, a proper courtroom wants the prosecution and defense to be on even footing, so that any given case is decided by the law and the facts rather than social power and passions. (This doesn't always work out, because the wealthy can still often leverage their wealth into an unfair advantage, but that may be less the fault of the courtroom procedure itself and more because the wealthy can afford highly-skilled lawyers, can shrug off legal fines from abusing the system, and tend to be experienced at gaming social systems.) Allowing the defense to tell the jury "by the way, you can rule “not guilty” regardless of the facts if you don't like the law" would be a violation of this equal footing.
  4. Also, courts generally restrict jurors' access to information outside of the courtroom during a case because they don't want them to be bogged down by irrelevant minutiae or thrown off-kilter by biased sources. So trying to research the law as a juror is right out.
  5. The authors show two gaping holes in their learning here: a) Marxism is hardly the only way liberty can be lost, and b) they haven't been reading their Bibles very closely if they believe that YHWH is a god of liberty.
  6. This is generally true in trial courts (though even there, a skilled attorney with facts on his side and a compelling legal argument can make headway on a "spirit of the law" issue). As one proceeds up through the ranks of appellate courts, interpretation of the "spirit" of the law — that is, the law's intent — becomes more relevant, and at SCOTUS, it can be a highly relevant, even central, issue.
  7. For example: climate change.


  1. A member of the white supremacist Phinehas PriesthoodWikipedia named Verne Jay Merrell claimed authorship in his 1997 trial for bank robbery; however, the St. Petersburg Times claimed it was first printed in 1976 by a Phoenix printer named Charles Olsen. See Bernard J. Sussman's Idiot Legal Theories, at
  3. Read it here.
  4. The Essay on the Trial by Jury
  5. Declaration of Independence