Your entire English Authorized System has deserted every thing that when made Britain the beacon of human rights and liberty on this planet. There’s completely nothing left for Britain even to carry its head upright. This man, pretending to be a choose, ASSUMES what he stated is racist, with out acknowledging that the immigrants are NOT all of a selected race. Then he PRESUMES that these phrases instigated another person to violence with ZERO proof of that being the case in any respect. That is NOT the rule of legislation, and when that crumbles, the ONLY answer turns into revolution and violence, for there is no such thing as a court docket of legislation that may be certain that society stays civilized.
Maybe this “judge” who is clearly violating the English Invoice of Rights ought to flip to Confusus. His authorized doctrines are much better than this nonsense. Even Jesus Christ addressed a gathering of Jews and informed them: “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Not in Britain. The reality will get you tax-free residing in jail for 7 years.
Probably the most well-known trial the place a jury stood up refusing to seek out the defendant responsible within the face of a corrupt authorities was that of William Penn (1644-1718), the founding father of Pennsylvania. Penn was the chief of the Quakers in London, and you’ll see why individuals fled to America. The sect was not acknowledged by the federal government and was forbidden to satisfy in any constructing for the aim of worship. In 1670, William Penn held a worship service on a quiet avenue, which a peaceable group of fellow Quakers attended. Penn and one other Quaker, William Mead, had been arrested for disturbing the king’s peace and summoned to face trial.
As the 2 males entered the courtroom, a bailiff ordered them to place their hats, which that they had eliminated, again on their heads. Once they complied, they had been known as ahead and held in contempt of court docket for being within the courtroom with their hats on. Penn found that contempt of court docket is a private prerogative of the choose and an infliction of punishment by a choose who turns into the legislator, jury, and sentencing choose.
Penn demanded to know what crime he was being charged with preaching – the cornerstone of Due Course of. The choose refused to produce any data as to his crime and as an alternative referred vaguely to widespread legislation. When Penn protested that he was entitled to a particular indictment (NOTICE), he was faraway from the presence of the choose and jury and confined in an enclosed nook of the room often called the bale dock.
Penn might neither confront the witnesses who accused him of preaching to the Quakers nor ask them questions on their prices in opposition to him. A number of witnesses testified that Penn had preached to a gathering, which included Mead, however one confirmed some hesitancy as as to if Mead had been current. The choose turned to Mead and questioned him immediately. In impact, the choose grew to become the prosecutor, as he requested Mead if he was responsible. Mead invoked the common-law privilege in opposition to self-incrimination, which provoked hostile feedback from the choose. The court docket then despatched Mead to affix Penn within the bale dock out of the sight of the jury and witnesses.
Lastly, after the testimony, the court docket concluded that the choose had instructed the jury to seek out the defendants responsible as charged, dictating what verdict he had anticipated. Penn tried to protest however was silenced and once more despatched out of the courtroom. The jury, for its half, proved sympathetic to the 2 defendants and refused the choose’s command to seek out the defendants responsible.
At this level, the choose grew to become so enraged, as I might anticipate from Choose Juan Merchan, and despatched the jury again to rethink their verdict. Once they returned with the identical verdict, the court docket criticized the jury’s chief, Bushnell, and demanded “a verdict that the court will accept, and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco…We will have a verdict by the help of God or you will starve for it.”
After that, the jury was despatched again three extra instances however returned with the identical verdict. Lastly, the jury refused to rethink. The choose then fined every jury member forty marks and ordered them imprisoned till the fantastic was paid. Penn and Mead went to jail anyway, held in contempt for obeying the bailiff’s order that they placed on their hats.
Later, the jury members gained a writ of habeas corpus and had been launched from jail. Penn and Mead left England after their launch from jail, having a style of English justice, and sailed to America. (Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p. 113-115). Thus, Pennsylvania was based. This was the Bushel’s Case (1670) 124 E.R. 1006, a well-known English resolution on the function of juries and that they possessed the independence to resolve the validity of the legislation being prosecuted.
The place is the Magna Carta Proper to a Trial by Jury of Your Friends?
This man is pressured to plead responsible to a non-crime as a result of if he dares go to trial and the Choose refuses to permit the jury to nullify this insane Starmmer legislation, then he can be given the utmost time of seven years+ for demanding a good trial.
