J.A.I.L. News Journal
Los Angeles, California January 25, 2006 ______________________________________________________
The Inherent Right of ALL People to Alter or Reform Abusive Government
The Right Upon Which All Other Rights Depend
The Torchbearer for J.A.I.L. Nationally - Support Them!
P.O. Box 412, Tea, S.D. 57064 - (605) 231-1418
Challenging The Entire
California Legal System
By Don Bird, California JAILer
"... as far as we know, only Don Bird, 71, of Rancho Tehama
has had the nerve to challenge the entire California legal system
over an instance where he admits he was breaking the law."
Chico News & Review
"Fifteen minutes" p.43
January 19, 2006
A SPEEDY TRIAL
By Josh Indar - firstname.lastname@example.org
Photo By Josh
Most people who get a speeding ticket just pay the thing and forget about it. A few people will even fight the ticket, taking the matter before a judge and usually hoping the officer who wrote the ticket will fail to show up. But as far as we know, only Don Bird, 71, of Rancho Tehama has had the nerve to challenge the entire California legal system over an instance where he admits he was breaking the law. Bird stopped by our office after lobbying an aide of Assemblyman Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, to enact legislation that would enable ticketed drivers to have a trial by jury. Bird, who admits he was going 71 in a 55 mph zone when he got his ticket, recently used his own amateur legal skills to bring a Second Amendment case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Why do you want a jury trial for a speeding ticket?
I'm arguing the fact that the Seventh Amendment says I have that right ... if you choose not to have that right that's your choice.
There's going to be a certain percentage of people that are going to pay the ticket and run back to wherever they came from. Or they'll mail their money in. ... They'll be a handful of people that will go to court that day and try to argue their way out of it. They'll lose, 99 times out of 100. All I'm asking for is that I want to tell my story to [a jury], even if it's the same verdict. At least I have my rights given to me.
How would it work?
I've got the thing figured out. You've got a jury pool, right? Josh and five other people are picked by the judge. [Speaks like a judge] Josh, you're over 18 and you're not a felon - sit down, chair No. 1.
You've got six people in there that were picked at 7:30 that morning. They sit there until 12. Say out of 30 tickets that an officer in Corning gives in a day, five or three or one says, "Hey, I've got a choice here." You mark the box. "I want a trial by jury." For those who check the other box, those people would be computer-selected to show up on Tuesday morning instead of Monday morning.
But it's very hard to get people to do jury duty now, and the courts are clogged with more important things…
No, you said a nasty word to me. There's nothing more serious than your rights. We're at the point in our society where people will give up their rights at any expense. As far as inconvenience, I'd say, at a good traffic court, you'd get five minutes, maybe 10.
If you come up with four or five excuses why you shouldn't pay the $192, it's an open-court plea bargain, basically. "Yes I was speeding, I was going 72 mph, but my wife was pregnant. My dad just got hit from a falling airplane and I'm rushing to see him in the hospital." There's a thousand excuses. Now, the same excuses the judge hears, I want [the jury] to hear it, and I'm counting on your compassion and your understanding.
For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the operations of law, Don Bird is perfectly correct in has contention that one must first break the law (i.e., become a party, to wit -- a victim of such law or policy) in order to challenge it constitutionally. This is true because his challenge of the law would be dismissed because he has no standing before the court. Hence, his statement "...he admits he was breaking the law."
Don Bird is establishing the fact that anyone can break the law and still proclaim themselves not guilty, and demand a jury trial. Our Constitution sets forth, "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury...," Art. III, Sec. 2 paragraph 3 . It is therefore abundantly clear that "speeding," not being and impeachment, requires a trial by jury. Hence, the question on his appeal is not whether he was speeding, but whether he received a trial by jury as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution, which all judges have sworn to uphold. If one thinks violating speeding laws is unacceptable, how about judges willfully violating their sworn oath to obey the Constitution?
Now why did our Founding Fathers place this "unseemly" burden upon government? It was instituted purposely by them to avoid government tyranny by erecting multitudes of new offices, and sending hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. - Declaration of Independence.
Our Founding Fathers, in this same document, stated that the government at that time was "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury." They decided to make it extremely inconvenient for government by making sure that every legislated crime, no matter how trivial, be required to obtain a conviction only by a jury trial, and that even goes for a seat belt violation. Without this protection, our Founding Fathers knew that government would eventually legislate tens of thousand pf new laws that would overwhelm the people, and extract their monies from their pockets for their government coughers.
Our Founding Fathers intended for jury trials to be costly and time consuming, and counterproductive of using enforcement of multitudes of laws for the purpose of profiting their goals of bigger and more powerful government, and therefore, even more laws to enforce in a cycle without end. Am I saying that numerous laws creating crimes are, in many cases, used as a tool by politicians to accomplish their political goals. Absolutely!