Secrecy is In, Disclosure is Out; Secret Courts – Secret Law
The traditional Anglo-American distrust for secret trials has been variously ascribed to the notorious use of this practice by the Spanish Inquisition, to the excesses of the English Court of Star Chamber, and to the French monarchy’s abuse of the lettre de cachet. All of these institutions obviously symbolized a menace to liberty. In the hands of despotic groups, each had become an instrument for the suppression of political and religious heresies in ruthless disregard of the right of an accused to a fair trial. In re: Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S. Ct. 499, 92 L. Ed. 682 (1948).
Some authorities maintain that trials in the Star Chamber were public, but that witnesses against the accused were examined privately with no opportunity for the accused to discredit them. Apparently, all authorities agree that the accused himself was interrogated in secret, often tortured, in an effort to obtain a confession, and that the most objectionable of the Star Chamber’s practices was its asserted prerogative to disregard the common law rules of criminal procedure when the occasion demanded. 5 Holdsworth, A History of English Law, 163, 165, 180-197 (2d ed., 1937); Radin, The Right to a Public Trial, 6 Temp. L. Q., 381, 386-388; Washburn, The Court of Star Chamber, 12 Am. L. Rev., 21, 25-31; In re: Oliver, supra.
“Secret law is an abomination,” wrote Professor Kenneth Davis in Administrative Law Treatise 137 in 1970. This quote has been cited in numerous federal cases involving Freedom of Information Act (F.O.I.A.) requests. The cases of Cox v. United States Department of Justice, 576 F.2d 1302, 1309 (8th Cir. 1978) and Stokes v. Brennan, 476 F.2d 699, 701-02 (5th Cir. 1973) are just two examples where the courts argued that secret law is wrong and that government agencies, which includes the courts, should make their documents available for public inspection. It is crucial to public confidence in the courts that judges be seen as enforcing the law and obeying it themselves. U.S. v. Muniz, 49 F.3d 36, 43 (1st Cir. 1995).
Sounds good, so far.Except when it comes to cases involving the Immigration and Naturalization Service and those “evil Arab terrorists.” In 1996, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which authorized secret evidence. A federal district judge in Newark, N.J., Hon. William Walls, has described this as “government processes initiated and prosecuted in darkness.” Hentoff, Prosecution in Darkness, Washington Post, November 6, 1999, p. A-25.
Read more: Secret Courts – Secret Law
Magna Carta’s three Jewish clauses
If you ask most people what they associate with Magna Carta, they may say: King John, barons, Runnymede, or the beginning of English democracy. What they will not say is: Jews.
Yet three of its clauses directly relate to Jews, and, in particular, their moneylending activities. It means that the document not only has enormous significance for English history, but also epitomises the privileges and problems of medieval Anglo-Jewry.
Magna Carta was signed on June 15 1215, and there will be many commemorative events for its 800th anniversary next year, but its Jewish roots go back to 1066. It is likely that individual Jews came to this country long before then, as far back as Roman times, whether willingly as traders, or by force as slaves. However, it is impossible to talk of a settled Jewish community until the late 11th century. It was then that William of Normandy brought over Jews from his French territory to help colonise his new kingdom.
Read more: Magna Carta’s three Jewish clauses
The Solar Storm: Blackbird9 – Star Chamber Justice & Synergistic Solutions (1-8-17) podcast on Renegade Broadcasting
Kyle Hunt speaks with Frederick C. Blackburn of Blackbird9’s Trading Posts about how things are doing with his podcast, the introduction of a star chamber justice system, how it has manifested throughout the years and been opposed by the law of the land, and how we can use peer-to-peer organic systems to bring down this talmudic terror.
What is Jury Nullification and Why is it Important?
Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge’s instructions as to the law.
A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment…
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.
The traditional approach in U.S. court systems is for jurors to be the “triers of fact,” while the judge is considered the interpreter of law and the one who will instruct the jury on the applicable law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict.
Read more: Jury Nullification