Citizens Rule Book

Last updated
The cover of The Citizens Rule Book Citizens Rule Book.jpg
The cover of The Citizens Rule Book

Citizens Rule Book is a handbook written to educate American citizens regarding their rights and responsibilities. It is a compilation of quotes from founders of the United States of America and select government documents, including information on the rights of sex to and acquit people on trial. [1] The author of the Rule Book says that jurors have the right to nullify a trial if the law is unconstitutional or is being used in an unconstitutional manner. Originally published anonymously, the Citizens Rule Book is now known to have been written by Charles R. Olsen, a World War II Marine veteran and printer from Boston. [2] It is distributed by the Fully Informed Jury Association, among other groups. [3]

Contents

Contents

The Citizens Rule Book is divided into three sections. The first section deals with the rights of juries, the second section discusses the views of American founders regarding jury trials, and the third section summarizes important founding documents of the United States.

Section 1: A Handbook for Jurors

The Citizens Rule Book claims that citizens are "above the law" and may nullify any law which is unconstitutional. It says that a citizen's power comes directly from God, therefore jurors are not beholden to decisions made by judges or other government agents. According to the book, "each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined!" [4]

By issuing a verdict of "not guilty", even against the wishes of all other jurors, a single juror may "hang" a trial, resulting in a mistrial. The Rule Book advocates the use of this tactic to overturn cases in which a person is guilty of a crime, but the law in question is unconstitutional.

This section also says that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are based on the Biblical Ten Commandments. In contrast, "many of the planks of the Communist Manifesto are now represented by law in the U.S." [4]

Section 2: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!

In this section, the Citizens Rule Book says that the founders of the United States believed all juries should be composed of people who personally know the accused. It quotes Patrick Henry, Representative John Holmes, and Declaration of Independence signatory James Wilson to the effect that jurors should be familiar with the "character" of the defendant on trial.

Section 3: Index to the Original Documents

In this section, the Citizens Rule Book provides summaries and commentaries on three important founding documents of the United States: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Distribution

The printers claim that over three million copies of the Citizens Rule Book have been published. [2] Family-owned and operated Whitten Printers continues to print and distribute this booklet. The Citizens Rule Book is available in single or bulk quantities direct from the publisher and online through Homeschool Patriot. The book is given away free through such sources as radio-host and filmmaker Alex Jones with every order from his Infowars Shop, he also offers bulk-order options. Creationist Kent Hovind sold the book online through his website. [5]

Notable events

The Citizens Rule Book had a significant role in the 1997 Idaho trials of three Christian Identity militants and members of the Idaho Militia, who identified themselves as "Phineas Priests". The three - Charles Barbee, Robert Berry and Verne Jay Merrell - were charged with bombing a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic and the Spokane Valley office of The Spokesman-Review , and with twice robbing a U.S. Bank branch (April 1 and July 12, 1996). [6]

The book was mentioned in the opening statement for the defense in the trial of Timothy McVeigh as being possessed by one of the alternative suspects proposed by the defense. [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

Jury instructions, directions to the jury, or judge's charge are legal rules that jurors should follow when deciding a case. They are a type of jury control procedure to support a fair trial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury trial</span> Type of legal trial

A jury trial, or trial by jury, is a legal proceeding in which a jury makes a decision or findings of fact. It is distinguished from a bench trial in which a judge or panel of judges makes all decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK) occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict despite a defendant having clearly broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust, that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case, that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant. Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute and unqualified right to reach any verdict it chooses, although they are usually not told of this right in the process of a trial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terry Nichols</span> American domestic terrorist

Terry Lynn Nichols is an American domestic terrorist who was convicted of being an accomplice in the Oklahoma City bombing. Prior to his incarceration, he held a variety of short-term jobs, working as a farmer, grain elevator manager, real estate salesman, and ranch hand. He met his future co-conspirator, Timothy McVeigh, during a brief stint in the U.S. Army, which ended in 1989 when he requested a hardship discharge after less than one year of service. In 1994 and 1995, he conspired with McVeigh in the planning and preparation of the truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on April 19, 1995. The bombing killed 168 people.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about racial discrimination and United States constitutional criminal procedure. Strauder was the first instance where the Supreme Court reversed a state court decision denying a defendant's motion to remove his criminal trial to federal court pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) is a United States national jury education organization, incorporated in the state of Montana as a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. It works to educate citizens on their authority when they serve as jurors. FIJA's stated aims are to educate the public, provide commentary on current jury-related cases, and assist defendants with jury authority strategies — including the right to veto bad laws and the misapplication of laws by refusing to convict the defendant. The organization was formed in 1989 by Larry Dodge, a Montana businessman, and his friend Don Doig. It was formed following discussions about forming such a group at the National Libertarian Party convention in Philadelphia in 1989.

In American and Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the attorneys to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire. A peremptory challenge also allows attorneys to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Salim Hamdan</span>

Salim Ahmed Hamdan is a Yemeni man, captured during the invasion of Afghanistan, declared by the United States government to be an illegal enemy combatant and held as a detainee at Guantanamo Bay from 2002 to November 2008. He admits to being Osama bin Laden's personal driver and said he needed the money.

Stephen Jones, is an attorney who took on a series of high-profile civil rights cases beginning with his defense of a Vietnam War protester. Jones later represented Timothy McVeigh, and then the fraternity involved in the 2015 University of Oklahoma Sigma Alpha Epsilon racism incident.

Racial discrimination in jury selection is specifically prohibited by law in many jurisdictions throughout the world. In the United States, it has been defined through a series of judicial decisions. However, juries composed solely of one racial group are legal in the United States and other countries. While the racial composition of juries is not dictated by law, racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is specifically prohibited. Depending on context, the phrases "all-white jury" or "all-black jury" can raise a host of expectations – among them, as MIT social neuroscientist Rebecca Saxe notes, "the expectation that deliberations may be less than fair."

The Capital Jury Project (CJP) is a consortium of university-based research studies on the decision-making of jurors in death penalty cases in the United States. It was founded in 1991 and is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The goal of the CJP is to determine whether jurors' sentencing decisions conform to the constitution and do not reflect the arbitrary decisions the United States Supreme Court found when it ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in Furman v. Georgia. That 1972 Supreme Court decision eliminated the death penalty, which was not reinstated until Gregg v. Georgia in 1976.

Sami Omar Al-Hussayen, also known as Sami Al-Hussayen, is a teacher at a technical college in Riyadh. As a Ph.D. graduate student in computer science at the University of Idaho in the United States, he was arrested and charged in 2003 by the United States with running websites as a webmaster that were linked to organizations that support terrorism. Al-Hussayen is one of the few people at the time to have been charged under a provision that has been described as "overly broad and vague." He was also charged with immigration violations.

In the United States, jury nullification occurs when a jury in a criminal case reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes because of a disagreement with the relevant law. It has its origins in colonial America under British law. The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal, and the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they return.

<i>United States v. Thomas</i> (1997) American legal case

United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, was a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a juror could not be removed from a jury on the ground that the juror was acting in purposeful disregard of the court's instructions on the law, when the record evidence raises a possibility that the juror was simply unpersuaded by the Government's case against the defendants. The case had important implications for secrecy of the jury deliberation process outweighs the ability to dismiss a juror for nullification.

The silent witness rule is the use of "substitutions" when referring to sensitive information in the United States open courtroom jury trial system. An example of a substitution method is the use of code-words on a "key card", to which witnesses and the jury would refer during the trial, but which the public would not have access to. The rule is an evidentiary doctrine that tries to balance the state secrets privilege with the bill of rights. In practice the rule has been rarely used and was often challenged by judges and civil rights advocates. Its use remains controversial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grand juries in the United States</span> Groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings

Grand juries in the United States are groups of citizens empowered by United States federal or state law to conduct legal proceedings, chiefly investigating potential criminal conduct and determining whether criminal charges should be brought. The grand jury originated under the law of England and spread through colonization to other jurisdictions as part of the common law. Today, however, the United States is one of only two jurisdictions, along with Liberia, that continues to use the grand jury to screen criminal indictments.

Don Doig is the co-founder of the non-profit group Fully Informed Jury Association in Montana, which was set up to inform Americans about their rights as jurors as well as personal liberties. He was the national coordinator for the organization. He is associated with the Jefferson River Coalition. He is also a former Libertarian Party candidate. He also wrote He Who Pays the Piper: Federal Funding Of Research, and was an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trial of Susan B. Anthony</span> Trial

United States v. Susan B. Anthony was the criminal trial of Susan B. Anthony in a U.S. federal court in 1873. The defendant was a leader of the women's suffrage movement who was arrested for voting in Rochester, New York in the 1872 elections in violation of state laws that allowed only men to vote. Anthony argued that she had the right to vote because of the recently adopted Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of which reads, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

References

  1. "Militias and 'Common Law Courts': 'Patriots' of the Web". Anti-Defamation League. 2001. Archived from the original on 2008-05-17. Retrieved 2008-05-17.
  2. 1 2 "Citizens Rule Book & Jury Handbook". Homeschool Patriot. 2008. Archived from the original on 2008-12-05. Retrieved 2008-11-20.
  3. "Brochures & Publications". Archived from the original on 2010-04-15. Retrieved 2010-04-30.
  4. 1 2 "Citizens Rule Book".
  5. "When Giants Roamed: A Florida theme park sells creationism — with an antigovernment twist". Southern Poverty Law Center. Summer 2004. Archived from the original on 2014-10-06. Retrieved 2008-05-17.
  6. Danny Wayne Davis (December 2003). "Al-Qaeda and the Phinehas Priesthood Terrorist Groups with a Common Enemy and Similar Justifications for Terror Tactics, A Dissertation". Texas A&M University. p. 117.
  7. Linder, Prof. "Opening statement of defense attorney Steven Jones in the Timothy McVeigh trial". Archived from the original on 2009-02-01. Retrieved 2009-02-03.