Sons of Liberty

No 28

August 2, 1997

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The Sixth Article in Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America

I recently returned from testifying in a federal criminal trial. Now, I had known for quite some time that the Federal Rules of Court have become more restrictive, and that they are the primary cause for the loss of Freedom, Liberty and justice in this country, today. Although many will point to legislation, and proclaim that the acts of Congress are undermining the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, very few will recognize that there is a corrupting impact on the Constitution that is promulgated, not by our elected representatives, but, by an administrative agency — and a number of private associations around the country.

The Rules of Court are a joint effort by the Bar Association and the supreme courts of the various states, the Supreme Court and the Federal Appellate Courts. They constitute virtually tens of thousands of rules which apply to pleadings, witnesses, evidence and every other aspect of the "legal" business.

Now, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution was the assurance the Founders required to protect us from the government evolving into the unjustness that had become common under British rule. One aspects of this Amendment, "to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor," was necessary to allow the jury to arrive at the truth, as best they could, and one that was manifestly wanting at that trial.

The federal judicial process has developed means of creating what they claim to be a more efficient and just trial by "reviewing" the testimony to be presented to the jury. This process is called "proffering". The jury is removed from the courtroom, and the witness is then subjected to questioning, almost as if the jury is present. Although the claim is that irrelevant testimony can be excluded, by instruction from the judge, it seems that the process is utilized to restrict information that might be beneficial, or even critical to the defense.

During my resent testimony, for example, I was a witness for about four and one half hours of trial time. Of that time, I was in front of the jury, testifying, for less than fifteen minutes. I spent about an hour and one half being questioned outside of the jury, and the remainder of the time, I waited outside the courtroom during sidebar discussions. The purpose of these sidebar discussions was for the judge and attorneys to debate the merit of my testimony.

To highlight the type of testimony that is excluded, we can look at the prosecution presenting a portion of my web page, and article titled "Let me tell you about a man named Quigley", which is about the IRS undercover agent involved in the case. The prosecution wanted to argue that I must have spoken with the defendants about Quigley"s testimony, even though my information came from newspaper articles which had been forwarded to me, and posted on the page.

Now, why does it matter if I got the information from the newspaper, or from someone watching the trial as a spectator? Is the newspaper controlled, and the spectator not? Regardless, the prosecutor asked me if I wrote the article, and, upon affirmation that I did, stated that I said, in the article, that the newspaper articles said that Quigley was a liar. I responded that I said that Quigley was a liar, not that the articles said that he was. Now, whether Quigley is a liar, or not is instrumental in a case of this nature. Why I came to the conclusion I did about Quigley, if founded on factual knowledge, would be crucial testimony in the trial. And, I did have factual knowledge that Quigley lied, under oath, during his investigation. The court ruled, however, that the evidence (article) submitted by the prosecution was inadmissible, as was my testimony on that matter, and was not allowed in front of the jury — to the detriment of the patriots on trial.

Although other aspects of my knowledge of Quigley were allowed, through proffering, this was whittled down to just enough testimony to justify my appearance before the court.

What this amounts to, in federal criminal proceedings, is that the testimony of the prosecution"s witnesses can be as broad and far reaching as the prosecution wants to go, including testimony about people who were not even charged in the indictment. The testimony of the defense"s witnesses, however, is chopped and diced, and made palatable to the prosecution, then delivered, on a platter, to a jury.

If you will just think about this for a few minutes, I"m sure that you will come to the conclusion that the jury is incapable of sorting through mountains of testimony, and coming to a proper conclusion, or verdict, unless the state weeds out all detrimental testimony, simplifying the jury"s job, and assuring that the jury comes to the same conclusion that the state has — in their indictment.

The process is "compulsory" in obtaining witnesses on behalf of the accused. I"m sure the Founders intended, also, that those witnesses be heard — but, the government, and the ABA, have found a way to "abide" by the Constitution, and still assure the outcome of the trial.

Return to Sons of Liberty Index

Go to Next Sons of Liberty

Go to Previous Sons of Liberty