The criminal and his crime. Mitch Faber and the house he didn’t finish siding. If you look carefully you can see the criminality in the gap between the first floor and the second floor where there is no siding. This criminal was sentenced to 30 days in jail without a jury trial. What do you think?

Officials in Burnsville, Minn., have brought the law to bear on Mitch Faber (who was arrested, forced to pay bail, and released under electronic monitoring and only on condition of drug testing), whom they have charged with the crime of not putting proper siding on his house.

According to a March report on KSTP-TV, Faber said he started re-siding, but when the economy turned bad in 2008, he stopped, assuming that the worst he could eventually suffer would be a fine.

He was not allowed a jury trial.

He got instead a trial by government without a jury of his peers to determine his fate and in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reads in part: “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.”

Suppose you had been on a jury convened to try Mitch Faber for the failure to side his house.

Suppose you thought a man should not go to jail for not putting proper siding on his own home? Suppose the judge said you must convict Mitch Faber – because he broke the law.

The facts are the facts; the law is the law. A slave is a slave. He did not put proper siding on his house.
Would you vote as the government – through the judge –directs?

Or would you cast a vote for not guilty - even if it hung the jury- so that in your land, in your community, in your nation, a man who did not put siding on his own home might still be allowed to walk free?
Your answer is welcome….

Regulation Nation
Mitch Faber was arrested and tried without a jury trial because he did not finish the siding on this house. See the gap where siding is missing.

In his trial by government, Mr. Faber goes to jail…. After all he was guilty. The siding was incomplete.
But if he had a jury trial, a “trial per pais,” a trial by the country,” a trial by 12 of his peers - they might have voted to acquit him.

There are thousands of laws in America where bureaucrats rule and judges are both judge an d jury.
How did this happen?

Article Three of the United States Constitution states, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed."

Nevertheless, in the United States, a person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for six months can be denied a jury trial.

The Supreme Court in 1989 (Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538) ruled the word “all” in the Bill of rights can be eliminated.

Yet “all" is not a word the constitution-makers were believed to use lightly.

The 1989 Supreme Court ruled an offense can be deemed 'petty' if imprisonment is six months or for less - as if six months unjustly stolen from a citizen’s life is but a petty matter.

There are defendants who actually serve more than six months in prison without having a jury hear their case. If the government charges someone with multiple misdemeanor counts, all arising out of the same incident, the trial can be heard by only a judge.
Attila Cosby was charged with seven misdemeanors arising out of the same alleged incident. Prosecutors chopped up the charges to level instead of one serious charge seven counts each carrying penalties of less than six months in prison to avoid a jury trial.

Mr. Cosby was convicted by the judge of five misdemeanors and sentenced to consecutive sentences of two and one half years in prison.

FREEDOM TEST
If the whole world stands against you sword in hand, would you still dare to do what you think is right?