OCR Text |
Show Page 6 The Utah The Paper That Dares To Take A Stand Independent April 1, 1976 HOME PROTECTION Continued from page 1 would be there at the pleasure of the court and would be representing the judge and not the defendant. Mr. Sharp stayed in the courtroom during the entire trial, and while he was not used by Mr. Grismore in any way, was paid S30 an hour by the government in an effort on their part to give the public and the jury the idea that Mr. Gris-mowas adequately and competently represented. Mr. Grismore than asked for a continuance, inasmuch as it was evident that he was going to have to represent himself, so that he could adequately prepare for the trial. Judge Brimmer denied this and Mr. Grismore had to go to trial without any pre-tri- al discovery. Bill of Particulars, or any other preparation. Mr. Grismore than asked the judge to disqualify himself for prejudice and bias inasmuch as he had already denied the defendant several of his basic constitutional rights in defiance of his Oath of Office, and the defendant did not see how he could expect a fair trial. Judge Brimmer denied this motion re also. After the jury was picked and the court recessed for lunch, Mr. Grismore asked the U.S. Marshal suit on the to serve an anti-tru- st the Marshal and the paid judge service tee in cash. The Marshal refused to serve the suit so when court reconvened and the jury was seated in the juiy box, Mr. Grismore approached the bench and served the complaint on Judge Brimmer himself. The judges reaction was one of surprise and anger, but laid the suit aside and refused to read it, saying he didnt want to prejudice himself in the case. Throughout the trial Mr. Grismore repeatedly denounced the presence of Mr. Sharp, the government appointed counsel, on the and insisted on a mis-tridenial of of competent grounds and trusted counsel. Judge Brimmer denied this every time. At the close of the governments case Mr. Grismore motioned for directed verdict of acquittal on the grounds that the government failed to prove one of the most important charges in the indictment, namely that the Federal Reserve Notes that into the government offered in evidence were fact obligations of When Mr. the United States. Barry Green, the governments expert witness on money, was cross examined by Mr. Grismore, he angrily refused to define obligations of the U.S., money, or legal tender saying he didn't want to get into an argument on semantics. Judge Brimmer denied Mr. Girsmores motion for directed verdict of acquittal. Mr. Grismore based his al defense on two issues, namely: 1. That he had been framed by government agents and that this was just another episode in a long train of government harassment being heaped upon him and his family for the stand he had taken several years ago in opposing the illegal and unconstitutional procedures of the IRS, and 2. That Federal Reserve Notes are not obligations of the United States inasmuch as they are issued by a private banking corporation called the Federal Reserve System and inasmuch as they are not redeemable by the government for anything of value. (They are not backed by gold and silver as the U.S. Constitution requires.) Mr. Grismore endeavored to present evidence substantiating his claims to harassment but was blocked by Judge Brimmer on almost every occasion. He did, however, tell the jury how threats have been made on his life, how he and members of his family have been followed on numerous occasions. His daughter, Alison, identified Riley Blanscett as one who had followed her on dates as long ago as January 197S. Mr. Grismore asked the court to subpoena several witnesses who could-testifregarding the reality of such harassment but the court refused. One witness Mr. Grismore desired to question whom the court did subpoena. Col. Roy Helm, former head of the Utah Highway Patrol, could not be located by the U.S. Marshals and so did not testify. Mr. Grismore also wished to question some members of the Federal Reserve System so he could offer testimony from expert witnesses regarding the function and organization of that system and have them explain to the jury that Federal Reserve Notes were, in fact, not obligations of the U.S., but were instead, dishonored evidences of debt not redeemable from the government for anything of value. Judge Brimmer refused this request. Mr. Grismore also wanted to John subpoena Schmitz from California who would have been able to offer invaluable testimony refuting one of the governments witnesses, a Mr. David Emerson Gumaer who is an underground government spy and militant sent to Utah in an effort to bankrupt several Utah companies dealing in the minting and sale of gold and silver. The court refused. It became obvious to this observer that the court denied Mr. Grismore his constitutional right to compulsory witness and thereby denied him a fair trial. Mr. Grismore testified in his own behalf regarding the Federal Reserve and outlined in very simple terms how they have y successfully debauched our currency and literally robbed the American people of their there was no way the government could get a conviction. Following final arguments Wednesday evening, March 17th court was recessed and reconvened at 9:00 AM the following morning. Judge Brimmer then charged the jury with what amounted to a directed verdict of guilty from the bench. He overruled statutes in Titles 12 and 31 of the United States code and the U.S. Constitution itself ,when he told thejury that under the laws of the United States Federal Reserve Notes were obligations of the U.S. He took away Mr. Grismores other defense when he told them that a long train of abuses and harassment was not a defense to the charges. He told them that it would be a violation of their sworn duty if they gave any other interpretation to the law than that given in the instructions of the court. The jury then retired for deliberations. When they returned with their verdict of guilty it was obvious that some of them were upset and emotionally shaken. When the clerk polled thejury asking each of them to respond as to whether this verdict was their true and correct verdict, one of the jurors did not answer but simply gave a half nod while hanging her head. Another juror hid reddened, tear-fille- d eyes behind a pair of large dark glasses and responded in a voice barely audible. One of the male jurors swallowed his answer and it was difficult to understand. Following this the judge ordered each of the jurors never to reveal to anyone how they arrived at their verdict. And so ended another travesty of justice perpetrated by the well greased wheels of the judicial system which seems to be able to grind correct principle into the dust almost at will. Postscripts: Why was security in this trial the tightest ever experiences in any criminal trial in the history of Utah? (Everyone entering the 1. courtroom was searched thoroughly by federal marshals. There were at least five marshals on duty at all times, not to mention numerous secret service agents. While so testifying IRS agents and troopers from the substance. there was total silence in the Highway Patrol.) 2. Why were the jurors courtroom and he had the undivided attention of every juror, ordered by the court never to reveal not to mention the judge and the to anyone how they arrived at their U.S. attorney. During his closing verdict? Could it have been that arguments Mr. Grismore outlined evidence not admitted into the trial the duties of the jurors as defined in i n open court found its way into the the U.S. Constitution and as laid jury room? 3. Two of Mr. Grismores down by our founding fathers. He told them that they had the power witnesses, James Smith and S. Goeltz, were and the responsibility to decide all Frances matters of fact as well as law in ad- immediately charged with failure dition to the justice of the law. He to file by the I RS the day after they also told them that they could testified in this trial. Is this just One would hardly coincidence? decide on the admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence. He told think so when, after James Smith them they were the judges in this had testified on Monday, March case and that they could overrule IS. 1976, and IRS special agent was the judge. They could, in fact, veto overheard outside the courtroom an act of congress if they would saying that maybe Mr. Smith had only exercise their sovereign power not yet learned his lesson. (Mr. as U.S. citizens and especially as Smith had made a good faith jurors. He also pointed out the challenge of illegal IRS procedures numerous obvious discrepancies in in regards to W-- 4 forms a few years the government's evidence. ago. was convicted on the charge, Once again the courtoom was and spent 4S days in the Salt Lake County jail.) totally silent and he had the un4. Since November 1974 the divided attention of thejury during his closing arguments. It was obgovernment has claimed that Mr. been printing vious to this observer that several Grismore had jurors had been awakened to the counterfeit money and so charged correctness of the principles and him. releasing to the news media Dear Editor: Over the past few years this writer has written many, many letters in many directions in an attempt to awaken the phlegmatics to this danger of losing their rights in the 2nd amendment. This is not only a threat against your rights to you own a gun, it also home own the right to protect your and family against criminal attack within your home. The stock argument put forth by these Simple Simons is that the defense of you and your home is the duty of the police. This I have been told by supposedly intelligent people at the head of this movement. I. in turn, gave them what I thought was an intelligent answer to their ignorant remark. What I said was that it would be a rare occasion, indeed, for a criminal bent on whatever to allow you to contact your local police prior to shooting you or beating your head to a pulp with the much mentioned blunt instrument. It would certainly be less than a comforting thought that after someone stumbled over your dead body, or that of one of your loved ones, that there would be a complete police investigation in the matter. Of course, it would be of no remedial benefit nor worsen conditions so far as you are concerned, but the possibility of apprehension and a fair and just trial of the criminal would, at thisdate in time, be infinitesimally small. Perhaps others have received some understandable reasons from these brainless wonders as to how the confiscation of the guns from the law abiding citizenry acts as a deterrent to crimes committed with a gun involved. To date, I am in the dark, and all because I have failed to receive any convincing evidence or logical explanation. As I see it, it amounts to the assumption by these weirdos that the gun owner is a potential criminal before the fact, so he is to surrender his weapon so as to protect the public from his criminal potentiality. Gee Whiz; I believe I have arrive (sic) at a solution. Some few years ago I received from an office on the eastern seaboard that 136 or so police officers had been killed with guns in the performance of their duties. I replied that they were no doubt killed by 136 criminals with guns. Since Cain slew Abel with the jawbone of an ass there have been killings by every known instrument and without a doubt, this will continue forever, without regard for the fact that the law books are over loaded with unenforcible laws against every manner of crime. These advocates of gun control can be likened to the old army remark: when in doubt do something. PLUNDER VERSUS CHARITY By Larry Wilcox Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, Cause and effect, means and ends, seed and fruit, cannot be severed: for the effect already blooms in the ts in the cause, the end means, the fruit in the seed. This is the doctrine of God. The choice of method makes the result automatic, inexorable and inevitable. The choice of a moral method guarantees a moral result or effect. The choice of an immoral method guarantees an immoral result or effect. The end justifies the means. This statement is one of the principle doctrines of socialism and communism. It is the doctrine of Satan. According to this philosophy the goal sanctifies the method. First you choose your goal. Then any method may be used to attain it. One of the goals of socialism is described as the welfare state. The doctrine which is implemented to create the welfare state is, We will take from those who have and give to those who have not." The goal is to help those who have less than those who have more. This is a worthy goal and it is referred to as charity when done voluntarily by those who have. However, the method is that of taking or stealing. The use of aggressive force with communist weapons or socialist laws results in illegal confiscation or legalized plunder instead of charity. Charity results in benefits or rewards to the giver and the receiver. Although it is better to give than to receive it must be remembered that the act of giving is impossible without a receiver. Illegal confiscation at the point of a bayonet or a gun and legalized plunder as the result of a law make thieves of everyone involved except the one who is looted. Stealing is an immoral method and results in the destruction of the individual thief or the illfare state which practices it. Those of you who had the opportunity to watch the CBS documentary last week on England saw the inevitable results of the welfare state or socialism. England is bankrupt and who do you suppose will be called on to bail her out? We, the United States, are the last nation which seems to have wealth to plunder. Friend and foe alike have plundered US now for many decades. As a result we, ourselves, are almost ' totally socialized. According to recent treasury figures US is over 5 trillion dollars in debt. Our politicians and most of our citizens have chosen the immoral method of stealing (the illfare state or socialism) in order to Paul H. Rucker take from those who have and Burlington, Iowa S260I give to those who have not. The information that when they seized result will be, I believe sooner than the printing equipment they also we think,- the bankruptcy of seized negatives and plates that plundered and plunderer alike. could be used to print money. When there is nothing left to There has never been a hearing on take there will be nobody with the matter, but at the conclusion of anything to give!! How long will the above trial Judge Brimmer disany of us survive when this finally missed the charge with alacrity. comes to pass? If Mr. Grismore had been printing There is only one solution. the money and they had evidence Turn back to freedom, free to show that he had. why didn't enterprise and private ownership and control of property. they bring him to trial? For answers to these questions Equally important, we must concerned citizens should write to remember that, "where the Spirit Federal District Judge Clarence A. of the Lord is, there is iberty. (II Brimmer, Jr., P.O. Box 985. Cor. 3:17) It naturally follows that where the Spirit of the Lord is not, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. pre-exis- dis-allo- ws - 1 there is slavery! ! |