Closing Statement to the Jury


                      Sheila Terese Wallen

     Ladies And Gentlemen of the Jury.  Needless to say, I'm very
scared and very nervous.  I don't know what I should know to tell
you in  this case.   I  have been denied assistance of counsel by
the Court.   So I'll do the best that I can.  I ask your patience
and your indulgence.  Please bear with me in this ordeal.

     Let me  begin with  a very  basic --  but an  apparent  long
forgotten -- fact.

     When you  read the  Declaration of Independence it says that
God created  each of  us, you  and me, with unalienable Rights --
natural Rights.   The  Right to  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness.   That Declaration,  signed more  than 200  years ago,
gave each  of us  to sovereignty of a King or a Queen. Subject to
no one or to no government.

     We  The   People,  like   you  and   me,  then  created  the
Constitution for each of the States.  The States then created the
United States  Government.   The delegation of power, then, comes
to We  the  People  directly  from  our  God-given  Rights.    We
delegated some  of this power to each of the States.  The States,
in turn,  then  delegated  very  limited  power  to  the  federal

     This case before you today is not just about a few marijuana
plants, ladies  and gentlemen.   The  State of  Arizona, which is
more powerful  than the  federal government,  has stated that one
can buy and sell marijuana in Arizona if you have a license to do

     Yet, today, the federal government now says that it has more
power than  its creator  - the State.  How can the created become
more powerful  than its  creator?  Can any one of you become more
powerful than God who created you?  Is it now possible for you to
dictate to the God who created you?  I think not!

     This entire  matter goes  far beyond a few plants that are a
natural substance  placed here  by God.   This matter really goes
beyond  the   so-called  "Drug  war"  that  was  created  by  the
government, maintained  by the  government, and controlled by the

     The so-called  "War on  drugs" is  actually a  "war on civil
liberties and human rights".  Nine million people -- nine million
-- have  been arrested  for possession or sale of marijuana since
1965, when the government started this war.

     The National Drug and Crime Emergency Act (HR 4079), and the
anti-drug abuse  Act (1988)  has thrown  many of our civil rights

           Closing Statement to the Jury:  Page 1 of 5

and due  process out  the window.   This  "war" has justified all
kinds of  unconstitutional and  unconscionable police activities,
including illegal search, seizure, and the forfeiture of property
without a trial.

     This is  summary punishment,  and it  is  forbidden  by  the
Constitution for the United States of America.

     What is at stake here is the very foundation upon which this
nation was  built --  The Declaration  of  Independence  and  the
Constitution for  the United States of America, and the principle
for which  it stands:   Freedom  from government  tyranny --  the
Rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

     Each of  these people  conducting this  trial, -- the police
who testified  against me  -- the United States Prosecutor -- and
Judge Browning  -- all  took an  oath to  uphold and  defend  the
Constitution for  the united States for America.  They each must,
by law, take this oath.

     Yet, you  have heard  here, in  this courtroom, how each and
everyone of  them has violated and broken that oath.  Each one of
them has  breached their contract with the American people.  They
have breached their solemn oath with each one of you.

     This case is not about marijuana possession.

     This case  is about  monopoly, just like that old board game
we used  to play  as kids (and sometimes as adults too).  This is
government  monopoly,   over  the  practice  of  law,  over  drug
smuggling,  over  automotive  fuels,  over  everything  they  can
control and get their hands on.

     You have  heard this  judge say that only he can rule on the
law.  Then have him explain to you the federal law which makes it
a federal  crime to  obstruct justice  and to  commit perjury  of

     Then have  him explain  to you  the decision  of  the  Ninth
Circuit Court  of Appeals  in U.S.  v. Powell in which that court
was forced  to throw  out all  its  prior  precedents  and  allow
defendants to  read the  law  to  juries  and  to  explain  their
understanding of that law to juries.

     You have  heard this  judge sustain  objections to questions
which I  have put to my Counsel of Choice.  Then have him explain
to you  the federal law which makes it a federal crime to deprive
any  Citizen   of  fundamental,  unalienable  Rights  like  those
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

     You have  heard this  judge say that he has already ruled on
the matter of unwarranted search and seizure.  Then have him read
and explain the Fourth Amendment to you, as I will do right now:

     The right  of the  people to  be secure  in  their  persons,
houses, papers,  and effects,  against unreasonable  searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but

           Closing Statement to the Jury:  Page 2 of 5

upon probable  cause,  supported  by  Oath  or  affirmation,  and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons
or things to be seized.

     I say  to you  that you, Ladies and Gentlemen, have full and
complete power and authority to make that determination yourself,
and your decision will be binding, no matter what this judge says
or wants you to believe.

     You have  good reason  to expect that this judge will uphold
the Law  in these  United States of America, of which the Arizona
Republic is  one.   Then have  him read  and  explain  the  Fifth
Amendment to you, which reads:

     No person  ...  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or
property, without due process of law.

     You have  watched this Judge deny Me my fundamental Right to
have the  effective assistance  of My  Counsel, at  all times and
places of my choosing.  Then have him read and explain to you the
Sixth Amendment, which reads:

     In all  criminal prosecutions,  the accused  shall enjoy the
right ... to have the assistance of Counsel for her defense.

     You  have   watched  this   judge  proceed   as  if  he  has
jurisdiction in  this case.   Then  have him  explain to  you the
decision of  the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst in which
that court  held  that  if  the  assistance  of  Counsel  is  not
available to  a criminal  defendant  --  at  every  step  in  the
proceedings --  then the trial court is ousted of jurisdiction to
proceed, and must dismiss the case, with prejudice.

     And while he's at it, have him explain to you how it is that
an affidavit,  verified   under penalty  of perjury, and numerous
decisions of  the U.S. Supreme Court can be considered as hearsay
and with  no legal significance.  Ask him to show you a certified
copy of his decision to that effect in this case.  And ask him to
explain what motion of mine he denied, and why.

     You have  a right  to all  of these things, because the U.S.
Supreme Court,  in the year 1995, ruled that juries are empowered
to  decide  relevance  of  evidence,  to  decide  materiality  of
evidence, and  to decide  the law  itself.  That case was U.S. v.

     Let me remind you.

     You heard  what the  one policeman said about the many years
he has  been on  the police  force.   He told you that he did not
know what the fourth Amendment stated!

     This man  has been on the police force for 18 years.  He has
arrested, caused the fines, and the imprisonment of who knows how
many people.   Who  knows how  many lives  and  families  he  has
destroyed. Yet,  he does  not  know  what  the  fourth  Amendment

           Closing Statement to the Jury:  Page 3 of 5

     The police have admitted they did not have a search warrant.
In spite  of the  fact that  the Fourth Amendment demands that he
has a  search warrant. The Judge has ruled in this case  -- as he
has stated  on numerous occasions -- that the police did not need
a search warrant.

     This is  a blatant  violation of the Constitution. This is a
breach of contract by the police and the Judge.

     You have  heard the  Judge deny  me counsel  of my choice in
direct violation  of the  Sixth Amendment  to the Constitution of
the United States.  The Sixth Amendment reads as follows:

     "Shall have  the assistance of Counsel for his defense."  As
you have all seen and heard here in this courtroom, the Judge has
denied me  assistance of Counsel of my choosing.  Nowhere in that
Amendment does it state that I must have a licensed bar member to
represent me.   It  reads: TO  HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL FOR

     I have  been   denied assistance  of counsel  in this  case.
Here, again,  the Court  violates the  Constitution, in a blatant
and egregious manner.

     Additionally, the  Judge has refused to allow you, the jury,
to be  fully informed  as to  your duties, your responsibilities,
and your Rights.

     Let me  read to  you what  some of our forefathers have said
concerning your rights and duties as a jury.

     "The jury  has a right to  judge both the law as well as the
fact in  controversy."   This was  stated by  John Jay, our first
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1789.

     "The jury  has the  right to  determine both the law and the
facts," stated  Samuel Chase,  U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Signer
of the unanimous Declaration of Independence.

     "The jury  has the  power to bring a verdict in the teeth of
both law  and fact."   Oliver Wendell Holmes.  U.S. Supreme Court
Justice, 1902.

     "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which
is to  be decided."   Harlan  F. Stone.  12th Chief Justice, U.S,
Supreme Court, 1941.

     "The pages  of history  shine on  instances  of  the  jury's
exercise of  its prerogative  to disregard  instructions  of  the
judge  . . .."  U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 Fed second, pages 1113-to

     You --  as a  jury --  armed with  a little  knowledge,  and
knowing what  your rights,  powers, and duties really are, can do
more to  re-establish "Liberty and justice for all" in this State
than all the Senators and Representatives put together.

           Closing Statement to the Jury:  Page 4 of 5


     Because, even  without the concurrence of any of your fellow
jurors in  a criminal  trial, you,  with your single vote of "NOT
GUILTY" can  nullify every  rule or  "law" that is not within the
principles of  natural, God-given,  or Constitutional Law.  It is
precisely this  power of  nullification that  makes trial by JURY
one of  the most  important of  our RIGHTS.   It  can protect and
preserve all of your Rights -- and all of my Rights.

     You, the  Jurors, each  have the  power, the  Right, and the
duty to  uphold and  defend the Constitution of the United States
of America.   If  the government,  the police  and even the Judge
chooses  to   violate  their   Oath  to  uphold  and  defend  the
Constitution, you can still do so with your vote of not guilty in
this case.

     Thank you.  God bless each of you.  And God bless America.

           Closing Statement to the Jury:  Page 5 of 5

                             #  #  #

Return to the Table of Contents for

U.S.A. v. Wallen