CDZ Cops, would you sign this statement?

[Christophera]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"


Of course you won't. you DO enforce such laws every DAY, and you'd be fired for signing such a statement, and we all know it, too.

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

 

[paddymurphy]

Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional, are cops enforcing right now?

Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind.

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

 

[JoeMoma]

"Disagreeing with a law does not make it unconstitutional. Keep that in mind."

With jury nullification it does.

"Which laws that have been declared unconstitutional"

Why would an unconstitutional government declare unconstitutional laws unconstitutional?

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

 

[paddymurphy]

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

It is. A jury' verdict cannot be questioned. So there is really no way of knowing why they reached it. But jurors are instructed that they have follow the law and requests from lawyers that the jury be told they can are rejected.

 

[Christophera]

Jury nullification does not render a law unconstitutional.

What government is unconstitutional and why is that even in this thread?

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

 

[paddymurphy]

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Nonsense.

 

[Christophera]

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Nonsense.

See the link, it's fact. Our government is getting more and more unconstitutional each year.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution, NOW!

 

[paddymurphy]

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Nonsense.

See the link, it's fact. Our government is getting more and more unconstitutional each year.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution, NOW!

Go ahead and start one.

 

[Christophera]

Jury nulification renders a law unconstitutional in the case before the jury.

It is in this thread because pogo posted that the cop does not decide what is constitutional.

Our government has become increasingly unconstitutional since the act of 1871 and is beginning to destroy unalienable rights on a regular basis all across the nation.

Justice in civil court is rare.

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Nonsense.

See the link, it's fact. Our government is getting more and more unconstitutional each year.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution, NOW!

Go ahead and start one.

It's started.

It's only those such as yourself or others who do not appreciate natural law rights or who are influenced by cognitive infiltration to a degree where fascist dictatorship is approved over accountable, constitutional government that are lagging while illogically invested in television reality.

 

[paddymurphy]

Jury nullification has nothing to do with the constitutionality of a law. Any time a jury refuses to follow the law and substitutes their own judgment as to the wisdom of the law, they engage in jury nullification, an entirely illegal action. They may simply think that the law is not needed. They certainly are not determining the constitutionality of a law.

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Nonsense.

See the link, it's fact. Our government is getting more and more unconstitutional each year.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution, NOW!

Go ahead and start one.

It's started. It's only those such as yourself or others who do not appreciate natural law rights or who are influenced by cognitive infiltration to a degree where fascist dictatorship is approved over accountable, constitutional government that are lagging invested in television reality.

Do you just open a thesaurus, point at big words you don't nderstsnd and then surround them with other, smaller words? Seems so.

 

[Christophera]

Only in the case the jury is convened upon. I think that you will find that the jury is empowered with their conscience to deem a law inapplicable in a case because to do so would be unconstitutional in that case.

Jury Nullification Fully Informed Jury Association

I've known of nullification for 25 years and studied it quite a bit long ago. There are different ways to refer to the power and action the jury has and takes.

There has been a slow erosion of the constitution for 140 years. Its actually intolerable and Americans need to use their option to alter or abolish through Article V, BUT DO IT RIGHT.

Use constitutional intent and preparatory amendment to make the nations people more constitutional and capable of defining constitutional intent then imposing that upon states officials who in turn amend and put the infiltrated federal government out of business.

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Nonsense.

See the link, it's fact. Our government is getting more and more unconstitutional each year.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution, NOW!

Go ahead and start one.

It's started. It's only those such as yourself or others who do not appreciate natural law rights or who are influenced by cognitive infiltration to a degree where fascist dictatorship is approved over accountable, constitutional government that are lagging invested in television reality.

Do you just open a thesaurus, point at big words you don't nderstsnd and then surround them with other, smaller words? Seems so.

Which words are so big you do not think I understand them? I did spell them properly did I not?

 

[paddymurphy]

Juries have the power to nullify but nullification is not lawful.

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

Nonsense.

See the link, it's fact. Our government is getting more and more unconstitutional each year.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution, NOW!

Go ahead and start one.

It's started. It's only those such as yourself or others who do not appreciate natural law rights or who are influenced by cognitive infiltration to a degree where fascist dictatorship is approved over accountable, constitutional government that are lagging invested in television reality.

Do you just open a thesaurus, point at big words you don't nderstsnd and then surround them with other, smaller words? Seems so.

Which words are so big you do not think I understand them? I did spell them properly did I not?

You did. And I understand all of them. Your posts are gibberish

 

[Christophera]

juries are given the power to nullify by the law yet nullification is not lawful, quite a contradiction.

Judges used to have to inform juries that they could nullify the application of the law on constitutional grounds of conscience. In the 1890's corporations paid off the supremes to stop that.

Now they are trying to do away with it but that is not lawful.

See the link, it's fact. Our government is getting more and more unconstitutional each year.

We need a lawful and peaceful revolution, NOW!

Go ahead and start one.

It's started. It's only those such as yourself or others who do not appreciate natural law rights or who are influenced by cognitive infiltration to a degree where fascist dictatorship is approved over accountable, constitutional government that are lagging invested in television reality.

Do you just open a thesaurus, point at big words you don't nderstsnd and then surround them with other, smaller words? Seems so.

Which words are so big you do not think I understand them? I did spell them properly did I not?

You did. And I understand all of them. Your posts are gibberish

But you won't quote them? There goes the credibility.

 

[Josf]

"I, ---------, sworn officer of --------- agency/dept, do hereby swear that I will NEVER enforce any unconstitutional law"

Much information from one source will contradict much information from another source. Conflicts concerning the meanings of things, such as law, are settled by those in conflict, and there are many ways those in conflict settle those conflicts.

Three obviously competitive ways are known.

1. Trial by ordeal (might makes right, or whoever violently destroys the opponent is the one "winning" the conflict)
2. Common law due process, also known as the law of the land, also known as legem terrae, also known as trial by jury, also known as the palladium of liberty
3. Counterfeit courts, also known as Exchequer, Chancery, Equity, Admiralty, Maritime, Nisi Prius, and Summary Justice

Number 3 above is a highbred version of number 1 above.

Cops are hired by the people, for the people, of the people, and they work for all the people, to protect and serve all the people, without exception. The name of the cop in history is the name Sheriff.

Counterfeit cops are hired by special interest groups, for special interest groups, of special interest groups, and their counterfeit job is to collect extortion payments from the targeted victims who produce anything worth stealing. Counterfeit cops are also known in history, one historical name for counterfeit cops is the name revenuers.

Someone working as a common law cop, which is a cop that is working for the people, of the people, and serving and protecting all the people without exception, may be hired by special interests and the cop is not yet aware of that fact. The individual starts out with all the right moral intentions, and the individual may then begin to realize that the bosses are counterfeit version of good people.

So in that context, the individual may believe in the right, moral, oath of office, and once finding out that some bosses, and some other cops who follow any criminal order (no matter how immoral) without question, are counterfeit versions of common law cops, and those moral, good, individuals figure out how to remain within common laws of free people, even though other counterfeit cops do not remain within common laws of free people.

Examples:

http://nationallibertyalliance.org/files/marshal/1 US Marshals and the Constitution.pdf

"But the Marshals, regardless of their personal feelings, had no choice. The Constitution itself required the free states to return fugitive slaves. The Fugitive Slave Law, even a hated law, meant a denial of the Constitution itself. The Marshals enforced the law."

17C American Women 1650s Virginia Court Records - Elizabeth Key - Slave or Free

"A Report of a Comittee from an Assembly Concerning the freedome of Elizabeth Key. It appeareth to us that shee is the daughter of Thomas Key by severall Evidences and by a fine imposed upon the said Thomas for getting her mother with Child of the said Thomas. That she hath bin by verdict of a Jury impannelled 20th January 1655 in the County of Northumberland found to be free by severall oathes which the Jury desired might be Recorded. That by the Comon Law the Child of a Woman slave begott by a freeman ought to bee free. That shee hath bin long since Christened. Col. Higginson being her Godfather and that by report shee is able togive a very good account of her fayth. That Thomas Key sould her onely for nine yeares to Col. Higginson with severall conditions to use her more Respectfully then a Comon servant or slave. That in case Col. Higginson had gone for England within nine yeares hee was bound to carry her with him and pay her passage and not to dispose of her to any other. For theise Reasons wee conceive the said Elizabeth ought to bee free and that her last Master should give her Corne and Cloathes and give her satisfaction for the time shee hath served longer then Shee ought to have done. But forasmuch as noe man appeared against the said Elizabeth's petition, wee thinke not fitt a determinative judgement should passe but that the County or Quarter Court where it shall be next tried to take notice of this to be the sence of the Burgesses of this present Assembly and shall appear to be executed and reasons [original torn] opposite part Judgement by the said Court be given Charles Norwood Clerk Assembly. James Gaylord hath deposed that this is a true coppy. James Gaylord. 21 July 1656. Jurat in Curia"

People, good people, solve conflicts well. They did so for thousands of years through a known process called trial by jury.

When the criminals take over, they claim that trial by jury (the real thing) is against their laws, so good people are turned away from their goodness in time and place.

Is that a shame or what?