Jurors & Government Moralists

[Flanders]

An important case that is sure to be ignored by government media should at least get some coverage. Surely, talking heads pontificating on the top shows can spare a few minutes from endless hours about election polls eliciting groans from everybody “Oh God, not again.”

Just days after a judge in Denver ordered all charges against two men accused of jury tampering for handing out informational booklets dismissed, a defense attorney for a Michigan man facing such a charge wants it dismissed, too.

XXXXX​

The pamphlets Wood was handing out to the public were “informational pamphlets” that were being given to members of the public “on a public sidewalk.” Kallman’s statement said they’re about “the power of jurors to vote their conscience in any case, as permitted by Michigan’s Criminal Jury Instructions.”​

“Conscience” is the crux of the argument:

The brochure informs readers: “You may, and should, vote your conscience; You cannot be forced to obey a ‘juror’s oath’; You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”​

A juror is not supposed to vote his conscience, while our self-appointed spiritual leader does everything based on his conscience. He ignores laws although his oath of office demands the opposite. He writes unlawful EOs, and orders his bureaucrats to write and enforce regulations that deny everybody else a day in court. Can you imagine what would happen to EPA regulations that levies fines, dictates the use of private property, confiscates private property, if those cases had to face a jury.

​

http://www.independentsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/epa1-400x177.jpg

EPA’s Most Significant Private Property Grab in US History is Imminent
by S. Noble • June 7, 2014

EPA’s Most Significant Private Property Grab in US History is Imminent | www.independentsentinel.com​

I won’t go into the Chicago sewer rat’s betrayals regarding Islamic combatants.

Bottom line: Jurors must never tell the government what it cannot do, while contemporary government always tells the American people what they must do.

Finally,

The brochure Wood was handing out, which comes from the Fully Informed Jury Association, from Montana, explains, “Judges only rarely ‘fully inform’ jurors of their rights, especially their right to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to conscience. In fact, judges regularly assist the prosecution by dismissing prospective jurors who will admit knowing about this right – beginning with anyone who also admits having qualms with the law.”​

Dismissal sought for case that 'criminalizes' speech
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/21/2015 @ 8:28 pm

Dismissal sought for case that ‘criminalizes’ speech​

See this thread for a bit more about judges:

Judges & Tea Party Conservatives | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Flanders]

A juror is not supposed to vote his conscience, while our self-appointed spiritual leader does everything based on his conscience.

What are they smoking over at the Washington Post?

The quiet impact of Obama’s Christian faith
Why the president’s convictions led him to believe he could unite a divided country — and why he failed
Story by Greg Jaffe
Published on December 22, 2015

The quiet impact of Obama’s Christian faith​

Taqiyya the Liar failed because he is two-bit street hustling punk who ran as a spiritual leader —— then the asshole tried to govern like a priest.

 

[foggedinn]

There are matters of conscience that jurors may consider.
This puts Law in conflict with the politic. If politic (the will of the majority) is consider law, the law is merely what the majority says it is at any given time. I don't agree with the view that the will of the majority is Law.
In a court of law, the Law rules or it really isn't a court of law; it is a court of politic.
It is a hugh problem and our current system is not able to deal with it.

 

[Flanders]

In a court of law, the Law rules or it really isn't a court of law; it is a court of politic.
It is a hugh problem and our current system is not able to deal with it.

To foggedinn: Lawyers are the law. To be more precise judges are lawyers. After lawyers become judges, without benefit of legislation they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all of those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.

NOTE:

President Obama’s Top Ten Constitutional Violations of 2015
By Ilya Shapiro — December 23, 2015

National Review Online | Print​

 

[MikeK]

In a court of law, the Law rules or it really isn't a court of law; it is a court of politic.
It is a hugh problem and our current system is not able to deal with it.

To foggedinn: Lawyers are the law. To be more precise judges are lawyers. After lawyers become judges, without benefit of legislation they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all of those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.

NOTE:

President Obama’s Top Ten Constitutional Violations of 2015
By Ilya Shapiro — December 23, 2015

National Review Online | Print​

The action referred to in the above informational text is better-known as Jury Nullification, a power imparted to jurors in a criminal trial that dates back to the Magna Carta. Jury Nullification, in spite of anything a trial judge may say or insist upon in his pre-deliberation "charge" to a jury, allows the members of a jury to vote their conscience -- in spite of how convincing the the prosecution's evidence might be.

The best example of Jury Nullification I am aware of was the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial, in which the evidence against Simpson was overwhelming, yet the jury voted "Not Guilty" and Simpson was set free.

The legal establishment is so bitterly opposed to Jury Nullification it has managed to make it illegal and forbid the mere mention of it to any member of a jury or within a given distance from a court building.

Anyone who would like to know more about this important citizen power is urged to use Google to look up Jury Nullification. It is a power given to us by the authors of the Common Law and it's something we all should be aware of.

You can also look up FIJA, the Fully Informed Jurors Association.

 

[Flanders]

The legal establishment is so bitterly opposed to Jury Nullification it has managed to make it illegal and forbid the mere mention of it to any member of a jury or within a given distance from a court building.

To MikeK: Good info, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.

There is one jury situation that nobody talks about.

I long-suspected that the government puts at least one person on the jury in important cases. Such a person would need the institutional skills necessary to dominate a small group until the other jurors vote the government’s way. A hung jury would be the fallback strategy.

Also, a government plant could notify the judge which ‘influential’ juror had to be replaced under one pretext or another.

Parenthetically, in a much larger setting, labor union officials were skilled at dominating recalcitrant members attending a union meeting. Officials, who usually worked for management, just kept talking until they wore everybody down. Also note that in the early years labor union officials controlled meetings by manipulating Robert’s Rules of Order, while judges control jurors with rules made by lawyers. Basically, judges and lawyers are the officials, while jurors are the rank & file.

NOTE: Judges have the police. In the old days union officials employed goon squads to keep private sector union members in line. You might say that rank & file union members are still waiting for Lefty.

Finally, nothing is going eliminate the monumental flaws in our jury system. Too many lawyers make too much money to expect all of those lawyers in Congress to change anything. I am more interested in nullifying the concept of judges having the authority to tell law-abiding citizens how they must behave.

 

[MikeK]

The legal establishment is so bitterly opposed to Jury Nullification it has managed to make it illegal and forbid the mere mention of it to any member of a jury or within a given distance from a court building.

To MikeK: Good info, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.

There is one jury situation that nobody talks about.

I long-suspected that the government puts at least one person on the jury in important cases. Such a person would need the institutional skills necessary to dominate a small group until the other jurors vote the government’s way. A hung jury would be the fallback strategy.

Also, a government plant could notify the judge which ‘influential’ juror had to be replaced under one pretext or another.

Parenthetically, in a much larger setting, labor union officials were skilled at dominating recalcitrant members attending a union meeting. Officials, who usually worked for management, just kept talking until they wore everybody down. Also note that in the early years labor union officials controlled meetings by manipulating Robert’s Rules of Order, while judges control jurors with rules made by lawyers. Basically, judges and lawyers are the officials, while jurors are the rank & file.

NOTE: Judges have the police. In the old days union officials employed goon squads to keep private sector union members in line. You might say that rank & file union members are still waiting for Lefty.

Finally, nothing is going eliminate the monumental flaws in our jury system. Too many lawyers make too much money to expect all of those lawyers in Congress to change anything. I am more interested in nullifying the concept of judges having the authority to tell law-abiding citizens how they must behave.

Sadly, everything you've said probably is irreparably correct.

 

[Flanders]

The legal establishment is so bitterly opposed to Jury Nullification it has managed to make it illegal and forbid the mere mention of it to any member of a jury or within a given distance from a court building.

To MikeK: Chalk up a small one for our side:

A federal appeals court in Denver has affirmed a ruling allowing the distribution of pamphlets about jury nullification – defined as a verdict on the law itself rather than on the defendant – to their “intended audience,” the jurors.

Judges give big boost to 'jury nullification' pamphleteers
Posted By Bob Unruh On 04/14/2016 @ 8:47 pm

Judges give big boost to ‘jury nullification’ pamphleteers​

 

[MikeK]

The legal establishment is so bitterly opposed to Jury Nullification it has managed to make it illegal and forbid the mere mention of it to any member of a jury or within a given distance from a court building.

To MikeK: Good info, but it is only the tip of the iceberg.

There is one jury situation that nobody talks about.

I long-suspected that the government puts at least one person on the jury in important cases. Such a person would need the institutional skills necessary to dominate a small group until the other jurors vote the government’s way. A hung jury would be the fallback strategy.

Also, a government plant could notify the judge which ‘influential’ juror had to be replaced under one pretext or another.

Parenthetically, in a much larger setting, labor union officials were skilled at dominating recalcitrant members attending a union meeting. Officials, who usually worked for management, just kept talking until they wore everybody down. Also note that in the early years labor union officials controlled meetings by manipulating Robert’s Rules of Order, while judges control jurors with rules made by lawyers. Basically, judges and lawyers are the officials, while jurors are the rank & file.

NOTE: Judges have the police. In the old days union officials employed goon squads to keep private sector union members in line. You might say that rank & file union members are still waiting for Lefty.

Finally, nothing is going eliminate the monumental flaws in our jury system. Too many lawyers make too much money to expect all of those lawyers in Congress to change anything. I am more interested in nullifying the concept of judges having the authority to tell law-abiding citizens how they must behave.

Well said and right on point. I agree completely with all you've said here.

 

[Flanders]

Jurors must never tell the government what it cannot do, while contemporary government always tells the American people what they must do.

In every election cycle media spends half of their coverage trying to increase the number of Americans who vote. The entertainment industry produces countless movies and TV shows extolling the power of juries in criminal cases. In real life the government controls the outcomes of elections and juries. Bottom line: Mom had it right:

He followed his mother’s advice and stayed away from politics: She taught him young that registering to vote was just a way for the government to call you to jury duty.​

These Americans are preparing for battle...against their own government

 

[P F Tinmore]

The jury as the final say over law. It is the next step over the Supreme Court.