Big Government Elites Steal Another of Our Rights

[PoliticalChic]

The last place you'll find justice or truth is in a courtroom. those with the most money win. those with the most money can bankrupt the opposition and therefore also win.

I don't think jury nullification is a particularly good idea either, however.

the court system is as broken and corrupt as Washington, IMO, but just letting people do whatever they want isn't the answer.

loser pays is a better answer. equality in resources for opposing sides would be nice also, although I don't see a way to implement that....

Hmmmm......

So....if this is the case.....once the elites write a law, the outcome of any case will go just the way they wish.....unless jurors sense this and refuse to be bound by the strictures placed on them.

I have seen judges simply set aside jury decisions.

yep, this is a big problem I have with the 'justice' system, as laws can be written a certain way, money can hire the best liars to present things a certain way, and so on. It's a sham.

and I've also seen judges do whatever the hell they want and make no bones about it in open court, so I have no faith in them either. zero.

I have even less faith, however, in handing a blank check to the populace at large. they also bring their prejudices and preconceived notions to the table in that event, which isn't much better, IMO.

Now....you just wait!

OJ likes the system.....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, allowing the people to exercise their right doesn't sit well with the elites.


So....how do you suppose the law-elites would rule?
Yup.
6.".... the court concluded, instructing jurors about their power to nullify might actually violate the New Hampshire Constitution:

Were [the 2012 statute] interpreted to grant juries the right to judge or nullify the law, there would be a significant question as to its constitutionality.

See Pierce, 13 N.H. at 554 (“t is the opinion of the court, that it is inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution that questions of law, and still less, questions of constitutional law, should be decided by the verdict of the jury, contrary to the instructions of the court.”)

(Gilchrist, J.); id. at 571 (“If it were true that the legal power to do an act, without legal accountability for it, established a right to do that act, the jury might rightfully acquit the accused in all cases, without regard to the law or the evidence, for their power so to do is undoubted, and their exemption from accountability equally clear.”)

(Parker, C.J.); see also State v. Hodge, 50 N.H. 510, 523 (1869) (noting that, in Pierce, the common law of New Hampshire, which prior to that decision had permitted the jury to judge the law, “was held to be illegal and unconstitutional, and the new doctrine was announced that the jury are not the judges of the law in criminal cases”)." New Hampshire House Passes Jury Nullification Bill | Eugene Volokh




Seems to me, jury nullification is simply 12 regular folks judging the legislators who passed the law.


Power to the people!

 

[PoliticalChic]

The title says that elites are stealing our rights.....

Do juries have the right to nullify laws???



7." Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.


Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed. " Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links




The above points out the logical flaw in the corrupt practice known as "caselaw."

If caselaw has moment, and is correct, as opposed to reliance of the Constitution....then the decision of earlier judges has to be slavishly followed.

Has that been the case of John Jays dictum "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]" ?????


No...it hasn't....or the New Hampshire law would not be necessary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

"....our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed. "
Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links


So.....what changed?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now...watch as judges changed their minds from juries can to juries can't:

8. "Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, inUnited States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not.

[Clearly a lie. And.... "Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s." That's the Progressive era, the American version of Fascism. ]

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law. "
Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links




Remember this: " ...our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]."

Quite the insult to John Jay, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Of course, many have been trained to follow orders, never to question, or to think for themselves.
This, or course, explains the current administration.

It must be the aim of government schooling....keeping the electorate dumb and docile.

Very few know they have the right of 'jury nullification.'


Or, should have.



9. "As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.


Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. .... some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.

On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely." Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links



And here we find the basic characteristics of Liberals....follow orders, like good Germans.

 

[koshergrl]

It has become a trend. If the government cannot make it's case, they just appeal the verdict, and try it again. It's completely lawless, they're just writing their own laws as they go along, and keeping people so poor and uneducated that they are like flies in a web.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It has become a trend. If the government cannot make it's case, they just appeal the verdict, and try it again. It's completely lawless, they're just writing their own laws as they go along, and keeping people so poor and uneducated that they are like flies in a web.

Amen.

 

[Centinel]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

A not guilty verdict by the jury if final, regardless of their reason.

They don't have to say they are nullifying. They can just vote not guilty. And nobody can do shit about it.

 

[koshergrl]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

A not guilty verdict by the jury if final, regardless of their reason.

They don't have to say they are nullifying. They can just vote not guilty. And nobody can do shit about it.

The judges can and do override the jury's decisions all the time. They will continue to do so, and they will continue to appeal verdicts and re-try people when it pleases them.

 

[Centinel]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

A not guilty verdict by the jury if final, regardless of their reason.

They don't have to say they are nullifying. They can just vote not guilty. And nobody can do shit about it.

The judges can and do override the jury's decisions all the time. They will continue to do so, and they will continue to appeal verdicts and re-try people when it pleases them.

Yes, a judge can override a guilty verdict, but not the other way around.

A not guilty verdict is final.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

A not guilty verdict by the jury if final, regardless of their reason.

They don't have to say they are nullifying. They can just vote not guilty. And nobody can do shit about it.

There are two problems.

1. Not enough people know what you know.

2. Far too many are cowed by the elites; they've learned to follow orders.

 

[koshergrl]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

A not guilty verdict by the jury if final, regardless of their reason.

They don't have to say they are nullifying. They can just vote not guilty. And nobody can do shit about it.

There are two problems.

1. Not enough people know what you know.

2. Far too many are cowed by the elites; they've learned to follow orders.

And they've been brainwashed to believe that anything stated by an official is by definition THE TRUTH.

What the feds do with these punitive law suits and criminal charges which are leveled as retribution is as soon as they finish one trial and get a ruling on one charge, they level another. They do it illegally, and for the express purpose of intimidation and with the full knowledge that fir us, resources and time are not limitless. We go broke, and we die.

Wayne Hage, after decades if abuse, harassment, attack, property damage...finally won a law suit against the blm. The court found that the BLM had engaged in systematically targeting him and conspiring to destroy him, and awarded him millions. Instead of settling, the feds appealed to their corrupt court, the ninth, who simply overturned the ruling because the judge was "biased". See, if you rule against the feds, you're biased. If you speak out against their illegal practices..you're engaging in conspiracy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

A not guilty verdict by the jury if final, regardless of their reason.

They don't have to say they are nullifying. They can just vote not guilty. And nobody can do shit about it.

There are two problems.

1. Not enough people know what you know.

2. Far too many are cowed by the elites; they've learned to follow orders.

And they've been brainwashed to believe that anything stated by an official is by definition THE TRUTH.

What the feds do with these punitive law suits and criminal charges which are leveled as retribution is as soon as they finish one trial and get a ruling on one charge, they level another. They do it illegally, and for the express purpose of intimidation and with the full knowledge that fir us, resources and time are not limitless. We go broke, and we die.

Wayne Hage, after decades if abuse, harassment, attack, property damage...finally won a law suit against the blm. The court found that the BLM had engaged in systematically targeting him and conspiring to destroy him, and awarded him millions. Instead of settling, the feds appealed to their corrupt court, the ninth, who simply overturned the ruling because the judge was "biased". See, if you rule against the feds, you're biased. If you speak out against their illegal practices..you're engaging in conspiracy.

And, you have provided the epitaph for a once great nation....

"And they've been brainwashed to believe that anything stated by an official is by definition THE TRUTH."

 

[koshergrl]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

A not guilty verdict by the jury if final, regardless of their reason.

They don't have to say they are nullifying. They can just vote not guilty. And nobody can do shit about it.

There are two problems.

1. Not enough people know what you know.

2. Far too many are cowed by the elites; they've learned to follow orders.

And they've been brainwashed to believe that anything stated by an official is by definition THE TRUTH.

What the feds do with these punitive law suits and criminal charges which are leveled as retribution is as soon as they finish one trial and get a ruling on one charge, they level another. They do it illegally, and for the express purpose of intimidation and with the full knowledge that fir us, resources and time are not limitless. We go broke, and we die.

Wayne Hage, after decades if abuse, harassment, attack, property damage...finally won a law suit against the blm. The court found that the BLM had engaged in systematically targeting him and conspiring to destroy him, and awarded him millions. Instead of settling, the feds appealed to their corrupt court, the ninth, who simply overturned the ruling because the judge was "biased". See, if you rule against the feds, you're biased. If you speak out against their illegal practices..you're engaging in conspiracy.

And, you have provided the epitaph for a once great nation....

"And they've been brainwashed to believe that anything stated by an official is by definition THE TRUTH."

The consequence of giving control of our children's education to the government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"This comes at perhaps an opportune time, arriving only a day after we discussed the question of biased jurors poisoning the well and what, if anything, can or should be done about it. I argued then that juries are rarely perfect and can frequently enrage the public, the prosecutor or the defense, but that’s pretty much by design. We weren’t supposed to have our fate decided by a panel of experts, but rather by a jury of our peers, no matter how flawed, ignorant or biased they might be. If they survive voir dire, they become a keystone of our constitutional system… for better or worse.

But they do operate under a set of rules of the road, explained to them in detail before they begin their task. They are free to make whatever decision they feel is just, but just how free should they be beyond that? According to Instapundit, quite a bit. In fact, he’s arguing in favor of jury nullification and more, which he contrasts with the far more “respectable” process of prosecutorial discretion.



So-called jury nullification, on the other hand, gets far less respect. Though it is clearly within the power of juries to refuse to convict whenever they choose, judges and prosecutors tend to view this practice with hostility. They may not be able to stop juries from exercising their power, but they do their best to keep people from telling them that they have this option: Periodically, we see stories of people prosecuted for handing out jury nullification leaflets outside courthouses. Prosecutors in the District have even complained about billboards telling potential jurors about jury nullification.

Juries should be empowered to punish the prosecution when they feel the prosecution is abusive or malicious."
Of jury nullification and prosecutorial responsibility - Hot Air

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Juries should be empowered to punish the prosecution when they feel the prosecution is abusive or malicious."
Of jury nullification and prosecutorial responsibility - Hot Air




And here is a perfect case for punishing the prosecution...the Fascist/Liberal Attorney General's attempt to silence opposition to Planned Parenthood:

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD UNDERCOVER VIDEOGRAPHER'S HOME RAIDED BY CALIFORNIA AG
SACRAMENTO - Within hours of releasing an explosive video revealing recent congressional testimony concerning Planned Parenthood's patient consent form to use aborted baby parts for medical research, the Center for Medical Progress' head David Dalieden's home was raided by California's Attorney General Tuesday. "
Planned Parenthood undercover videographer's home raided by California AG

 

[MikeK]

This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.

Do you have some understanding of the authoritarian/submissive personality? If not, you should do some reading on the subject. One extremely informative source of information is a book called, Escape From Freedom, a 1950s classic by Dr. Erich Fromm.

If a law were passed which required that all members of a certain ethnicity, such as Jews, should be arrested and confined in concentration camps, and all non-Jewish citizens have a duty to report the presence of any Jews. Would you obey that law?

Or do you think it couldn't happen?

 

[MikeK]

"This comes at perhaps an opportune time, arriving only a day after we discussed the question of biased jurors poisoning the well and what, if anything, can or should be done about it. I argued then that juries are rarely perfect and can frequently enrage the public, the prosecutor or the defense, but that’s pretty much by design. We weren’t supposed to have our fate decided by a panel of experts, but rather by a jury of our peers, no matter how flawed, ignorant or biased they might be. If they survive voir dire, they become a keystone of our constitutional system… for better or worse.

But they do operate under a set of rules of the road, explained to them in detail before they begin their task. They are free to make whatever decision they feel is just, but just how free should they be beyond that? According to Instapundit, quite a bit. In fact, he’s arguing in favor of jury nullification and more, which he contrasts with the far more “respectable” process of prosecutorial discretion.



So-called jury nullification, on the other hand, gets far less respect. Though it is clearly within the power of juries to refuse to convict whenever they choose, judges and prosecutors tend to view this practice with hostility. They may not be able to stop juries from exercising their power, but they do their best to keep people from telling them that they have this option: Periodically, we see stories of people prosecuted for handing out jury nullification leaflets outside courthouses. Prosecutors in the District have even complained about billboards telling potential jurors about jury nullification.

Juries should be empowered to punish the prosecution when they feel the prosecution is abusive or malicious."
Of jury nullification and prosecutorial responsibility - Hot Air

This Bill represents a critically important change in the legal status quo. I hope it soon spreads to other states.

Bravo to the FIJA!