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.”
“Conscience” is the crux of the argument:
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
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,
See this thread for a bit more about judges:
Judges & Tea Party Conservatives | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
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.
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.”
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.
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
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
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