I blew the jury away with my arguments. Well, I mean, the arguments they didn’t sleep through.
People have a very powerful fundamental right in this country that could change things overnight … if the people would just exercise the right. The problem is that the vast majority of the people have never even heard about this right. And that is not an accident.
I am talking about jury nullification. I suspect few things strike more fear into the hearts of a statists than the idea of the people learning about this fundamental right.
I am not going to address the entire subject. It has too many moving parts. But you really just need some basics. Today I will explain what jury nullification is, show you how powerful it is, and then show you how the Courts have screwed us all once again on this topic. So, as the non-native English speaker might say, “let’s please first to begin.”
Let’s get a working definition. What people mean when they say “jury nullification” is generally, that the jury has a right to acquit a person who technically violated the letter of the law. Thus the law is “nullified”. It is undeniable that juries have the RIGHT, in any criminal trial, to render a verdict that IGNORES the “law” as it was “given to them” by the judge. Here is what John Jay, as chief justice of the Supreme court told a jury in 1794 on exactly this issue!
Thank you for clarifying the basis for the jury instruction. May the record reflect that your honor is holding what appears to be a 45 caliber model 1911. And with that, the defense will rest.
It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.
It cannot be any clearer. Juries have the right. Here is another example that is in the text of the Alien and Sedition act that was WRITTEN IN 1798 by our holy founding fathers themselves, They put the language in the statute itself!
And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.
In the off chance people are still doubting, here is what John Adams said about this exact issue. The language was quoted in the dissent of a S.Ct. case.
Hold it, let me get this straight. Are you saying that if the human says sit we don’t actually HAVE to sit? Yes,that is what I am saying. Whoa. That is big.
Now should the melancholy case arise that the judges should give their opinions to the jury against one of these fundamental principles, is a juror obliged to give his verdict generally, according to this direction, or even to find the fact specially, and submit the law to the court? Every man of any feeling or conscience will answer ‘No.’ It is not only his right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. . . . The English law obliges no man to decide a cause upon oath against his own judgment.
So not just a right a DUTY! There can simply be NO doubt that the founders knew about and endorsed the jury’s right to judge the law and the facts. No doubt, it is a constitutional “right”.
The way the system is SUPPOSED TO WORK IS, the jury sits and listens to what the court and the witnesses have to say, and then the PEOPLE DECIDE IF THEY ACCEPT IT. The PEOPLE Decide if it comports with their sense of JUSTICE. So now you know if someone tries to tell you that a juror “must” follow the law as given by the court, they simply do not know what they are talking about or, much more likely, they are intentionally misleading you. It is that simple.
Here’s how jury nullification might be used. The prosecution brings a case for “statutory rape” against an 18 y.o. man for having consensual sex with his underage gf, because her parents get upset about something he did. There is no doubt it is consensual. But that is not a defense. If the jury acquitted him, that would be jury nullification. The jury, in all likelihood simply thinks the law, in this situation, is not just. So they ignore it. They “nullify it”.
C.H.I.P.S. lives!!! lol People accept “speed traps” and other nonsense as though they are part of “law and order”. Even the police probably believe it. What is the “crime”? Driving with traffic at 6 miles over the made up speed limit?? lol What a sad state the people are in.
Same could happen in some drug possession case. Or for being in possession of a bald eagle feather, or on and on. The case is always the same. The necessary facts to prove “the crime” are basically “technically” indisputable. But the jury doesn’t convict. THAT is jury nullification. And as you have just seen it is YOUR RIGHT.
The entire idea behind a jury trial is that the state must GO THROUGH THE PEOPLE in criminal trials. If the government is making laws the PEOPLE disagree with, the PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE THE LAW AND ACQUIT THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS.
PROTECTING YOURSELF FROM THE STATE IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL!!
The people are in charge of whether something is criminal or not. If the people don’t want the conduct criminalized, then the people CAN REFUSE to criminalize it. If the people think the prosecutor is improperly singling people out, then the people don’t convict. If the people think the law creates INJUSTICE in any case, then they have the right to IGNORE the law.
Think how powerful a right this is! Think how many bogus “laws” there are. Jury nullification makes them irrelevant because the PEOPLE can simply refuse to convict on them.
Hot or not? Pushing him away.. or loving caress? or maybe just photoshop? It can be hard to tell. That’s why it has to be a unanimous jury to convict the old geaser.
What is the likelihood that the prosecution could get convictions on bogus drug possession cases if the jury knew about this right? What about prostitution? What about gambling? What about “failing to come to a complete stop” at an empty intersection? What about traveling 5 miles over the speed limit? And on and on!
The vast majority of “crimes” the state uses to scare and blackmail the people are utterly bogus. They are not real crimes that protect the people. They are acts that the government “criminalizes” in order to exert control over the people through fear.
And THAT is why jury nullification scares those in power. The last thing they want is the people knowing that they can just DISREGARD the holy judge’s LYING instruction!
And it is crystal clear to any thinking person that if the people knew about this right, the state’s “power” would collapse overnight down to a fraction of what it is now. And now you know why nobody knows about this right.
The people remain ignorant of this right because the government took over the schools and now fills peoples’ heads with lies. The totally controlled media all around you does its part to make sure you are immersed in a world of lies and disinformation as well. This topic is NEVER DISCUSSED OR MENTIONED. Instead they mindlessly have you repeat slogans about your right to a jury trial, but they LEAVE OUT the most important parts of that right. So you never hear about them.
Of course the S.Ct. and every other statist tries to confuse this issue if it ever comes up. That is what they do! The court is there to support the government, because THEY are the government. Any power the jury exercises is power that is TAKEN from these egomaniacs on the court.
Make no mistake, the jurors are lied to EVERYDAY by the courts. They are “instructed” that they “must” follow the law as the court has given it to them. That is A state sponsored INTENTIONAL LIE.
I warned Buddy that the court was not screwing around. He needed to watch what he said around the jury, but he didn’t listen. Dogs have a keen sense of justice I guess.
And the state makes sure that lawyers can’t tell the jurors either. For the most part, if a lawyer even tried to inform a potential jury panel of this right he would be called to the bench, warned, and if he did it again, the judge would hold him in contempt. Then if the judge thought the jury actually understood what they were told, he would Dismiss the entire jury panel, and bring in a new one. If the lawyer did it during trial, the court would declare a mistrial, probably sanction the lawyer and warn him not to do it again or face jail for contempt.
Up until the government seized control of the “education” of lawyers through the “licensing” procedure and “accredited” schooling etc., the right was generally well known IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. Now, virtually no lawyer understands this fundamental right.
AS USUAL, THE SUPREME COURT CREATED THE LEGAL CONFUSION WITH AN NONSENSICAL RULING.
The official screwing of the people began in earnest in the late 19th century when the S.Ct just ignored the peoples’ rights and made up a “new rule”. And the screwing hasn’t stopped since.
In a 5 to 4 decision (how convenient) after ACKNOWLEDGING THAT it is certainly the unquestioned RIGHT of the jury to judge the facts AND THE LAW, the court then held that the jury had NO RIGHT TO BE TOLD THIS! Lol Here’s the case if you care to look. Warning it is LONG. They always bury their lies and bulls**t under reams of distractions. It is their way. Makes it appear “scholarly”, when it is just a load of CRAP.
Can there be a more absurd position? How does this work exactly? You have the right, you just don’t have a right to be told you have that right? Yes my friend. That is what they held. And ever since that S.Ct. opinion the Appellate courts have been repeating the same nonsensical load of crap to confuse the people. Here from the 4th circ.:
I guess reasonable minds can differ. I do not agree with this guy’s assessment. I think it is a close call, but I would bang her, assuming she’s 18.
If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused, is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision…
So the court correctly states and acknowledges your RIGHT, but then they find… :
…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.
How do you negate the rule of law by telling the jury about their right under the law? It makes NO SENSE. But there is NOBODY and NO MECHANISM by which to challenge this idiocy. It just gets imposed and then repeated as though it is rational.
And here is another example drawn from WIKI, the NSA’s own site.
In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” The jury convicted the defendant. On appeal, the majority and the dissent agreed that the trial judge’s instruction was untrue, but the majority held that this false representation was not a reversible error.
So the jury asked specifically about THEIR RIGHT to nullification, the court LIED TO THEM and that was FINE!! What do you think would happen TO YOU IF YOU MADE A FALSE REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT??? LOL You simply cannot make this stuff up.
Now you see why this topic is so taboo. Now you see why the government makes sure you never hear about it or if you do that they fill your head with disinformation and nonsense about how “dangerous” it is TO YOU! lol, absurd. The only danger is to the government. Not the people.
Sure these chicks had mistaken me for some other dude who was loaded, but I remembered the S.Ct. had made it clear that I had no obligation to tell them JACK…. Sooo… Sorry gurrls. Sucks being you. Perks of being a lawyer. Read the fine print next time! lol
My friend the state is CORRECT TO FEAR JURY NULLIFICATION. And that is why the state has been very careful to lie to you. They know they are vulnerable, as always, to the PEOPLE.
But they also KNOW that given time, and the power to propagandize and lie to people in mandatory “education” and “licensing requirements” and in their monopolized court system, that the people will forget. And they are correct. The sheep just go quietly to their slaughter imagining they are “supporting law and order”. Lol Utter fools.
Congratulations, You now KNOW MORE about this fundamental right than 99.9% of the population.
If this type of thing does not make you angry, then what can I bring you? If this type of thing does not make you see that governments are there to abuse you then what would? If this does not show you that the courts are not there to protect you that they are there to ENSLAVE you, then how can I show you?
My fellow inmates, I am done for today. I know that I left a lot out. I know there is more to say. I will get around to it later. For now, I hope you learned something. I just can’t stand any more hypocrisy for one day. I am late for the 4th of July freedom parade!
Take care my brainwashed Brethren. Live in the light and tell someone the truth about the law.
Legalman IS the law
P.S. Can you help a brother out? It’s ALL about the “LIKES”. Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.