Denver man charged with seven felonies for handing out ‘jury nullification’ fliers outside court

Nullification should be common knowledge amongst the people. It wields the same power as a vote for office.

However, I can understand why a court wouldn't inform the jury of this power, considering what took place during the Jim Crowe era and I'm positive, many more examples, presuming the goal is maintaining the good for the people.

Still, that doesn't excuse the seemingly deliberate effort to keep this information from reaching us. It should be taught in every government class across the country.

originally posted by: CheckPointCharlie
Nullification should be common knowledge amongst the people. It wields the same power as a vote for office.

However, I can understand why a court wouldn't inform the jury of this power, considering what took place during the Jim Crowe era and I'm positive, many more examples, presuming the goal is maintaining the good for the people.

Still, that doesn't excuse the seemingly deliberate effort to keep this information from reaching us. It should be taught in every government class across the country.

You know, "Jim Crow" is about the only decent reason for the notion of "You have only the right to hear the law from the judge".

And a time will come to pass when the rights of the people will be infringed upon for the good of the establishment.

Just one of the many ways the centralized government has already proven you 'the people' have no authority undermining the centralized government.

Watch as your liberties be stripped, like a bleaching of the american flag.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

As I stated common law does not supersede Statutory law.

My understanding is they are mutually exclusive, and not hierarchical. Common law resides in article 3 courts, those of origional jurispridence. Statutory law is srtictly for article 4 courts, courts of special jurisdiction [franchise courts] like traffic court, family court, divorce court, etc. Criminal law can be prosecuted in either. It is up to a defendand to know what court they are in, and challenge jurisdiction appropriately, and the jury must know what court they are in as nullification is more viable in criminal and common law.... Where there is a victim/accuser.

As an attorney, I can tell you that Jury Nullification is a fairly nebulous area and one that we do not generally throw around all willy-nilly. Mostly because while it sounds great, the potential for abuse is huge. You think it's great when it lets someone you do not think should have been charged get off scot free. But what happens when a racists jury refuses to issue a conviction for murder because they just don't care and they use jury nullification to get the result they want. Not everything in our justice system is corrupt. In fact, I will say that the attorneys and judges who work the court system every day do way more good than most of America will ever know. Simply because "doing the right thing" never makes the papers.

I would also be curious to know what his connection was to a certain trial going on in that courthouse. Because that right there is probably why he is (perhaps rightfully so) being charged like he is. This may not, I guess I am trying to point out, be as innocent and purity-driven as one might initially think.

originally posted by: jaffo
I would also be curious to know what his connection was to a certain trial going on in that courthouse. Because that right there is probably why he is (perhaps rightfully so) being charged like he is. This may not, I guess I am trying to point out, be as innocent and purity-driven as one might initially think.

The OP said this:

Denver man charged with seven felonies for handing out ‘jury nullification’ fliers outside courthouse

...the complaint “does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli of advocating for or against any case in progress” and “it does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli even of targeting individuals for sharing information with them.”

I suppose the fact they didn't accuse him of "advocating for or against any case in progress" doesn't mean he wasn't doing that, but if there's a connection between him and any specific trial the articles don't make that clear.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: jaffo
I would also be curious to know what his connection was to a certain trial going on in that courthouse. Because that right there is probably why he is (perhaps rightfully so) being charged like he is. This may not, I guess I am trying to point out, be as innocent and purity-driven as one might initially think.

The OP said this:

Denver man charged with seven felonies for handing out ‘jury nullification’ fliers outside courthouse

...the complaint “does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli of advocating for or against any case in progress” and “it does not accuse Mr. Iannicelli even of targeting individuals for sharing information with them.”

I suppose the fact they didn't accuse him of "advocating for or against any case in progress" doesn't mean he wasn't doing that, but if there's a connection between him and any specific trial the articles don't make that clear.

Yeah, I did see that. But do I buy that he was doing it for no reason? Nah. I bet they know him and I bet this i snot there first issue with him. Yes, I am guessing. But yes, it makes more sense than him being slammed like this for no reason. Just my opinion though.

This is another case where people confuse the reason the guy got charged with felonies with the action he was doing that lead to the charges. It seems to be a real problem lately...

It's like saying, "that woman got arrested and beat up by police for not using her turn signal". When in reality that was just the action she did that lead up to the arrest. She got arrested because she disobeyed lawful orders then resisted arrest.

In this case, the guy didn't get charged because he was "educating people about jury nullification", because that is not illegal. He got charged for "jury tampering" which was obviously an unforeseen side effect to his endeavors. You can't just ignore the laws he broke and blame it on the action he was doing while breaking those laws.

So people saying comments like, "only in america can you get arrested for educating people" is simply wrong.

What he did was illegal.

a reply to: jaffo

I've noticed in jury selection they're careful to avoid the term "jury nullification", but smart enough to ask round about questions that may implicate the person of being aware of it. I've heard some "would you convict someone if you disagreed with the law?" type questions.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

yeah, i don't know why they think they are getting honest answers from a jury pool. It baffles me, honestly.

My dad got called in for jury duty a few times. His strategy was to open the answer to any question with, "Well, i think we should fry the bastard". He didn't take Christmas off from work, and he damned sure wasn't going to let Criminal Justice make him miss work.

a reply to: soulshn

FIJA works to:
• Inform potential jurors of their traditional, legal authority to refuse to enforce unjust laws
• Inform potential jurors that they cannot be required to check their consciences at the courthouse door
• Inform potential jurors that they cannot be punished for their verdicts
• Inform everyone that juror veto—jury nullification—is a peaceful way to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny


That is FIJA’s message.

We should be informed of our rights once again.

More here fija.org...

What I am reading is that SCOTUS did not forbid the informing of the jury of nulllification in any court other than federal court. Kansas Supreme Court has upheld nullification. And it was pretty clear that nullification was a means to another check of power, whereby the people could check the 3 branches directly, as it effects daily human life.

I am not surprised SCOTUS upheld the Supremacy Clause, but am curious if that is actually a valid interpretation of their ruling.

In any event, this looks like yet another issue of states rights. This keeps cropping up as an issue. Is it in response to The People's desire for smaller government? Are we seeking a way to move authority from a federal to a state level as a method of reducing the amount of government in our lives?

The Colorado Crime of Jury tampering 18-8-609 (2)

Knowing participation in the fraudulent processing or selection of jurors or prospective jurors or attempting to communicate with or influence jurors other than as a part of the official trial proceedings is a class 5 felony. 18-8-609 (2)

Jury tampering in any class 1 felony trial is a class 4 felony. 18-8-609 (2)

Seems like anyone talking about jury duty might be guilty.

Not sure how the word 'fraudulent' is applied to the 'or' sections. Seems a bit vague.

a reply to: The only 1 who knows the

Also this is so important to. Any attempt to change the Constitution is a act of tranny against " WE The People " and it is our God given right to bare arms against corrupt politicians and government. so the DICK ACT of 1902 . . . CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) THE TRUMP CARD ENACTED BY CONGRESS FURTHER ASSERTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AS UNOUTCHABLE and why ?
Our Bill of rights as is the Magna Charta not (Magna Carta) is our rights set in stone by our founding Fathers to protect human rights against corrupt politicians and government tyranny. Any attempt to change it is our way of knowing we have traitor's within our Republic and our right to take our Government back.

Using Black's Law Dictionary: search

to find out anything you want to know

www.fourwinds10.net...


"The Wizard of Oz" - What it really means!

This appears to be a message to expose the banking cartel in America, and to let the people know that they have the power to 'liquidate' them and get back to Kansas - the real land/republic (Hab 2.6-8).

Here are some of the important points made in this movie in an article by an unknown author:

The Symbolism Hidden Within "THE WIZARD of OZ" ~ author unknown
The "Wizard of Oz", written by L. Frank Baum, is not a mere child's story.

What is "Oz" a symbol for? Ounces.

What is measured in ounces? Gold.

What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.

The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious, ALL CAPS, legal fiction - a PERSON, the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your birth name.
Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A Brain! No juristic person - legal fiction - paper corporation has a brain because he/she has no breath of life.
What did he get in place of a brain? A certificate: a Birth Certificate for a new legal creation.
He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a certificate in place of a grain of common sense.
Now, what about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) recall anything to mind? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul.
He's the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as though he were already dead. He's the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. These days, his task masters just oil him nightly with beer and place him in front of a hypnotic television until his very existence no longer has any meaning or value. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotion or feeling that might arise.
The Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he. (Have you ever noticed how bullies are really the biggest cowards? They act as though they have great courage, but, in reality, have none at all. They roar, but with no teeth of authority to back them up.) When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of "official" recognition. Now, although remaining a coward, his official status allowed him to be a bully, but with officially recognized authority. (He's not unlike the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.) et al ad infinitum.
What about the trip through the field of poppies? Did you notice how this had no narcotic effect on the Straw Man (no brain) or the Tin Man (no heart or soul)? They weren't real people, so drugs could not influence them.

The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged?
The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries.
Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars.
The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?

What was the Emerald City? The Federal Reserve System.
Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was?
Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means "in total, all together; Latin in toto."
What was it that the witch wanted after she alleged that the little dog had bitten her? TOTO. ... everything. Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard's theatrics, yet he was so small in size, compared to the Wizard, that no one seemed to notice him?
The smoke, flames and holographic images of Oz were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard commanded.
Toto simply padded over, looked behind the curtain (the COURT, etc.), saw it was a scam, started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Who was behind the curtain?
Just an ORDINARY PERSON controlling the levers that created the illusion of the Great Wizard's power and authority.
When Toto pulled back the curtain and completely exposed him, the charade was at an end. (The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed.)
The Wizard's game was UP. What was he after all? ... a con-man. A FRAUD.
We can see, in this tale, just how loud the bark from a little dog can be.
How about YOUR bark? How big is it?
Most of us remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, by our legal master.
Let us not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What perfect mythical creatures to represent the Bar Association Attorneys who attack and control the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz: GOLD!
How, finally, was the evil witch destroyed? .... pure, clean water LIQUIDATION!
How, at last, did Dorothy get home? She simply clicked her heels. She always had the power, and SO DO WE!
What would it take to expose the Wizard for what he is, tearing away his veils?
We each need only a brain, a heart and soul --- and COURAGE.
Then, and perhaps of the greatest importance, we need to learn HOW to WORK TOGETHER.
Only "in TOTO," WORKING TOGETHER as ONE Body of the King of Kings, (whatever name or form that may take for each of us), can we have the freedom given under God's Law.

*** end of article ***
The saints need to come out of the accounting/charging system of commerce, and into the forgiving/serving system of cooperation and love. The saints now can and MUST return to the "Garden" (Isa 51.3; 52.8-12)!

a reply to: soulshn

Yup this is what they do

We activists know all about this

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
What I am reading is that SCOTUS did not forbid the informing of the jury of nulllification in any court other than federal court. Kansas Supreme Court has upheld nullification.

I posit this could be due to the fact that there is no federal common law as was seen in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938) "There is no federal common law, and congress has no power to declare substabtive rules of common law applicable in a state..."

So, then as a state issue, nullification is perfect for common law. And, if we look at state code, I will use California as an example: Calif. Civil Code, Section 22.2 provides "the common law of england, so far as it is not repugnant or inconsistent with the constitution of the United States, or the constitution or laws of this state, is the rule of decision in all the courts of this state."

This concept is also parroted in the Rules of decision Act 28 USC 1652 : state laws as rules of decision. Where federal courts must cite state law for persons domiciled in those states of the union.

So, unless a case is in federal court dealing strictly with federal contracts, franchises, and federal domiciliaries, then nullification is viable and consistent with the rulings.

a reply to: J.B. Aloha

Except in other Federal Appeals circuit rulings, the rulings also applied to the state courts within their respective jurisdictions.

In the case of Colorado its considered jury tampering. Secondly not all states recognize common law and in state that do actions taken under that common law are NOT required to be recognized by other states who don't recognize it.

The other failure with the common law argument is not all US state system are based on English common law. In the case of Louisiana they are based on Napoleonic code.

This is such an abuse of the legal system.