It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

No sir, we DO HAVE the power to nullify law, on a case by case basis, by way of Jury Power.

Several historical examples of that in this country was the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and even before that, the various witch trials.

If juries refuse to convict under a lousy law, that law is eventually repealed. Juries refused to convict under FSA and it was eventually repealed.




posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

No, we don't.

We no longer use English common law as a basis for our system - We use statutory law.

The purpose of a jury is to weigh the information presented and determine if the accused is guilty. They are to judge the case / accused and not use their personal opinion on whether or not they think the law in question is valid.

It is a slippery cliff argument.

As for the dubious ruling comment I always find it amazing when people choose to ignore the constitution. Its like people are cafeteria constitutionalist. picking and choosing what they like while doing all they can to ignore the items that don't support their argument.

In this instance the guy broke Colorado law for jury tampering.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

A little news for you sir, the US Constitution is NOT a common law document. And a little more news, already stated in a previous post today, the US Constitution in TWO places specifies the Jury power. Are you in denial, or did you not check Article III and Amendment Seven?

The American Jury Institute has a website, and many books have been written about this. You should expand your knowledge base. You might consider reading Godfrey Lehman's book "We The Jury...". Or, for a more scholarly examination of the issue, try Clay Conrad's "Jury Nullification, the evolution of doctrine". Conrad's book was published by Carolina Academic Press in 1998



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Denver talk radio updated the trial sentencing story every hour on the hour on the 7th. Not one mention of the Jury Nullification booth or Mr. I who passed the flyers out on the 7th. I wasn't in Denver on the 6th.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

You should read and understand my posts before responding.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I have Jury Duty coming up next month. I wonder if i explain to my fellow jurors what nullification means will it land me in hot water ?

Only in fascist Mercuh



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Salander

No, we don't.

We no longer use English common law as a basis for our system - We use statutory law.

The purpose of a jury is to weigh the information presented and determine if the accused is guilty. They are to judge the case / accused and not use their personal opinion on whether or not they think the law in question is valid.

It is a slippery cliff argument.

As for the dubious ruling comment I always find it amazing when people choose to ignore the constitution. Its like people are cafeteria constitutionalist. picking and choosing what they like while doing all they can to ignore the items that don't support their argument.

In this instance the guy broke Colorado law for jury tampering.



In college law classes, students are taught that the United States is common law country.

The US constitution obviously should have made it clear when it came to the judicial branch, but it did not.

People have a right to free speech. Jury information is just that, information. There can simply be no crime in providing information or speaking. Threats are illegal, but the illegal part of that is planning and to hurt someone, not the act of telling them that they will be hurt, but the actual plan, means, and motive to do harm to the person. Its an attempt at a crime that is the crime, not the speech. Giving any type of information for people's benefit can, by definition of trying to help, never be an attempt at harm.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: wayforward

You are confusing Federal law with state law. In the state of Colorado, what the guy did was jury tampering. The state of Iowa recognizes common law marriage. As for common law you need to listen to what is actually being taught. The US legal system is based on English common law except for Louisiana, which uses Napoleonic code (hence parishes instead of counties). Since you have the exact same rights and remedies in Louisiana as you would in Idaho you have to ask yourself how that is possible when those 2 states aren't based on the same common law background.

The answer is because we use statutory law and the Constitution as the template for all laws and government setup.


If a common law couple go to MO, they are not recognized by Missouri as lawfully wed since Missouri does not recognize common law.

The right to free speech is not absolute in the manner some think it is. Its not considered free speech when you are ignoring the law by judging the law instead of the accused. Jury information is provided by the courts via the Prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney. Instructions on how the jury is to view the information comes from the judge and not the jurors. A juror must decide based on the evidence presented and not on their personal opinions about the laws in question and whether they think the law is valid or not. As I pointed out earlier jury nullification was used a lot during the civil rights movement when white people accused of killing black people walked free.

You have a right to practice any religion however when your religion calls for human sacrifice you are not protected if you go out and grab someone to sacrifice. You have a right to protest however you don't have a right to block a public right of way or entrance/exit to the business. You have a right to defend yourself but that ends the moment the threat stops. You have a right to kill another person in defense of yourself or a 3rd party however you cannot go and shoot a random person.

By handing out flyers on jury nullification in a state that does not allow it is in fact a crime - jury tampering (and that statute was linked to).

If you think free speech is absolute walk into a crowded theater and yell fire. Walk into an airport and yell you have a bomb. Scream this is a hijacking while on a plane. If you walk into a restaurant and start calling your server derogatory names you can be told to leave by management. Is that an infringement on your 1st amendment? Your rights end the moment they interfere with the rights of others.

Please show me in the Constitution where it establishes the ability of a jury to nullify a law. I have never seen it and because of that we revert back to the doctrine of if its not specifically spelled out to the federal government its reserved to the states.
edit on 8-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
The issue here is not whether jury nullification is a valid option by sitting juries. The issue is the 7 felonies that this citizen has been charged by the state of colorado. Does the accused's first amendment right to freedom of speech trump the states jury tampering law. This would be a great case to be argued before the US Supreme Court because a finding would apply to all 50 states. I hope some really good lawyers get behind this case for the defendant...



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: capecrusader

This would go through the Colorado court system first and I doubt it would make it to the federal level. Even if he were not handing out fliers and was instead speaking to jurors he would still be in violation of jury tampering laws.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Thank-you for your thoughtful and educated post which differs sharply from all these "fight the power" posts. Fortunately, most people learn, if nothing else, that staring at grey cinder blocks all day is boring. But they can still do their little viva la revolution schtick on ATS.
a reply to: Xcathdra



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
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.



He was outside a courthouse... how on earth was he supposed to know any given person would be a juror?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Salander

You should read and understand my posts before responding.



If your position on Jury power was a bit more coherent and consistent with Common Law and our own Constitution and history, I could probably understand better. As it is right now, by all indications so far, you advocate a system whereby the jury is but a rubber stamp for what cases the government might bring.

You seem to have no clue that the jury is the conscience of the community, that it is democratic governance in motion, that the people have no power to review, on a case by case basis, the laws their elected representatives have created.

Your posts in favor of authoritarianism and unbridled state prosecutions ARE difficult to understand, given the foundation I have in the US Constitution I have offered here. What you claim is the opposite of what Thomas Jefferson and a host of others over the generations have described, including Clay Conrad.

So it's not my reading of your posts, it is the substance of your posts that I find puzzling.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I know you use common sense from time to time, so I ask: if the jury cannot acquit, why is there a jury? Why did Jefferson consider it the best way yet devised by man to keep government within its legal bounds? Why is it guaranteed in 2 different places in the Constitution?

Why is it such an important part of the Common Law? Why have juries over the centuries used the power to defy the crown when it makes poor prosecutions?

You seem to live in a vacuum somehow. If the jury cannot acquit, why do we even have a jury?



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Acquitting a person and jury nullification aren't the same thing. An acquittal is where a jury finds, based on the evidence presented and the law in question, the accused not guilty.

Jury nullification is where the jurors don't look at the evidence but instead ignore the law in question and substitute their own personal opinion about the law and not the evidence.

Our legal system comes from England, which used common law. That common law was used for the US when we became our own nation, however the Constitution created a judicial, legislative and executive branch who delegated the responsibility of creating laws, signing laws into existence and determining if those laws are constitutional or not.

Common law runs the gambit of not being equal. We have proof of this under the English system as well as the beginning of the Us system. As I stated before look at the civil rights era where jury nullification was used against white defendants accused of killing black people. Jury nullification is not justice and has no business being anywhere near our legal system.

The law says if you kill another person under these specific sets of criteria you broke the law via murder. If a white person walks from killing a black man and a black man goes to prison for life for killing a white person, under the same scenarios, you have a system that is dysfunctional and intentionally biased.

Our justice system was designed to be blind. Its one of the reasons the symbol of our judicial system is blindfolded, holding a set of scales in one hand and a down turned sword in the other.


As far as the type of system I advocate - A system that is blind based on the rule of law with the ability to judge a person fairly under a standard law with the ability of all involved to view the issue as a separate issue. IE the ability to take all facts and circumstances into account at an individual level. Each incident must be allowed to be taken in its own context and mitigating and aggravating circumstances weighed appropriately.

What I don't advocate is for a jury to take the law into their own hands based solely on there own personal opinion on the law in question. The requirement of a jury is to judge the accused based on the facts and evidence. They are not there nor do they have the authority, to use a persons trial as a political soap box.

If they want to change the law then run for city council / state legislature or the House of Reps.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Acquittal and nullification are very closely aligned, and can be the same thing. This has been demonstrated numerous times in our Common Law history, and even in the statutory scheme we operate under now.

Even when its verdict for acquittal flies in the face of the evidence, it is valid and cannot be reconsidered. Even if a person is clearly guilty of the crime, when the jury decides that the crime itself is victimless, only a 'crime against the state', is immoral (as with FSA), the jury by way of its power can acquit, and courts have recognized this since the earliest days.

By way of Sparf, the judiciary took overt steps to frustrate and minimize nullification, but it did admit that nullification WAS part of the jury power.

FYI, the Jury Box is far more effective in bringing good governance than is the Ballot Box.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: jaffo

come on Jaffo...in a perfect world, maybe you don't have power....but, there have been too many revelations of tampering with evidence, disclosure of key witnesses, etc... there have been numerous cases of prisoner releases, due to inadvertent, sloppy, or deliberate investigative shortcomings....prosecutors are obviously driven to show how "tough on crime" they are. and, if prosecutors call into question police activities regarding cases, they soon find out that they have few friends in law enforcement, and their careers can go down the drain.



Law enforcement has ZERO power over an attorney. In fact, it's the other way around. I can subpoena ANY officer of law for ANY reason I see fit and COMPEL him or her to appear and testify under oath. Law enforcement somehow making an attorney's career "go down the drain"? Yeah, I don't think so.
edit on 10-8-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Acquittal is based on evidence.
Nullification is based on a personal opinion of the law and not the evidence.

If it were the same then the civil rights movement, and those white individuals who walked free after killing black people, would have been different.

Since there is no law that allows jury nullification there is no real point in a ruling to block something that is not codified. What the ruling did was allow the judges, and only the judges, to deal with the topic of jury nullification. In that ruling, in addition to the others, it places the judge as the person who gives jury instructions - what they may or may not consider.

Not the prosecution, not the defense, and not individuals who think they know what the law is and pass out information that is flawed and is jury tampering.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

If they want to change the law then run for city council / state legislature or the House of Reps.



This is where we diverge. And why i support the notion of jury nullification.

The voice of the individual is no voice at all. You can get 10,000 individuals together....and 10,000 x 0 = 0. Still no voice at all.

There are unjust laws. I won't go into them here, but you and I can both agree that there are laws that should not exist. But they do. Even though just about everyone can agree that they shouldn't. Its obviously not the voice of the individual that merits attention, as the voice of the individual apparently equates to no voice, regardless of how many individuals there are trying to speak. The decision is made by organization, which has a voice solely because it has money.

I guess if i was a billionaire i'd have a voice. And I could buy back freedom. Until then, ignoring unjust laws is all I got.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: auroraaus
He was outside a courthouse... how on earth was he supposed to know any given person would be a juror?
From the OP linked story:


The Denver Post reported that 56-year-old Mark Iannicelli set up a small booth with a sign reading “Juror Info” outside the Lindsay-Flanigan Courthouse in Denver last week.
Who is most likely to walk up to a booth with a sign reading "Juror info"?



new topics




 
54
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join