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: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73




Many laws have proven complete failures but we end up stuck with them, because we have no adequate system in place for the voice of the people to be heard when it comes to changing laws.


We do have that power Jefferson referred to..it is exactly that same legal power of nullification of laws of substandard quality. We the people, have that right under law, they, those working within the legal system, especially the Judiciary, most certainly do NOT want to admit or make it known that the 'lowly', average ignoramus actually has within our own power to supersede at least some of their stupid and unjust, and plain old corrupt laws if we see fit to do so.

But the power is there, and always has been there...of course they want to shut up about something that effectively nullifies THEIR power and the illusion that they are above us in standing...as they most certainly are not above the people's standing, since the entire point of law is to aid society, and we the people ARE society and in terms of powers like nullification can overrule the courts using law nullification powers.

Passing statutes claiming that Judges do not HAVE to, or are not REQUIRED to inform juries of their very real and just powers of 'bad law' nullification is NOT the same as passing a statute that makes nullification unlawful or illegal. It simply means that judges can obfuscate the law and the powers that can be used by juries to nullify the law under which a person is being tried in court for. A BIG difference.

You, Me and anyone else CAN inform the public about nullification, as long as it is not DIRECTLY being told to jurors who are currently hearing a case in court. In other words, the guy could have stipulated in big bold lettering on his little information booth...'This information is forbidden for current jurors to know...do NOT take a pamphlet, do NOT read this information if you are currently a juror and are hearing an active case in court"...or words to that effect.

He would then not be guilty of jury tampering, instead making the judge guilty of not protecting the integrity of the jury sufficiently to prevent their learning of the nullification..(i know, it's crap) The judge has the power to ensure jury integrity, used quite often in high profile cases, where the judge can order that the jury has NO outside contact with anyone, NO access to TV news, internet, newspapers or other people, until the case is at an end. The Jury can literally be ordered by the judge to be isolated until the end of the trial, so as not to be influenced or coerced by others and speculations that may have an impact on the case.

The judge could have done so in this case, to prevent discussion and dissemination of the knowledge of nullification if the guy had displayed the words above about 'information for NON JURY members only, sitting Jury members prohibited' on his booth...but alas, the guy didn't. If he had, the judge would have become responsible for not protecting the integrity of the jury, not the guy informing people.

Hiding lawful and legal means to change or nullify bad laws which IS at the disposal of the people is underhanded and unscrupulous, and because it deliberately obfuscates the lawful truth from the people who have this power, hints that the judiciary and the legal world in general are themselves guilty of subverting and ignoring just elements of the law for their own selfish ends.

No big surprise of course given the levels of ego involved and the corporate ivory towers that could come crashing down at the hands of joe public, but there you are.

The so-called 'monsanto act' is PRIME for nullification, as it is recognisably a 'bad law' which if people understood they have the power and the right to law nullification would end up meaning all those millions spent of legal brains would effectively be usurped and nullified by a rag-tag group of 12, legally uneducated, inexperienced and frankly legally ignorant public who only had to spend their travelling costs to achieve throwing their hard and expensive legal shenanigans out of the courtroom window.

These sorts of laws are prime for nullification, and even the legally ignorant can easily recognise a just law from an unjust one...which is partly why we have this power.




posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
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.



Acquittal is based upon a unanimous agreement of the jury.

A hung jury is based upon the actions of one juror who does not agree with the others.

Both are the results of conscientious judgment of a particular case, INCLUDING the particular law being applied.

So, your statement that acquittal is based upon evidence is not completely correct.

There is no law that allows jury nullification? I shudder to think that you might be an attorney, or worse yet, a judge.

There is no law that allows swimming in the ocean, so by your strange reasoning (sophistry ?) anybody swimming in the ocean is some sort of scofflaw or criminal.

Does the enumeration of jury power in 2 different parts of the US Constitution have no effect on your tortured reasoning?



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

Referring to something or talking about it does not make it law, as we see with jury nullification. If jury nullification were such a pivotal part of the legal system it would have been brought over and kept, which it was not.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Your attempt at comparing jury nullification with swimming in the water has no basis of comparison.

If you think there is a law for jury nullification then by all means link me to it.

Also, launching a personal attack while offering absolutely nothing to support your claim doesn't work so try again.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I would think that if it wasn't intended to be the checks/balance of the 4th branch of government ("The People"), then there would be a law forbidding it encoded in the constitution.

I would think that since it was not mentioned, it is in the realm of "de facto". Essentially: jurors are free to think what they want.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ok and if we go further we see that anything not specifically spelled out as federal power is reserved to the states.

As for jurors being free to think what they want I agree to an extent. If that were truly the case then there would be no requirement for a judge to issue jury instructions about the law and what they can or cannot consider.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Isurrender73




Many laws have proven complete failures but we end up stuck with them, because we have no adequate system in place for the voice of the people to be heard when it comes to changing laws.


We do have that power Jefferson referred to..it is exactly that same legal power of nullification of laws of substandard quality. We the people, have that right under law, they, those working within the legal system, especially the Judiciary, most certainly do NOT want to admit or make it known that the 'lowly', average ignoramus actually has within our own power to supersede at least some of their stupid and unjust, and plain old corrupt laws if we see fit to do so.

But the power is there, and always has been there...of course they want to shut up about something that effectively nullifies THEIR power and the illusion that they are above us in standing...as they most certainly are not above the people's standing, since the entire point of law is to aid society, and we the people ARE society and in terms of powers like nullification can overrule the courts using law nullification powers.

Passing statutes claiming that Judges do not HAVE to, or are not REQUIRED to inform juries of their very real and just powers of 'bad law' nullification is NOT the same as passing a statute that makes nullification unlawful or illegal. It simply means that judges can obfuscate the law and the powers that can be used by juries to nullify the law under which a person is being tried in court for. A BIG difference.

You, Me and anyone else CAN inform the public about nullification, as long as it is not DIRECTLY being told to jurors who are currently hearing a case in court. In other words, the guy could have stipulated in big bold lettering on his little information booth...'This information is forbidden for current jurors to know...do NOT take a pamphlet, do NOT read this information if you are currently a juror and are hearing an active case in court"...or words to that effect.

He would then not be guilty of jury tampering, instead making the judge guilty of not protecting the integrity of the jury sufficiently to prevent their learning of the nullification..(i know, it's crap) The judge has the power to ensure jury integrity, used quite often in high profile cases, where the judge can order that the jury has NO outside contact with anyone, NO access to TV news, internet, newspapers or other people, until the case is at an end. The Jury can literally be ordered by the judge to be isolated until the end of the trial, so as not to be influenced or coerced by others and speculations that may have an impact on the case.

The judge could have done so in this case, to prevent discussion and dissemination of the knowledge of nullification if the guy had displayed the words above about 'information for NON JURY members only, sitting Jury members prohibited' on his booth...but alas, the guy didn't. If he had, the judge would have become responsible for not protecting the integrity of the jury, not the guy informing people.

Hiding lawful and legal means to change or nullify bad laws which IS at the disposal of the people is underhanded and unscrupulous, and because it deliberately obfuscates the lawful truth from the people who have this power, hints that the judiciary and the legal world in general are themselves guilty of subverting and ignoring just elements of the law for their own selfish ends.

No big surprise of course given the levels of ego involved and the corporate ivory towers that could come crashing down at the hands of joe public, but there you are.

The so-called 'monsanto act' is PRIME for nullification, as it is recognisably a 'bad law' which if people understood they have the power and the right to law nullification would end up meaning all those millions spent of legal brains would effectively be usurped and nullified by a rag-tag group of 12, legally uneducated, inexperienced and frankly legally ignorant public who only had to spend their travelling costs to achieve throwing their hard and expensive legal shenanigans out of the courtroom window.

These sorts of laws are prime for nullification, and even the legally ignorant can easily recognise a just law from an unjust one...which is partly why we have this power.


Why in the World would a judge EVER tell a jury "Oh, by the way, you can ignore all of the evidence and the law if you want and just rule however you feel like ruling"?! Come on, man, that is ridiculous.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: MysterX

Referring to something or talking about it does not make it law, as we see with jury nullification. If jury nullification were such a pivotal part of the legal system it would have been brought over and kept, which it was not.



Don't be naive.

If tptb thought it would suit them, they would of course 'brought it over' as you put it..however, it's also true that if it does NOT suit them they would not wish to advertise legal techniques, that empowers the people and enables them to not only nullify a particular law or statute should THEY judge that law or statute to be unreasonable, unfair, not applicable in a modern society, or too far on the wrong side of plain old corrupt (as in the aforementioned Monsanto act), but effectively nullify the judge and the prosecutor effectively making them legally impotent in the process...this IS a pivotal part of OUR legal system and rights, but to and for the public, not for tptb.

That is obviously why they are scrambling to make an example out of this guy who was busy informing the public of their legal rights to nullify or basically disregard an unjust / unfit law or statute. Unfortunately for him, he also made the sitting jurors aware of their standing legal rights, and thus made himself open to the contrived charge of jury tampering...think Al Capone and his ultimate capture on 'tax evasion'. Same kind of deal...a gotcha by the back door, even if that back door is legal.

If it helped them, they'd make use of it...if it helps us and reduces their potency...they won't. Of course.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

They'd like you to think it's ridiculous, of course they would...it takes away their power and causes them to be legally impotent in specific cases they are attempting to try using unjust laws and statutes. They people have the actual legal authority, they just generally don't know it. A judge works in service of the law, and the law works in service of the people...we are the people, we make the laws, we can unmake them too if we see fit...this is what they don't want you to know, as it effectively takes away their power.

This is exactly why they wish to keep it from us, and you never hear a judge or prosecutor informing the Jury of their FULL rights and obligations in a trial.

BTW...with this power, the jury does not have the right to 'ignore the evidence' of a particular case...they can only make a nullification decision on the law or statute being applied in that particular case they are listening to..it's the law or statute that can be nullified, not the evidence or the trial in general. Obviously, there are exceptions to this...the laws and statutes against murder, or other violent crime for example cannot be nullified...the Monsanto act, and other 'scratch our backs' statutes can be.


edit on 13-8-2015 by MysterX because: added info



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes of course there would still be a need for a judge. Lay people, the jury iow, are not generally well versed in legal aspects or procedures. The judge would still act as they always do, advising the jury, acting as 'a judge' on procedure and conduct of the arbiters arguing the evidence for and against, generally keeping order in court and ultimately determining levels of punishment should the defendant be found guilty of the crime he or she is charged with.

So yes...we still need judges. In any case, the VAST majority of cases tried, would not be subject to jury nullification as obviously not all laws and some statutes cannot be nullified. If a jury decided they wanted to nullify just laws, for example, the laws covering rape, or murder, or some other serious and / or violent crime, that would patently be wrong and ridiculous and is not subject to nullification...no one on any jury could ever argue with any sense of righteousness that laws in place against murder are unjust or wrong...or that the laws covering rape are unfair, come on, this much is common law, as it is plainly COMMON sense and cannot be nullified.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

A judge cannot order a jury to ignore a law. A judge cannot order a jury to come to a specific outcome.

If a person is chosen for jury duty and the prosecutor / defense attorney ask this person if they can be impartial / are they biased / etc and the person fails to disclose jury nullification and their issues with the laws in question we come back to the whole perjury / 6th amendment violation.

As stated jury nullification is not in the Constitution as it was common law. Considering states (most) don't recognize common law then by extension jury nullification is also not recognized. Hence the reason scotus and several appeals circuits have ruled only a judge can bring that issue up. Since a judge cannot direct anyone to violate the law jury nullification cannot be lawfully used.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 06:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




A judge cannot order a jury to ignore a law. A judge cannot order a jury to come to a specific outcome.


You're having a hard time comprehending what is being said in this thread...i can explain it to you, but i can't understand it for you.

Maybe if you read what has been said carefully next time you'll understand.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: jaffo

They'd like you to think it's ridiculous, of course they would...it takes away their power and causes them to be legally impotent in specific cases they are attempting to try using unjust laws and statutes. They people have the actual legal authority, they just generally don't know it. A judge works in service of the law, and the law works in service of the people...we are the people, we make the laws, we can unmake them too if we see fit...this is what they don't want you to know, as it effectively takes away their power.

This is exactly why they wish to keep it from us, and you never hear a judge or prosecutor informing the Jury of their FULL rights and obligations in a trial.

BTW...with this power, the jury does not have the right to 'ignore the evidence' of a particular case...they can only make a nullification decision on the law or statute being applied in that particular case they are listening to..it's the law or statute that can be nullified, not the evidence or the trial in general. Obviously, there are exceptions to this...the laws and statutes against murder, or other violent crime for example cannot be nullified...the Monsanto act, and other 'scratch our backs' statutes can be.



No, it would be ridiculous. I'm sorry but you clearly think that all of our laws are unjust and that there is some grand conspiracy to deprive you of certain rights. I would respectfully recommend that you engage in a serious study of the evolution of American jurisprudence. It has been completely driven by we the people, for better or worse.
edit on 13-8-2015 by jaffo because: Spelling error.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Perhaps you simply do not understand the purpose of a jury? Perhaps you see it as a tool of the state, the crown, the government, instead of a tool of the people? Perhaps you do not understand the difference in meaning between "being impartial" and "being obedient"?

Whatever the case, you completely fail to understand the function and role of the jury in a government described as being "of, by and for The People".

Peace, lad.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

well, the Snarf ruling actually said that a judge does not have to inform a jury, not that they cannot ("they have no right to" is not "they are not allowed to hear").

That said...I agree it is a states rights issue. And, as such, this case is pretty much open and closed. The gentleman is violating his states law on the issue.
edit on 8/13/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yes, just as those who assisted slaves in their efforts to escape were violating the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

We can judge such acts in a moral vacuum, or we can judge them within a moral context, what is right and what is wrong.
edit on 13-8-2015 by Salander because: extra point



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MysterX

No I understand what people are stating. My position is the argument for jury nullification is a moot point based on Federal court rulings in that only a judge can direct a jury in terms of jury nullification. Since the laws also require a court officer to not order anyone to break the law, jury nullification cannot be ordered by the judge as the action is illegal.

I am also stating that common law is not accepted in all states and since jury nullification stems from common law and has never been codified, the argument in favor of jury nullification is again a moot point.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

The purpose of a jury has bene spelled out in several of my posts. Maybe you should go back and read and do some research on your own in terms of what the function of a jury is. Its apparent you are not completely understanding it.

As for your response to Texan you are conveniently ignoring the fact Jury nullification was used during the civil rights area to allow white people who killed black people to walk free while the reverse never occurred.

You cannot look at jury nullification in terms of just one instance of its use. You must look at its application across the entire legal spectrum. Or are you stating, based on your slave act example, that the people who used jury nullification to exonerate white people of murdering black people, were acting accordingly?

It is a slippery cliff argument. If you allow it to be used once, it cannot be restricted. Jury nullification cannot be standardized.

Jury nullification is common law and is not recognized.

Since you seem confused on what a jury is and what it is required to do -
Information on Juries and their responsibilities.
edit on 13-8-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Yes jury nullification was used to allow murderers walk free, and well as allowed abolitionist to free those charged with helping escape.

A ruling no matter what is a reflection of the jury and sentencing a reflection of the the system. Look at the differences between gender and race, how about the difference in attractiveness? Appearances greatly effect who is convicted and who is not and what the sentence is.

What I believe is comical here is that claiming x group will use nullification to get their way but for some reason won't just lie about what they thought about the evidence.

Can it be abused? sure. Can legislature abuse their citizens? sure. Can laws be wrong? sure.

I just don't buy the abuse as the reason. There is a lot of abuse whether it be evidence planting, cops lying, or just in general using drugs charges and other small time charges as a racket to shake money out of the poor.
Or Maybe I am just sore from going through the system for getting caught drinking underage(not driving) and paying over 2500 to the government, probation, conseling, drug testing(not alcohol testing though). Yup no abuse, no racket.

Nullification is scary because it allows the thoughts of common man dictate law instead of those in the ivory tower.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: jellyrev

Nullification is scary because it allows the thoughts of common man dictate law instead of those in the ivory tower.


Its scary because it allows a person to ignore the law instead of judging a persons actions under the law. When there is something introduced to the judicial system that allows for inconsistency by ignoring the law its a problem. It means the system can no longer function as it is suppose to. It allows one person to circumvent the other 11 jurors. It allows one person to ignore the law.

If cops / witnesses etc lie there are things in place to deal with that eventuality. It is not comparable to jury nullification.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join