Is there a victim? Jury Nullification and YOUR RIGHTS!

This discussion is about jury trials and your rights as a juror.

If you register in the US to vote, you are automatically included in the list of possible jurists.

The rights you engender are absolute and inviolate.

The US Constitution gives these statement-

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Now, let us discuss what these things MEAN!

You have the right to a full and fair hearing in regards to ANY charge against you. You have the right to a jury trial for any and ALL charges against you. You as a free and sovereign individual, be you a citizen or another individual to be tried in a OPEN and HONEST trial.

Let me say this, no where does it determine the difference between a citizen or a foreign individual. No where does it say that you as an individual in the jury have to follow a judges decree.


Jury Nullification
Jury Implementation of the lawful nature of legislation
Jury Deciding Law
Etcetera

Discussion to commence in 3,2,1.........

reply to post by endisnighe


Okay, if anyone reading this does not understand or what I was getting at.

If you are on a jury, you have the RIGHT to disagree with the LAW that the person is being charged with.

Let us say that according to the Constitution, that there is nothing in it that describes that plants are unlawful. That being obvious, you are not required to listen to the judge if the judge instructs you to find guilt according to something that is NOT in the Constitution.

UCC code or not, if a code or statute is given as what has been broken, if it is in direct contradiction to the freedom given in the Constitution, you can find the charged NOT GUILTY.

My sister could have sure used the jury nullification information a few years ago. She was a juror for a trial where the defendent had been arrested for growing 5 pot plants. If it had been 4, then it wouldn't have been such a harsh charge that he faced. She felt sorry for the guy, but believed she had to find him guilty of the over 4 plants grown and he lost everything. And was sentenced to a considerable time in jail, for growing a natural growing plant. There are murderers who get out with less time served than this chump who was growing for personal use.

reply to post by kyred


Did the accused go to trial?

Or did the accused take a plea bargain?

The last time I dealt with the court system, I had done something that was wrong, even in my own eyes. Now, it never hurt another person, but it did hurt their rights. I will not describe it, because it was stupid on my part.

Here is the deal, they wanted to arrest me for a felony charge. If you know about felonies, that removes your rights to many things. You no longer get the right to vote, carry weapons, etc etc etc. I did not do ANYTHING that hurt another person! Since they wanted to prosecute the felony, I told them absolutely not, then they started to negotiate.

This is the WHOLE thing behind the prosecutorial endeavors in this day and age. Of course everything was dropped as soon as I started to assert my innocence.

The government does not want citizens, they want criminals to govern. You cannot control citizens, you can control criminals though.

I am telling EVERYONE, go to trial and exert your God given, or Unalienable rights (if you do not believe in God), if you believe what you are charged with is an ACTUAL crime.

If I am on your jury, and there is no VICTIM, you will go free.

Nice thread endisnighe! Whereas I haven't much time to get into this, I will say I am in 100% agreement with where you are taking this. S&F for now and will return to enage further as this is topic very close to me!

Here is a very small piece of meat to throw on the grill... The difference between a Common Law Court and Court of Common Pleas make almost everything we discuss from here VERY convoluted. For starters, our current system is a Court of Common Please and does not recognize a pronouncement of "Innocent" - you are either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty" with an option of "No Contest". Dig into that and I'll check back when I've more time.

reply to post by kozmo


I know and many others know what you are talking about. The thing is, I am trying to get people to understand that the courts are set up against freedom. Yes, Common Law and situational things such as UCC code and things like Statutory law in regards to things like drivers licensing-contract law, are a whole nother ball of wax.

I, you and others that are part of the system that vote, that get selected for jury need to inform those that do not understand the system. I am thinking about going to my county system of courts and spreading the knowledge.

I actually had a judge instruct my jury once on something that was completely wrong! This asshat actually had the GALL to tell us our decision was prerequisite on the courts interpretation. Now, if I was not in that jury, the people would have had no idea. We talked about it, requested certain decisions by the SC and told the court to kiss our ass.

We need to exert our rights, all of them. Of course I am looking forward to your response. I know you see things the way I do, but you are much more restrained than I.

Of course others, would say I am crazy. You are a pusher of freedom and "supposedly" right wing ideology. They do not realize you press freedom.

Anyway, looking forward to your response.

I get called for duty every two years just like clockwork. Last two times I swear it was the same defendent in a different court on the same charge as the time before. Depending upon what's presented, I may or may not speak up, but I know it's the "leftovers" that get selected after any "objections" or "strikes" when it comes to juries. If you let them know you how you really feel you'll get on the strike list every time. You might sway a few minds on the way. Nullify the jury before it's selected.

gj

reply to post by ganjoa


The last time I was "selected" the prosecutor asked me a question. He stated that he had an obligational argument against me being part of the jury. Funny part was, the defense said there was no reasoning behind my dismissal. I was picked for the jury.

I made no difference, whatsoever. At the end, I made my position known, but at the time, the decision was 9 to 3 for not guilty, before I even opened my mouth.

Go to TRIAL people. Look at the odds on guilt vs innocent!

Jury Nullification! Stick the ASSHATS! and their asinine idiocy!

Let us say that according to the Constitution, that there is nothing in it that describes that plants are unlawful. That being obvious, you are not required to listen to the judge if the judge instructs you to find guilt according to something that is NOT in the Constitution.

UCC code or not, if a code or statute is given as what has been broken, if it is in direct contradiction to the freedom given in the Constitution, you can find the charged NOT GUILTY.

Maybe lay off the plants a little??

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

States can write their own drug laws. Also the constitution says nothing about trafic violations, jay walking or going to the bathroom in front of your house so everyone can see yet there are laws against it.

reply to post by zaiger


Yes, you are right, let us lay off the plants.


Let us go to things such as verbal abuse. Hate Crimes. You know, things that are laid out in legislation that interdicts on FREE SPEECH!

I think anything against the existing government is Hate Speech and should be prosecuted! I think anyone speaking against the government should be arrested! /s

Sorry, life is about disagreement and political speech, as long as it is alright with the STANDARD, huh?

reply to post by endisnighe


Great thread End, but if I could quibble with you a bit on the choice of language please allow me to do so. It may strike some as nothing more than semantics, but in law, when it comes to statutory construction each and every word must be given significance. So, as a point of law, I would suggest that using the term "jury nullification", misses the point your making and such a term was not invented by We the People, it is a term invented by the priest like lawyer class, who have their revered bishops all dressed in robes, and banging away with their gavels. \

The only proper reason for a jury to acquit a person in spite of the legislation that has clearly defined this person as criminal, is that the prosecution failed to present a victim. No victim, no crime. When a jury ignores legislation in order to rightfully restore the freedom of a person who has done nothing more than engage in some consensual activity, for example, that jury isn't nullifying any law, they are upholding the law, The Supreme Law of the Land, and are rebuking Congress, or the state legislature, for acting beyond the scope of their jurisdiction.

A statute not legal is not law, and if not law, there is no nullification, there is simply the People, too impatient to wait for the ever so slow wheels of a Supreme Court decision to be rendered, and simply spit on the bad legislation and sent a strong message to the legislatures. I believe nullification is used by the courts as a pejorative, and for this reason, should not be used, when reminding or educating a voter on their rights and inherent political power as a member of the jury.

I would also prod you if I could, to make the distinction between law, and legislation. Statutes, codes, and ordinances are not law, they are evidence of a law and if it is law, it is self evident. Thus, a jury would not nullify a law, but would spit on legislation that does.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I thought you might engender (find relevant) this topic.

Yes, jury nullification is important. And it is relevant in the times.

Here is the deal, even if the jury decides something that is unlawful, it becomes lawful!

You are my inspiration. I have read and tried to understand the law. What I have discovered is not the law, but the Natural Law. Some will say that I have forgone the conclusion of Common Law, they would be mistaken.

Right is right so they say. I have listened to you and many others. One thing I have concluded, is that Common Sense is the rule of Law.

Natural Law or Common Law, one thing steps out, Common Sense. Maybe it was a declaration by our founders, maybe it was just my attitude.

Or just maybe it was divinity!

reply to post by endisnighe

Let us go to things such as verbal abuse. Hate Crimes. You know, things that are laid out in legislation that interdicts on FREE SPEECH!

I think anything against the existing government is Hate Speech and should be prosecuted! I think anyone speaking against the government should be arrested! /s

First off people are not being arrested for hate speach for speaking out against the government, so long as that hate speach is not in the form of threats.
This is a common misunderstanding of freedom and the constirution. The freedom of speech is exactly that the freedom to speak and it is not absolute. This does not give you the right to commit perjury, copyright infringement, false advertising, harassment, extortion, blackmail, death threats...

Sorry, life is about disagreement and political speech, as long as it is alright with the STANDARD, huh?

Exactly.

reply to post by zaiger


Alright, what you have just stated is wrong.

The politicians are allowed to lie, they are allowed to state that they will DESTROY or FUNDAMENTALLY change our government.

Sorry, if I speak about my vision of the future, I could be arrested for sedition. Yet, people such as Barack can do anything they want. Frell you and the conscription you rode in on.

Anger and political speech has NEVER been a right that was ever infringed upon. Yet in this day and age, what are YOU and others and OTHERS like you saying.

Here is the thing, our government and our country was set up so that people that DID NOT want to participate in the COLLECTIVE were left alone. SO NOW, what is going on?

LEAVE ME AND THE WORLD THE FRELL ALONE!

reply to post by endisnighe

Alright, what you have just stated is wrong.
The politicians are allowed to lie, they are allowed to state that they will DESTROY or FUNDAMENTALLY change our government.

Sorry, if I speak about my vision of the future, I could be arrested for sedition. Yet, people such as Barack can do anything they want. Frell you and the conscription you rode in on.

Anger and political speech has NEVER been a right that was ever infringed upon. Yet in this day and age, what are YOU and others and OTHERS like you saying.

Here is the thing, our government and our country was set up so that people that DID NOT want to participate in the COLLECTIVE were left alone. SO NOW, what is going on?

LEAVE ME AND THE WORLD THE FRELL ALONE!

Why is it wrong? You have really not responded to what i said you are just kind of making a straw man argument. You are kind just rambling and not addressing the topic.

reply to post by endisnighe


Yes! This is exactly what I am saying, natural law demands a victim, and Justice can not be implemented in as positive law, but only as negative law. Meaning, Justice can't hope to prevent crime, it can only hope to put Justice back in when it is absent. Positive laws, such as drug use, where the reasoning behind the legislation, is that that use will lead to crimes, is legislation that has just invented a "consensual crime", which is unnatural, and not law. It is not law because it is not self evident as to why people can't use drugs if they choose to.

Positive law in this sense are laws that require explaining, and if a law requires that, then clearly it is not self evident. No one needs explained to them why murder or theft is a crime, but plenty need it explained why having sex with a prostitute is. It is often explained, with positive law, that the victim is "society" itself, but the only valid crimes against society are treason and sedition. Not even "tax evasion" can count as a "crime" against society, just treason or sedition.

I am urging the semantics for several reasons. When we distinguish law from legislation, we understand that not everything, (practically nothing lately), Congress' passes as legislation, is law. Law is natural, just as it is in science and there is no difference. The laws of gravity work no differently than the laws of civilization, in that they must apply universally, and are self evident. Gravity was self evident, long before Isaac Newton was born, and so was murder. Law is law and legislation is evidence of law.

Evidence of law is not law, just as evidence of a crime doesn't prove guilt. The semantics of "nullification", is only that I am sure it is a pejorative used by the courts to discourage a jury from relying upon it. I assure you, if a judge suspects a jury is intent on "nullifying" a "law", that judge will, in all likelihood, admonish the jury, huff and puff and threaten, and do all he or she can to prevent that jury from using such an option. I suggest, we avoid using the term "nullification" because it is there term, not ours, and when a jury acquits a person due to a lack of crime, then what law has been nullified? The law that was nullified, what the natural law, and nullified by Congress, and the people are rejecting that nullification and upholding the rule of law.

Thus, rather than it being "jury nullification" it is just a jury upholding the law. When, as a member jury we know this, all the ranting and raving by a judge threatening Armageddon and calling this Armageddon nullification, we are unperturbed by it, and will proceed as necessary in spite of the judges admonishments. Of course, we can just as easily do so by using the word nullification, but why stop there? If we are so adamant on adopting the language of our enemies, why not join the "Tea Bagger" movement instead of the Tea Party movement? Why not call ourselves "domestic terrorists" instead of free people defending that freedom? Why not call ourselves "extremists" instead of natural law adherents? Do you understand?

To make the clear and understandable distinctions between the propaganda being used, and the truth, jury nullification, is the language of propaganda, where juries acquitting a person for lack of a crime, is the language of freedom. Juries should never "nullify" a law, and always uphold it, just as Congress should never legislate anything other than a law. Unfortunately, Congress can't be trusted as easily as the people can be trusted.

If using the term "jury nullification" it might be prudent to place quotation marks around or when vocally referring to it, call it this so called "jury nullification" to make clear we are only using the language of our enemies, to communicate to those who have been unduly influenced by propaganda. When dealing with law in modern times, you will often encounter judges or attorneys who will accuse you of playing semantics, when in fact, the very existence of legalese, shows who is engaging in semantics, and it isn't us. Fight with fire, be clear and concise with your language, and careful not to adopt any language that has been adopted and codified into statute, as a definition.

It is to easy to inadvertently use a word defined by code, and in doing so run afoul of their legislation, and it should be perfectly clear that their legislation, enforcement and judicial understanding of legislation is abhorrent to natural law. We want to avoid "admitting" or "confessing" to some invented crime, inadvertently by using a word clearly defined by their code. Do you understand that legislatures have become so bold, they very well could attempt to pass legislation criminalizing a juries refusal to acquit in spite of the legislation, and I assure if they do, they will call it "jury nullification". Ha! Juries acquit based upon the lack of evidence, and if there is no victim, then there is no evidence of a crime and no amount of pointless legislation under the guise of anti nullification will matter.

reply to post by zaiger


Every state, as a condition of entering the Union, was required to draft their own constitution as well, and every state has a constitution. Every state constitution, just as the federal one, has a preamble. The importance of the preamble is that it establishes clearly who is in charge. Here is the Preamble for The Constitution for the United States of America:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

topics.law.cornell.edu...

Compare that with examples from state constitutions. California:

We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Texas:

We, the people of Texas, invoking the blessings of God our Creator, do ordain and establish this constitution.

tarlton.law.utexas.edu...

New York:

New York 1846, Preamble.

We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings .

www.dos.state.ny.us...


Indeed, 50 states reference God or a Creator as being the source of law and political power, which has been granted by God to the people who have in turn Ordained a government, both and federal, to uphold the law. So, when you say;

States can write their own drug laws. Also the constitution says nothing about trafic violations, jay walking or going to the bathroom in front of your house so everyone can see yet there are laws against it.

This may be true or it may not depending upon each states constitution. Consider the State of California's Declaration of Rights in Article I of their constitution. In the matter of legislatures and legislation, in the Declaration of Rights, Section 3 (a) states:

SEC. 3.

(a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good.

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

it continues with:

(b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

and clarifying this further with, and here is the key to understanding whether your assertions about drug laws and traffic ordinances are legal:

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

Undeniably based upon this provision of the constitution, your assertions that the states, in this case being California, can write their own laws regarding traffic is suspect, and this provisions make drug laws dubious as well. It can be argued, and has been argued that certain drug laws are self evident because they are protecting the health and general well being of the people, which justifies the limitation placed upon the people. Suicide is illegal because it is self evident it is a crime, and the use of certain drugs can be suicidal, no doubt, and the harm it brings to oneself, and others, can and has been effectively argued that the need to protect the interest of the people outweighs the liberty being limited from prohibition of certain drugs.

The victim in this instance is the people or oneself, from the use of drugs, and thus, there is evidence of a crime. The People of California have shown, and increasingly so, they do not want Marijuana criminalized. The legislative process has progressed towards statutes that favor medical liberty on the matter, but a jury is still capable of acquitting a person from charges brought against that person for any recreational use of the drug, because it is not so self evident that the use of Marijuana is harmful to that person or society at large. Based upon Section 3 (b) 2 of California's constitution, the State will have a hard time convincing the People, from where the State get's its power, the interest of the people is served by the limitation of this liberty.

That would be the law in this case regarding the use of marijuana, and any jury is free to interpret that law just the way I have. Certain traffic ordinances may be able to show a self evident need to limit liberty in the interest of the People, but parking, jaywalking and many other traffic ordinances are not at all based upon their own constitution. Of course, ironically, when charged with a "crime" of parking or jaywalking, if one enters into a "traffic court" the first thing that should be clear is that no jury will be provided to acquit one of any wrong doing, and not even a court stenographer is present, to make the proceedings a legal matter, and if people are foolish enough to enter into such kangaroo courts, they do so at their own peril.

Due process of law is well protected by most if not all of the state constitutions, as is the right to life, liberty and not just the pursuit of happiness but the pursuit of property. The inherent political power of the People is acknowledged by every sate constitution, just as it is with the federal one.



[edit on 10-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

The primary function of the independent jury is not, as many think to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws,but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.
The constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that the government must bring it's case before a jury of the people if the government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict.

fija.org...

When a judge gives the jurors instructions... IT'S A LIE !

Being on a jury is more important than voting !

As a juror you can vote any way you want for what ever reason you want.

The issue of jurors rights has been argued in court and THOSE IN POWER feel it's in the courts best intrest that the people not be informed.
It would let the people know the power they really have.

Know your rights as a juror!

[edit on 10-4-2010 by OLD HIPPY DUDE]

In my own research of this issue I found a case where a womans son was on trial for growing pot. The woman was arrested outside the court house for trespassing, she was handing out pamphlets on jurors rights to people reporting for jury duty.
The DA dropped the charges because the pamphlets would to have been admitted as evidience to the jury.

Jury Nullification is just one of many Idiot Legal Arguments concocted by the Sovereign Citizen Movement and other right-wing terrorist groups.

Sovereign Citizen Movement