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.

 

"Juror nullification" Have any of your heros done this?

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Alex Jones

Gerald Celente

Max Kiaser

Glenn Beck

Sarah Palin

Obama

Well I have. I told a prosecutor and judge to stick it straight up their candy a**.

Take care. --------The crew says HI.




posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I am confused, you acquitted a criminal despite the evidence against them?

I am not sure where the list of names comes in, are they the jury or were they the criminals you acquitted?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 


Thanks for your response. You are thinking about something when I was there.

Take care and the crew says HI.

Mod Edit: Unnecessary Quote – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 2010/8/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 





I am confused, you acquitted a criminal despite the evidence against them?


A jury has the power to not only judge the facts of the case, but the law as well. If a jury finds that the legislation serving as evidence of law is not law, they have the legal authority and power to nullify the legislation and acquit the defendant charged of a crime based on that law, and once they do, the presumption of innocence afforded that defendant from the beginning remains the same presumption after the acquittal. Thus, referring to a person acquitted of a crime as a criminal is slanderous, or disingenuous at best.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Greensage
I am confused, you acquitted a criminal despite the evidence against them?


If a child rapist was acquitted despite a plethora of properly damning evidence, then
!

If a simple drug possessor was acquitted, then
!

It definitely depends on what we mean here by "criminal".



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


It should also be pointed out that legislation prohibiting child rape is undeniably law and needs no legislation in order to be law, but drug possession charges, or even the sale of drugs can only be considered a crime due to the legislation passed that declares it a crime. Where one is law that is codified into legislation, the other is not at all law, even if it has been codified into legislation.

It is hard to imagine any juror anywhere acquitting a child rapist, in spite of the evidence against that person. Indeed, in this modern age it is hard to imagine a juror acquitting a drug user in spite of the evidence, but more and more people are waking up to the fact that a.) the so called "war on drugs" is a sham, and b.) that they as jurors have the power to judge the law, and finally c.) that if they don't judge the law and nullify it, the legislatures will continue to intrude upon peoples lives in ways that clearly upset the balance of domestic tranquility, and most certainly upset the balance of justice.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Thus, referring to a person acquitted of a crime as a criminal is slanderous, or disingenuous at best.



Not if they comitted the crime. That makes no sense to me. A criminal is someone who comits crime, whether they get convicted or not makes no difference as many criminals do not even get caught.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 





Not if they comitted the crime. That makes no sense to me. A criminal is someone who comits crime, whether they get convicted or not makes no difference as many criminals do not even get caught.


If a person has been acquitted of a crime, either they were acquitted because the jury found them innocent of any crime, or they found the legislation declaring a specific action a crime not valid, either way a person acquitted of such a crime is legally innocent of the crime and should not be referred to as a criminal. Simply accusing someone of a crime, doesn't make them a criminal.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


It should also be pointed out that legislation prohibiting child rape is undeniably law and needs no legislation in order to be law


Looking into this, I'm not sure I recall seeing it addressed in the consitution. Some would outright disagree that it is malum in se:

Pederasty - that is, love between a man and a youth of 12 to 18 years of age - say middle-class homosexuals, lesbians, and feminists, has nothing to do with gay liberation. Some go so far as to claim, absurdly, that it is a heterosexual phenomenon, or even "sexual abuse." What a travesty!


NAMBLA article - Pederasty and Homosexuality

*Note that does not reflect my opinion. I am merely stating that there is disgreement even on that issue. However it is probably not a large enough group to make a difference.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If a person has been acquitted of a crime, either they were acquitted because the jury found them innocent of any crime, or they found the legislation declaring a specific action a crime not valid, either way a person acquitted of such a crime is legally innocent of the crime and should not be referred to as a criminal. Simply accusing someone of a crime, doesn't make them a criminal.


It does not matter if they have been acquitted or not. If they actually commited a crime, they are a criminal. They are a criminal if they get convicted. They are a criminal if they get acquitted. They are a criminal if they never get caught. They are a criminal if they die during the crime. A criminal is a person who does criminal things. If I murder someone, it matters not what a court or a jury says about it, I still murdered someone. I never said a person is a criminal because I accuse them of being a criminal. I said a person is a criminal if they commit crime. I do not understand how you can claim any different.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


The Constitution is not a document that lists what is a crime and what is not a crime, except for treason. The Constitution is a document that lays out the boundaries of government.

The point I was making is that legislation is not law but merely evidence of law. Gravity did not come into play because Isaac Newton wrote down its mathematical equation. Gravity existed, and Newton wrote down the equation that describes gravity. Just the same, murder did not become illegal because Congress passed legislation declaring it illegal, or state legislatures for that murder. Murder is an abrogation and derogation of another persons right to life. Hence the crime.

Child rape is also an abrogation and derogation of a persons right to life free of rape. It matters not that some people would disagree with that, and of course pointing to an association of pedophiles declaring their sexual desires for young children a right does not make it a right. In order for it to be a right their would have to be consent from both parties. The age of consent varies from state to state, but is generally considered to be the age of 18 years or older.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 





It does not matter if they have been acquitted or not. If they actually commited a crime, they are a criminal.


If a person charged with the possession of an illicit drug is acquitted they are not a criminal because there was no crime to begin with. A crime is an act of harm caused to another. A crime is not any act a legislature declares a crime by whimsy. Thus, when you claim:




They are a criminal if they get convicted.


There are far too many people convicted of a crime who have not caused any harm to any other person. Hence the term "victimless crime" which is an oxymoron and only serves to undermine the rule of law.




They are a criminal if they get acquitted.


This is patently false. In order to be called criminal, there is a legal process by which such a thing is done, and that process is called due process of law. A person acquitted of a crime has every right to live their lives free of presumption of guilt.




They are a criminal if they never get caught.


This point is moot, as you can only use the non specific term "they" in regards to criminal because "they" have never been caught. A person charged with a crime then acquitted is a different story, and it should be noted that jury nullification is not a common act by juries, and most acquittals are rendered because the prosecution failed to prove their case. If a prosecutor can not prove the person charged with a crime is guilty, their acquittal is more than enough to presume innocence, and once acquitted any person declaring them a criminal is now subject to the laws of slander and libel which are indeed a crime because of the harm the cause.




If I murder someone, it matters not what a court or a jury says about it, I still murdered someone.


If you confess to that murder, or proved to be guilty then people have the right to declare you a murderer. If you have been acquitted of the crime, regardless of your guilt or innocence, once acquitted people will not be protected by freedom of speech to declare you a murderer, and at best can only imply criminality by making reference to the alleged crime, but will not escape the consequences of slander or libel if you so chose to defend your name once acquitted. So, yes it does matter what a court or jury says.




I never said a person is a criminal because I accuse them of being a criminal. I said a person is a criminal if they commit crime. I do not understand how you can claim any different.


You cannot have it both ways. If you are not saying a person is criminal because you say they are criminal, then the point is moot isn't it? There is a reason that we have a court system, and you are on record as dismissing that system of justice. However, if I am accused of murder but ultimately acquitted of criminal charges, and you then go around calling me a criminal, declaring it matters not what the court or jury said, you are then guilty of slander and/or libel because then you are saying a person is a criminal simply because you accuse them of such. That is the difference.

Acquittals cannot be dismissed as irrelevant in regards to criminality. Justice is established by we the people to minimize the problems inherent in vigilantism.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


The Constitution is not a document that lists what is a crime and what is not a crime, except for treason. The Constitution is a document that lays out the boundaries of government.


Precisely...enough.


The point I was making is that legislation is not law but merely evidence of law.


Evidence of which law? Could you explain "evidence of law"?

My copy of The Constitution of the United States of America clearly evidences that Congress does make law, and at times shall make no law.


Gravity did not come into play because Isaac Newton wrote down its mathematical equation. ... Murder is an abrogation and derogation of another persons right to life. Hence the crime.
...
Child rape is also an abrogation and derogation of a persons right to life free of rape.


I did not reference murder. It is clear that some see certain areas as gray while you and I do not or feel precisely the opposite way.


The age of consent varies from state to state, but is generally considered to be the age of 18 years or older.


That is not evidence of anything other than the imposition of an age limit, one that did not and does not exist, absent of specific law.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 



You are just going out of your way to try and make an argument. It is not helping your case when you have to alter the parameters. First of all, a crime is a violation of law, harm or no harm so that is silly. Second of all, I stated more than once already that this "they" I am speaking of is a person who has comitted a crime so your argument of innocent people in jail is entirely off topic.


Mod Edit: Compounded Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 2010/8/30 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


This is the legal definition of criminal:


Pertaining to, or involving, crimes or the administration of penal justice. An individual who has been found guilty of the commission of conduct that causes social harm and that is punishable by law; a person who has committed a crime.



criminal 1) n. a popular term for anyone who has committed a crime, whether convicted of the offense or not. More properly it should apply only to those actually convicted of a crime.


You are relying on the popular term and willfully ignoring the legal term to make your argument, and given the topic of this thread, that being jury nullification, the legal definition of criminal is wholly relevant.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


We The People are the final arbiter against tyrannical laws/government. If we do not believe the act to be a crime or one worthy of a conviction, we have a right to acquit, period. It's a soft and kindly way to overthrow the government. But, who knows what might happen if it became too often used to block executive action.

As I have come to understand, this arose in common law out of the use of the death penalty for even petty "crimes" and the juries refused to continue to convict, even upon threat of punishment.

Malum in se:

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. This concept is a part of the value consensus model explanation of the origins of the criminal law.


Malum prohibitum:

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.


[edit on 8/30/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

criminal 1) n. a popular term for anyone who has committed a crime, whether convicted of the offense or not. More properly it should apply only to those actually convicted of a crime.


You are relying on the popular term and willfully ignoring the legal term to make your argument, and given the topic of this thread, that being jury nullification, the legal definition of criminal is wholly relevant.



I am not in a court of law. You are going way out of your way to ignore a definition you yourself just posted in order to make your point. You can pretend certain definitions do not exist but there it is, right there. Since this is a discussion forum and not a court of law, no one is subject to legal definitions without regard to any and all other socially accepted definitions. Play words games all you like but you just proved my point for me so have fun with that.

Criminal- someone who commits a crime.

Like I said.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by cindyremains
 


Jury nullification is relevant to a court of law, thus its concomitant terminology, and not a vernacular interpretation of "criminal".



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by cindyremains
 


We The People are the final arbiter against tyrannical laws/government. If we do not believe the act to be a crime or one worthy of a conviction, we have a right to acquit, period. It's a soft and kindly way to overthrow the government. But, who knows what might happen if it became too often used to block executive action.



I was not arguing against any of that.



posted on Aug, 30 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 





Evidence of which law? Could you explain "evidence of law"?


The law is the collective organization of the right to lawful defense. People have the right to defend their life, liberty and property. When legislation acts in accordance with this principle it is law, when it does not act in accordance with this principle it is merely legislation.




My copy of The Constitution of the United States of America clearly evidences that Congress does make law, and at times shall make no law.


This only supports my contention that legislation only serves as evidence of law. To further back up that assertion I offer as evidence The Supreme Courts power of judicial review that strikes down certain legislation as unconstitutional. Obviously when such an act as judicial review strikes down legislation, they were not striking down law, but striking down legislation that acted under color of law.




I did not reference murder. It is clear that some see certain areas as gray while you and I do not or feel precisely the opposite way.


I am fairly confident that you and I mostly agree on this matter, and I am well aware that you did not reference murder. I brought murder into the equation because most people are not so willing to agree to gray areas regarding murder, than they might regarding drug possession, or tragically even child rape.

Gray is a mixture of black and white and when people are declaring gray areas exist, they are lazily avoiding finding the black and white that makes up the gray.




That is not evidence of anything other than the imposition of an age limit, one that did not and does not exist, absent of specific law.


Take note how you declare it evidence. Is the age of consent law? Clearly a child up until some point is incapable of making sound decisions regarding the preservation of life, liberty and property. An infant can no more consent to sexual acts than they can consent to using drugs or gambling. As to what age a child can and does actually reach the age of consent is up to debate, but in a legal sense, such age of consent is derived by using "the reasonable person" measurement of that age. "reasonable person" is a common law concept, and the Constitution is a document rooted in common law.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join