It's time that we hold a massive campaign regarding jury nullification

[dude58677]

We should make as many video's as possible, hold rallies, give out flyers to jurors at Federal Courts, and even have public lectures on this subject.

Dr. Paul didn't mention this in his campaign(although he does advocate it) so we should take this on by ourselves.

Wesley Snipes should be the last victory for the establishment.

This must be labled as part of the Ron Paul Revolution.

[hillertexas]

Making the general population aware of jury nullification is sooooo important.

http://www.fija.org/index.php?page=displaytxt&id=207&refer=news

Nullification: The People's Veto Power

When you serve as a juror, you can veto bad laws ~ or good laws if those laws are misapplied in the case before you.

You have the authority to render a verdict based on conscience. In many states, the court employees, including the judges, will tell you that you do not have this authority. You do.

The juror's authority to veto bad laws is the final check and balance that We, the People, have to keep our government under our control.

The highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens guilty of breaking the law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from bad laws imposed by power-hungry and greedy government, or government representatives, whether that government is a king, a dictator, an elected president, another politician, or even a local mayor.

Juries protect society from dangerous individuals and also protect individuals from dangerous government. Jurors have a duty and responsibility to render a just verdict. They must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case.

The recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience, dates from before the writing of our Constitution, in cases such as those of William Penn and Peter Zenger. Should this right ever be suppressed, the people will retain their human right to resist, and when serving as a juror, retain the unalienable right to veto or nullify bad and oppressive laws, and more than ever, would be morally compelled to exercise this final veto.

Jurors, as the representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial ~ and most certainly not the government's agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers - and the forensic investigators in most cases - are all a part of and receive their paychecks from government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the "productivity" of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are, in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom.

The primary role of our jurors is to protect private citizens from dangerous government laws and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Our country's founders planned and expected that we, the people, would exercise this power and authority to judge the law as well as the facts every time we serve as jurors. Jurors are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties.

[dude58677]

Should we create an organization called the "Ron Paul Jury Rights Foundation"?

[acroso]

We can use it to throw out bogus claims of not paying the income tax form the IRS crime syndicate.

[hillertexas]

Should we create an organization called the "Ron Paul Jury Rights Foundation"?

Man, I don't know. I feel like there are so many different things popping up, all with their own names...it might get confusing for the general population (read: sheeple). I really wish we could get an umbrella organization nailed down...with a website (sheeple friendly) that would link to all of these projects. Maybe this is something to focus on after the election. But I think we should definitely have a killer billboard campaign that says something specific about the FED or jury nullification or whatever and then has the website address on there...address to the revolution hub.

[yongrel]

What a great way to marginalize ourselves! yay!

[hillertexas]

What a great way to marginalize ourselves! yay!

What a ball of sunshine you are.

[dude58677]

Man, I don't know. I feel like there are so many different things popping up, all with their own names...it might get confusing for the general population (read: sheeple). I really wish we could get an umbrella organization nailed down...with a website (sheeple friendly) that would link to all of these projects. Maybe this is something to focus on after the election. But I think we should definitely have a killer billboard campaign that says something specific about the FED or jury nullification or whatever and then has the website address on there...address to the revolution hub.

Doing this would make it absolutely clear that we are part of a movement and not a typical presidential campaign.

[dude58677]

What a great way to marginalize ourselves! yay!

How is this marginalizing ourselves? I would say it is doing the opposite. The establishment think this is only a failed Presidential campaign. What I am suggesting is going to demonstrate that this goes far beyond a campaign.

[idiom]

Well I didn't know about this one...

It needs to be called Veto By Jury or something. Jury Nullification sounds like, well you are nullfiying the Jury. That's what Gitmo is for.

[dude58677]

Well I didn't know about this one...

It needs to be called Veto By Jury or something. Jury Nullification sounds like, well you are nullfiying the Jury. That's what Gitmo is for.

Sounds good. Got any other suggestions on how we can get this campaign underway regarding "Veto by Jury"?

[idiom]

A Law and Order episode about it would be great. Everyone is hanging out for the verdict and the Jury comes out and vetoes the law.

That would be mint.

But yeah getting it into popular consciousness as a plot device would be pretty effective.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I wish Ron would prominently mention the power and duty of the people to oversee government via jury vetos of bad laws.

He's mentioned civil disobedience and Lysander Spooner several times during the campaign. Those would have been good times for him to endorse this vital democratic common law protection of the rights of the people by the people themselves--not by the government.

For example, when he was cornered on the eve of the New Hampshire primary about the racist newsletters and his opposition to the civil war, he mentioned Lysander Spooner, but didn't explain how jury nullification (along with civil disobedience) was already abolishing slavery peacefully. There was not even the need to buy the slaves as Ron Paul has suggested a few times.


For more than six hundred years --- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 --- there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” --- a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government --- they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.

But for their right to judge of the law, and the justice of the law, juries would be no protection to an accused person, even as to matters of fact; for, if the government can dictate to a jury any law whatever, in a criminal case, it can certainly dictate to them the laws of evidence. That is, it can dictate what evidence is admissible, and what inadmissible, and also what force or weight is to be given to the evidence admitted. And if the government can thus dictate to a jury the laws of evidence, it can not only make it necessary for them to convict on a partial exhibition of the evidence rightfully pertaining to the case, but it can even require them [*6] to convict on any evidence whatever that it pleases to offer them.

That the rights and duties of jurors must necessarily be such as are here claimed for them, will be evident when it is considered what the trial by jury is, and what is its object.

“The trial by jury,” then, is a “trial by the country” ---that is by the people as distinguished from a trial the government.

It was anciently called “trial per pais” that is, “trial by the country.” And now, in every criminal trial, the jury are told that the accused “has, for trial, put himself upon the country; which country you (the jury) are.”

The object of this trial “by the country,” or by the people, in preference to a trial by the government, is to guard against every species of oppression by the government. In order to effect this end, it is indispensable that the people, or “the country,” judge of and determine their own liberties against the government; instead of the government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people. How is it possible that juries can do anything to protect the liberties of the people against the government; if they are not allowed to determine what those liberties are?

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other --- or at least no more accurate --- definition of a despotism than this.

On the other hand, any people, that judge of, and determine authoritatively for the government, what are their own liberties against the government, of course retain all the liberties they wish to enjoy. And this is freedom. At least, it is freedom to them; because, although it may be theoretically imperfect, it, nevertheless, corresponds to their highest notions of freedom.

To secure this right of the people to judge of their own liberties against the government, the jurors are taken, (or must be, to make them lawful jurors,) from the body of the people, by lot, or by some process that precludes any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government. [*7] This is done to prevent the government’s constituting a jury of its own partisans or friends; in other words, to prevent the government’s packing a jury, with a view to maintain its own laws, and accomplish its own purposes.

It is supposed that, if twelve men be taken, by lot, from the mass of the people, without the possibility of any previous knowledge, choice, or selection of them, on the part of the government, the jury will be a fair epitome of “the country” at large, and not merely of the party or faction that sustain the measures of the government; that substantially all classes, of opinions, prevailing among the people, will be represented in the jury; and especially that the opponents of the government, (if the government have any opponents,) will be represented there, as well as its friends; that the classes, who are oppressed by the laws of the government, (if any are thus oppressed,) will have their representatives in the jury, as well as those classes, who take sides with the oppressor --- that is, with the government.

It is fairly presumable that such a tribunal will agree to no conviction except such as substantially the whole country would agree to, if they were present, taking part in the trial. A trial by such a tribunal is, therefore, in effect, “a trial by the country.” In its results it probably comes as near to a trial by the whole country, as any trial that it is practicable to have, without too great inconvenience and expense. And, as unanimity is require for a conviction, it follows that no one can be convicted, except for the violation of such laws as substantially the whole country wish to have maintained. The government can enforce none of its laws, (by punishing offenders, through the verdicts of juries,) except such as substantially the whole people wish to have enforced. The government, therefore, consistently with the trial by jury, can exercise no powers over the people, (or, what is the same thing, over the accused person, who represents the rights of the people,) except such as substantially the whole people of the country consent that it may exercise. In such a trial, therefore, “the country,” or the people, judge of and determine their own liberties against the government, instead of the [*8] government’s judging of and determining its own powers over the people.

But all this trial by the country” would be no trial at all “by the country,” but only a trial by the government, if the government could either declare who may, and who may not, be jurors, or could dictate to the jury anything whatever, either of law or evidence, that is of the essence of the trial.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/bib_new.htm

[MS0453]

Just work through FIJA. Everythings already set-up.

[american.swan]

I think getting the word out about this is important, but we need to do it in a separate movement.

[acroso]

You know...Paulville ain't such a bad idea afterall. Tax evasion law suits will all be thrown out via nullification! We'll have lots of businesses want to come out way too in a tax free zone. Maybe a small sales tax that's it.



Complete freedom from taxation!

[sratiug]

You know...Paulville ain't such a bad idea afterall. Tax evasion law suits will all be thrown out via nullification! We'll have lots of businesses want to come out way too in a tax free zone. Maybe a small sales tax that's it.



Complete freedom from taxation!

Now y'all are on to something... we need a whole county, sheriff's, police chiefs, prosecutors, judges, juries and all.

[JMann]

My father told me early on that the best way to get out of jury duty is to volunteer that you support the idea of jury nullification. This isn't illegal or not doing your civil duty but it will pretty much get you challenged by the DA.

I think it is a wise concept when it comes to a jury letting someone off for a non-violent charge for some dude that didn't give up a friend for the prosecutor but it sucks when it is used to excuse a violent offense.

[rathskeller]

I hate to be the voice of reason, but the VAST majority of people in this country are not in favor of wesley Snipes. Many think the sentence was harsh, but NOt the verdict. If you think that most people think that the income tax is not valid, then you are not living in the real world. It is valid, it was ratified by enough states, and has been upheld numerous times. For Wesley Snipes to think that he is above other Americans is absurd, and how anyone can be on his side is beyond me.

And you know who agrees with me? RON PAUL! At no point has he ever said that the income tax law is not valid. He doesn't like it, and wants to get rid of it, but he acknolwedges that it exists and is valid.

So tell me...why do you hate Ron Paul so much as to call him an ignorant sheeple?

[hillertexas]

//

[dude58677]

I hate to be the voice of reason, but the VAST majority of people in this country are not in favor of wesley Snipes. Many think the sentence was harsh, but NOt the verdict. If you think that most people think that the income tax is not valid, then you are not living in the real world. It is valid, it was ratified by enough states, and has been upheld numerous times. For Wesley Snipes to think that he is above other Americans is absurd, and how anyone can be on his side is beyond me.

And you know who agrees with me? RON PAUL! At no point has he ever said that the income tax law is not valid. He doesn't like it, and wants to get rid of it, but he acknolwedges that it exists and is valid.

So tell me...why do you hate Ron Paul so much as to call him an ignorant sheeple?

It is immoral(that is all that is needed for a jury nullification is a vote for conscience) because it forces people to pay for programs that are not efficient, not constitutional, and not moral. This is extortion and this is why it should be nullified by a jury.

As for Wesley Snipes, I see it as the same as Muhammed Ali protesting the military draft. It was a step in ending the draft because people started to se it as unfair(of course it took the politicians to change it but Muhammed Ali had a big voice in it).

[pcosmar]

My father told me early on that the best way to get out of jury duty is to volunteer that you support the idea of jury nullification. This isn't illegal or not doing your civil duty but it will pretty much get you challenged by the DA.

I think it is a wise concept when it comes to a jury letting someone off for a non-violent charge for some dude that didn't give up a friend for the prosecutor but it sucks when it is used to excuse a violent offense.

What about self defense cases. Someone who shoots to defend his home or family.

I know people doing time for this.

I knew a man who was doing 40 years for killing his wifes rapist. The rapist was protected by local politics, and not prosecuted.

I can not serve on a jury. In most states (if not all) even after a restoration of rights, EX-felons cannot serve. They don't want anyone with knowledge of the system in the jury box.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

I hate to be the voice of reason, but the VAST majority of people in this country are not in favor of wesley Snipes.

That's the whole point of jury veto power, you don't need a MAJORITY at all. Even if the VAST majority is for slavery, it only takes 1 out of 12 votes to veto state oppression.

The community (i.e. the "people") represented by a randomly selected jury must UNANIMOUSLY agree that the income tax is just, before any one of us can be punished under a government statute.

The big problem we've had since the days of the Fugitive Slave cases, is the government judges STACK our juries with people pre-filtered to obey the government judges rather than justice and their consciences.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I can not serve on a jury. In most states (if not all) even after a restoration of rights, EX-felons cannot serve. They don't want anyone with knowledge of the system in the jury box.

It also helps to keep drug offenders from enacting political change.

[hillertexas]

bump