Civil Disobedience and Jury Nullification

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Everyone,

It's time to spread the word of one part of the Revolution. Jury Nullification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

We can strike at the heart of the State and Tyranny just like our Founders and Revolutionaries tried to do and did. Support FIJA -- http://fija.org/.

Inform all your fellow liberty-lovers, friends, family, acquantinces, etc.

Try to get on juries as much as you can (Though do not advocate or in any way expose your express intent to use Jury Nullification because yes, they have laws that can disbar you from being a juror because of that). Do not abrogate that duty and obligation; I know many people who balk at the notion of having to be a juror, but that is a plus for us liberty-lovers since we'll be educated, informed, and ready to do our duty.

What say you, revolutionaries?

[Dieseler]

I say that's probably not a good idea.
If you advocate Jury Nullification for this why would someone else not justify it for that.
Tit for Tat?
Nat.
The system is fragile in that regard and most folk have little faith in it as it is.
Jury Nullification, if it run rampant could lead to Civil War II.

I feel you though.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I'll do what I can for this movement when I'm on my feet. However...I'm not too confident in the success of nullification, given the strong propensity of people to turn sadistic when in positions of power over others. I doubt we'd have a government at all if people were able to fairly and reasonably preside over the fate of others.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'll do what I can for this movement when I'm on my feet. However...I'm not too confident in the success of nullification, given the strong propensity of people to turn sadistic when in positions of power over others. I doubt we'd have a government at all if people were able to fairly and reasonably preside over the fate of others.

The system itself is sadistic and has allowed to become so because people are not using their rights, and their duty to nullify unjust laws! How can us liberty-lovers be against this?!

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I'm absolutely not against it in principle, I'm just concerned about the psychology of it.

I fail to see how the jury is any different from the state in incentivising human predation. Most folk I've spoken to would gladly let some poor kid with a minor drug charge get eaten alive by the system.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I say that's probably not a good idea.
If you advocate Jury Nullification for this why would someone else not justify it for that.
Tit for Tat?
Nat.
The system is fragile in that regard and most folk have little faith in it as it is.
Jury Nullification, if it run rampant could lead to Civil War II.

I feel you though.

Expound. What is "this"? Unjust laws? Laws that violate Natural Law and NAP.

If it's not such a good idea let then this persuade you:

I was summoned for jury duty some years ago, and during voir dire, the attorney asked me whether I could obey the judge's instructions. I answered, "It all depends upon what those instructions are." Irritatingly, the judge asked me to explain myself. I explained that if I were on a jury back in the 1850s, and a person was on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act by assisting a runaway slave, I would vote for acquittal regardless of the judge's instructions. The reason is that slavery is unjust and any law supporting it is unjust. Needless to say, I was dismissed from jury duty.

Walter Williams, 11 July 2007


http://www.friesian.com/nullif.htm

The problem of a government that has become completely faithless to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, either in letter or in spirit, and has adopted multiple devices of tyranny and despotism, reveals the true colors of conservatives like Bork. At a conference where it was suggested that the people no longer owed respect, loyalty, or obedience to such a government, Bork and others from the conservative spectrum just about wet their pants in shock at such a notion. The idea a "constituted authority" might, through its own betrayals and injustices, lose the right to rule was far more horrifying than the faithlessness, betrayals, injustices, and tyrannies themselves. Bork possesses, in short, a slave mentality. He is the opposite of the declaration of the State of North Carolina, which said, in ratifying the Constitution, qualified by the requirement of a Bill of Rights, "that the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish, and destructive to the good and happiness of mankind" [Barnett, op. cit., p. 364]. Since the American Revolution was at this point already won, and the question was the powers and authority of the federal government, the possible need for "resistance" was clearly contemplated, not against King George, but against the "constituted authority" of the United States Government. Never has such resistance been more sorely needed than now, however complacent and content the American people have become with their peonage. What Bork "Dreads" is simply freedom.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm absolutely not against it in principle, I'm just concerned about the psychology of it.

I fail to see how the jury is any different from the state in incentivising human predation. Most folk I've spoken to would gladly let some poor kid with a minor drug charge get eaten alive by the system.

Because the jury has a specific self-interest to keep laws as just as possible because they will someday run afoul of unjust laws, especially us fighting the Tyranny, but almost everyone has no idea that they have the duty and right to nullify unjust laws, and it is against the law for Judges to inform juries of their duty and they can indeed boot you off the jury because of your intention to nullify tyranny. Also, I'm not understanding your refutation? I guess you disagree about going to a jury trial instead of paying the fine? So, you are against Civil Disobedience....we are not going to accomplish our goals solely by political means.

[Dieseler]

How about some ethnicity murders your .... Say its an open and shut case but the jury is "hung" because a couple of those members of the jury are of that ethnicity and decided to practice Jury Nullification.
That would be fucked huh.
I hope I'm not being racist.
White is an ethnicity isn't it?
No?
Shit...
Yeah that would cause huge problems.

[Elwar]

I've been on two juries in the past 5 years or so...one was the Grand Jury for my county. The Grand Jury meets every week for about 3 months and hears all of the cases being brought up by the D.A. The Grand Jury then decides if a case has enough evidence to go to trial or not. In my county it took a vote of 12 (out of about 20 of us) to send it on to a trial. I tended to vote against all of the victimless crimes but I was usually the sole voter with my hand down. I didn't hold much sway in that jury.

The other jury I was on was for a civil trial. There were 12 of us and it required 10 votes to find the defendant guilty. The case was a malpractice suit where a guy suffered some injury because he didn't take his meds right and the doctor on trial saw him the day before he ended up collapsing from his condition and going to the hospital. After reviewing the evidence, I saw that there was no way that the doctor could have prevented the collapse (he would have had to send him to get his blood work done and it would have taken more than a day for the results to come back, which by then he'd already collapsed). After the trial was over, most of the jury members felt sorry for the patient and wanted to give him some money even though they knew that the doctor wasn't at fault. But in order to grant any money they had to find the doctor guilty. I fought against the other jury members adamantly and fortunately was able to get 2 other people to hold the line with me to prevent the guilty verdict late on Friday when everyone just wanted to vote and be done with it. We all thought it out over the weekend and that Monday morning everyone had changed their mind and it ended up 11 to 1 that the doctor was innocent (the hold out had a father that had some medical problems and he just wanted to stick it to the man). After the trial we found out that the family was suing every doctor that the guy had seen that month and he actually settled out of court with one of the doctors (who was actually partly responsible).

I do hope to one day sit on a criminal trial and hold my ground on any victimless crimes.

A word of advice if you're ever on a Grand Jury...volunteer to be the jury chairman, you pretty much set the tone for the way the votes should go.

[Sematary]

I'm all for Jury nullification in cases where it should truly be used.

[constituent]

This really should be your primary focus. When you're working on people trying to convince them that liberty is the way, always try to funnel the discussion to jury nullification. You leave people feeling empowered.

IMO, if everyone could be convinced to work on fighting back directly against the one thing about gov't that really pisses them off, the one thing that stings them personally, the rest would pretty much take care of itself. Jury Nullification convinces people that they CAN do exactly that.

[Working Poor]

This really should be your primary focus. When you're working on people trying to convince them that liberty is the way, always try to funnel the discussion to jury nullification. You leave people feeling empowered.

IMO, if everyone could be convinced to work on fighting back directly against the one thing about gov't that really pisses them off, the one thing that stings them personally, the rest would pretty much take care of itself. Jury Nullification convinces people that they CAN do exactly that.

The drug laws would have been altered long again had jury nullification been working. I wish people would become more informed about this. I wish lawyers would start bringing it up in trails it seem like the good ones who win cases would. It seems like it would be a defense lawyers job.

That's it lawyers are not doing their jobs:eek:

[Elwar]

Something that would have a huge impact would be passing out those little pocket constitutions with the explanation of jurys at every courthouse on the days that juries are selected.

I recall when I went to jury duty in San Antonio we all went in through the same door, there were about 2000 people per week (every Tuesday, same thing). If someone was standing outside the door with those asking "are you here for jury duty?" people would take it thinking it was part of the process. And there's a lot of time spent waiting around for them to read it.

[Mini-Me]

How about some ethnicity murders your .... Say its an open and shut case but the jury is "hung" because a couple of those members of the jury are of that ethnicity and decided to practice Jury Nullification.
That would be fucked huh.
I hope I'm not being racist.
White is an ethnicity isn't it?
No?
Shit...
Yeah that would cause huge problems.

You might not know it, but you're sort of using an argument for gun control. ;) If we "outlaw" jury nullification, only outlaw jurors will use jury nullification. Yes, a few past juries have indeed used de facto "jury nullification" to acquit murderers of killing someone of a skin color they didn't like. However, those are the acts of rogue juries, not honest juries nullifying unjust or unconstitutional laws.

In reality, unethical and dishonest jurors will return unethical and dishonest verdicts as they please anyway, because jury nullification (for whatever purpose) is an implicit power of juries stemming from their independence and freedom from being punished for "wrong" verdicts. Rogue jurors don't care whether jury nullification is a legitimate tradition or not. Instead, educating people about jury nullification will only actually impact the ethical, honest people, by teaching them about one of the most important built-in powers of a jury as the last line of defense against tyranny, unjust laws, and unresponsive politicians. Jury nullification has a long tradition, and it was famously used in the pre-Revolutionary libel trial of John Peter Zenger. The Founding Fathers/Framers intended on the jury's ability to judge the law itself by the very meaning of the word "jury" at the time, and John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, specifically informed the jury of its powers and responsibilities:

It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.
Of course, over time, as the government has grown in power, it and its vain and power-hungry cronies in the judicial system have gradually tried to erode and cover up the power of jury nullification, and that's where we stand today...
We really have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by educating people about jury nullification. Then again, maybe we don't exactly have "everything" to gain, since the government has been deliberately squeezing jury trials out of the system via "summary offenses" at the low end and "suspected terrorists" and "enemy combatants" at the high end.

[idirtify]

I say that's probably not a good idea.
If you advocate Jury Nullification for this why would someone else not justify it for that.
Tit for Tat?
Nat.
The system is fragile in that regard and most folk have little faith in it as it is.
Jury Nullification, if it run rampant could lead to Civil War II.

I feel you though.

Dieseler,

People have little faith in the jury system PRECISELY BECAUSE it has been overtaken by the corrupt state. The jury was originally intended to be independent of the state in order to be the last line of defense against unjust statism. If your fear is nullification run rampant and civil war, you are apparently not aware that the state has run rampant and the threat of civil war is far worse because of it. Why do you fear PEOPLE running rampant more than the state? Do you not realize that the state is only made up of the same people and worse?

[idirtify]

I'll do what I can for this movement when I'm on my feet. However...I'm not too confident in the success of nullification, given the strong propensity of people to turn sadistic when in positions of power over others. I doubt we'd have a government at all if people were able to fairly and reasonably preside over the fate of others.

Grimnir Wotansvolk,

If you are truly not “too confident … given the strong propensity of people to turn sadistic when in positions of power over others”, then why are you arguing against nullification? You have just described the state (far more accurately). “Sadistic people in positions of power” IS the GOVERNMENT – and precisely why we need jury nullification. Think of jury nullification as not only empowering the less powerful, but reducing the power of the more powerful.

“I doubt we'd have a government at all if people were able to fairly and reasonably preside over the fate of others.”

Why are you implying that the government/state is MORE able to be fair and reasonable? Do you actually believe that??

[idirtify]

I'm absolutely not against it in principle, I'm just concerned about the psychology of it.

I fail to see how the jury is any different from the state in incentivising human predation. Most folk I've spoken to would gladly let some poor kid with a minor drug charge get eaten alive by the system.

Why are you MORE concerned about the psychology of nullification? That implies LESS concern about state-instructed juries. How can you not see how the state (state-instructed jury) is far WORSE at incentivising human predation than the independent jury (informed about jury nullification and willing to use it if necessary)? If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand much about most of the content of Liberty Forest. FYI most poor kids with a minor drug charge ALREADY get eaten alive by the system – because of the state has overtaken it.

[idirtify]

How about some ethnicity murders your .... Say its an open and shut case but the jury is "hung" because a couple of those members of the jury are of that ethnicity and decided to practice Jury Nullification.
That would be fucked huh.
I hope I'm not being racist.
White is an ethnicity isn't it?
No?
Shit...
Yeah that would cause huge problems.

Dieseler,

That might occasionally happen, but not as often as it ALREADY DOES. The point is one of comparative degrees of tyranny. The current state-run system is already highly racist, and a fully-informed jury would be a vast improvement. And while you ponder the 98% conviction rate of the current system, just remember that it’s better for 10 guilty men to go free rather than for one to be unjustly convicted.

[PreDeadMan]

If the crime is drug use and the person on the drugs did not harm anybody or their property sure use jury nullification for the poor chap for murder.... if the evidence says he's guilty then obviously don't use it

[idirtify]

Fear of jury nullification is so telling, because it reveals the one unreasonable fear that serves to support big corrupt government more than any other; the fear of lots of people being free. See how opponents of jury nullification in this thread demonstrate a greater fear of “lots of free people” and a lesser fear of “lots of government power”. While it’s an unreasonable fear and a logical fallacy (the fallacy of angelic government), it’s amazing how many people trust “lots of government power” but distrust “lots of free people”. Kind of makes you wonder how much they really understand about “liberty”.

[slothman]

If I were on a jury then I would probably use it all the time, not just for victimless crimes.

My theory is that the number of people in jail should be no more than the number of crimes commited.

The crimes though are what I want a crime to be.

In other words I would let most of them free since they are mostly laws that shouldn't be present.

[Mini-Me]

If I were on a jury then I would probably use it all the time, not just for victimless crimes.

My theory is that the number of people in jail should be no more than the number of crimes commited.

The crimes though are what I want a crime to be.

In other words I would let most of them free since they are mostly laws that shouldn't be present.

LOL, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if not, I don't think that really came out right. ;) If you're trying to prove a point by implying you'd go totally rogue if you were put on a jury, well...you can do that regardless of how much people know about jury nullification. :p

[constituent]

LOL, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but if not, I don't think that really came out right. ;) If you're trying to prove a point by implying you'd go totally rogue if you were put on a jury, well...you can do that regardless of how much people know about jury nullification. :p

well said. :)

[davesxj]

We the People are the ones to blame for the destruction of our liberties and wealth. I'd support any acts of civil disobedience or jury nullification.

Think of it this way. You're driving your car home from out of town. It starts to overheat but your only fifty miles from home. Do you keep driving past the knocking, the power loss, the cracked head until your engine has thrown every rod and is a complete wreck hoping that for some reason the disaster you know is coming will wait? Or do you STOP and fix the problem then?

Right now we're gripping the wheel saying "oh man. sh*t sh*t. just gotta make it to 2010. All the while the country is being wrecked. Not just by Obama or the Dems or just the Republicans but by corruption, fraud, and failure to represent the wishes of We the People.

The smart thing to do would be to shut it off. We may feel slight discomfort and uneasiness. It will probably be scary. But it will save us A LOT of trouble in the future.

[MelissaWV]

I say that's probably not a good idea.
If you advocate Jury Nullification for this why would someone else not justify it for that.
Tit for Tat?
Nat.
The system is fragile in that regard and most folk have little faith in it as it is.
Jury Nullification, if it run rampant could lead to Civil War II.

I feel you though.

I don't think it's particularly likely to lead to a second Civil War. Regardless of why a jury votes how it does, it is theoretically a jury of the accused's peers once it is seated. The prosecution has a process in place by which they can attempt to weed out people who are likely to vote "not guilty" purely because they want to make a point. If they fail to weed out those people, then that's part of the process. It is also no accident that this sort of thinking is more likely to produce a "not guilty" verdict than a "guilty" one; it is yet another tip in the scales towards the benefit of the doubt.

[KenInMontiMN]

I wish lawyers would start bringing it up in trials it seem like the good ones who win cases would. It seems like it would be a defense lawyer's job.

That's it lawyers are not doing their jobs:eek:

In many states attorneys risk being disbarred for making a direct nullification argument to a jury. What's more, the prosecutor will object immediately and most judges will immediately shut down that line of argument. In my state the criminal jury instruction guide, which most judges present verbatum to jurors, says exactly the opposite, though untrue - that jurors may only consider the facts, and that the law is determined by the court.

That being said in the defense of any individual defense att'y who perhaps wishes they could present such an argument directly to a jury, this must also be said: Attorneys wrote that guide, and the judges who disallow nullification argument are attorneys also.

Our best hope lies in two directions - 1) educate citizens as to their rights, duties, and responsibilities as jurors, and 2) strive to introduce legislation declaring mistrial anytime such an argument is not allowed, and further to declare mistrial if any juror is dismissed by the judge for cause due to expressing their constitutional rights, duties, and responsibilities as jurors. Let the prosecution waste a strike if they have knowledge of that juror's informed understanding.

One thing about voir dire as practiced in the US - we inherited much of our basic law and procedure from England, but it is interesting that we have come to apply voir dire very much differently from England. In England, one question, and one question only is allowed to be directed to the prospective juror - "Can you give a fair hearing to both the Crown and the defence?" - any juror answering to the affirmative is immediately seated. Changing to this solitary line of query might not be a bad idea here as well.

[Dieseler]

Coming into a jury and hearing a case, I would have to be absolutely satisfied that the prosecution had met its case and To The Word of the Law or else I would have a doubt and no one would sway me to participate in a guilty verdict if there was any doubt in my mind of that persons innocence.

On the other hand, just IMHO, it is a dangerous precedent to set by even discussing a predetermined outcome of a certain type of trial due to what you consider not to be a crime. This is a two edged sword that can easily be thrust back upon you.
I know and understand what you would consider justifiable to use Jury nullification for but...
There are no limits to what type of crime this can be used for.

This is a weapon that can be wielded wholesale by entire groups with no limits to it's end so be fair warned.

That's all I have for you, I have no further argument except that somethings quite possibly go best unsaid.

[KenInMontiMN]

Well Dieseler, the dangerous precedent was set about 800 years ago in 1215 when the Magna Carta ensured citizen-juries would from then on be used in place of professional gov't-appointed jurists, in order to simply say no to the King's laws when juries determined doing so was in the best interests of justice and mercy. So to talk of this as some sort of new precedent is out there a good ways

[Dieseler]

Well Dieseler, the dangerous precedent was set about 800 years ago in 1215 when the Magna Carta ensured citizen-juries would from then on be used in place of professional gov't-appointed jurists, in order to simply say no to the King's laws when juries determined doing so was in the best interests of justice and mercy. So to talk of this as some sort of new precedent is out there a good ways

Oh, geez, is it really that fucking hard to understand?
Go ahead and preach this and watch more and more states begin to allow conviction by a majority of a jury.

[KenInMontiMN]

Preach? Do you consider standing firm on 1st or 2nd amendment foundation to be preaching as well? Should we turn in our guns and refrain from any 1st amendment activity out of fear of draconian measures, and simply ask govt officials to please be gentle??

On that note, why do the phrases 'civil disobedience' & 'jury nullification' appear side by side in the title of this thread? Jury nullification is not civil disobedience.

"I consider trial by Jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
-Thomas Jefferson

We can fight off challenges to standard jury procedure that you mention as they arise. Jurors must always be made aware of the trust placed in them to limit and contain govt excess, or they have lost the largest part of their usefulness. There must be no room for compromise on this.

[Dieseler]

Preach? Do you consider standing firm on 1st or 2nd amendment foundation to be preaching as well? Should we turn in our guns and refrain from any 1st amendment activity out of fear of draconian measures, and simply ask govt officials to please be gentle??

Nope.
Were you really only interested in commenting on one word in my post? Did the other words not strike a nerve somewhere?

[KenInMontiMN]

No, the other words amount to a plea to raise the white flag and quickly surrender away our constitutional rights and responsibilities to those who would strip them away, before any shot is ever fired. Such words don't deserve any response, and believe me it wouldn't be a pleasant one.

[Dieseler]

No, the other words amount to a plea to raise the white flag before any shot is ever fired.

OK then Ken.
How would you feel.. man I'm not gonna do this again, already went there in my first post, it's just to personal in my opinion, wish I hadn't done it earlier.
If it suits you do it... Teach it... Talk about it.. and don't be surprised if living by that sword causes your heart to be pierced by the same. There are more crimes out there for Juries to decide than marijuana convictions.
Murderers can walk by this same tactic.
That's all I got really.

[KenInMontiMN]

Murderers already do walk on occasion because juries set them loose, so I wouldn't expect any significant change there. Our citizenry as a whole does frown on murder, to say the least. No jury nullification rights education is going to change that...the overwhelming majority should and does stand firm in dispensing justice to those who victimize others. The trick is to get them fully aware of the fact that they don't have to apply the same to those who've victimized no one. They can certainly, but they must be made aware they are not required to do that, else there is no hope of limiting govt excess from the jury box, and the jury box is and was fully intended to be a bastion against govt excess.

But ultimately the key here is to remember that rights, including the right to justice, are not granted by govt but rather are God-given, a fact of your existence. If your loved one's murderer is set free by a jury, and you choose to rectify that situation, you have acted fully within your right to demand and gain justice. If the state chooses to prosecute you for such action, you likely have a much, much better chance with your jury than the lucky murderer faced.

Dr. Paul is a strong supporter of jury nullification, and I'm strongly inclined to agree with him on this one. Without it we are that much more powerless against govt edict.

[Todd]

The author of the Rule Book says that jurors have the right to nullify a trial if the law is unconstitutional or is being used in an unconstitutional manner. Originally published anonymously, the Citizens Rule Book is now known to have been written by Charles R. Olsen, a World War II Marine veteran and printer from Boston


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Citizens_Rule_Book.jpg

[Dieseler]

Perhaps I am wrong.
I will reread every post in this thread and attempt to find myself wrong according to my own beliefs.
It won't be the first time that I was ever wrong.

I will say this though, the point you are arguing to me does seem to be one that could go without being said as it is common sense ino that people already will react this way when being forced to make a decision over someone in a matter that they feel is wrong to begin with.
The point I am making is not against the point that you are making.
My point is that the tactic can and is used for the wrong reasons sometimes.
O.J. comes to mind.
The type of Jury that let OJ walk for murder leads to the kind of Jury that...
I am no expert on either case so I will let this go.
I will reread the thread.
Thanks.

[KenInMontiMN]

When I was a public middle school student (they called it jr high here, then) in the late sixties, the right to nullify bad law from the jury box was one of a number of topics that came up for lively classroom debate in civics classes. Does this happen anymore? I'd like to hear feedback from those fairly fresh out of hs, or even still there, as to whether this topic gets any play at all in the classroom anymore. In the courtroom, ignorance is now actively enforced.

[Dieseler]

When I was a public middle school student (they called it jr high here, then) in the late sixties, the right to nullify bad law from the jury box was one of a number of topics that came up for lively classroom debate in civics classes. Does this happen anymore? I'd like to hear feedback from those fairly fresh out of hs, or even still there, as to whether this topic gets any play at all in the classroom anymore. In the courtroom, ignorance is now actively enforced.

I believe that with all my heart Ken.
I would like to hear as well.

[KenInMontiMN]

One thing re the OJ case and any potential proposed systemic changes to water down the jury unanimity principle in criminal matters - can you think of any way that changing the unanimity principle would have affected that outcome at all? I can't. That outcome was the combined result of some questionable police work, police officers taking the 5th on the stand so as not to incriminate themselves - an extremely messy situation for any jury - along with the fact of an all non-white jury. Say what you like about the all non-white jury, I think the fact is that our history in total made that outcome possible if not likely with such a jury, their verdict most certainly did not come as a huge surprise to me. Sometimes a society has to live with the comeuppance it has earned across centuries, that's justice too - though certainly not for the victims.

[puppetmaster]

http://fija.org/2008/03/08/nullification-the-peoples-veto-power/

[puppetmaster]

A Look at the Jury System
A Look at the Jury System and Our Participation in It

by Graham Dugas

“Without justice, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?” St. Augustine

The jury system is one of the few remaining checks on the system available to those of us who love freedom. We must utilize this tool to the fullest measure if we ever hope to non-violently fight tyranny. Yes, it is a hassle but we needn’t look far to see all the evils visited upon us when this righteous check on tyranny and lunacy is neglected. With freedom comes responsibility. The jury system is the government coming before you asking for permission. In that sense we are not “tainting ourselves by participating in the system” as some would have us believe. Rather it is “The System” coming before us seeking acquiescence and we need not cater to their wishes.


The evil of laziness:

Let’s get a little closer to home. Let’s take a good look at our hearts. We who espouse human responsibility, we who decry envy, we who are educated and refined, have we by our neglect enabled those who would tyrannize us?

OK, so jury duty doesn’t really pay that well, it is grievous and it gives the righteous freedom lover agita to no end. Is that reason to neglect it? When those who work real jobs that require intelligence all seek to get excused from of jury duty so they can go about their normal affairs, the void is filled by those who might typically watch Jerry Springer. or Oprah. (Which is worse?) Who would you want on your jury should the IRS target you? Murray Rothbard or Boobus Americanus? So we who love freedom, must overcome our laziness and endeavor to get seated on the jury because it is we who have studied history, it is we who have studied the precepts of liberty and it is we who have obtained a righteous and non-conformed ideal of justice. If it is not our view of justice that is represented, it will be someone else’s view that gets represented. We should therefore see to it that we persevere through all the odious crap and overcome all the things in they put place to dissuade our participation.

The evil of pride:

Pride, zeal, and even the love of the truth often traps unwise freedom lovers. They know the doctrine of nullification. They know the history of men such as William Penn (after whom Pennsylvania is named). They know Blackstone, they know the Constitution and they can’t wait to let others know they know it too. Herein is their undoing. They get bounced from the jury pool, and maybe marked for life, just because they fail to grasp the true goal of having the magistrate subjected to them. And that is exactly what it is. The power elites still have to come before the common man to obtain 1.) an indictment via a Grand Jury, and 2.) a conviction via a common jury. A righteous soul on a Grand Jury can shield his fellow man from the rigors, expense and capricious risk of a criminal trial. Just one person of conscience on a regular jury can prevent an evil outcome. Sadly, such stand alone faith and fortitude are rare ingredients these days. Let’s change that.

The power of a juror:

A single juror has unlimited and unreviewable power that cannot be reversed. if he is wise. Just one juror can hang the jury and prevent a conviction. And his reasons need not be explained, nor must he even let them be fully known to a single soul. He can just vote to acquit and say nothing else. He can keep his reasons entirely private should he so desire. The juror is a judge of the facts (he didn’t pay his taxes, he had a gun, he protested outside the designated “free speech zone”) and he is also a judge of the laws forbidding such actions. Mid-nineteenth-century jurors often refused to convict those who were charged with violating the Fugitive Slave Act. If just a few jurors refused to convict in tax cases the whole phoney mess could be defanged. This power is so great that way we don’t need 51%, we only need one out of twelve and they are powerless to overcome us.

(An important side note: The juror also has the right to ask questions during the trial but it is best to refrain exercising in our times lest he get bounced from the jury by an arbitrary evil “Judge” for “misconduct.”)

The goal:

Very simply the goal is to get seated. Suppose they pass a law that absolutely forbids the possession of any type of a gun whatsoever. Suppose all the courts and judges are all stacked and beholden to evil. (Is this a big supposition?) Suppose Joe Patriot was found with a gun. Suppose the penalty was death. Suppose you were on the jury and the defendant openly admitted that he had the gun and the facts are beyond dispute. The “Judge” instructs the jury as to what the “current law” is and tells you to apply it to the facts.

Now off you go with eleven Oprah/Jerry Springer drones to the deliberation room. The jury foreman goes through the facts, the law and then you all vote either to acquit or to convict. You are the lone hope for a righteous outcome, the lone hope for justice to prevail. Here is the point of conscience. Here is the point of real power. You can simply vote to acquit and give your fellow jurors no reason at all. Or you could tell them anything they want to hear. Tell them you think Joe Patriot was framed. Tell them you think he was pressured or hypnotized into confessing. Tell them you think he is being drugged by CIA mind control drugs. Whatever you do, don’t wave your nullification flag. You may get tossed from the jury because the judge arbitrarily accuses you of misconduct or of being “tainted.” The best bet is to act dumb, and with a glassy eyed stare, say you just have doubts. You may be the lone hope to protect Joe Patriot from life in the gulag.

Getting seated and staying seated is the goal. You are then above the judge, the prosecutor, and even the written law. They have to come before you to get a conviction. You can vote however you wish and you need not account to anyone for it but God. You don’t have to explain yourself, the history of the Second Amendment, the Sixteenth Amendment, the Magna Carta, English Common Law, Natural Law, William Blackstone, Samuel Rutherford, or anything. In fact it is better if you don’t. You want to remain under cover so you can get seated again in the future. This is very important. Why would you want to surrender such power?

A general premise:

In times of declension such as ours, “Judges” have no honor nor is any due them. Please strongly consider using any available means including misdirection, shaded statements, etc. as an effort to get on the jury. Hide from them the fact that you have ever read the Constitution. Say you read it in school and leave it at that. Make statements about how you trust the system, trust the police etc. If you are specifically asked about nullification, or fully informed juries, tell them you would listen to what the “Judge” had to say about it and let them believe what they want. Act like the typical conformed publicly schooled Ritalin consuming drone and make no waves. Tell the “Judge” or Prosecutor what they want to hear in order to get seated. Tell them you love Jerry Springer and Oprah. Keep mum, you don’t need to show off any knowledge or instruct the evil judge in the plain meaning of the English language. He has spent a fortune and devoted many years in an effort to become as stupid as he is. He is a sad creature that is now fully conformed and impervious to logic.

The facts are that the government still must come before the people (juries) in order to convict. You have unreviewable power once you cast your vote as a juror. Resist the temptation to give the judge a civics lesson. Don’t wrangle with evil men. Assume that such a judge, by virtue of his holding that office, is likely an evil man. He has toted too much political water to get there. If he were an exception to this assumption, if he was a just man, he would stand out and you would know it. He would also not make such an effort to screen righteous people and independent thinking from the jury. So, presuming him to be evil, do what you must to get past him without being exposed.

Truth telling, conscience and cunning:

Now as to “lying”… and honor… The knock comes on the door…. “Are there any Jews here” is the question. What is unstated is “Are there any Jews here that we can take and kill.” So you may freely reply in the same vein: “No there are no Jews here” and also leave unstated “that you can take and kill” even as they left it unstated.

Words have a spirit behind them. We talk about the essence of something written, the intention, the gist of something, and the “spirit of the law.” When you say: “No, there are not any Jews here (that you can take and kill),” you are the only one in the exchange that is telling the truth.

The Hebrew midwives of Moses, Rahab hiding the spies from the inquisitors in Jericho, the Magi misdirecting Herod about Christ’s whereabouts and others were lauded for what they did.

During jury examination, what the judge is asking you is this… “Will you be my puppet and apply the laws as I see them regardless of the plain meaning of the Constitution (or higher Natural Law)?” “Will you become my vassal?” What he is saying is: “Will you join me in applying the law?” and he leaves unstated “Will you join me in applying the law unjustly?” You can, with a free conscience reply, “Yes I will join you in applying the law” and leave out the adverb “unjustly” even as he left it out.

I have often wondered how someone’s conscience could be bothered if they told a policeman or a judge a “half truth” but they are not bothered by voting to convict their fellow man of some evil law and subjecting him to draconian punishment for it. If I am going to err, let it be on the side of my fellow man.

Conclusion:

Jury trials are one of the non-violent ways our republic still affords us to resist evil. Use it to the full. We may get a proud feeling as we are giving the judge a righteous civics lesson but that is not the goal. The goal is to get to a place (the jury) where you are the “decider.”

Many Christians and people of conscience are easily bamboozled by cunning evil men who want to smoke them out and deprive them of the opportunity to further righteousness/justice. Stay undercover. Be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. Aim to get seated, and to remain unmarked so you can get seated again. Avoid the traps of laziness, of pride, and of being an unsophisticated simpleton who gets smoked out. The juror is above the lawmaker, above the prosecutor, and above the judge. Who would not seek to embrace such a position of reforming power?

March 14, 2009

Graham Dugas [send him mail] 49 yrs. old and works as a kitchen designer in the Hilton Head, SC area. He has participated in non-violent civil disobedience, he has been to their jails, he has experienced their crooked courts and he has never trusted a gov’t official of either political party since. He has successfully defended himself in court and in 1996 he single handedly defeated a court injunction that the US Supreme Court previously upheld.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

When I was a public middle school student (they called it jr high here, then) in the late sixties, the right to nullify bad law from the jury box was one of a number of topics that came up for lively classroom debate in civics classes. Does this happen anymore? I'd like to hear feedback from those fairly fresh out of hs, or even still there, as to whether this topic gets any play at all in the classroom anymore. In the courtroom, ignorance is now actively enforced.

I can tell you for a fact we don't even have Civics class anymore and Schools glance right over the Revolutionary War, our Founding, the principles behind it, our type of Governmental structure, and ha! Jury Nullification, yea right....

I graduated in 05' and learned more in the past two years than could be possible in a hundred years in the public school system. They tilt everything to Science and Math. I'm a major history buff and Civil War buff even before HS and I knew more than the teacher in just about every area, which I thought was sad. I bet 90% of the History teachers don't know one thing about George Mason, etc.

That's why I implore everyone who has a child in public school to take them out ASAP and either Homeschool them, or enroll them in a Private School if you can (Look into the school first and foremost). Our public education system produces sheeps, dolts, and indoctrinaires.

Our fight against this Tyranny must come from multiple fronts and only approaching from electoral politics will result in failure. I can't implore enough to be an educator, civil disobedience, nullifier, activist, etc. every single free time you have. Whether this be out on the steps of the court house, down on main-street, billboards, signs and banners, handing out pamphlets, etc. They spread the message prior to the Revolutionary war through anonymous town fliers. We have to plaster our message everywhere 24/7 and never let up.

[LibForestPaul]

hate crime laws
tax laws

[idirtify]

Perhaps I am wrong.
I will reread every post in this thread and attempt to find myself wrong according to my own beliefs.
It won't be the first time that I was ever wrong.

I will say this though, the point you are arguing to me does seem to be one that could go without being said as it is common sense ino that people already will react this way when being forced to make a decision over someone in a matter that they feel is wrong to begin with.
The point I am making is not against the point that you are making.
My point is that the tactic can and is used for the wrong reasons sometimes.
O.J. comes to mind.
The type of Jury that let OJ walk for murder leads to the kind of Jury that...
I am no expert on either case so I will let this go.
I will reread the thread.
Thanks.

Dieseler,

We appreciate your honesty and courage. To admit error is a rare virtue.

Look at it this way: It’s fine to fear nullifying jurors, but fear state-instruction-following jurors (what we have now) MORE.

[KenInMontiMN]

It should also be said that trial by jury limits govt regardless of outcome, and it's a sad state of affairs that we allow and enable the overwhelming majority of cases to fall into the negotiated plea cesspool.

If each and every criminal action against citizens had to play out in front of jury, that in and of itself would limit govt into carefully choosing its battles, weighing what was truly important and worthy of criminal prosecution against what was small potatoes, matters that didn't even involve any sort of victimization. For that reason it is absolutely essential that all liberty-minded, small govt Americans suspend their own 'there ought to be a law' tendencies when serving on juries, and just as important, invariably take their cases to trial when accused, even when, especially when they are dead-to-rights guilty of violating victimless 'social engineering' statute as written.

Streamlining the process into plea arrangements is the great enabler that allows govt to declare ever more social matters to be criminal in nature.

[FSP-Rebel]

From what I can tell, even when jurors are made aware of their right to nullify bad laws, they're (the average juror) not savvy enough to go against the instructions of the judge nor have the courage to go up against the rest of the jury that is lining up to convict. That said, in NH there are groups of people that flyer incoming juries in Keene and Manchester. Though, I'm not sure how effective this activism has become.

[Matt Collins]

YouTube - Ron Paul Presents Power To The Jury At Issue! (Part 1/3) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPyHH5ruJKY)
YouTube - 2/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRdse8zBzyI)
YouTube - 3/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbw8rF_hA9I)