An Un-Precedented Victory Happened Over the Weekend: YOU! Next: Jury Nullification

[michaelwise]

You broke the Internet. More precisely, You broke the control mechanism of the internet that controls your mind. You made them show their hand and they relented and backed off.

For the first time in history you, by simply typing on your key board and clicking your mouse, the first victory in the cyber war happened, and it was your victory.

You now steer the discussion with your search terms. With your search terms, you get to decide what it is you want to talk about. Not Lindsy Lohan, or Mel Gibson, but rather, the things that really matter in this world.

Give credit to Alex Jones for figuring out the secret to victory when he got millions of people to search "The Obama Deception", to counteract all the entertainment news, mind control, and brainwashing they were distracting you with. The PTB quickly acted to stop the info war and take down his videos from another persons Youtube Directors Channel. The PTB turned tail an ran when the heat from the info warriors got too hot and quickly put the videos back up.

Use this tactic before they get a chance to change the programming that counteracts it.

It's hard to get through to Alex Jones, but if someone could and asked him to put out a call to search "Jury Nullification", that would make the establishment's heads explode.

The search term for the rest of the week is "Jury Nullification". Lets get this subject to the top of the trends so that we may get a real discussion going on the topic.

YouTube - Jury Nullification (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn6AZFg-cOI)

[michaelwise]

Come on. Just type in google search "Jury Nullification" and click on a link. Is that so hard?

[Kelly.]

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

[South Park Fan]

I did my twenty clicks.

[michaelwise]

I did my twenty clicks. Thanks. The 7th Amendment rules.

[fisharmor]

I did my twenty clicks.

Ditto.

[michaelwise]

It's hard to get through to Alex Jones, but if someone could and asked him to put out a call to search "Jury Nullification", that would make the establishment's heads explode.

[Danke]

I did my twenty clicks.

Twenty? I'm doing one automatically every 10 seconds. :D

[michaelwise]

Twenty? I'm doing one automatically every 10 seconds. :D

How do you make it do it automatically?

[michaelwise]

This is another way to get the word out.

On his forehead, a two word message: "JURY NULLIFICATION"; across his chest in marker ink, a rallying cry: "CONSTITUTIONAL OBEDIENCE".

YouTube - "Kopbusters" Marijuana Activist Barry Cooper Arrested at Texas State Capitol (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNrbl3fzURo&feature=related)

[Danke]

How do you make it do it automatically?

Firefox add-on called "ReloadEvery"

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=reload+every&cat=all&lver=any&pid=1&sort=&pp=20&lup=&advanced=

[michaelwise]

Firefox add-on called "ReloadEvery"

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=reload+every&cat=all&lver=any&pid=1&sort=&pp=20&lup=&advanced=Thanks for the info. I learn something new everyday.

[teacherone]

good inspirational post bump

[surf]

I did my twenty clicks.

bump. two items:
1) how can you tell if this is having an effect?
2) selected for jury duty in Seattle, the court started us out with a video of Raymond Burr (Perry Mason) telling the jury pool that the job we are being tasked with is not to rule on the legitimacy of the law but only whether or not the law the person being charged with had been broken.

[johngr]

selected for jury duty in Seattle, the court started us out with a video of Raymond Burr (Perry Mason) telling the jury pool that the job we are being tasked with is not to rule on the legitimacy of the law but only whether or not the law the person being charged with had been broken.

That's all the proof I need right there that defense attorneys are in on the scam.

[michaelwise]

bump. two items:
1) how can you tell if this is having an effect?
2) selected for jury duty in Seattle, the court started us out with a video of Raymond Burr (Perry Mason) telling the jury pool that the job we are being tasked with is not to rule on the legitimacy of the law but only whether or not the law the person being charged with had been broken. 1)Jury nullification is 3rd on the list now when you type jury. It didn't show up in the top ten when we started on this thread. Good job folks.
2)What they are telling you is treason. You are ruling on the validity of the law as well. They lie.

[phill4paul]

bump. two items:
1) how can you tell if this is having an effect?
2) selected for jury duty in Seattle, the court started us out with a video of Raymond Burr (Perry Mason) telling the jury pool that the job we are being tasked with is not to rule on the legitimacy of the law but only whether or not the law the person being charged with had been broken.

I would have asked the court if we are now supposed to be taking directions from actors as opposed the the rule of law.

[Reason]

https://ssl.scroogle.org/

https://ssl.scroogle.org/sslnote.html

[michaelwise]

Here is a good read on the subject.

Jury Nullification: The Top Secret Constitutional Right
by
James Joseph Duane
Part 1
http://www.lawandliberty.org/jurynul1.htm
Part 2
http://www.lawandliberty.org/jurynul2.htm

[michaelwise]

Jury Nullification
by Doug Linder (2001)

"What is jury nullification? Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.

When has jury nullification been practiced? The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels, the only issue the court said the jury was open to decide as the truth or falsity of the statements was ruled to be irrelevant, the jury returned with a verdict of "Not Guilty."
Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.

More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of "mercy killers," including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.


Do juries have the right to nullify? Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.
Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law]." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.


If jurors have the power to nullify, shouldn't they be told so? That's a good question. As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant's fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.
Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications--the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders--that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.

On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid--it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

[South Park Fan]

I googled and clicked it an additionally 40 times. Can we at least make it into the Top 20 (http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends)?

[BuddyRey]

Woot! Let's do this!

[BuddyRey]

Oh, and you might want to make sure that folks who search for Jury Nullification see a good information source heading the list, like the Fully-Informed Jury Association (FIJA). :-D

[teacherone]

for clarification's sake-- jury nullification is just voting your conscience despite pressure from fellow jurors and /or the judge/ prosecutor?

isn't this common knowledge?

[specsaregood]

for clarification's sake-- jury nullification is just voting your conscience despite pressure from fellow jurors and /or the judge/ prosecutor?

isn't this common knowledge?

common knowledge ain't so common anymore. :(

And judges will remove you from the jury if they get the impression that is what you are planning on doing.

Also: Jury Nullification Day is coming up soon, September 5.

[GunnyFreedom]

for clarification's sake-- jury nullification is just voting your conscience despite pressure from fellow jurors and /or the judge/ prosecutor?

isn't this common knowledge?

No, not exactly. Jury Nullification is voting your conscience and calling someone "not guilty" when they are in fact quite obviously in violation of a given law. Jury Nullification is simply a means of telling the system that the law itself is immoral or unconstitutional.

[John Taylor]

bump. two items:
1) how can you tell if this is having an effect?
2) selected for jury duty in Seattle, the court started us out with a video of Raymond Burr (Perry Mason) telling the jury pool that the job we are being tasked with is not to rule on the legitimacy of the law but only whether or not the law the person being charged with had been broken.

This has been standard jury instructions since the mid 19th century...

We need to educate the people, and be continually be striving to restore the greatest check on tyrannical laws and prosecutorial evil... the JURY.

[michaelwise]

Here is another thing the 6th & 7th amendment is good for. Going after the real criminals.
YouTube - Citizens Grand Jury - Speech by Gerry Donaldson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cE0RZo8DcU)

[BuddyRey]

//

[Travlyr]

This is cool!

Here is another thing the 6th & 7th amendment is good for. Going after the real criminals.
YouTube - Citizens Grand Jury - Speech by Gerry Donaldson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cE0RZo8DcU)

[michaelwise]

If people only knew the power they have.

[Working Poor]

:cool:

[Travlyr]

Does anybody have information concerning how to join or start a "Citizens Grand Jury"?

[CCTelander]

bump

[Working Poor]

Here are some good quotes concernng juries:


Quotations and Comments on Fully Informed Juries
THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): 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.

JOHN ADAMS (1771): It's not only ....(the juror's) right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.

JOHN JAY (1794): The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

ALEXANDER HAMILTON (1804): Jurors should acquit even against the judge's instruction...."if exercising their judgement with discretion and honesty they have a clear conviction that the charge of the court is wrong."

SAMUEL CHASE (1804): The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.

OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (1920): The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts.

U.S. vs. DOUGHERTY (1972) [D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals]: The jury has...."unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge."

BYRON WHITE (1975): The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power--to make available the common sense judgement of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps over
conditioned or biased response of a judge.

Justice BYRON WHITE (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 155 (1968)): "A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government."

Justice BYRON WHITE (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 156 (1968)): "Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority."

Justice BYRON WHITE (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 156 (1968)): "Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge. If the defendant preferred the common-sense judgment of a jury to the more tutored but perhaps less sympathetic reaction of the single judge, he was to have it."

Justice BYRON WHITE (Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522, 530 (1975)): "The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge."

Justice THURGOOD MARSHALL (Peters v. Kiff, 407 US 493, 502 (1972)): "Illegal and unconstitutional jury selection procedures cast doubt on the integrity of the whole judicial process. They create the appearance of bias in the decision of individual cases, and they increase the risk of actual bias as well."

Justice ROBERT H. JACKSON (Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 US 157, 182 (1943): "Civil liberties had their origin and must find their ultimate guaranty in the faith of the people."

JOHN LOCKE (Second Treatise of Government): "Yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them....And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body, even of their legislators, whenever they shall be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject."

THOMAS JEFFERSON: "To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

THOMAS JEFFERSON (1789): "The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments: but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury."

JOHN JAY (1st Chief Justice, U. S. Supreme Court, 1789): "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

SAMUEL CHASE (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court and signer of the Declaration of Independence; in 1804): "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."

Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES (Horning v. District of Columbia, 249 U.S. 596 (1920)): "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact."

U.S. v. DOUGHERTY, 473 F.2d. 1113, 1139 (1972): "The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...."

U.S. SUPREME COURT (State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL. 1,4): "...it is presumed, that the juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Lord Chief Justice MATHEW HALE (2 Hale P C 312, 1665): "...it is the conscience of the jury that must pronounce the prisoner guilty or not guilty."

Lord Chief Justice MATHEW HALE (2 Hale P C 312) (1665): "...it was impossible any matter of law could come in question till the matter of fact were settled and stated and agreed by the jury, and of such matter of fact they [the jury] were the only competent judges."

SIR JOHN VAUGHAN, Lord Chief Justice ("Bushell's Case, 124 Eng Reports 1006; Vaughan Reports 135, 1670): "...without a fact agreed, it is impossible for a judge or any other to know the law relating to the fact nor to direct [a verdict] concerning it. Hence it follows that the judge can never direct what the law is in any matter controverted."

U.S. v. GAUDIN (S.Ct. 1995): in which SC ruled that juries are empowered to determine relevance and materiality.

LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "Our American constitution have provided five...separate tribunals, to wit, representatives, senate, executive, jury, and judges; and have made it necessary that each enactment shall pass the ordeal of all these separate tribunals, before its authority can be established by the punishment of those who choose to transgress it. "

LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what are the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves--the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with."

LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "This preposterous doctrine, that "ignorance of the law excuses no one," is asserted by courts because it is an indispensable one to the maintenance of absolute power in the government."

LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "...there can be no legal right to resist the oppressions of the government, unless there be some legal tribunal, other than the government, and wholly independent of, and above, the government, to judge between the government and those who resist its oppressions...."

LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852): "The bounds set to the power of the government, by the trial by jury, as will hereafter be shown, are these--that the government shall never touch the property, person, or natural or civil rights of an individual, against his consent, (except for the purpose of bringing them before a jury for trial,) unless in pursuance and execution of a judgment, or decree, rendered by a jury in each individual case, upon such evidence, and such law, as are satisfactory to their own understandings and consciences, irrespective of all legislation of the government."

HGW ("NOT GUILTY!" 4/17/93): "The conscience of the jury is the yardstick of justice."

HGW: "The jurors have the right to leave the courtroom with a clear conscience."

Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES JR. (Frank v. Mangum, 237 US 309, 347, 1915, not verified): "It is our duty to declare lynch law [to be] as little valid when practiced by a regularly drawn jury as when administered by one elected by a mob intent on death."

Justice OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, JR. (Frank v. Mangum, 237 US 309, 347 (1915)): "Mob law does not become due process of law by securing the assent of a terrorized jury."

ARIZONA SUPREME COURT ? (Marston's, Inc. v. Strand, 560 P.2d 778, 114 Ariz. 260): "Grand jury is [an] investigative body acting independently of either prosecutor or judge whose mission is to bring to trial those who may be guilty and clear the innocent."

JOHN ADAMS (Second President of U.S.) (1771) (Quoted in Yale Law Journal 74 (1964): 173): "It is not only his right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

BRANCH, MAX. 155: "The verdict of a jury is a bar to equity.

HGW: If citizens, in their roles as jurors, are incompetent to judge the worthiness of the law, how are they, in their roles as voters, competent to judge the worthiness of those who would write the laws?"

HGW: "If the meaning of the law is not a fact, what is it? Is it just an opinion? When the Trial Judge proclaims the law to the jury, he declares it to be a fact of law. But it is just one more 'fact' to be submitted to the jury for confirmation or rejection. They alone have the right to determine whether the judge's opinion is, indeed, a 'fact.'"

THEOPHILUS PARSONS (2 Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p. 267): "The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation." (Parsons was a leading supporter of the Constitution in the convention of 1788. He declined President Adams' nomination to be Attorney General and became Chief Justice of Massachusetts).

[michaelwise]

Does anybody have information concerning how to join or start a "Citizens Grand Jury"? This case could be used to re-teach people how to use Citizens Grand Jurys.

Citizen Grand Jury Indicts Obama
Groups in 20 More States Reviewing Eligibility Claims
"President Obama has been named in dozens of civil lawsuits alleging he is not eligible to be president, with one man even filing a criminal complaint alleging the commander-in-chief is a fraud, and now a citizen grand jury in Georgia has indicted the sitting president.

The indictment delivered to state and federal prosecutors yesterday is one of the developments in the dispute over Obama's eligibility to be president under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.

Orly Taitz, a California attorney working on several of the civil actions, also announced she has filed another Quo Warranto case in the District of Columbia, where, she told WND, the statutes acknowledge that procedure.

The Quo Warranto claim essentially calls on Obama to explain by what authority he has assumed the power of the presidency. "
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=93481

[t0rnado]

Google isn't dumb, so try using proxy lists to do the automated searches.

[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)