Oregon Bill Would Require Courts to Fully-Inform Juries...

Failure to provide the instruction would result in a mistrial.

And disbarment for the DA and the judge!

Awesome!

NICE!

now we need them to instruct that if the law is bogus, the jury can tell the prosecutor to go (something) him/herself.

Originally Posted by phill4paul

Failure to provide the instruction would result in a mistrial.

Feh... wishy washy milquetoast bullfeces. My version: "Failure to provide the instruction would result in automatic twenty year prison sentence at hard labor, the failure constituting prima facie proof of guilt. The guilty party would further be disbarred, lose his bench position, and never again be eligible for any employment funded by taxes."

My REAL version would call for the death penalty, to be carried out within 24 hours, but we don't do that in America anymore. We barely punish felons these days, preferring to focus our judicial rage on those smoking dope or having the temerity to question the reality, much less the validity, of "the state".

So how can we get this passed? Who's in Oregon?

Originally Posted by osan

Feh... wishy washy milquetoast bullfeces. My version: "Failure to provide the instruction would result in automatic twenty year prison sentence at hard labor, the failure constituting prima facie proof of guilt. The guilty party would further be disbarred, lose his bench position, and never again be eligible for any employment funded by taxes."

My REAL version would call for the death penalty, to be carried out within 24 hours, but we don't do that in America anymore. We barely punish felons anymore, preferring to focus our judicial rage on those smoking dope or having the temerity to question the reality, much less the validity, of "the state".

I'm sorry that this does not meet your criteria and, as such, does not get a passing grade from you.

Waitress, I think I'll take a good bill that may become law over some 1up badass keyboard warrior antics today. Yes, I'd like fries with that, thank you Miss.

Originally Posted by phill4paul

I'm sorry that this does not meet your criteria and, as such, does not get a passing grade from you.

Oh, it is far better than what we have now, so pass it does. However, the milquetoast appellation must stand. The problem with the place whence I (may incorrectly) assume your proposed penalty comes, is that it is one of gums rather than sharp, pointy teeth attached to viciously snapping jaws. These bastards and all who follow in their footsteps need to spend their tenures in literal terror of violating the rights of those whom they swore oaths to protect.

Now that I think of it, THAT is the peaceable path back from tyranny. You're a genius!

Were Trump/Congress really interested in reversing the troubles we face at the hands of unaccountable "government"/"states", they would begin with a Constitutional amendment that would greatly limit, if not outright remove, the Judiciary's ability to declare Statutes unconstitutional (VERY sharp double edge there, I recognize and agree). But were my plan done in one fell swoop, which is practically impossible ( ), it would fly safely, methinks.

Next facet: any law that can be shown to be unconstitutional by ANYONE becomes instantly null, void, and without force of Law. Such laws result in retroactive punishment to those who enacted them, from president on down to city council members and the town dog-catchers, not a day less than ten years at hard labor. No exceptions. If it kills the guilty party, well, as FrankRep used to say, "they did it to themselves".

Next: Separation of applicability between individuals and corporations. So long as we have corporate legal entities, which IMO are invalid, the protections they provide come at the price of paying the piper to whose tune one chooses to dance. One has no inherent right to special governmental dispensations. But if we are to have them and you avail yourself of them, then you play by the rules set forth by the piper ("government"). If you do not like them, you dissolve your corporation or refrain from forming one and act in the capacities of individuals, replete with all the rights and exposures that such operations bring. It is a very simple deal. The purpose here is to separate treatment of individuals from that of corporations. "Government" should be able to get away with legislation WRT corporate prerogatives that it should never be able to foist upon individuals.

Next: enactment of Law (vis-à-vis "legislation") that places all employees of "government" as well as all other agents and other human instruments of "the state" in deep and in some cases immediate and potentially mortal peril in all cases where they violate the rights of individuals who have committed no crime. I would set the minimum penalty for all such violations at ten years, hard labor, regardless of the guilty party's circumstance. If the punishment results in death, too bad. Those who assume the mantle of "public servant" need to take that into consideration prior to committing acts that may violate the rights of others.

Next: All men are released from the current bondage debarring them their rights to defend their just claims such that any governmental instrument violating or threatening to violate their rights, stand centrally within their prerogatives to take whatever actions they deem fit to defend those claims. The other side of that coin is that the violations must be actual, such as being apprehended for murder or some other such crime. One cannot kill, for example, sheriff's deputies executing a valid warrant to arrest you for a true crime.

Next: Provide a clear, complete, and correct definition of "crime" and "felony". True crime is the ONLY basis for the enactment of Law and only Law applies to individuals, vis-à-vis "statute", which applies ONLY to corporate entities. These two terms are the only to be used in Law and statute to describe acts that violate compulsions or prohibitions mandated by "government".

Next: Edicts mala prohibita shall apply only to corporate entities and never to individuals, whereas those mala in sé may apply to corporate entities as well as individuals. This constrains corporations to all Laws as apply to individuals without constraining the latter not acting in the capacity of a corporate instrument. IOW, statute applies to me as an individual when I am acting in the capacity of a member of a corporation. It does not apply to me when I am "off the clock", so to speak. It's not perfect, but a damned sight better than what we now "enjoy". /sarc

Next: Any individual making false charges of violation against a government instrument would be in hot water. Very hot. What's good for the goose... This provides the added benefit of incentivizing people to become smart. Dumbassery has reached pandemic, plague-like proportions, and needs to come to an end. What better way than to hold people sternly accountable for their unrighteous actions?

Oh, I hold no hope of anything even near this coming to pass, but it remains a good exercise to keep one's views well honed.

This is, of course a very rough cut, but still it serves the purpose of getting the notion out there. I don't expect its time will come, ever. People have been too well trained to revere their chains. They no longer even question them, on the average.

Originally Posted by osan

The problem with the place whence I (may incorrectly) assume your proposed penalty comes, is one of gums rather than sharp, pointy teeth attached to viciously snapping jaws.

Incorrectly it is. That which you assume is a quote from the article. My "thumbs up" was directed that the judiciary would be required to fully inform a jury as to their responsibilities.

Originally Posted by EBounding

So how can we get this passed? Who's in Oregon?

Nearby.
This is only half the battle.

Most are pushed to plea bargain rather than attempt trial.

Originally Posted by pcosmar

Nearby.
This is only half the battle.

Most are pushed to plea bargain rather than attempt trial.

Which will stay on their record forever- not good if innocent.

This was a Republican that introduced this bill?! I wonder why she hates America?


/sarc

Excellent.

Originally Posted by pcosmar

Nearby.
This is only half the battle.

Most are pushed to plea bargain rather than attempt trial.

And this is real problem, when the state has the ability to stack a jury.

Fed conviction rate last year was 98%.

Any lawyer worth his fee is going to push for plea bargain, regardless of guilt or innocence, since he knows he stands almost no chance of winning an acquittal in open court.

This may help that.

Originally Posted by Anti Federalist

And this is real problem, when the state has the ability to stack a jury.

Fed conviction rate last year was 98%.

Any lawyer worth his fee is going to push for plea bargain, regardless of guilt or innocence, since he knows he stands almost no chance of winning an acquittal in open court.

This may help that.

'A jury of your peers' has been bastardized beyond comprehension....

Real life penalties for lawyers is the only answer beside transparency.

Lawyers skulking around behind closed doors is never good for the public.....