Results 1 to 17 of 17

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

  1. #1

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

    A bill introduced in the Oregon Senate would require state courts to fully inform jurors of their right to use discretion when rendering verdicts in felony trials.


    Sen. Kim Thatcher (R – Keizer) introduced Senate Bill 924 (SB924) on March 2. The legislation would require the court to instruct the jury before the beginning of deliberations in all felony cases using the following language.

    “As jurors, if you feel that a conviction would not be a fair or just result in this case, it is within your power to find the defendant not guilty even if you find that the state has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Failure to provide the instruction would result in a mistrial.
    http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...inform-juries/



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Failure to provide the instruction would result in a mistrial.
    And disbarment for the DA and the judge!

  4. #3

    Default

    Awesome!

  5. #4

    Default

    NICE!
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)//I sell stuff here go buy nao! on ignore till 11/1-Natural Citizen

  6. #5

    Default

    now we need them to instruct that if the law is bogus, the jury can tell the prosecutor to go (something) him/herself.
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions - and the [un]official football club of RPF

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    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".
    Last edited by osan; 03-17-2017 at 07:18 AM.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  8. #7

    Default

    So how can we get this passed? Who's in Oregon?
    Protest the NSA! Send encrypted e-mails!
    My PGP Key
    PGP Fingerprint: 3A2E 6218 3722 3701 09C9 54CA 9BB3 104C 5049 B6B2

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    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.

  10. #9

    Default

    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.
    Freedom index

    ~Resident Badgiraffe





  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    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.
    Last edited by osan; 03-17-2017 at 07:16 AM.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    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.

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    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.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    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.
    There is no spoon.

  15. #14

    Default

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


    /sarc
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  16. #15

    Default

    Excellent.
    "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace." ~ Rod Serling
    "Cops today are nothing but an armed tax collector" ~ Frank Serpico
    "To be normal, to drink Coca-Cola and eat Kentucky Fried Chicken is to be in a conspiracy against yourself."
    "People that don't want to make waves sit in stagnant waters."

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    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.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.....






Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-28-2017, 11:23 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-11-2016, 02:15 PM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-01-2011, 02:19 PM
  4. OREGON: Police Checkpoint Bill Would Require Voters to Change Constitution
    By NorthCarolinaLiberty in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2011, 12:14 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-16-2010, 08:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •