Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Your Rights on a Jury

You have more power than a bad law... or even the Judge himself!

Our system of government was designed as one of checks and balances. One of those checks was the jury system, the right to be tried by an impartial jury.

The idea was that if the ballot box didn't work, (i.e. bad laws were passed and then enforced), the jury box could right the wrongs created. This was done to avoid the upheavals caused by reaching for another box – the ammo box.

The current judicial system holds jury’s rights in contempt, or in their words, “jury lawlessness”. The idea that one jury member could nullify a bad prosecution, (or should I say “persecution”?) sticks in the craw of statists in black robes. It wasn’t always like that.

Originally, the concept of a jury of your peers was a group of twelve local men who knew you in life. They were the ones who judged you, based upon lifelong experiences with you and the facts in the case. They also judged the law, its application and even the morality of the law itself. They judged the facts and the law.

They did not elevate a mere man in a black robe to God-like status. They believed that their trial decision would be judged at the end of their life by the eternal Judge himself.

In time a doctrine evolved here in the United States whereupon juries were given strict instructions to only judge the facts in a case and regardless of the morality of the law – higher minds and the elite would determine if laws were Constitutional. This flies in the face of the original intent of juries!

Weeding out Jury Members Who Know About Jury Nullification

Expect to be asked if you believe juries can disregard laws they believe are wrong if you are called to jury duty in a criminal trial. If you are selected, expect a stern judge to order you to judge only the facts in the case.

Personally, I would not admit knowledge of my rights. Let me tell you why.

“‘Tis no crime to lie to a liar.” Corrupt lawyers and judges have distorted the real reason we have juries – and privately, many would prefer the institution of juries to go away permanently, as is beginning in England.

That being said, if your wife and daughter were downstairs in the basement when an armed rapist breaks into your house, are you going to answer truthfully when the thug asks where the womenfolk are? Of course not.

In a similar way I don’t have a twinge of conscience when it comes to not being forthright to a prosecutor looking to weed out “lawless jury members”. In fact, I would consider it a badge of honor to derail a dirty prosecution for someone accused of violating one of our gun control laws innocently or a host of other federal laws that violate the Constitution.

I believe I will have to give account one day. If I was involved in sending someone to prison for violating an evil law, that will be held against me.

And what is a judge? An unholy hybrid of a politician and a lawyer. Tell me what is honorable about that, your Honor!

What can you do?

Get educated on the Fully Informed Jury. Spread the truth to your family and friends.

With the existing heap of federal and state laws, you most likely have committed (unknowingly) some felony. Perhaps even today. Who knows, some investigator with a quota to fill could get you thrown into jail – your only hope then is someone on the jury who knows his rights and has the guts to do the right thing.

Be the change you hope to see. Exercise your rights on a jury. Wisely. Spread the word – the life you may save may be your own.

- Hugh Farnham

20 comments:

Jack Camwell said...

I would much prefer that a jury judge me based on the law as it stands, rather than based on their private convictions.

Think about it. What if you shot and killed a home invader. You would think that you were justified in defending yourself, but what if the jury was made up of a bunch of gun control nuts who feel that the laws governing the use of force in self defense are unjust? In your world, they'd be allowed to judge you not on the laws saying that you're allowed to kill someone that invades your home, but on their private conviction that the laws saying you can are wrong. Then they'd judge you guilty by judging that the laws are unjust.

Does that seem like a good idea to you?

Speedy G said...

The jury "process" is intended to HEAL the community (not just PUNISH offenders). If it fails to HEAL the community, the community needs to re-initiate the Thargelia. We can start by using offending judges as Pharmakoi.... ;)

Hugh Farnham said...

Jack:

Our system of government was designed for an upstanding people (and juries)-

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

What you hypothesized is a red herring out here in the Rocky Mountain states. Citizens support property rights and lethal force to protect one's self. Gun control nuts are few and far between with the exception of Denver and other liberal environs.

I'm not worried about facing a jury of anti-gun nuts.

Libs use these red herrings to distract from what is really going on. The issues are these: laws that violate natural rights and the right of a jury to derail an evil law.

I'd much rather be tried by twelve than buried by six.

Get with the times - there's a new awakening to individual rights in America. Old-school Statists and Clovers are in the minority.

What is a Clover?: http://epautos.com/2011/07/01/conversations-with-a-clover/

People have the government they deserve, according to de Maistre. If you chose to live in Cook County, IL, you will have the corrupt government you deserve. I chose to live in the hinterlands because of freedom and rights. My fellow citizens are very involved in government and can actually articulate their natural rights.

Z said...

"Our system of government was designed for an upstanding people (and juries)-"
Wow, THAT is scary!
The "upstanding people" on past juries have surmised on television since the Anthony case that the 'upstanding' Anthony jurors were probably just tired from the long trial and being sequestered and 'just wanted to go home, so they came up with that verdict quickly..'.
As in a lot that's going on in this country and the laws that WERE written for Godly, upstanding people, I fear for our country and her people, many of whom don't seem Godly OR upstanding.
I hope that most jurors will do what's right......but...

Anonymous said...

Bless you, SilverFiddle for posting this. If you hadn't written it as comprehensively as you did, I would have had to do the job.

One of my favorite bits from literature that touches upon this subject follows:


Judicial Reasoning: "The Law is a Ass"

Mr. Bumble, Chas, Dickens & Judge Brown

~ Jerry Buchmeyer, 1980

Mr. Bumble had little use for judicial reasoning. In Dickens' Oliver Twist, he put it rather bluntly: "'If the law supposes that', said Mr. Bumble, 'the law is a ass — a idiot.'"

Mr. Bumble was, understandably, very irritated when he made this statement. He had been accused of stealing jewelry belonging to Oliver's mother; and, after making sure his wife had left the room, he responded: "It was all Mrs. Bumble." Brownlow, the solicitor, advised Mr. Bumble "that is no excuse" because:

"'You were present on the occasion…and, indeed, you are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.

"'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, 'the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.'" ...


The law is nothing sacred in and of itself. It is made up by fallible -- often venal or downright moronic -- individuals working in concert.

"Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, 'What does it matter to me?' the State may be given up for lost."

~ Rousseau (1712-1778)

I hope someone discusses what despicable Alan Dershowitz said on FOX and elsewhere about the Law and the Casey Anthony fiasco. I haven't time to get into it right now.

Suffice it to say there are much broader and more fundamental issues at stake than the specific rights and wrongs of any particular case -- even when they relate to the death of a sweet, innocent little child.

The Law is not supposed to be used merely an Instrument of Vengeance.

~ FreeThinke

Jack Camwell said...

Hugh this was not a red herring, merely a hypothetical situation. Juries should not make their decisions based on their private convictions, but rather on the laws as they stand.

Your argument that people uneducated in law are somehow better equipped to judge the Constitutionality of a law is a bit ridiculous. Most people are idiots, and most people that serve on jury duty probably haven't even read the constitution. Would you rather that they subsitute a verdict based on the actual law as it is written, and on the constitution, with how they feel inside?

And to sit there and say "I'm not afraid of the gun nuts," does nothing to help your argument nor diminish mine. You didn't argue the logical merits of the fact that my hypothetical situation would be perfectly in the realm of possibility in your world.

But what do I know? Let's just make this a nation of emotions and feelings instead of a nation of laws.

Your problem is that you think everyone thinks like you, and if given the chance to be free from the "man," then everything would be magically healed somehow.

Judges, these mythical men and women in black robes, are there because they've spent the better part of their lives studying law. What you're arguing is akin to saying we should be our own doctors instead of medical professionals because we somehow know our bodies better.

You'll probably say that my analogy there is not the same thing, but it pretty much is. Lets do away with experts so that the amateurs who read some stuff on the internet can judge everything based on their "highly educated" opinions.

Again, I'd rather take my chances with being judged by the actual letter of the law rather than how a group of jackasses "felt" about the law and my character. Suggesting that juries judge based on their feelings or their own interpretations of laws is contrary to everything the Founding Fathers believed in in terms of the role of law in a society.

Thersites said...

The Law is not supposed to be used merely an Instrument of Vengeance.

That's NOT the way I heard it from Hesiod (~800 bc)... "Works and Days"

(ll. 25-41) Perses, lay up these things in your heart, and do not let that Strife who delights in mischief hold your heart back from work, while you peep and peer and listen to the wrangles of the court-house. Little concern has he with quarrels and courts who has not a year's victuals laid up betimes, even that which the earth bears, Demeter's grain. When you have got plenty of that, you can raise disputes and strive to get another's goods. But you shall have no second chance to deal so again: nay, let us settle our dispute here with true judgement which is of Zeus and is perfect. For we had already divided our inheritance, but you seized the greater share and carried it off, greatly swelling the glory of our bribe-swallowing lords who love to judge such a cause as this. Fools! They know not how much more the half is than the whole, nor what great advantage there is in mallow and asphodel.

Thersites said...

"The Law is a Ass"

Somebody call the nightwatch! This time, someone has written it odwn!

Thersites said...

missing link, above.

Silverfiddle said...

FreeThinke: Hugh wrote this, not me.

Jack: A freeman has a duty to strike down or strike out against unjust laws and the unjust application of just ones.

The lily-livered cowards who held GM and Chrysler's debt stood there and piddled down their legs as King Obama stole from them, when they should have demanded it all be settled in bankruptcy court. They didn't even seen a court injunction against the illegal government action.

We also have judges who seriously think it is ok for a government to squelch our natural rights to self-defense and free speech.

Many judges, including some past and present Supreme Court justices, have demonstrated a studied disregard for the US Constitution as plainly written.

The law does not belong to judges, it belongs to the people.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, a jury would have sided with GM and the government over the shareholders, and you know it. You've both proved your point and missed it at the same time. ;)

Great post and conversation, by the way. I enjoyed just reading it. That's why I stayed out until just now when I noticed your little paradox.

JMJ

Silverfiddle said...

@Jersey: a jury would have sided with GM and the government over the shareholders, and you know it.

What makes you think established bankruptcy law would have been struck down? And why does it not sadden you to think this could come to pass?

btw, Hugh Farnham wrote this, not me.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, here is yet another example of why a corporation is not a human being: GM management wanted the deal, the workers wanted the deal, the government wanted the deal, the American people wanted the deal, and most of the the shareholders wanted the deal. You didn't like the deal.

You are a person. They are abstract entities.

The American jury could theoretically impose your obstinance. They'd be wrong, but they could. They are a check on the obscure powers of the courts.

Like I said, great post, great conversation.

JMJ

Jersey McJones said...

Oh, sorry... It's Hugh sir!

JMJ

Finntann said...

Jersey, sometimes I think you are seriously delusional. The shareholders wanted the deal? Are these the same shareholders, who if they owned $35,000 in GM stock got $280 worth of MTLQQ stock?

Or by shareholders do you mean the UAW union wanted the deal?

No matter how bad off GM was, the shareholders owned equity in the company. The government seized that equity and illegally transferred it to a new company, bestowing their largesse upon the UAW.

In violation of US bankruptcy laws the government took the assets of GM from investors and divided it up among new stock holders, leaving the old investors holding the bag. If you and I tried to pull something like that off we'd both wind up sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff.

But your precious government did it so it must be legal, right?

Your problem, and I'll try to put it politely, is you don't know when you're being sodomized.

As far as a jury nullifying bankruptcy law so the government could steal a company, give it to a union, and sell off the rest to new investors... I doubt it.

I do know one thing. I will never invest one red cent in either GM or a GM product. Its very existence is immoral and unethical.

On 3 June Obama in a speech at a Chrysler plant in Toledo said "Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch."

Really? Must be New Math.

Chrysler received:

Jan 09: $4B Tarp
Jan 09: $1.5B Treasury
May 09: $1.9B Debtor Loan, Treasury
Jun 09: $6.6B Treasury

Chrysler paid back:

May 10: $1.9B to Treasury
May 11: $5.1B to Treasury
Jun 11: $560M to Treasury.

So, Chrysler got $14B and paid back $7.56B leaving $6.44B outstanding.

So I'll repeat: 3 June 11 "Chrysler has repaid every dime and more of what it owes the American taxpayer from the investment we made during my watch."

We don't have a problem with Jury Nullification of laws, we have a problem with the Chief Executives nullification of law.

And they said Nixon was a Tricky Dick!

Cheers!

Most Rev. Gregori said...

We lost our right to a trial by a jury of our peers about twenty years ago, when the (il)legal system brought in Jury consultants to pick who sits on a particular jury.

Our (il)legal system today, is NOT interested in the truth. It has become a big stinking game to see which side can out B.S. the other. And a jury of dolts whose only thought is getting the trial over with so they can get back to their mundane lives of texting,drinking and sex.

Anonymous said...

It's curious phenomenon we're discussing.

A conservatives we don't like Judges who "legislate from the bench." We do, however, like juries who effectively "legislate from the jury box," UNLESS they bring a not-guilty verdict to the likes of OJ Simpson. Being much in favor of Law and Order we want citizens to respect and obey the law, EXCEPT in cases where WE believe the law is unjust, stupid or slanted against the best interests of society -- according to the dictates of our conservative/libertarian mode of thinking -- as in the recent Casey Anthony case, where we do NOT respect the jury for following the strict dictates of the law, because we do not like the law.

SO, like any and every identifiable faction, we would like to have BOTH ways -- whenever it suits our understanding of "true justice" or works to our perceived advantage.

Have I got that right?

I'm not fighting anyone -- just trying to clarify the objectives and help formulate a viable, consistent policy towards which we should aim that does not fly in the face of Reason.

~ FreeThinke

PS: Dershowitz maintains, by the way that the Law is not set up to pursue Truth, nor to work in accord with the dictates of Morality. Apparently, in his liberal mind the Law is simply the Law, and must be slavishly obeyed by citizenry, judge and jury alike, UNLESS the Law happens to stand in the way of liberal objectives favored by entities like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the multitude of legal terrorists who sued their way to ascendancy against the will of the vast majority back in the Sick-sties. - FT

IS consistency the refuge of small minds, or is it an ideal towards which we should earnestly strive? You tell me. - FT

Anonymous said...

Sincere thanks, by the way, to Hugh Farnham, who wrote it, AND to SilverFiddle, who posted it. I guess when someone posts something, most of us assume he wrote it, unless it is billed as a quotation from other sources.

At any rate thanks are due all around for bringing this important point of law to our attention. It makes me more eager now to participate in the system, since we, apparently, are not slaves forced always to rubber stamp or underwrite whatever illogical, immoral, unfair policies the system gins up.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

FreeThinke: You raise an important issue of double standards, as have other commenters here.

There is not trying to have it both ways. Jury nullification is like a pack of matches. Can be used morally or immorally, used properly or abused.

This is the final recourse of a people to nullify an immoral law or the unjust application of a moral law.

And yes, the jurors must have an understanding of the fundamental tenets of our morality, which is natural law. Man has a natural unalienable right to life, liberty and property.

As such, no jury should ever convict a man of shooting an intruder in his own home. Period.

Anonymous said...

Hey, SilverFiddle,

You're not going to get any argument from me. I agree with you, but what you say about jury nullification is true of just about everything else -- from human intelligence to sex, to appetizing food, to money, to aspirin to motorcars, to movable type, to the printing press, to photography, to motion pictures, to airplanes to TV, the computer, and the cell phone. EVERYTHING is subject to abuse.

So, as Pogo famously said so long go, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." In other words our worst enemy is human nature, itself, which seems ever subject to a lurid fascination with perversion and stupidly destructive impulses.

All that aside, I've already said more than once that I am Bernard Goetz's biggest fan. If any suspicious looking character "accosts" me with mischief or menace in his eyes, I want to be able to pull out my concealed weapon and shoot him straight in the crotch or better yet -- right between the eyes.

Marauders would soon stop marauding if they knew forsure that was a better-than-even chance they'd get their balls shot off.

~ FreeThinke