The Order of Sovereignty set by the American Revolution has flipped upside down.
And so the State will come down hard on any threat to it's sovereignty. Any idea that might make the Sheeple "uppish" (uppish: Proud; arrogant; assuming; putting on airs of superiority.).
Take a look at the Enemy of the State:
Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan, holding a “Jury Info” sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it.
Then, last year, federal prosecutors had Mr. Heicklen indicted, charging that his activity violated the law against jury tampering. Lawyers assisting him have sought dismissal of the case on First Amendment grounds.
But now prosecutors are offering their first detailed explanation for why they charged Mr. Heicklen, arguing in a brief that his “advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.”
“His speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” prosecutors wrote.
This is an example of what is not protected by the First Amendment:
...“I’m not telling you to find anybody not guilty,” she quoted Mr. Heicklen telling the agent in a secretly recorded conversation.
“But,” he added, “if there is a law you think is wrong then you should do that.”
Whoa. What unmitigated gall Mr Heicklen has!
And, of course:
Mr. Heicklen, who could face a six-month sentence if convicted, has asked for a jury trial. Ms. Mermelstein, opposing that demand, cited as one reason Mr. Heicklen’s ardent stance that juries should nullify. He would probably “urge a jury to do so in a case against him,” she wrote.
Well, duh.
New York Times article
-------------------------------------------
Learn more here:
Fully Informed Jury Association
International Society for Individual Liberty History of Jury Nullification
I have posted several times on my blog about the FIJA and jury nullification. I wish it were possible to get the message out to more people, as this could be one of the few ways to take back power from the government. If jurors refused to convict for violations of bad law, or for excessive punishment, then the laws would become ineffective, in spite of the bad intent of those who write them (think Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Dodd, Frank, Liebermann, McCain, etc.)
ReplyDeleteYes, I imagine there would eventually be some backlash from government, restricting jury trials or allowing only jurors who swore not to nullify onto juries. In Montana recently (five or six months ago?) jurors refused to even be seated on a case involving imprisoning someone for using marijuana. They made it plain there was no way in hell they would convict, so the prosecution dropped the case.
If enough potential jurors made it plain they were aware of their right _ and duty - to nullify when appropriate, the jury pool would shrink to where prosecutors might think twice before pressing a case.
I see dead pigs, and soon. For it is THEY who enable this damnable swill, in DIRECT VIOLATION of their oath of office. May EVERY ONE OF THEM rot in hell for what they have done to this country.
ReplyDelete