Redux: Our Jury Rights are Being Trampled Upon

I'm re-posting this piece because it's extremely important to the concept of Freedom... especially now, given the plethora of unconstitutional "Laws" currently in force in this great Land.  [The previous title was "The Last Bastion".]

The last sane bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt, which nowadays is insane) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v.Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that 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 law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in

Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

The Last Bastion

The last bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that 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 law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in

Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

The Institutionalists vs. the Insurrectionists, RE: Edward Snowden

Both John Kerry and Hillary Clinton have suggested that Edward Snowden should return to the U.S. and face trial.  That brings to mind the current, worldwide philosophical (and practical) clash between the Institutionalists and the Insurrectionists.  Institutions, or the Establishment in general, ostensibly exist to serve the People in various ways; that's their purpose.  The Oligarchs who run Institutions often sincerely believe in the goodness of that function... until the Institution is exposed in some wrongdoing or another... until the end supposedly justifies foul means.  Then everything changes.  The Oligarchs hunker down and do everything possible (legal or not) to protect the Institution; to hell with the People, or Justice, or due process.

I would think that most people know that if Snowden did return, he never would receive a fair and just trial.  Here's why---

1.  In all likelihood, he would be held incommunicado.
2.  Evidence would be suppressed.  The Gov't would claim "State Secrets", "National Security", "Executive Privilege", etc., ad nauseum.
3.  The Judge, or perhaps Tribunal, would allow nothing to surface that didn't relate to the 1917 Espionage Act.  In other words, the Govt's many, many, many wrongdoings and violations of the Constitution would be deemed "not pertinent to this case" or "not relevant".
4.  Jury nullification would not be allowed.

The tragic irony in the Snowden affair is that Obama, when first running for President, publicly claimed that his Administration would protect whistleblowers... that they were good for government.  As soon as he was elected, he continued the case against Tom Drake (an NSA whistleblower)... a case first brought to trial by Alberto Gonzales under Dubya Bush.  As the Australian socialist, journalist, and documentarian John Pilger once stated, "Brand Obama...and it's all fake.".

I'm fairly sure that Oligarchies around the world are beginning to worry because nonviolent Insurrectionists courageously are exposing the gross wrongdoings of various Institutions.  Just as importantly, the People no longer are buying the Propaganda put out against patriotic, peaceful whistleblowers.  Notice, however, that those at the highest levels in any Oligarchy continue on no matter how illegal, unjust, and unethical their exposed actions are shown to be.  They accuse the whistleblower or journalist of being a criminal, and then claim that the Institution will "reform" its wrongful ways.  Distract, distract, distract.  All of that means it will take a long, sustained effort to really reform any corrupt Establishment.

Kudos to Daniel Ellsberg, John Perkins, John Pilger, Matt Taibbi, Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, Julian Assange, Sarah Harrison, Edward Snowden, Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning, Tom Drake, and many, many others for the great personal costs they have paid in order to help bring Outlaw Gov'ts into the light.  Exposing rogue Institutions is a very risky business.  Very little is more patriotic.  We the People should support the peaceful Insurrectionists to the hilt.

Be Well