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

Lessons for Clinton, Bush, and Obama

1.  Exactly where in the Constitution (C.) does it give the 

Feds the power to use our military as the world's police 

force?  The War Powers Act does not supercede the C., 

nor does any other law.  The phrase, "Commander-in-

Chief" does not negate the rest of the C.  Using our blood 

& treasure to quell insurrections around the world may 

be commonly accepted in this country, but it's blatantly unconstitutional.

2.  RE:  the Justice Dept. memo authorizing the killing of 

an American citizen without a formal charge or a trial---  

The Constitution does permit "Letters of Marque and 

Reprisal" (assassination orders) against enemies, BUT 

THEY MUST BE ISSUED BY THE CONGRESS.  

There are good reasons for that, but that's another story.

3.  Fed Law and Judges often are used to subvert/pervert 

the Fed Justice System.  For a case in point, see the 

excellent documentary Bidder 70, the story of Tim DeChristopher's 

battle over an oil & gas leasing auction.  In the court trial, 

the Judge instructed the jury that they were not to judge 

the law...he would explain the law to them.  (All judges say 

that.)  Here's a quote from John Jay, the very first Chief 

Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:  "The jury has the right 

to judge both the law and the facts in controversy.".  From

 Samuel Chase, Supreme Court Justice:  "The jury has the 

right to determine both the law and the facts.".  From 

Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the Supreme 

Court:  "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause

 which is to be decided.".  There are many others of a similar

 nature.  The last civilian bastion of freedom in this country is 

the right of a jury to nullify a bad law, but judges usually 

claim 

that jury nullification is illegal.  Let's not forget that we once 

had the following laws in this land:  The Fugitive Slave Act, 

The Indian Removal Act, and the Chinese Exclusion Act.

4.  Supporting the dictatorship in Egypt is as wrong as wrong 

can be.  That regime has demonstrated over and over that it 

does not believe in freedom.

5.  The Office of President has been converted, especially by

 Clinton, both Bush Boys, and Obama, into a virtual Kingship.  

The Head of our Gov't (whoever it is) now thinks that the

 Presidency is superior to Congress and the Courts.  In actual 

fact, it is co-equal.  Unfortunately, recent Presidents have by-

passed the other two branches with impunity.  [One 

example:

Even though Congress was not in favor of it, Clinton sent 

troops 

to 

Bosnia.  Another example:  in 1993, he gave Mexico $20

billion to bail out Wall Street banks... without the 

approval of Congress.]

6.  Iraq, again?  Don't we ever learn?  No matter what is 

done, 

as soon as we leave (again), the civil war will continue.  How 

many years have we "aided" the Iraq Gov't?  How many 

years have we "trained" the Iraq security forces?  How 

many?

  I'm sorry, but enough is enough.  It should be obvious that 

there's another agenda going on.  I leave it to you to figure it 

out.

..................................................

Ours is a Gov't of "Enumerated Powers" [Google it]; if the 

power isn't listed, the Feds don't have it.  Furthermore, the

 Constitution enumerates...it does not "imply".  The 

Executive Branch is out-of-control...especially because of 

Clinton, Bush, and Obama, with their despotic concept of 

the "Unitary Executive".  The "updating" of the Constitution 

must be done by the formal Amendment process or the 

holding of a Constitutional Convention...no other way is legal.

If we're going to ignore the U.S. Constitution because the 

document is not convenient, then I suggest we just throw 

it out.  Ignoring it, as has been done for decades, has the

 same effect.

p.s.  I'm not a Democrat or a Republican, nor a so-called 

"Liberal" or so-called "Conservative".  Those outdated 

labels essentially are meaningless in this time of the 

Oligarchy.

Be Well

The Last Bastion

In my opinion, 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.