( A Post to Group Lost By ).Jurors Denounce Their Own Verdict

[Guest guest]

Hi Jonathan - You just made the whole point of my post. If jurors

were not ignorant of their own American heritage - our history, the

fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded, and were

aware of their rights as well as responsibilities as citizens, we

wouldn't be depending on some judge, lawyer, legal advocate or other

person to " guide " us through the maze of the legal system. We would

already know and understand exactly what our " rights " are - as well

as be well aware of our remedies to dispose of " bad " (re:

unconstitutional)law(s). We would recognize the inclusion

of " personal

opinion and manipulation " into the very " justice " (re:Just-US) system

that is supposed to be our ultimate defense against tyranny and

anarchy. Did you know that it used to be against the law to practice

law? The early settlers had so much disdain for the corruption and

sophistry worked by lawyers and judges they outlawed it's " practice "

and relied instead on courts of common-law, where right, wrong,

justice, morality, and conscience operated with unpaid advocates.

Charging for legal services was a jailable offense. Just imagine

how " overloaded " our court system would be today if we still followed

that premise. LOL

 

Had there been just 1, just 1 informed juror on that jury (and many

others) the outcome would have been at the very least a hung jury,

and perhaps an acquittal. It doesn't take a legal scholar to

understand right from wrong. That's what is supposed to be the whole

reason for having a jury of ones peers as the ultimate decider of

fact, and law. Any judge who usurps the authority of the jury has

just shown his own disrespect of the very law which he is sworn to be

upholding. A judge is nothing more, or less, than a referee -

however I will admit that many of them now believe they have been

given wings. With those wings they now obfuscate truth andrefuse to

even tell juries of their rights. That's why we must inform our

neighbors.

 

A jury has NO responsibility to divulge " why " they refuse to convict.

It is their perogative to do so even in blatant disrespect of what

the law says.

 

" ...there can be no doubt that 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.2d 1113, 1139 (1972).

Other info related to Dougherty case: 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec. 177.

 

" In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for

approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in

America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually

asserted

themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law.

" We recognize, as applellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury

to

acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the

judge and

contrary to the evidence. "

U.S. v Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002,1006 (1969)

 

" It may not be amiss...to remind you of the good old rule, that on the

question of fact, it is the province of the jury, and on the question

of

law, it is the province of the court to decide. But, it must be

observed

that by law...you have nevertheless a right to take it upon

yourselves to

judge both, in controversey...both objects are lawfully within your

power of

decision. " Justice John Jay to the jury, Georgia v. Brailsford, 3

Dall. 1, 4

(1794), 1 L.Ed. 483. " ...for as, on the one hand, it is presumed that

juries

are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable,

that the

court are the best judges of law. But still, both objects are lawfully

within your power of decision. "

 

....the jury has " ...the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of

both law

and facts. "

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Horning v D.C., 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct.

53, 54,

65 L.Ed. 185 (1920)

 

" ...no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any

court of

the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. "

U.S.

Constitution, 7th Amendment. Only another common law jury can review a

decision of a jury. There is no other appeal. Not even the Supreme

Court can

review a jury's decision.

 

 

I do not condone anyone taking the " law " into their own hands.

However, I also do not condone beaurocrats making laws that are in

violation of either states rights, nor fundamental rights that belong

to the individual. The " sick care " industry, masquerading under the

misnomer of " health care " could not exist today had Dr. Benjamin

Rush's suggestion for inclusion in the Bill of Rights been approved.

He wanted to have - the " right " to freedom of choice as to the

modality and product(s) used for treatment - included as one of the

rights particularly named. Just think of the treatments we would

have readily available here in the US today, the numerous doctors who

not have been persecuted for proposing new methods of alleviating and

curing diseases who have either had their lives destroyed by the

beuracracy or had to move offshore, and the list goes on and on, if

we could exercise that right of choice today without the government

telling us it's illegal. In many of these cases it was " uninformed "

juries who allowed the persecution of their neighbors.

 

I personally chose true health care methods some years ago to get rid

of " incurable " diseases the doctors in the sick care industry told me

needed medications (expensive of course), operations, and continuous

monitoring. Instead, I chose to let " Mother Nature " be my guide and

began looking at natural methods to alleviate pain that would allow

my body to heal and repair itself. What I discovered was that I

didn't need the numerous drugs, surgery, or follow up - what I needed

was the building blocks of health to let my body do what it was

designed to do. My health today is better than it was 30 years ago,

however it's still " against the law " for me to make any claim

that " such and such " was what cured me. Actually " such and such "

didn't cure me, my body did because it had what it needed to do the

job, and today our options are even more numerous due to advancements

in scientific research and the availability (still current but under

tremendous attack by special interest pharmaceutical, medical, and

establishment interests) of newly discovered remedies from all over

the world. Not new to the world, just to us.

 

" The only thing that's new, is the history you don't know.'

Harry Truman

 

The bottom line is that we have a populace today who is for the most

part totally uninformed about virtually anything of importance as to

our freedoms, responsibilities, and accountability. The remedy is

not to take what little they have left from them, but to inform

them. I coined a term some years ago, " EIUK " . It's pronounced just

like " yuk " , and ultimately has the same connotation. " Educated

Ignorant with Uniformed Knowledge " .

 

Some food for thought:

 

" Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are

therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not

the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man

than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when

declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no

human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the

owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. "

Sir William Blackstone,

Commentaries 1:139 (1765)

 

" All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and

void. "

Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

 

" An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it

imposes

no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in

legal

contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed. "

Norton

vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p.442

 

" Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can

be no

rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. " Miranda vs.

Arizona,

384 US 436 p. 491

 

" All acts of the legislature apparently contrary to natural

rights and

justice are, in our law and must be in the nature of things,

considered

void... We are in conscience bound to disobey. " Robin vs. Hardaway, 1

Jefferson 109, (Va., 1772)

 

My final point is once again, if we do not as a people become

informed about truth, we will be buried by lies and deception, our

freedoms and liberty will be lost, and as I previously paraphrased,

Thomas Jefferson stated and here's the complete quote:

 

" If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never

was and never will be. "

 

No one's safe when freedom fails,

and good men rot in filthy jails,

and those who cried appease, appease,

are hung by those they tried to please.

Author unknown

 

In the 1400's the " experts " said the world was flat, and if you

disagreed you were a radical. Well, in another new century perhaps

it's time we join with our ancestors and become alittle radical once

again. Let's proclaim the truth and soon the myths (aka Lies) will

once again be overpowered by knowledge that is not new, but is still

truth.

 

Regards

Doug

kair4me

 

 

Gettingwell , " califpacific

<califpacific> " <califpacific> wrote:

> Dear Group,

>

> It seems that domething or someone at is messing up our

> messages and group front page.

>

> I wrote 2 emails to them and received a stock answer pertaining to,

> How to use free email accounts. ????? That wasn't a lot of help.

>

> Anyway here is a message that didn't make it to the group as it

> should have.

>

> F.

>

> FROM: jblake@e...

> DATE: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:48:22 -0800 (PST)

> SUBJECT: Re: Re: Jurors Denounce Their Own Verdict

>

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, kair4me <oxyssage@p...> wrote:

>

> ]>What an incredible example showing how the ignorance of

> our good God ]>fearing neighbors can be more detrimental to

> our well being than the ]>arrogance of manipulating,

> deceiving, lying judges and prosecutors - ]>the lawyers -

> who don't care about " Justice " - but rather are hell

>

> Assuming you are refering to that marijuana california case.

>

> a) The jury did not know that the city of aokland

> deputized

> the individaul to _grow_ marijuana.

>

> b) The jury were not told of any medical uses of

> marijuana.

> c) The prosecution _prohibited_ the victim from making

> any

> defence.

>

> d) _None_ of the juries were aware of " jury

> nullification, "

>

> Given that, the jury had no option, but to convict the

> individual.

>

>

> Now I'll spin it around. Had you been on that jury, would

> you have

> voted for a nullification of the law?

>

> If not, why not?

>

> If so, what would have done when the judge threw the non-

> conviciton

> out?

>

> ]>controlled substances? Back to our " good " neighbors...they

become

> ]>rubber stamps to judicial authorities who lie, cheat, and steal

the

> ]>juries right to decide not only the fact(s) of the case, but also

> the

>

> Based on the facts that the, _the jury_ was aware of, they

> could do nothing but convict the individual.

>

> ]>juries right to rule on whether the law is just - or not. Most

> ]>probably never learned in history class the right to a jury trial

by

> ]>a jury of ones peers (that have not been coerced, questioned, and

>

> You can bemoan the lack of legal knowledge all you like.

>

> It still requires that the jury be told _all_ of the facts

> in a case. Something that did not happen.

>

> To nullify a law, you have to be able to demonstrate both

> why it is a bad law, and why the indiviual is not guilty.

> In the california case, the fact that he had what effectively

> amounts to a " licence " would suffice for part two. I suspect

> his defence would suffice for demosntrating part one.

>

> You can't just say " this is a bad law. We hereby revoke it. "

> You have to say " This is a bad law for the following reasons:

> a) BLAH

> b) blah blah

> c) blah blah blah blah

> etc.

> Following up with " and numerous more reasons that will take

> too long of the court's time to hear. "

>

> xan

>

> jonathon