-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Jury Nulification: Spread it Around.
- Thread starter Hash Zeppelin
- Start date
i know this is somwhat off topic , i just thought id offer some info about a different form of it,state nullification. pretty cool info to have theres not to many people that know about this form either.
[YOUTUBEIF]IkN5xuCM35s[/YOUTUBEIF]
[YOUTUBEIF]xCMKPtNEAto[/YOUTUBEIF]
[YOUTUBEIF]IkN5xuCM35s[/YOUTUBEIF]
[YOUTUBEIF]xCMKPtNEAto[/YOUTUBEIF]
SacredBreh
Member
Way to go Hash.......
Way to go Hash.......
I'm with you monkey.... never even thought of this until I happened upon this thread. Great points Hash and idea for a thread. bentom did a great job of expanding on the concept too. Need to spread this around.
Know this guy who was a manager for awhile, he used to get so frustrated. He was always telling me how the employees really had all the power. Didn't really get it then when he was talking about it but I think this would apply here. Passive resistance! All the enforcers are our next door neighbors, and brother in laws.
Some more rays of sunshine through the clouds. We need to spread this. This would really fit the Dr. Paul movement!
Way to go Hash.......
I'm with you monkey.... never even thought of this until I happened upon this thread. Great points Hash and idea for a thread. bentom did a great job of expanding on the concept too. Need to spread this around.
Know this guy who was a manager for awhile, he used to get so frustrated. He was always telling me how the employees really had all the power. Didn't really get it then when he was talking about it but I think this would apply here. Passive resistance! All the enforcers are our next door neighbors, and brother in laws.
Some more rays of sunshine through the clouds. We need to spread this. This would really fit the Dr. Paul movement!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37tEeO-qTYo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80
The states formed the federal government not the other way around!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80
The states formed the federal government not the other way around!!!!
smokesalot420
Member
Bump cause more need to know!
Nancy Pelosi Wants to Amend the First Amendment
http://www.infowars.com/nancy-pelosi-wants-to-amend-the-first-amendment/
When Pelosi says “special interests,” she means the interests of those opposed to establishment Democrats. Clear Channel is a corporation. So is Fox News. There are thousands of websites, newspapers, think tanks and political action committees that Pelosi and the Democrats consider corporations.
In Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the free speech of corporations is protected by the First Amendment. Corporations that produce political books, documentaries, and other materials have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals.
Pelosi and the Democrats want a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling. It is part of a “three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads,” writes Terence P. Jeffrey of CNSNews.
In order to sell the scheme, Pelosi and the Democrats have tied it to campaign finance reform.
“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said on Thursday.
In ruling in favor if a First Amendment right for corporations, the “Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”
Pelosi was joined by the usual suspects, including People for the American Way and Common Cause.
Both are globalist assets: People for the American Way is funded by the Rockfeller Brothers and Common Cause is a Soros operation.
Share this article:
http://www.infowars.com/nancy-pelosi-wants-to-amend-the-first-amendment/
When Pelosi says “special interests,” she means the interests of those opposed to establishment Democrats. Clear Channel is a corporation. So is Fox News. There are thousands of websites, newspapers, think tanks and political action committees that Pelosi and the Democrats consider corporations.
In Citizens v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the free speech of corporations is protected by the First Amendment. Corporations that produce political books, documentaries, and other materials have the same freedom of speech rights as individuals.
Pelosi and the Democrats want a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling. It is part of a “three-pronged strategy that also includes promoting the DISCLOSE Act, which would increase disclosure requirements for organizations running political ads,” writes Terence P. Jeffrey of CNSNews.
In order to sell the scheme, Pelosi and the Democrats have tied it to campaign finance reform.
“We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the roll of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns,” Pelosi said on Thursday.
In ruling in favor if a First Amendment right for corporations, the “Supreme Court had unleashed a predator that was oozing slime into the political system, and that, indeed, is not an exaggeration,” said Pelosi. “Our Founders had an idea. It was called democracy. It said elections are determined by the people, the voice and the vote of the people, not by the bankrolls of the privileged few. This Supreme Court decision flies in the face of our Founders’ vision and we want to reverse it.”
Pelosi was joined by the usual suspects, including People for the American Way and Common Cause.
Both are globalist assets: People for the American Way is funded by the Rockfeller Brothers and Common Cause is a Soros operation.
Share this article:
sall good bro
ClosetAdvocate
Member
I was just looking through FIJA's website and read their document.
http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf
"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and
instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times
an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they
may think proper."
My state has a provision to allow nullification (although I'm sure the judge will tell you otherwise).
http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf
"All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and
instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times
an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they
may think proper."
My state has a provision to allow nullification (although I'm sure the judge will tell you otherwise).
yes, they choose to neglect to tell you,you can judge the law, before jury duty.
this is a intresting read it does have to do with leagle jurisdictions,i hope its not to far OT.
its about our flag and its meanings,we have been pledging aleagence to the wartime flag for a long time : http://www.barefootsworld.net/uscivilflag.html
this is our civil flag for peace,
this is a intresting read it does have to do with leagle jurisdictions,i hope its not to far OT.
its about our flag and its meanings,we have been pledging aleagence to the wartime flag for a long time : http://www.barefootsworld.net/uscivilflag.html
this is our civil flag for peace,
ClosetAdvocate
Member
I can't believe I never knew this. Shame on my teachers, and double shame on me because I'm not in school anymore.
government schools have government biases,i learned more out of school than i did in it. although its good to know the basics beyond that they fail,just like anything with the name government.
http://bastiat.org/
[YOUTUBEIF]bYmpoRBXgVM[/YOUTUBEIF]
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/e...e-propaganda-curriculum-aimed-at-high-schools
http://bastiat.org/
[YOUTUBEIF]bYmpoRBXgVM[/YOUTUBEIF]
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/e...e-propaganda-curriculum-aimed-at-high-schools
May 8, 2012
(NaturalNews) Jury nullification, a legal concept that dates back to 17th century England, remains perfectly lawful in the United States, according to a ruling by a federal judge last month.
U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood said 80-year-old Julian Heicklin, who was arrested by FBI agents for passing out pamphlets marked "Jury Info" from an organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association to an undercover agent, was within his legal rights under law to do so. Prosecutors had argued that Heicklin was in violation of U.S. law, which prohibits influencing jurors through written communication.
"Heicklen advocates passionately for the right of jurors to determine the law as well as the facts," Wood wrote. "The pamphlets state that a juror has not just the responsibility to determine the facts of a case before her on the basis of the evidence presented, but also the power to determine the law according to her conscience."
Jurors can be told about nullification, not about how to decide a specific case
Wood said Heicklen well understood his legal rights, and noted that Title 18 United States Code, which government lawyers cited in their prosecution, prevents trying to influence a juror in relation to specific cases or points of law. Heicklen was not doing that, Wood said.
"The statute thus prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror upon any case or point in dispute before that juror by means of a written communication in relation to that case or that point in dispute," the 27-page order says.
"It also prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror's actions or decisions pertaining to that juror's duties, but only if the defendant made that communication in relation to a case or point in dispute before that juror," the order continues. "The statute therefore squarely criminalizes efforts to influence the outcome of a case, but exempts the broad categories of journalistic, academic, political, and other writings that discuss the roles and responsibilities of jurors in general, as well as innocent notes from friends and spouses encouraging jurors to arrive on time or to rush home, to listen closely or to deliberate carefully, but with no relation to the outcome of a particular case."
Judge the law instead of the lawbreaker
The concept of jury nullification is that jurors should be able to not only decide whether a defendant violated the law, but whether the law itself is just and proper. Another way to describe the process is that it's a constitutional doctrine allowing juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty of a crime on the books but who juries don't feel deserve to be punished. In essence, the jury is saying the law is unfair or unjust.
In Heicklen's case, Wood wrote, "the court reads the plain text of the [federal] statute to require that a defendant must have sought to influence a juror through a written communication in relation either to a specific case before that juror or to a substantive point in dispute between two or more parties before that juror." And Heinklen, a retired chemistry professor, didn't do that, Wood ruled; he was simply informing juries outside a federal courthouse in Manhattan, from October 2009 to May 2010, that they were under no obligation to find defendants guilty of laws they didn't feel were just or proper.
In his dialogue with the undercover FBI agent who posed as a juror, Heicklen said the pamphlet he was handing out was just general information regarding the nullification process.
"The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts. The judge will tell you otherwise, but there are several Supreme Court decisions which said that was true. In other words, if you think the law is unjust you can find a person innocent," he said, according to a transcript of the conversation released by the court.
Prosecutors argued that "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," they added. "No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable," they said.
Prosecutors were seeking six months in jail. They didn't get it.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/45865.htm
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.letsgetfreethebook.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/z035800_jury_nullification_courts_judge.html
(NaturalNews) Jury nullification, a legal concept that dates back to 17th century England, remains perfectly lawful in the United States, according to a ruling by a federal judge last month.
U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood said 80-year-old Julian Heicklin, who was arrested by FBI agents for passing out pamphlets marked "Jury Info" from an organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association to an undercover agent, was within his legal rights under law to do so. Prosecutors had argued that Heicklin was in violation of U.S. law, which prohibits influencing jurors through written communication.
"Heicklen advocates passionately for the right of jurors to determine the law as well as the facts," Wood wrote. "The pamphlets state that a juror has not just the responsibility to determine the facts of a case before her on the basis of the evidence presented, but also the power to determine the law according to her conscience."
Jurors can be told about nullification, not about how to decide a specific case
Wood said Heicklen well understood his legal rights, and noted that Title 18 United States Code, which government lawyers cited in their prosecution, prevents trying to influence a juror in relation to specific cases or points of law. Heicklen was not doing that, Wood said.
"The statute thus prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror upon any case or point in dispute before that juror by means of a written communication in relation to that case or that point in dispute," the 27-page order says.
"It also prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror's actions or decisions pertaining to that juror's duties, but only if the defendant made that communication in relation to a case or point in dispute before that juror," the order continues. "The statute therefore squarely criminalizes efforts to influence the outcome of a case, but exempts the broad categories of journalistic, academic, political, and other writings that discuss the roles and responsibilities of jurors in general, as well as innocent notes from friends and spouses encouraging jurors to arrive on time or to rush home, to listen closely or to deliberate carefully, but with no relation to the outcome of a particular case."
Judge the law instead of the lawbreaker
The concept of jury nullification is that jurors should be able to not only decide whether a defendant violated the law, but whether the law itself is just and proper. Another way to describe the process is that it's a constitutional doctrine allowing juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty of a crime on the books but who juries don't feel deserve to be punished. In essence, the jury is saying the law is unfair or unjust.
In Heicklen's case, Wood wrote, "the court reads the plain text of the [federal] statute to require that a defendant must have sought to influence a juror through a written communication in relation either to a specific case before that juror or to a substantive point in dispute between two or more parties before that juror." And Heinklen, a retired chemistry professor, didn't do that, Wood ruled; he was simply informing juries outside a federal courthouse in Manhattan, from October 2009 to May 2010, that they were under no obligation to find defendants guilty of laws they didn't feel were just or proper.
In his dialogue with the undercover FBI agent who posed as a juror, Heicklen said the pamphlet he was handing out was just general information regarding the nullification process.
"The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts. The judge will tell you otherwise, but there are several Supreme Court decisions which said that was true. In other words, if you think the law is unjust you can find a person innocent," he said, according to a transcript of the conversation released by the court.
Prosecutors argued that "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," they added. "No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable," they said.
Prosecutors were seeking six months in jail. They didn't get it.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/45865.htm
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.letsgetfreethebook.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/z035800_jury_nullification_courts_judge.html
May 8, 2012
(NaturalNews) Jury nullification, a legal concept that dates back to 17th century England, remains perfectly lawful in the United States, according to a ruling by a federal judge last month.
U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood said 80-year-old Julian Heicklin, who was arrested by FBI agents for passing out pamphlets marked "Jury Info" from an organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association to an undercover agent, was within his legal rights under law to do so. Prosecutors had argued that Heicklin was in violation of U.S. law, which prohibits influencing jurors through written communication.
"Heicklen advocates passionately for the right of jurors to determine the law as well as the facts," Wood wrote. "The pamphlets state that a juror has not just the responsibility to determine the facts of a case before her on the basis of the evidence presented, but also the power to determine the law according to her conscience."
Jurors can be told about nullification, not about how to decide a specific case
Wood said Heicklen well understood his legal rights, and noted that Title 18 United States Code, which government lawyers cited in their prosecution, prevents trying to influence a juror in relation to specific cases or points of law. Heicklen was not doing that, Wood said.
"The statute thus prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror upon any case or point in dispute before that juror by means of a written communication in relation to that case or that point in dispute," the 27-page order says.
"It also prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror's actions or decisions pertaining to that juror's duties, but only if the defendant made that communication in relation to a case or point in dispute before that juror," the order continues. "The statute therefore squarely criminalizes efforts to influence the outcome of a case, but exempts the broad categories of journalistic, academic, political, and other writings that discuss the roles and responsibilities of jurors in general, as well as innocent notes from friends and spouses encouraging jurors to arrive on time or to rush home, to listen closely or to deliberate carefully, but with no relation to the outcome of a particular case."
Judge the law instead of the lawbreaker
The concept of jury nullification is that jurors should be able to not only decide whether a defendant violated the law, but whether the law itself is just and proper. Another way to describe the process is that it's a constitutional doctrine allowing juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty of a crime on the books but who juries don't feel deserve to be punished. In essence, the jury is saying the law is unfair or unjust.
In Heicklen's case, Wood wrote, "the court reads the plain text of the [federal] statute to require that a defendant must have sought to influence a juror through a written communication in relation either to a specific case before that juror or to a substantive point in dispute between two or more parties before that juror." And Heinklen, a retired chemistry professor, didn't do that, Wood ruled; he was simply informing juries outside a federal courthouse in Manhattan, from October 2009 to May 2010, that they were under no obligation to find defendants guilty of laws they didn't feel were just or proper.
In his dialogue with the undercover FBI agent who posed as a juror, Heicklen said the pamphlet he was handing out was just general information regarding the nullification process.
"The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts. The judge will tell you otherwise, but there are several Supreme Court decisions which said that was true. In other words, if you think the law is unjust you can find a person innocent," he said, according to a transcript of the conversation released by the court.
Prosecutors argued that "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," they added. "No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable," they said.
Prosecutors were seeking six months in jail. They didn't get it.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/45865.htm
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.letsgetfreethebook.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/z035800_jury_nullification_courts_judge.html
(NaturalNews) Jury nullification, a legal concept that dates back to 17th century England, remains perfectly lawful in the United States, according to a ruling by a federal judge last month.
U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood said 80-year-old Julian Heicklin, who was arrested by FBI agents for passing out pamphlets marked "Jury Info" from an organization known as the Fully Informed Jury Association to an undercover agent, was within his legal rights under law to do so. Prosecutors had argued that Heicklin was in violation of U.S. law, which prohibits influencing jurors through written communication.
"Heicklen advocates passionately for the right of jurors to determine the law as well as the facts," Wood wrote. "The pamphlets state that a juror has not just the responsibility to determine the facts of a case before her on the basis of the evidence presented, but also the power to determine the law according to her conscience."
Jurors can be told about nullification, not about how to decide a specific case
Wood said Heicklen well understood his legal rights, and noted that Title 18 United States Code, which government lawyers cited in their prosecution, prevents trying to influence a juror in relation to specific cases or points of law. Heicklen was not doing that, Wood said.
"The statute thus prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror upon any case or point in dispute before that juror by means of a written communication in relation to that case or that point in dispute," the 27-page order says.
"It also prohibits a defendant from trying to influence a juror's actions or decisions pertaining to that juror's duties, but only if the defendant made that communication in relation to a case or point in dispute before that juror," the order continues. "The statute therefore squarely criminalizes efforts to influence the outcome of a case, but exempts the broad categories of journalistic, academic, political, and other writings that discuss the roles and responsibilities of jurors in general, as well as innocent notes from friends and spouses encouraging jurors to arrive on time or to rush home, to listen closely or to deliberate carefully, but with no relation to the outcome of a particular case."
Judge the law instead of the lawbreaker
The concept of jury nullification is that jurors should be able to not only decide whether a defendant violated the law, but whether the law itself is just and proper. Another way to describe the process is that it's a constitutional doctrine allowing juries to acquit defendants who are technically guilty of a crime on the books but who juries don't feel deserve to be punished. In essence, the jury is saying the law is unfair or unjust.
In Heicklen's case, Wood wrote, "the court reads the plain text of the [federal] statute to require that a defendant must have sought to influence a juror through a written communication in relation either to a specific case before that juror or to a substantive point in dispute between two or more parties before that juror." And Heinklen, a retired chemistry professor, didn't do that, Wood ruled; he was simply informing juries outside a federal courthouse in Manhattan, from October 2009 to May 2010, that they were under no obligation to find defendants guilty of laws they didn't feel were just or proper.
In his dialogue with the undercover FBI agent who posed as a juror, Heicklen said the pamphlet he was handing out was just general information regarding the nullification process.
"The jury has the right to judge the law as well as the facts. The judge will tell you otherwise, but there are several Supreme Court decisions which said that was true. In other words, if you think the law is unjust you can find a person innocent," he said, according to a transcript of the conversation released by the court.
Prosecutors argued that "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," they added. "No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable," they said.
Prosecutors were seeking six months in jail. They didn't get it.
Sources for this article include:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/23/45865.htm
http://www.nytimes.com
http://www.letsgetfreethebook.com
http://www.naturalnews.com/z035800_jury_nullification_courts_judge.html
theres much more than nullification,im learning.
How To Disqualify Your Judge www.fulldisclosure.net
[YOUTUBEIF]FcsbO_qPvwc[/YOUTUBEIF]
D.A. and Judge get OWNED in California!
[YOUTUBEIF]R105H4eQ9yw[/YOUTUBEIF]
^this guy served evey party who was going to profit under color of law(a crime) and it was continued ,and only the intrested parties will pursue the matter, well thats only the people who want to volenteer to get sued and go to jail.at least thats my understanding.
How To Disqualify Your Judge www.fulldisclosure.net
[YOUTUBEIF]FcsbO_qPvwc[/YOUTUBEIF]
D.A. and Judge get OWNED in California!
[YOUTUBEIF]R105H4eQ9yw[/YOUTUBEIF]
^this guy served evey party who was going to profit under color of law(a crime) and it was continued ,and only the intrested parties will pursue the matter, well thats only the people who want to volenteer to get sued and go to jail.at least thats my understanding.
Last edited:
bumping this thread for the purpose of spreading jury nullification.
