Dear KAG: 20220208 Open Thread

“…I remember a law professor in college stating that every law, regulation, etc. is legal until it is challenged. It is left up to the challenge to determine whether it will stand and be enforced. So what do we do if the judiciary is compromised and controlled like we know it is?…”

>>>>>>>>>>>

From 2015:

A pamphlet told the juror what his Constitutional rights and obligations were. This is information the JUDGE should be clearly stating to EVERY JURY. INSTEAD — Arrested for handing out literature. LINK

In fact this is becoming a LAW in some states thanks to the groups handing out the pamphlets.

This is perhaps THE MOST IMPORTANT move any American can make to protect our freedom. WE as Jurorists have the RIGHT and duty to judge not only the case but the LAW itself. We as Jurorists CAN set aside laws passed by Congress!

This is the ultimate power of the people over the government and the Elite want to keep it hidden!

SEPTEMBER 30, 2007
WHAT JUDGES & LAWYERS WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT JURIES

…On appeal, however, the jurors’ action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts — to nullify the law if it chose

— became part of British constitutional law.

It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system’s best kept secrets.

Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous…

FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature.

Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case……

Far from being an unintended side-effect, jury nullification is explicitly authorized in the constitutions of 24 states.

State Language on Jury Nullification

ALL CRIMINAL CASES

The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to “judge” or “determine” the law in “all criminal cases.”

Article 23 of Maryland’s Constitution states:

In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the

Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Jury

of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in

controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.

…There is no doubt that jury nullification was one of the rights and powers that the people were exercising in 1791 when the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution was adopted. As legal historian Lawrence Friedman has written:

In American legal theory, jury-power was enormous, and subject to few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. This idea was particularly strong in the first revolutionary generation when memories of royal justice were fresh.

Jury nullification is therefore one of the “rights retained by the people” in the Ninth Amendment.

And it is one of the “powers reserved to the people” in the Tenth Amendment.

Jury nullification is decentralization of political power. It is the people’s most important veto in our

constitutional system. The jury vote is the only time the people ever vote on the application of a real law in real life. All other votes are for hypotheticals.

http://www.fija.org/docs/JG_state_language_on_jury_nullification.pdf

That is why the Supreme Court and the rest are busy REMOVING OUR RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL!

 “Anyone accused of a crime in this country is entitled to a jury trial.”

The Constitution may say so but, in fact, this is simply not the case — and becoming less so as politicians fiddle with legal definitions and sentencing standards in order specifically to reduce the number of persons entitled to a trial….

Here is how the politicians have gotten around the US Constitution to make sure citizens are denied their right to a trial:

The Seventh Amendment, passed by the First Congress without debate, cured the omission by declaring that the right to a jury trial shall be preserved in common-law cases… The Supreme Court has, however, arrived at a more limited interpretation. It applies the amendment’s guarantee to the kinds of cases that “existed under the English common law when the amendment was adopted,” …

𝕋𝕙𝕖 𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥 𝕥𝕠 𝕥𝕣𝕚𝕒𝕝 𝕓𝕪 𝕛𝕦𝕣𝕪 𝕚𝕤 𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕥𝕦𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪 𝕘𝕦𝕒𝕣𝕒𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕕 𝕚𝕟 𝕔𝕖𝕣𝕥𝕒𝕚𝕟 𝕔𝕝𝕒𝕤𝕤𝕖𝕤 𝕠𝕗 𝕔𝕚𝕧𝕚𝕝 𝕔𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕤 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕕𝕖𝕕𝕝𝕪 “𝕤𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕤 𝕒𝕥 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕞𝕠𝕟 𝕝𝕒𝕨,” 𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕦𝕝𝕒𝕣𝕝𝕪 𝕨𝕙𝕖𝕟 “𝕡𝕦𝕓𝕝𝕚𝕔” 𝕠𝕣 𝕘𝕠𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕟𝕞𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕒𝕝 𝕣𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥𝕤 𝕒𝕣𝕖 𝕒𝕥 𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕦𝕖 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕗 𝕠𝕟𝕖 𝕔𝕒𝕟𝕟𝕠𝕥 𝕗𝕚𝕟𝕕 𝕖𝕚𝕘𝕙𝕥𝕖𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕙-𝕔𝕖𝕟𝕥𝕦𝕣𝕪 𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕔𝕖𝕕𝕖𝕟𝕥 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕛𝕦𝕣𝕪 𝕡𝕒𝕣𝕥𝕚𝕔𝕚𝕡𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕚𝕟 𝕥𝕙𝕠𝕤𝕖 𝕔𝕒𝕤𝕖𝕤.

Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.

In contrast to the near-universal support for the civil jury trial in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, modern jurists consider civil jury trial neither “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. State of Connecticut (1937), nor “fundamental to the American scheme of justice,” Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/7/essays/159/right-to-jury-in-civil-cases

?cb=1318160412