I responded with this; ""the government kept the case as simple as possible for jurors -- Fincher had the machine guns and they weren't registered as required."- from the article.
I suspect this is the authors repetition of the government's stated purpose in which the judge was complicit.
If read properly it would lead one to believe it would be more accurately expressed thusly: The government and the judge believing the jury to be composed of honest persons,dare not allow that jury to see the law, or hear of the protection of rights in the Constitution of the United States of America if they hope to win a verdict in the government's favor.
The jury has a duty to judge not only the facts of a case, but also the law under which the case is brought before them. That duty cannot be fulfilled when they are denied access to the law, all of it pertinent to a case, including constitutional considerations, and are also denied access to a defendant's defense.
This was a mockery of justice, the law, and American citizenship for all citizens. There are some people needing a jail sentence here, but Mr. Fincher isn't one of them."
Follow David C's link to read e.david's excellent comments. In fact, leave some comments of your own. Let's take away the excuses for ignorance and also the comfort of abuse of the ignorant and/or outnumbered.
Thank you SA. Notice that you have had a whole new heat in your fire lately. In fact, I'm noticing that a lot more people are sitting up and taking notice. As well as being more vocal about the scam taking place. We need some good cheer-leaders, as well as some good people with leadership skills. We must get this train rolling, and keep it rolling.
E.David had some good comments about the article.
ReplyDeleteI responded with this; ""the government kept the case as simple as possible for jurors -- Fincher had the machine guns and they weren't registered as required."- from the article.
I suspect this is the authors repetition of the government's stated purpose in which the judge was complicit.
If read properly it would lead one to believe it would be more accurately expressed thusly: The government and the judge believing the jury to be composed of honest persons,dare not allow that jury to see the law, or hear of the protection of rights in the Constitution of the United States of America if they hope to win a verdict in the government's favor.
The jury has a duty to judge not only the facts of a case, but also the law under which the case is brought before them. That duty cannot be fulfilled when they are denied access to the law, all of it pertinent to a case, including constitutional considerations, and are also denied access to a defendant's defense.
This was a mockery of justice, the law, and American citizenship for all citizens. There are some people needing a jail sentence here, but Mr. Fincher isn't one of them."
Follow David C's link to read e.david's excellent comments. In fact, leave some comments of your own. Let's take away the excuses for ignorance and also the comfort of abuse of the ignorant and/or outnumbered.
Thank you SA. Notice that you have had a whole new heat in your fire lately. In fact, I'm noticing that a lot more people are sitting up and taking notice. As well as being more vocal about the scam taking place. We need some good cheer-leaders, as well as some good people with leadership skills. We must get this train rolling, and keep it rolling.
ReplyDeleteAny ideas people?