David,
I left the following as a comment on the "Fincher Denied" post late last night. I would like an answer. -- Paul
-
All we were asking was to let the JURY decide what weapons were suitable for militia use. — per Miller
You know, it's really funny (and not "Ha Ha"), but WE, the citizens are the ones who vote to ratify a Constitution at the state level, and we would instruct our state representatives and senators how they should vote were another Federal Constitution to come before them for ratification. Moreover, we have instructed them on how we wanted them to vote on Amendments to the Federal Constitution in the last 50 years.
YET . . .
IN THE ESTIMATION OF THE COURTS — SOMEHOW WE ARE SO D%@?*^% DUMB WE CAN'T SIT IN A JURY BOX AND DECIDE WHAT THE LAW SAYS AND WHAT IT OUGHT TO MEAN!
Does anyone besides me see something horribly wrong with this picture?
That means we can either accept the "No," or realize that their answer won't change unless the ones giving it come to understand they have no other choice. But it's not going to be us positing an "or else" proposition to the government. They're going to be bringing it to us.
But I speak out of turn. Paul hears from me enough. He wants to know what you think.
11 comments:
what's horribly wrong here is that i haven't been given the time to get up to speed with this and stock up the necessary ammo. god certainly works in mysterious ways.
Well, let's see. The jury box is busted now. The ballot box has been broken for years. We've been using the soap box now for quite a few years and don't seem to be getting anywhere. What have they left us? *sigh* Guess, I'll just stay on my soap box for a while longer and see what happens.
The tree of liberty has not been refreshed in a very long time.
Here's what I think: we need to concentrate on state and local reps and especially sheriffs. We need to be pressing them to declare sovereignty over certain issues in the state houses. But we also need to get the citizen militias reconstituted under county authority. We need legal, organized resistance. We need to let the feds know that an organized force will kill them if need be. This means educating the public as to why the militia is important. We need to elect patriots into the office of sheriff. We need to educate the public about jury nullification. If we did these things, how could they stop us?
Check out FIJA and become a member.
Of course. you'll never get on a jury that way.
I have lots of stories about juries. A potential juror who doesn't have his or her head buried in his or her azz won't survive voir dire.
The reason is you have to take an oath in which you promise to follow any illegal jury instructions by the judge.
The only way for an informed juror to make it to the jury room is to violate this oath.
While elected officials don't take oaths of office seriously, you could wind up in jail for violating your oath as a juror.
Yeah - the system's broken.
If most or our countrymen had more than two brain cells to rub together we wouldn't find ourselves in in our current predicament.
Rant off.
How is it that the same people who are so stupid and irrational that they need government to control them from harming each other - are suddenly smart and wise enough to select the "leaders?"
And then the real joke... these same people who need to be controlled, yet hire the controllers, are then supposed to control those they hire with begging and pleading!!
Huh?
You either own your life and control it yourself and in voluntary cooperation with others, or you are a slave. You can't have it both ways.
Once you take your oath, who is to tell you HOW to vote? Just vote as YOU see is appropriate. You do not need to argue with any juror your reasons voting, because when you are a juror you also have 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. When enough juries are deadlocked or do not convict, the prosecution and legislatures usually gets the message that a law is unenforcable.
The time to talk and advocate is BEFORE you get into the jurors box. Once there, shut up, decide, and act.
Until there is a personal downside for their transgressions they will continue to transgress. Since all peaceable and legal options have been nullified, there is only the other kind left to provide that downside.
Do I think there's something wrong with that?
Yes, I do.
But for the Second Republic to get from Point A to Point B, its organizers are required to do things that are flagrantly contradictory with the spirit and the laws of the First Republic. If you question the gaps in logic, the standard answer is that only the proper authority can translate to newlaw for we quiescent tax cattle. I'm sure you notice the slight of hand. Your reading skills are perfectly satisfactory. Your opponents are engaging in argumentum ad verecundiam.
But what do I know? I'm practicing law without a license, right? The people who understand the painfully obvious meaning of "shall not be infringed" are a handful of us, and some guy by the name of David E. Young, who painstakingly studied the history of the Second Amendment--and can provide citations from the original authors and their contemporaries--instead of late public servants engaging in praxes of a politically faddish philosoph[istr]y of statism.
We don't have to wait to defend against the next attack on the Second Amendment; Congress could introduce an act repealing any one of the nonsense disarmament statutes at any time they are in session--including those which were the basis for the Fincher conviction. But they won't.
Well maybe if they made it like Idol style text message voting we could handle it. Like, text 54556 for Guilty, 54557 for Not Guilty.
Judges and lawyers do not want anyone seated on a jury who might have an original thought or any questions as to whether the pre-decided outcome of a trial might be questionable. The left-overs, after voir dire, are directed, and intimidated, by the court to shut up and do as they are told. Most jurors do not have the education to do otherwise.
Post a Comment