Posted on 02/18/2006 1:46:55 PM PST by freepatriot32
Ayn Rand = idiot and nut case. I hope you've read her biography and all the crazy shit she did. Yeah, you libertarians will procalim the chaotic way she lead her life has no connection to the very flawed philosophy of libertarianism.
Not that I don't agree with a few ideas that are called libertarian
Should such a jury wait until the end of the trial and then politely tell the judge that something has come up requiring his recusal, or will the judge ask if anything has come up, or how does that work? Certainly it would not be good for the juror to say, within earshot of other jurors, "Your honor, I don't think I could fairly judge this guy because I caught his character witness stealing from my store," but private communications between a juror and the judge would appear unseemly.
The local dog catcher tried to get me for having a pet in my vehicle and endangering it. At no time except when some woman PETA busy body freak kept bothering the animal did it become the lest bit stressed. The PETA freak called animal control about an animal left in a vehicle on an overcast day widows partially open and low 70's temps with a strong prevailing wind. I was given a warning just because Barnette wanted to please the PETA Freakette whom she seemed to know real well. I found out later PETA Freakette watches the area I was parked in at the time. The engine was off and windows were opened providing more than sufficient air to the pet. Two windows were even open to where the pet could reach them even laying down as they were screened windows. This was in a conversion van very well insulated and built for traveling.
So I later asked the Barney in charge of the animal control unit if keeping the pet in a vehicle that was air conditioned would suffice their concerns. Barney in charge proceeded to quote me city ordinance number whatever forbidding engines running in vehicles unoccupied even with the doors locked. Barney said it prevented theft. I told Barney give me a screw driver and a hammer and I can pop any switch in seconds. Barney of course in a high pitched voiced said the law is the law mister.
I had checked the inside temperature of the vehicle several times and as well when I had returned to it and found Barnette with her PETA friend snitch pulling up. Barnette picked PETA freak updown the street and brought her there. I even kept a voice activated radio in the vehicle. Lady Barney who responded said it was too hot for the pet. I said the pet is fine and is not in danger. I tried to show Barnette the thermometer inside the vehicle which wI just eneterd that said it was around 80 degrees F indicating ample source of ventilation. Barnette didn't care about that though or the fact I was well within the boundries of written laws concerning the matter. Barney and Barnette told me their opinion of any situation was actually the law in such cases and not written laws.
So if you travel with a pet and drive through Knoxville, TN in the spring or fall don't stop and leave your pet in the car even with the motor and air running and doors locked. Barney & Barnette's friends who have watched way too many Animal Precinct shows will snitch on you to Animal Control Officer Barney or Barnette :>}
Dr. Ferris is still enthusiastically encouraged to jam it.
Our government needs an enema, top to bottom. Continuing to vote for the same two Big Stupid Government parties makes you the equivalent of a battered wife who just won't leave.
Screw Big Stupid Government, Republicans and 'Rats.
I don't think jurors are allowed to write anything during a case (one would think allowing jurors to take notes would be a good thing, but it's not without dangers). And I think both counsel have a right to see any notes passed to the judge.
Still, if someone were to write a note saying "Certain information has come to light during the trial that would make it impossible for me to evaluate all evidence impartially. What should I do about it?" I would guess that would be reasonable. Not sure how a judge would want to proceed then. I'm pretty certain both counsel would want to be present at any discussion between the judge and the juror, and it might be hard to explain one's causes for concern to the judge without giving information to counsel that could prejudice the case.
I have said many times on FR, getting arrested is only a big deal the first time it happens. :-)
Maybe. At least for some of the regulations in the article. But there are also political entrepeneurs who use the system to put stumbling blocks in front of the competition. Ask any market entrepeneur if he/she has had to overcome stumbling blocks in one form or another and the answer would be an unequivocal yes. Try hanging a shingle outside your door, "open for business", without first getting the requisite permission from government in all of the various licenses, insurances, inspections, and studies, and you will quickly find yourself a welcome source of job security for unelected bureaucrats.
A lot of those are urban legends, >>>>>>>>>>>
There are plenty of urban legends but I guarantee you that there are enough laws to put us all behind bars if we were caught and convicted. Have you ever studied the Mann act? I saw something on Art Linkletter's tv show about fifty years ago that illustrated it perfectly. He sent a man out on the street at the start of the show with instructions to do whatever he wished but he would be observed and if he had not broken any laws by the end of the show he would recieve one hundred dollars (equal to more than a thousand today). The man did not get the money and the reason was that he opened a pack of cigarettes. In those days there was a tax stamp across the top of the pack of cigarettes and it was actually illegal to open the pack without breaking the tax stamp. I never knew anyone who obeyed that particular law but there were penalties on the book for doing this. Sometimes laws are so strange that you would never imagine that things would be that way. At one time in North Carolina there was a "brownbagging" law, this law allowed a person to carry a bottle of liquor into a place that was licensed to sell beer, a person could order a "setup" which was a glass with ice and whatever mixer they wished and pour liquor from their own bottle to make a drink. The really strange part was that due to the prohibition on beer sales on Sunday all beer had to be off the table before midnight on Saturday night but anyone who had brought a bottle could keep on pouring their own whiskey as long as the place was open. Believe me this led to some strange scenes, waitresses rushing about gathering up any beer left on the table while at the same time serving setups to people who kept right on pouring whiskey.
Actually, any jury with the guts to do so has the power under the constitution to decide that a law is no good, judges don't want you to know this but it is true. This can be done simply by finding a defendant not guilty regardless of the evidence. There is no legal way that a judge can force a jury to find someone guilty.
Your post at 101 was great. Thanks for posting.
thats a great post im goingto put that on my about page in a few minutes
Jurors can't be charged with this because there is no way to prove it. And the jurors themselves wouldn't be prosecuted, by the way; it's been common-law doctrine for centuries that jurors are not to be prosecuted for anything they do in the rightful capacity as jurors. If a jury were found to have engaged in nullification, the result would be the overturning of their verdict as null. And even that would carry its own slew of double jeopardy issues.
The case of William Penn came to mind while thinking about this, and I searched around a bit to refresh myself of the facts of the case. I found the following Here:
Supporters of the informed jury movement usually go back to the John Peter Zenger libel case to bolster their position. Zenger was a New York printer who in 1735 published a series of pamphlets criticizing the colonial governor of New York. He was charged by the crown with "seditious libel," and at the time the definition of libel was the publication of anything criticizing public officials, laws or the government.
The judge in the case, quite rightly, ruled that the only fact matter to be proven was: Did he publish the articles or not? Everyone, including Zenger, agreed that the articles had been published and that they contained criticism, so there was no reason to put on evidence. Nevertheless, Zenger's attorney Andrew Hamilton argued that the articles were also true, and urged the jury to acquit on that basis. The jury ignored the law and acquitted Zenger, thereby establishing a principle that was later made law: truth is an absolute defense against libel charges.
But I think there's an even better case. In 1670 William Penn was indicted for preaching Quakerism under the "unlawful assembly" act. Despite the fact that he was obviously guilty according to the judge's interpretation of the law, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit him. The judge had the jurors thrown in jail and starved for four days in an attempt to change their votes. It didn't work. Reluctantly, he ordered Penn released--but the crown still wasn't finished with the recalcitrant jurors.
The four who voted for innocence were assessed fines for failing to follow the law and sent to prison until the fines should be paid. Three chose to pay the fine--just to get things over with. The fourth juror, Edward Bushell, was of heartier stock and refused to pay. Instead he took his case to the Court of Common Pleas, where Chief Justice Vaughan eventually ruled that Bushell was right--jurors could not be punished for a verdict. If anything established that the jury was the sole arbiter of law and facts, it was this case.
There has been quite a bit of commentary about the meaning of the case against William Penn, much of it I've found at sites supporting FIJA (ya, FIJA sites are likely to be somewhat biased). It was apparently a rather ground-breakinng precident in the history of the common law, from whence much of our law comes. The very idea of a group of 12 jurors being able to completely overturn the entire leviathan mechanism of "The Law" strikes fear into a great many statists all across this nation of ours.
I think the argument I've seen here regarding jury nullification being a 'right' or a 'power' is, as you commented later on a moot point, as any member of the jury can choose to ignore the law if he so chooses.
Jury nullification was used to great effect in the years leading up to the civil war to protect those who would harbor fugitive slaves. It was similarly used quite often in many areas of the country during prohibition. In fact in many places, you couldn't get a conviction for moonshining because the people decided the whole thing was a bad idea. I find myself in a similar frame of mind with many laws. If on a jury, if I can't find a victim, (i.e., many drug laws, seatbelt laws, and similar things) I seriously doubt that my concience would allow me to convict.
The article and especially your post of the "Atlas Shrugged" quote inspired the post. If you use the article you may want to correct the misspelling of "pat" to past.
It's a defendant's right to an impartial jury as per the Sixth Amendment. Up until 1894 judges routinely informed jurors that they were to judge the facts and the law. That most judges today tell jurors to judge only the facts is tantamount to granting the government/prosecution and unfair advantage over the defendant while oppressing the defendant's right to an impartial jury.
Very true. One has to pick his battles. However, if more people knew they had the power to nullify these stupid laws, more would be overturned.>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would hope this is true, yet when I stop to think how far from the original wording our constitution has been taken by justices who swear to uphold it and within hours set to work to overturn it I find little cause for optimism. The law can only be returned to a sane state by an informed and active citizenry and only a very small minority of the people I meet are capable of thinking clearly in the abstract. Fewer still are interested in taking time away from their daily pursuit of gratification to attempt to right what is wrong with the law, therefore we slide ever closer to totalitarianism. The frog is long past the point of being able to jump and will soon cease to struggle and emit a final faint croak of acquiescence while slowly sliding to the bottom of the pot.
That is why we have a myriad of unnecessary laws.
Whenever the Government wants to it can start selectively enforcing some of the many laws that everyone breaks on a daily basis.
Then they can put out of commission hundreds (if not thousands) of Americans that they rightly fear will stand up for this country and the Constitution.
Probably be during a Dem admin.
By the way, is a lawyer somehow better able to get elected to public office than anyone of another profession? If so, you may want to blame The People for electing them.>>>>>>>>
Interesting question, judging from results the answer is yes, they do. They are far more likely to have contacts within the circles of power than most of us. I do blame the people for electing so many lawyers. I blame the lawyers for changing the laws so that almost anyone who can scratch an X can vote. I think we need to go back to the old standards and disqualify a huge proportion of the electorate. I rate the chance of this happening as somewhere between slim and none and Slim was last seen sinking under the waves in the middle of some ocean. Therefore I see the chance of our returning to constitutional law as it was conceived by the founding fathers as so miniscule as to be unmeasurable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.