Sabotaging the rule of law

The late 19th century supreme court case you're probably thinking of is Sparf v. Hansen (1895), where they said that jury nullification is a "hidden power" of the jury (I paraphrase). This stripped away some more of the defendants right to have a jury judge the justice of the law he's tried under.

"you are not equipped." - tex

Those that can, do.

-- Those that are all mouth make coy remarks about equipment.

Indeed it is. To what passage in the opinion do you refer?

A dissenting judge in Sparf v. Hansen quoted Elliot's Debates, 94; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, p.267:

"The people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, [the wrongful seizure of authority] without being driven to an appeal to arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation."

But I don't have the weasily language in the majority opinion handy that they now use to relegate jury nullification to a "secret rogue power."

Here's a link

Thanks. I was replying to your post #19, of course, when I asked to what part of the 1794 Georgia v. Brailsford opinion you referred in post #19.

post #14 to Founding Father?

Ah, thanks. Sorry, I can only dig up STATE OF GA. v. BRAILSFORD, 2 U.S. 402 (1792) .

The passage you quoted in #14 isn't in that opinion.

Got it now, thanks. 1794 was the 2nd time Brailsford came before the Court.

My understanding of nullification in a trial is that the jury is saying, "The law was wrongfully applied in this instance and we are nullifying the charges in this one trial." (Or something close to that.)

No because the statement is wrong. Juries have always acquitted obviously guilty defendants. OJ being the most notorious. Once again you fail to comprehend.

You are right that a jury does have the power to nullify, if done covertly. I think what the proposed Amendment A would allow is for a potential juror who is openly in favor of jury nullication to not automatically be tossed out of the jury pool, and the judge would be required to inform jurors that they have that power.

I really curious - why have a jury of one's peers if they were not to have that power? Why is trial by jury enshrined in the Bill of Rights? Jury nullification is not sabotage of the rule of law, it is yet another check and balance on government powers.

Late 19th century, I believe, so not that early. But certainly not a new right.

More recently than that.

From the Juror's Handbook

As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

To tex; --
My understanding of nullification in a trial is that the jury is saying, "The law was wrongfully applied in this instance and we are nullifying the charges in this one trial." (Or something close to that.)
_________________________________

You have the correct understanding of the term.
Those who oppose the concept of nullification choose to pretend they do not, and play word-games with the term in order to obfuscate their position.

I decided to rip apart Bruce Fein's article. Why? Because this issue is one of five key issues/problems that when accurately addressed and deconstructed only then can the magnitude and honest justice of the emerging solution begin to be integrated.

Bruce Fein, turns honest justice on its head. He uses irrational emotionalism of pitting one social group against another. The NRA is a social/political-activist group as is NORMAL and Handgun Control Inc.

The author intends to jerk the reader here-and-there by his or her emotions. In the process Fein willingly -- or ignorantly/incompetently -- champions violating The United States Constitution. Specifically, Amendment VI. Fein passively supports the political-agenda status quo of the House and Senate as well as the judicial-agenda of the Department Of Justice. In all three the rule of man has taken precedence over the rule of common-sense law, natural law.

The very thing that Fein accuses the supporters of Amendment A of enabling: "each man would become a law unto himself" Fein is guilty of enabling government officials to write and uphold rule of man while suppressing rule of law.

It is obvious when the reader considers that most of Fein's arguments are based on external events that take place outside the courts; events that are irrelevant to common-sense law. He uses the groups such as National Rifle Association, Handgun Control Inc. and NORMAL as his argument against jury nullification as though those groups are recognized lawmakers, judges and jurors. He uses the rule of tyranny of the majority as a means of "justifying" whether a law is just or unjust: "To do so would be to deny the right of the majority to pass laws binding on dissenters".

Almost every State Representative and Senator has violated his or her oath of office to uphold The United States Constitution and in the process violated individual rights and private property rights. Heck, the the Senate Ethics Committee gave Torricelli a pass. When the Senators that make up the Senate Ethics Committee are without ethics the lesser of evils still begets evil.

Bruce Fein presupposes that members of the congress and Senate are honest and ethical. He also presupposes that judges that preside over jury trials are honest and ethical. All but a handful are worthy of their positions.

Whether he does it intentionally or out of ignorance/incompetence Bruce Fein, via his voice in the Washington Times, facilitates a corrupt leviathan government.

If Fein has correctly conveyed Newland's position when he wrote that, "the defendants in both cases should have been permitted to urge the jury to acquit by ignoring the law and invoking their personal sense of justice and equity" then Newland is slightly off the mark in regards to the defendant's right to an impartial jury. Explained below.

Here Fein misses the primary obligation of the juror. "Juries, in contrast, speak for only themselves, act in secrecy, and are not required to justify their verdicts to the public." Each juror's primary obligation is to uphold the United States Constitution. In effect, the jurors speak for the document they and The People wrote for themselves.

He writes: "Amendment A, moreover, is not confined to petty offenses." Which is true. But here Mr. Fein projects unethical, irrational and dishonest behavior onto jurors whom -- unlike unethical, irrational and dishonest lawmakers and judges -- have no vested interest in protecting their jobs: "Juries could acquit for vile crimes, like the despicable murder of young Emmett Till by white racists or the mob killing of Leo Frank." As demonstrated in the O.J. Simpson trial, a jury can already do that; acquit despite seemingly insurmountable evidence to the contrary.

Fein contends: "The worst prejudices would be exploited by defendants to triumph over justice." To the contrary, as will be articulated below, it is judges presiding over jury trials that routinely exploit and prejudice jurors against defendants.

"Jurors who would categorically refuse to consider a defendant's plea for nullification authorized by law would be excluded," Fein said. Therefore, "Qualified jurors would thus be inclined toward sympathy for the defense." In its current state, any potential jury that even hints at knowing what jury nullification is, is excluded from the jury pool. Thus, the remainder of the jury pool favors the State because, by omission, those in favor of upholding The United States Constitution have already been excused. Still, for the defendant and the jurors, the most unethical injustice awaits them in the courtroom. That too will be expalined below.

Here's where this author -- an honest justice enthusiast -- diverges slightly, albeit it critically, from the jury nullification enthusiasts. Fein states: "Jury nullification enthusiasts retort that juries de facto enjoy that power, despite instructions to follow the law, because their deliberations are secret and acquittals are final under the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment." While all jurors have that de facto power, it is not just because jury deliberations are secret and final under the Amendment V double jeopardy clause. For, as will be explained below, it is the Sixth Amendment clause respecting the defendant's right to an impartial jury.

Having stated the obvious, Fein further states: "Amendment A, in contrast, gives government sanction to loathsome jury instincts and lawlessness." The opposite has already happened long ago; judges presiding over jury trials have taken it upon themselves to sanction loathsome judicial instincts and lawlessness. In other words, what Bruce Fein asserts that Amendment A would do is in fact what trial judges have long been guilty of.

Fein then goes on to say, "By sponsoring lawbreaking, government would invite a breakdown of the social order." It is trial judges that routinely violate The United States Constitution who are inviting breakdown in social justice. No doubt Fein thinks of himself as a man that demands the respect of being among the higher rungs of social order, yet still a rung or two below the respect that Senators and trial judges demand; facilitated by the media, academics and Bruce Fein himself, despite the reality that they violate ethics, rationality and honesty and do so while feigning compassion and commitment to justice. It's enough to make a person sick to their stomach if not revolt against their parasitical leeching off unsuspecting and fundamentally honest working-class citizens.

Again, Mr. Fein is wrong; "Nothing in contemporary prosecutorial excesses comes close to justifying this grim peril of jury nullification." As explained in the below article, trial judges routine violation of The United States Constitution and defendants' rights under the Sixth Amendment have done a great service to enabling both houses of congress to expand a once-great government-experiment into a leviathan. ...With the corollary being a grave disservice to the people and social justice.

Bruce Fein is general counsel for the Center for Law and Accountability, a public interest law group headquartered in Virginia.

If Bruce Fein reflects the means and motive of the Center for Law and Accountability then neither one has the public interest at mind or heart and instead have their own self-interests in perpetuating the higher-authority, status-quo mentality. The individual is always the higher authority and that is no clearer than in the case wherein an individual sits on the jury in a court of law and upholds the law of the land -- The United States Constitution.

"Our falling into anarchy would decide forever the destinies of mankind, and seal the political heresy that man is incapable of self-government." --Thomas Jefferson

Upholding The United States Constitution does not lead to anarchy -- routinely violating it may. But I have much respect, trust and honor for my fellow working-class brothers and sisters. Certainly far more than I do for politicians, bureaucrats, and their facilitating academics and media writers that perpetuate the higher-authority, status-quo mentality.

However, on this day we are both writers. You the reader, be the judge. And if it suits you to speak out either in approval, disapproval or insight of your own then so be it that you speak for yourself. As Thomas Jefferson penned:

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

*

How Judges Facilitated
Congress in Expanding Big Government
and Political Agenda Laws
If you've been robbed -- having thousands of dollars stolen from you -- do you want politicians to decide whether you've been harmed and to what extent, or let an impartial jury of your peers decide?
Who do you trust more: twelve of your working-class peers sitting as an impartial jury or politicians debating your fate on the floor of the both houses of congress and state legislature?
Since 1894 judges presiding over jury trials have routinely violated defendants' Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Largely leaving the people's fate in the hands of congress.
Each criminal trial is officially filed as -- THE STATE OF "XX" (fill in the state) VS. "XX" (fill in the defendant's name). In federal court trials the criminal trial is officially filed as -- THE UNITED STATES VS. "XX" (fill in the defendant's name). In some jurisdictions the official filing looks lie this: THE PEOPLE VS. BOB CROW
Each juror is not to be partial, in favor of or against the state, nor partial, in favor of or against the defendant. It is the judge presiding over the trial that has the responsibility of ensuring that the jury is impartial -- favoring neither the state or the defendant.

The Sixth Amendment reads: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

Prior to 1894, judges routinely ensured that each jury was an impartial jury as mandated by the United States Constitution.

Gray and Shiras (Justices), Dissent: Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, October Term, 1894. The classic opinion of the two dissenting justices on the case which effectively ended routine instruction of juries in their right to judge both law and fact. The majority ruled that while jurors do have the power to nullify the law, judges need not tell them about it, except in cases where state laws or constitutions specify that jurors must be told.

What Justices Gray and Shiras failed to acknowledge, either by incompetence or intent to defraud, is that it is the defendant's right to be ensured that his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury is upheld. It is not a juror's right to be informed. It is the defendant's right that each juror be informed.
In effect, since 1894 each judge has instructed by omission that each juror is to be partial, in favor of the STATE.
As an example of this routine judicial abuse:

"As a practical matter, I don't know how this is different from the beginning of a trial, when you tell the jurors you have to follow the law as I state it," Warren said. "I just won't give [the disapproved instruction]." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other

Hence, "as I state it", the judge omits informing the jury that it is to judge the law as well as the facts. Thereby violating the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.

"At issue in People v. Engelman, 02 C.D.O.S. 6411, was California Jury Instruction 17.41.1, which judges give before deliberations. It directs jurors to advise the court if they suspect someone is refusing to discuss the evidence or plans to disregard the law." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other

Here the want of the lone judge is acting on behalf of the State -- in favor of the State; saying that jurors are to inform the court if they suspect one of the jurors intends to nullify the law.
The California Supreme Court decision upheld the juror's right to be secure behind closed doors. But the decision says nothing about the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Defendant's rights was not at issue, just jurors' rights.
In regards to defendants' rights, in fact and effect the judges are the ones that disregard the law -- disregards the Sixth Amendment as it pertains to upholding the defendants' right to an impartial jury.
More so, the jury cannot disregard the law. For there are only two choices the jury has in reaching a verdict. 1) The law was correctly applied/charged against the defendant (guilty verdict), or 2) the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant (acquittal: not guilty verdict).
However, a juror can disregard the judge's unconstitutional instruction to follow the law as he or she states it when the judge fails to instruct the jury to judge the facts and the law.
A clear example of jury nullification -- the jury nullifying the law. Connie Jones filed charges against Bob Crow for assault and battery.
THE PEOPLE VS. BOB CROW
Bob Crow is charged with assaulting Connie Jones. Bob slapped Connie, strangers to each other, hard in the face and then wrestled her to the ground. A man unconnected with either Bob or Connie just happened to video tape the entire incident including a few minutes prior to Bob slapping Connie. It is clear from the video that Bob did not act in self-defense.
Following the judge's instructions that the jury is to follow the law as the judge states it, the jury has no choice but to render a guilty verdict against Bob Crow.
However one other thing was abundantly clear in the video. The reason Bob Crow slapped Connie Jones and wrestled her to the ground was because Bob was convinced that Connie was attempting to jump off the three-hundred foot cliff. Unable to talk Connie out of jumping he slapped her and then wrestled her to the ground -- saving her life.
Had the judge upheld the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury, the jury could have nullified the law. Thereby selecting option #2 -- the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.
As a side note: If you were in Bob Crow's position, how well would your conscience hold up knowing that you could have at least tried to stop Connie Jones from jumping off the cliff yet chose to do nothing? Which is worse, being at the mercy of an impartial jury for having assault and battered -- initiated force against -- Connie Jones, or living the rest of your life knowing you did nothing to stop her?
Major problem, the judge will not permit an impartial jury to be seated in your trial.
Additional note: The intent of the authors of the constitution in regards to the Sixth Amendment impartial jury was to protect the defendant from discrimination. Not just discrimination against race, sex and religion, but to protect against discrimination by the much more powerful government.
*

How Congress Created Big Government

Congress has created so many laws that virtually every person is assured of breaking more than just traffic laws. Surely, with all this supposed lawlessness people and society should have long ago run head long into destruction. But it has not.
Instead, people and society have progressively prospered. Doing so despite the federal government -- politicians and bureaucrats -- creating on average, 3,000 new laws and regulations each year which self-serving alphabet-agency bureaucrats implement/utilize to justify their usurped power and unearned paychecks. They both proclaim from on high -- with complicit endorsement from the media and academia -- that all those laws are "must-have" laws to thwart people and society from running headlong into self-destruction.
Despite not having this year's 3,000 must-have laws people and society increased prosperity for years and decades prior. How can it be that suddenly the people and the society they form has managed to be so prosperous for so long but suddenly they will run such great risk of destroying their self-created prosperity? Three hundred new laws each year is overkill, but 3,000 is, well, it's insane. Insane that the people allow their well being and prosperity be sacrificed so that politicians and bureaucrats can "justify" their unearned paychecks.
How it works. Politicians and bureaucrats, aided by a complicit media and academics -- create a boogieman to scare people. Having foisted the illusion on the people, politicians and bureaucrats sweep in to save the day. Politicians thrive on saying, "I'm going to use government to help the little guy". With the boogieman in place they can justify creating more new laws and regulations.
That's how we get 3,000 new laws and regulations each year. And that's just from the federal government. State governments use the same ploy as do county and city governments.
Again, how is it that people's well being and prosperity has faired so well last year and the decades prior without having this year's 3,000 new federal government laws as well as a hundred new State laws? When I say "faired so well", that is in light of the fact that each year the people are burdened with sacrificing more of their hard earned paycheck and freedom to government so politicians and bureaucrats can "justify" their unearned paychecks.

*

Alternative One
Congress empowered the IRS and the IRS takes in over 1.5 trillion dollars in taxes each year. Government continues to grow bigger. Another fact is that the government is far bigger than it needs to be to protect citizens from the initiation of force, fraud and coercion.
The test to validate whether or not a person has had force, fraud or coercion initiated against them is to take the "accused criminal" to court and there the plaintiff can do his or her best to prove to an impartial jury that the plaintiff has been harmed by the defendant. Doing that to gain restitution for pain and suffering.
This post is not intended to deal with the issue of punishment to the criminal, i.e., probation, prison sentence etc.
One small example of how this would likely pan out to determine whether a person had been armed:
In a court of law before an impartial jury, plaintiff/victim claims defendant initiated force, threat of force or fraud against plaintiff by:

Defendant murdered victim (a next of kin would be the plaintiff).
Defendant assaulted victim/plaintiff.
Defendant stole from victim/plaintiff.
Defendant blackmailed victim/plaintiff.
Defendant possessed drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.).
Defendant sold drugs (marijuana, cocaine, etc.) to third-party consenting adult.
Defendant sold machine gun to third-party consenting adult.
Defendant sold pornographic material to third-party consenting adult.
Defendant sold sexual favors to third-party consenting adult.
Defendant engaged in gambling with third-party consenting adult.
Defendant refused to allow victim/plaintiff to enter into defendant's house.
Defendant refused to allow victim/plaintiff to enter into defendant's business.

In the above, it's probable that 1 through 4 would be twenty times more likely to end up in a guilty verdict than 5 though 12 ending up in a guilty verdict from an impartial jury.
If you know of an act that you think would clearly fall into the top 4 category or the bottom 8 category, post it.

*

Alternative Two

Replace the graduated income tax with a consumption tax such as the NRST -- National Retail Sales Tax where, if you don't want to pay the tax don't buy the item.
Replacing the graduated income tax with a NRST would set off a chain reaction of benefits.

Boom the economy because productivity is not taxed; no tax on profits or hidden taxes/fees.
IRS threats and coercion eliminated and replaced with, if you don't want to pay the tax, don't buy the item.
20% decrease in retail prices facilitates spending and offsets the retail tax.
People will know how much leviathan government is really costing them, resulting in...
Shrinking government to it's constitutional function to protect synonymous private-property rights and individual rights from domestic and foreign criminals.
Freedom in United States leads to other countries doing similar or risk its citizens fleeing to United States to increase productivity here while enjoying the fruits/prosperity of their labor.

As noted in the earlier sections of this post it should be clear that replacing the graduated income tax with a NRST is not the 'end all be all'. But it does have a profound benefit towards collapsing mysticism, irrationality and criminality in the three branches of government.

You sure did. Thanks.

I decided to rip apart Bruce Fein's article.