Replies

That "admiralty law - common law" thing is, I am sorry to say, somebody's fantasy.

So is the "gold fringe on the flag" thing.

It's fringe in more ways than one.

Some loon who decided to represent himself filed a pro se brief which made all those arguments about the "admiralty law versus common law" and even the gold fringe on the flag.

He was unable to cite a single case, statute, or actual historical authority for this theory.

But WE had to research the stupid argument in order to deal with it.

He was laughed out of court, but it cost my client a bunch of legal fees and the court and the lawyers a bunch of lost time that they could well have spent dealing with people's actual problems.

Stick to the prerogative of the jury to acquit on character or factual grounds. Because of the requirement of intent, there's always wiggle room. Don't get involved in all these elaborate conspiracy theories.

More importantly, if you should ever actually say that stuff in court, a cranky judge may find a reason to find you in contempt. Which is no fun.

BTW, what would you have to say about a judge who ordered a criminal defendant out of the courtroom under threat of arrest and never gave that criminal defendant the opportunity to present a defense or call witnesses.

The defendant wasn’t disruptive and did nothing to prevent the conduct of the trial. In this particular case, the defendant simply went home, all while being very reachable at any time on his cell phone which the court knew.

A week or so later, the defendant got a notice in the mail that he was convicted in a jury trial on the matter.

This is a true story based on personal knowledge.

What would you say about a situation like this? No need to suggest that there is something more the defendant did, because that was it.

That "admiralty law - common law" thing is, I am sorry to say, somebody's fantasy.

You can try this with someone who hasn't read the relevant opinions going back to the mid 19th Century.

But WE had to research the stupid argument in order to deal with it.

'And WE are so terribly important you know.' I can easily imagine how thorough WE would be with an attitude like that. Heck, I'll bet WE even think the ratification of the 14th Amendment was legitimate! So, thank you for admitting to what you are.

He was laughed out of court,

Of this I have no doubt.

Subtle ad hominem. You are either clueless or complicit.

You see, there always have been bad people with lots of money who get together to increase their power and do they ever use the court system, seeing as the laws in this country have been set up for their benefit from the beginning of the republic (particularly with regard to international law).

Jury nullification was introduced into America in 1735 in the trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger repeatedly attacked Governor William Cosby of New York in his journal. This was a violation of the seditious libel law, which prohibited criticism of the King or his appointed officers. The attacks became sufficient to bring Zenger to trial. He clearly was guilty of breaking the law, which held that true statements could be libelous. However Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, addressed himself to the jury, arguing that the court's law was outmoded. Hamilton contended that falsehood was the principal thing that makes a libel. It took the jury only a few minutes to nullify the law and declare Zenger not guilty. Ever since, the truth has been a defense in libel cases. source

The jury's discretion to nullify the law is so well established that your attempt to bandy this condescending crap is an insult to this forum.

More importantly, if you should ever actually say that stuff in court, a cranky judge may find a reason to find you in contempt. Which is no fun.

Wow, indirect threats too, straight out of the fascist playbook.

My money is on both. If you think I don't know that copping to being informed of jury nullification might lead to contempt charges (a thoughtcrime for a contempt the court system in this country richly deserves), you're smoking a bit more than fish, turkey. Further, it is indeed ironic that the first instance of jury nullification involved a case in which Quakers were accused under an unjust law. The jury refused to convict and were deprived of food and water for days. Thankfully, they stood their ground. I suggest you stick with horses for they'll agree with you every time.