Replies

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.

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.

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.

When I say "we", I'm referring to the three lawyers in our firm who had to waste our client's time and money answering a ridiculous argument.

But really, the ad hominems in your screed are a bit much. Fascist? Clueless? Complicit? Threats? Crap? Is this your standard reaction to somebody who disagrees with you?

And please don't attribute motives when there aren't any there. I do get a little impatient sometimes, because I feel like an engineer listening to somebody who believes that they have invented a perpetual motion machine. It's just that laymen think the law is a lot more straightforward and simple than it is. It has never been simple, in fact in the old common law pleading days it was far, far worse.

But somehow folks who would never dream of trying to rebuild their car engine or operate on their dog think that they can practice law.