Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
IANAL, but in today's Star Chambers, it seems the Judge gets to control what "law" gets mentioned to the jury as "pertinent." That's why it became "illegal" long ago to inform the jury of their right to ignore the instructions of the judge and nullify. The Constitutions of the State and the USA are "law" and therefore would fall under the rubric of what can or can't be mentioned.
Politicians have a vested intrerest in the proliferation of violence and pandemonium because it gives them the justification they need to further expand government.
To further this line of thinking... of natural law, common law, common sense...
During Clinton's eight years as President 25,000 laws and regulations were created. That's three-thousand laws a year. Politicians, bureaucrats, mainstream media and much of academia would have us believe that we didn't need this years newly created 3,000 laws last year. Nor did we need those new laws the year before that or the year before, etc.
Likewise, the 3,000 newly created laws in 2003 won't be needed until that year. ...And the 3,000 new laws created in 2004? What about them? They'd have us believe that we can live without those laws for a couple of more years but we will need them come 2004.
Oh, and /BTW, we will always need those laws and this is proven by the fact that for every 3,000 newly created laws maybe a dozen old laws get repealed.
My question is, how did people and society ever manage to survive and prosper for 200 years without all those laws but somehow when it comes time to write 3,000 new laws each year we can't live without them.
Um... I don't think anyone, even Sinkspur himself, has ever doubted that Sinkspur was a statist.
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Thanks. I needed that.
"If Stanley imagines he could talk the way he does in a police state, he's even more ignorant than he sounds. We extend our sympathies to the Libertarian Party." -- Rocky Mountain News, Wednesday, May 8, 2002.
What's really unbelievable is this ridiculous press release, which stands as further proof of Mr. Stanley's utter lack of qualification for the office of U.S. Senator.
Just a couple of examples:
Judge Patterson's next move was to order everyone except the defendant and the officers of the court out of the room.... After a few more minutes a compromise was reached and everyone except Mr. Stanley, his lawyer, and the court officials left the courtroom.
IOW, the "compromise" was that the Judge's ruling would stand: the same people would stay in the room as before, since "his lawyer" could not have been sent out in the first place.
And how about this: As observers left the court room they were met by a posse of armed guards from the Sheriff's department who ordered them to move away from the doorway.
Gasp! Armed Sheriff's deputies?!? Shocking. And those statist thugs were moving them "away from the doorway" -- as though to maintain peace and quiet in the courtroom? (A reasonable move, in light the later outburst of one Mr. Joe Johnson.) Shameful!
As to the use of Constitutional arguments in this case concerning violations of Denver Municipal Ordinance 38-117.5(b), the judge is correct. The task facing this county court is to try Stanley on allegations that he violated an existing ordinance. If Stanley wishes to appeal his conviction (if any), or to challenge the consititutionality of the ordinance a different court, he's got a right to do so. The Constitutionality of the ordinance itself is irrelevant to whether Stanley violated it. Nor is it in the jurisdiction of a county criminal court to rule on Constitutional issues.
But, as is typical of Libertarians, Stanley has picked the wrong battle, in the wrong location.
Wake me up if the LP ever becomes a serious player. Up to now, they're just standing around in noble poses.
Eminent domain? You don't LIKE certain laws; I don't LIKE certain laws. Overturning them in the jury box is quite another matter.
Suppose monkeys could fly. Would that mean we wouldn't see you here as much?
That's it?!
You have made the clear implication that you are void of honesty and integrity in the jurors box and would vote to send a person to prison not because they violated any person's rights or property but because they broke a political agenda law. You stand up for the law/State no matter what. Thanks for making your stance abundantly clear.
Um... I don't think anyone, even Sinkspur himself, has ever doubted that Sinkspur was a statist.
Nope, -- I have heard Sinkspur scream to high heaven at being called a 'statist'. He, and his supporters on this thread richly deserve that label.
BTW, -- Zon, -- WELL DONE.
Well, Arlen Specter has already tarnished the use of Scottish Law.
Or suppose Stanley was elected.
Stay Safe and keep us posted if you will.
No. I understand what the terms of my jury service require. If I believed that a particular law was unjust, I would make certain that the court, the plaintiff and defendant knew that during jury qualification, which would probably eliminate me from service.
That's moral integrity. THAT'S honesty. I wouldn't hide or lie, like you apparently would, in an effort to get on a jury so I could wave my libertarianism around to make a political statement in acquitting a defendant.
Touche'
No. I would make certain to inform an Alabama court that I believed Jim Crow laws to be unjust. That would, most likely, disqualify me from jury service.
Touché.
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.