Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Do you really want to know how the jury pool got fixed?
Answer: most people cannot afford to go on jury duty. Government employees continue to receive their salary while on the jury. So those working in the private sector plead "financial hardship," while the government employees don't get that excuse.
Jury pay needs to be tied to the juror's actual earnings in some fashion.
In case you hadn't noticed, our legal system did not spring from a vacuum in 1783.
And many times ignorant hayseeds from Penelope, Tx hold opinions that contain a lot more common sense than beltway prostitutes with a vested interest in amassing power.
Plenty of yellow dog, rank and file democrats with no high school education would do a better job in congress than even many of the republicans there.
These guys may be hysterical nuts, but they are hysterical nuts with a point worth real consideration.
I talked to Rick on the phone last night for about 45 minutes after the first day of the trial. He felt that he was able to get out, on direct examination by his attorney, most of what he wanted to say, in spite of the judge's orders. He acknowledeged that the judge was obviously trying to "railroad" him, but that it was so apparent, that people in the courtroom were appalled. He said that the looks on the faces of some jurors, spectators, journalists, and even police officers were ones of disbelief at the judges behavior. He thinks it may ultimately work to the judge's disadvantage. But he is a realist, and he also knows we are in a police state where the Constitution and Supreme Law of the Land are obstacles in the way of the State and its agents.
Nonethess, to quote from another, "...Thank you Rick Stanley, for sacrificing yourself to show us the awful Truth about this country!..." Rick is the most courageous person I know or have ever been around. I support him 100% and plan to follow his lead, wherever that takes me.
Not curiously, intentionally.
And you have demonstrated, in your repost of your remarks, why I avoided it.
It's bait, for an argument.
No sale.
One other purpose of a jury is to judge the merits of the law.
Ad quaestiones facti non respondent judices; ad quaestiones legis non respondent juratores.
The judges do not answer to questions of fact; the jury do not answer to questions of law.
De jure judices, de facto juratores, respondent.
The judges answer to the law, the jury to the facts.
I know. But jury nullification is still a real thing. Juries can aquit in spite of the instruction the judge gives them, and, if enough juries aquit, the law is de facto nullified. 
www.stanley2002.org
You can also visit this site to sign his "Million Gun March" Petition.
Take that attitude into a jury pool, and you'll never get to exercise it, unless you're OJ Simpson's jury.
I would wager that most libertarians who manage to get on a jury and start debating the "merits of the law," end up causing the case to go to mistrial.
You are absolutely correct about this -- and thank God for it! However, many (if not all) jurors may not know this, since the judge will not inform them of this option during his instructions. It's a rigged game where the State has all the advantages, save for hopefully an "enlightened" jury.
If it's a truly unconstitutional law, it needs to be thrown out by the appellate courts--i.e., the folks who DO decide the law--and an acquittal cannot be appealed.
The judge was exercising his prerogative under admiralty law. The question should be, why is this case being prosectuted in an admiralty court instead of a common court?
\ I wonder what the compromise was? Sounds like the courtroom was cleared as the judge wanted.
It happens, every time.
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.