tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post6135109056287350051..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Nullification: Last Exit Before InsurrectionWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-43699948245070044462009-02-14T03:17:00.000-07:002009-02-14T03:17:00.000-07:00Main Entry: com·pe·ten·cyPronunciation: 'käm-p...Main Entry: com·pe·ten·cy<BR/>Pronunciation: 'käm-p&-t&n-sE<BR/>Function: noun<BR/>1 : the quality or state of being mentally competent —compare CAPACITY, INCOMPETENCE, INSANITY<BR/>2 : the quality or state of being legally qualified or adequate competency, quantum and legal effect of evidence —State v. Scoggin, 72 South Eastern Reporter, Second Series 54 (1952)><BR/>Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-25520898065841990812008-08-13T21:10:00.000-06:002008-08-13T21:10:00.000-06:00@anonymous"You must operate under stealth."Yes, ag...@anonymous<BR/><BR/>"You must operate under stealth."<BR/><BR/>Yes, agreed.<BR/><BR/>If you think the law is crap,<BR/>just render a verdict of<BR/>"not guilty."<BR/><BR/>Period.<BR/><BR/>If we try to use "nullification"<BR/>it will be pre-empted by the<BR/>Judge to prevent a "precedent"<BR/>from occuring.<BR/><BR/>Just say, "NOT GUILTY."<BR/><BR/>Don't 'splain it. Just say it.Will Blalocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-20782425104861168692008-08-13T18:05:00.000-06:002008-08-13T18:05:00.000-06:00"full & deliberative jury participation, ..."full & deliberative jury participation, as mr griggs helpfully points out, is one small area of western constitution in which direct democracy (of the kind i am in favour of) is sometimes applied, the rest of the system being merely a facade"<BR/><BR/>A facade indeed. Still, until they pay me a days wages at my salary level they have no respect for my time nor participation. Notice that the "court officers" don't get $5 a day to drag things out. They get paid regardless so don't give a damn about you. This is deliberate. It manipulates you into wanting to get the hell out of there. If everyone was paid their true salary then the jurors would pay more attention and take their sweet time. The judges and lawyers would be more careful in what cases are ever brought to trial so you can see why they don't want you on a level playing field with THEM. Isn't it amazing how pols will bitch and moan about how expensive this and that is but never take a cut in pay nor miss an opportunity to put their own interests on the public tab. Lions and tigers and bears... oh my!MoThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-26391093843517393692008-08-13T17:19:00.000-06:002008-08-13T17:19:00.000-06:00I agree and I disagree. You must operate under ste...I agree and I disagree. You must operate under stealth. Judges can get you tossed for arbitrary and capricious reasons. Act dumb. Tell them Jerry Springer is your favorite TV show and then afterwards vote to acquit. When asked why, still play dumb and say you weren't convinced that such and such a prosecution witness was telling the truth or some sort of smoke screen reason. You want to be able to serve again. They will flag "trouble makers" and blackball them in the future. Best to be viewed as a dummy. I am not kidding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-24871158842654759602008-08-13T10:13:00.000-06:002008-08-13T10:13:00.000-06:00Might this be the article by Fred Reed to which yo...Might this be the article by Fred Reed to which you refer?<BR/>http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed139.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-84677023773804942542008-08-12T22:42:00.000-06:002008-08-12T22:42:00.000-06:00"I'm over 60 and I've never had the opportunity to...<I>"I'm over 60 and I've never had the opportunity to consent to or participate in framing any law that I know of."<BR/><BR/>"No voting on platform issues or anything else of substance was allowed."</I><BR/><BR/>Fred Reed (it's in some of his columns, but I'm not going to look for them right now) pretty much nailed it. They've got everybody so distracted by <I>who</I> gets elected that nobody ever seems to notice that it really doesn't matter because you never get a chance to have any input on what the actual policy will be, once your selected politician gets in office.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-68828130074605818842008-08-12T20:26:00.000-06:002008-08-12T20:26:00.000-06:00@AnonymousI too supported, and still support,Ron P...@Anonymous<BR/><BR/>I too supported, and still support,<BR/>Ron Paul. Where did it get me?<BR/><BR/>I attended 2 caucuses and the<BR/>Republican State convention here<BR/>in the great State of Texas.<BR/><BR/>The whole process was a sham.<BR/><BR/>Ron Paul is the genuine article.<BR/>The Republican party is an absurd<BR/>ship of fools.<BR/><BR/>No voting on platform issues or<BR/>anything else of substance was<BR/>allowed. Any objection from the<BR/>floor was overridden with<BR/>"parliamentary procedure."<BR/><BR/>All the State convention consisted<BR/>of was ridiculous videos of the<BR/>great Republican Party. <BR/>They didn't have the stones to<BR/>address ANY issue threatening our<BR/>State, communities or families.<BR/>NOTHING was discussed.<BR/>NOTHING was considered.<BR/>NOTHING was accomplished.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who has supported Ron Paul<BR/>should be proud of themselves for<BR/>putting their sand behind a real<BR/>American.<BR/><BR/>Everyday another American is <BR/>unjustly robbed by our govt.<BR/>Everyday another American family<BR/>is ruined by our govt.<BR/>Everyday another American is denied<BR/>his inalienable rights, his<BR/>heritage and his birthright.<BR/><BR/>Everyday another American discovers<BR/>that the govt. is the only <BR/>obstacle between penury and plenty.<BR/><BR/>Everyday another Ameircan sides with<BR/>liberty and those who cherish it.<BR/><BR/>Everyday, Ron Paul captures another vote.Will Blalocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-2134748134055860602008-08-12T11:09:00.000-06:002008-08-12T11:09:00.000-06:00"a justly made law is one that has the consent, na..."a justly made law is one that has the consent, nay participation on (sic) the people in framing it."<BR/><BR/>That may be a statement of fact but would someone give me an example of that happening in Amerika?<BR/><BR/>I'm over 60 and I've never had the opportunity to consent to or participate in framing any law that I know of. Same goes for all my acquaintances.<BR/>In fact, every effort I have ever made to have some say has been thwarted. Unless you call voting an opportunity. <BR/>Voter fraud takes care of that.<BR/>And though I made great effort to campaign for Ron Paul I see where that got me (and all the rest who did also).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-3534323696760869082008-08-12T04:00:00.000-06:002008-08-12T04:00:00.000-06:00rick said"hitler had the authority to do what...rick said<BR/><BR/>"hitler had the authority to do what he did with justly passed laws."<BR/><BR/>i would challenge that assertion. a justly made law is one that has the consent, nay participation on the people in framing it. i do not think that hitler's regime was in anyway democratic in that sense, election success notwithstanding. <BR/><BR/>democracy is not about voting, it is about full participation by the people in the framing of the law and the operation of the constitution. <BR/><BR/>full & deliberative jury participation, as mr griggs helpfully points out, is one small area of western constitution in which direct democracy (of the kind i am in favour of) is sometimes applied, the rest of the system being merely a facadeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-26017366037386403882008-08-11T21:34:00.000-06:002008-08-11T21:34:00.000-06:00To all of you dishonest, oathbreaking sinners out ...To all of you dishonest, oath<BR/>breaking sinners out there who<BR/>won't kow-tow to any law the<BR/>state throws at you:<BR/><BR/>Bravo!<BR/><BR/>To all of you who refuse to devour<BR/>widow's homes, torture dissidents,<BR/>revoke habeous corpus and take<BR/>orders from wicked servants that<BR/>usurp the power of the layman and<BR/>are laying this land waste:<BR/><BR/>Bravo!<BR/><BR/>To all of you who honor the blood<BR/>and toil of the men and women who<BR/>gave all to place power into the<BR/>hands of the People rather than<BR/>live "by your leave" of the state:<BR/><BR/>Hip hip: Huzzah!<BR/>Hip hip: Huzzah!<BR/>Hip hip: Huzzah!Will Blalocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-26212539913573711802008-08-11T20:30:00.000-06:002008-08-11T20:30:00.000-06:00Also..."We don't live in Nazi Germany, and the def...Also...<BR/><BR/>"We don't live in Nazi Germany, and the defendant in my case was -- even by this own lawyer's admission -- a thief and otherwise frequent law-breaker."<BR/><BR/>Are you saying that this admission<BR/>weighed on your presumption of<BR/>innocence for the defendant?<BR/><BR/>Shame on you.<BR/>Talk about oath breaking!Will Blalocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-67257051679178209152008-08-11T20:04:00.000-06:002008-08-11T20:04:00.000-06:00Mr.Eddlem,Your post is quite disturbing!Are you sa...Mr.Eddlem,<BR/><BR/>Your post is quite disturbing!<BR/>Are you saying that if I don't<BR/>uphold the state's baloney laws<BR/>I am a sinner? I am not entitled<BR/>to use my gift of righteous<BR/>discernment bestowed upon me by<BR/>the Holy Spirit? As a Juror I <BR/>have lost my god given right to<BR/>free will?<BR/><BR/>You are saying I am obligated by<BR/>Heaven itself to uphold Man's law?<BR/><BR/>Are you derranged?<BR/><BR/>Why does Jesus refer to his Saints<BR/>as "King Priests?" Is it because<BR/>we bow and scrape to the Ruler of<BR/>this world?<BR/><BR/>When I serve on a jury I have the<BR/>state by the throat. That's why<BR/>they are busily undermining the<BR/>jury system.<BR/><BR/>As for your "oath," have you not<BR/>read where Jesus commands we NOT<BR/>take oaths? That every hair on<BR/>our heads is numbered?<BR/><BR/>As for your comment:<BR/><BR/>"I hope these posts are nothing more than hubris, and don't represent a real measure of honesty in this forum."<BR/><BR/>How dare us!<BR/><BR/>Hubris? No.<BR/>Honesty? Yes.<BR/>Righteous indignation? Yes.<BR/>Go soak your head? Yes.Will Blalocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-21661451146528880832008-08-11T18:30:00.000-06:002008-08-11T18:30:00.000-06:00Zachary said... "Unfortunately, 99% of the populat...<B>Zachary said...</B><BR/><I> "Unfortunately, 99% of the population are now ardent, unwavering statists. Their credo: 'The law's the law.' They love their slavery. I don't see any hope."</I><BR/><BR/>I consider myself solidly on the right side of the aisle. I like law and order. I think that we are obligated to follow the law. This does not make me a statist, and I imagine many others think like I do.<BR/><BR/>While "the law is the law", I don't think that Authority is the Law. Perhaps this is what you find frustrating about 99% of the population. I see the government cheating--basically fibbing about what powers they may exercise, and then backing it up by suggestions of violence. I <I>hate</I> cheaters. That's what bothers me.<BR/><BR/>I enjoy a display of the absurd when challenging the authoritarians. Mr. Grigg has displayed for us the absurdity of the belief that jury nullification may not be exercised. The judge tells the jury his interpretation of the law, and then tells them to rule whether or not the accused broke the law. Excuse me, but what purpose does the jury serve?<BR/><BR/>Consider making a judgement based on the facts of the law. How is that accomplished when two laws apply which contradict eachother? On one hand, we have "shall not be infringed". On the other, we have infringement by statute. That is chaotic.TJHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-38387093919455883832008-08-11T05:21:00.000-06:002008-08-11T05:21:00.000-06:00"We don't live in Nazi Germany....It's easy to loo..."We don't live in Nazi Germany....<BR/><BR/>It's easy to look back in hindsight and pooh-pooh how foolish people were manipulated because we presently believe ourselves BETTER than those who fell sway to fascist propaganda. Has it ever been different at any time? Still it doesn't make the current "spirit" that animates our nations legal system suddenly holy and just because we chose not to identify with the past.<BR/><BR/>"the defendant in my case was -- even by this own lawyer's admission -- a thief and otherwise frequent law-breaker."<BR/><BR/>Yes!... I've, through said legal system, sent someone just as bent BACK to the big house for up to twenty years for a minor drug deal. With rape tossed in just to emotionally sway the jury and pad out the charges as it never appeared the woman ever denied consenting. Yet another tidbit thrown under the bus of reality.<BR/><BR/>"The juror's oath is to judge according to the "facts and the law."<BR/><BR/>I have a real problem with that. Really I do. It's like signing paperwork at the repair shop to get your car fixed and you've already consented to charges before you even KNOW what was wrong or whether there was an alternative. They've got you jacked up and under the proverbial gun. What do you do but say.. "Aw shucks... I guess you're right." And seeing as you really need the vehicle to get back to work to meekly pay the bill. Granted you could shop around, maybe, but our task masters don't give us the option to get a second opinion when it comes to "their turf".<BR/><BR/>"The real question is, are you willing to take that oath and then make yourself a liar?<BR/><BR/>I'm not."<BR/><BR/>Congratulations! I commend you for that. See how questioning leviathan, even innocently and using the very documents these liars profess to uphold, gets you the short end of the gavel.MoThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-15953080651317731032008-08-10T18:53:00.000-06:002008-08-10T18:53:00.000-06:00The judge did not even understand what he was hyst...The judge did not even understand what he was hysterically defending.<BR/><BR/>I see that my URL to the sad facts of the Wayne Fincher case (and the debate over what circumstances a jury should be permitted to hear a constitutional defense, and if this is even jury nullification) did not fully paste. <BR/><BR/>Permit <A HREF="http://christianconstitutionalsociety.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15" REL="nofollow"> me to try again. </A>Mark Moore (Moderator)http://www.blogger.com/profile/17386056132530808723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-78244040790342338722008-08-10T16:00:00.000-06:002008-08-10T16:00:00.000-06:00Here is a good radio show on this subject.<A HREF="http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=994" REL="nofollow">Here is a good radio show on this subject.</A>traitor2tyrannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-66062854418380469432008-08-10T15:47:00.000-06:002008-08-10T15:47:00.000-06:00"If there are really that many readers of this blo..."If there are really that many readers of this blog who would brazenly violate a commandment of God, that's disturbing."<BR/><BR/>Did God intend for us to take an oath that leads us to violate the God given rights of our neighbor?<BR/><BR/>I wonder if Tom was obliged by the oath to obey the "law" as the judge defined it. He must not have been if he felt he was able to defer to the written US constitution.<BR/><BR/>"The juror's oath is to judge according to the 'facts and the law.'"<BR/><BR/>Couldn't one conscientiously defer to God's law which would disallow us from violating our peer's God given rights no matter what the lower law said?traitor2tyrannynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-13770583743762909742008-08-10T10:01:00.000-06:002008-08-10T10:01:00.000-06:00Tom,you don't just "judge the facts according to t...Tom,<BR/><BR/>you don't just "judge the facts according to the law", but you get to judge the law itself.<BR/><BR/>punishing someone just because a law says so ain't exactly obedience to God. And since you bring God into the picture, how many established "rules/laws" did Jesus break? he broke several. he ate with publicans/sinners, touched lepers and dead people, talked to samaritans, chatted with known whores, and went places jews were not supposed to go. no, we are not nazi germany, but your argument that we should obey laws that were justly passed is still in error.<BR/><BR/>hitler had the authority to do what he did with justly passed laws. everything he did was absolutely legal in germany. i've read that when german officers showed up at the nuremburg trials, that had copies of the laws and orders saying that what they done was legal.<BR/><BR/>apply your example to singapore. would you as a christian send someone to jail for 5 years or subject him to a cane beating for spitting on the sidewalk? what if a future law, justly passed, said that any three people on a street corner is a gang and therefore prima facie evidence of drug distribution; penalty is 5 years in prison. how would you vote on that? would you send 3 people to jail for 5 years for standing on a corner? prohibition was perfectally legal, but some folks had the common sense to realize that the law was stupid and would not throw their peers in jail for something that was only illegal in ink.<BR/><BR/>do you think those two border patrol agents getting 10-12 years for doing their job was just? was the treatment of german americans during WWI just, or that of the japanese americans during WWII?<BR/><BR/>law...it's not just about jurisdiction. it's about right and wrong, and it's also about fairness. if God applied His law to the letter...where would we all be? the heart of any law should be mercy.<BR/><BR/>i'm glad you stood up the way you did, but i find it disappointing that you miss the boat when it comes to "judging the law". <BR/><BR/>rickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-32101279580309756102008-08-10T07:51:00.000-06:002008-08-10T07:51:00.000-06:00It's clear that Tom and I disagree about the merit...It's clear that Tom and I disagree about the merits of jury nullification. In fact, that was clear <I>before</I> I wrote the piece above, and it's my fault that I didn't underscore that important distinction in the essay. <BR/><BR/>It was Young who brought up that matter in his Memorandum, in which he accused Tom of practicing nullification, and that is what inspired my essay. <BR/><BR/>All of this happened because Tom had the commendable audacity to ask -- after listening patiently to the facts -- how the government could justify a summarily unconstitutional prosecution. <BR/><BR/>This <I>isn't</I> "jury nullification," when that phrase is used to describe the exercise of plenary powers by a jury. It was merely the exercise of an active, well-informed, skeptical mind by a principled citizen -- something Young had never encountered during decades on the bench. <BR/><BR/>Young's reaction says a great deal about the true nature of the system that confronts us (as most people posting here already appreciate).William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-37015966255439758172008-08-10T06:31:00.000-06:002008-08-10T06:31:00.000-06:00To all those people who are counseling that jurors...To all those people who are counseling that jurors should ignore laws they don't like:<BR/><BR/>The question is not what you believe about the law, or: Would you enforce a law in Nazi Germany?<BR/><BR/>We don't live in Nazi Germany, and the defendant in my case was -- even by this own lawyer's admission -- a thief and otherwise frequent law-breaker.<BR/><BR/>The juror's oath is to judge according to the "facts and the law."<BR/><BR/>The real question is, are you willing to take that oath and then make yourself a liar?<BR/><BR/>I'm not. <BR/><BR/>If there are really that many readers of this blog who would brazenly violate a commandment of God, that's disturbing.<BR/><BR/>I hope these posts are nothing more than hubris, and don't represent a real measure of honesty in this forum.<BR/><BR/>By the way, here's the Boston Globe's take on the story from today's paper:<BR/><BR/>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/10/jurors_challenge_raises_legal_issue/Tom Eddlemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02409142306576805540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-66293447143821746442008-08-10T04:22:00.000-06:002008-08-10T04:22:00.000-06:00I also found Tom's article atLewRockwell.com disap...I also found Tom's article at<BR/>LewRockwell.com disappointing.<BR/><BR/>Jurors are NOT obligated to uphold<BR/>a law they find objectionable.<BR/><BR/>"I was only following orders" <BR/>doesn't work for gulag guards nor<BR/>jurors.<BR/><BR/>It is the duty of every Juror to<BR/>protect fellow citizens from <BR/>the state and its henchmen.<BR/><BR/>I have served on several juries<BR/>and consider it the highest <BR/>calling of an American citizen.<BR/><BR/>The power to nullify a law (as <BR/>well as the power to upold a law)<BR/>is the power to rule. The buck<BR/>stops with We the People.<BR/><BR/>As well it should!Will Blalocknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-5173914568172306492008-08-09T19:57:00.000-06:002008-08-09T19:57:00.000-06:00Not to deliberately dog-pile with the others, thou...Not to deliberately dog-pile with the others, though it may appear so, but by your friends logic he could not argue that Nazi or Communist "law" was wrong. Even if by serving on a bogus jury or within the bowels of said legal machine he would be technically in agreement with its diktats and the resulting deaths by execution etc. There comes a time when ones own conscience must be followed rather than what is "legal". Otherwise you are hiding behind the skirts of your overlords and not accepting responsibility for the destruction heaped upon others. Sorta like whats happening right before our eyes in our current society.MoThttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13996714804361467430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-72225159507246605722008-08-09T11:23:00.000-06:002008-08-09T11:23:00.000-06:00I, too, was disappointed by the guy's article at L...I, too, was disappointed by the guy's article at LRC today. Isn't the Constitution a higher law? Isn't God's law an even higher law?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-56462474323822184452008-08-09T10:28:00.000-06:002008-08-09T10:28:00.000-06:00will,i think your friend still has it wrong. he s...will,<BR/><BR/>i think your friend still has it wrong. he said this over at lewrockwell:<BR/><BR/>"I agree with Judge Young that it is not healthy to have juries "nullifying" laws. I agree completely with his words that "no citizen is above the law, and none is free to make his own law." Jurors are required to uphold all law, even laws they don’t like. I would stress that Young’s dictum applies even if the citizen is wearing a black robe and sits at the head of a court."<BR/><BR/>i think he needs to study his william penn...and his 18th amendment history. as he will find out that jurors began to not find their peers guilty under prohibition. and that's one reason it got repealed. i wonder what he would think of king longshanks law of allowing his noblemen to have first dibs on any scottish newlywed wife?<BR/><BR/>rickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-64424900490857963952008-08-09T09:10:00.000-06:002008-08-09T09:10:00.000-06:00While I applaud your passion and agree with your g...While I applaud your passion and agree with your general stance, I question the necessity of name-calling. You are obviously an intelligent, well-spoken man. Vitriolic name calling, in my opinion, lessens the strength of your argument. It begins to take the timbre of a schoolyard shouting match or undergraduate coffeehouse rant. <BR/><BR/>I would have a greater inclination to continue reading your blog were it devoid of derogatory epithets. That being said, I do not expect you change your style simply to suit me. Still, I think you might be taken more seriously with fewer negative characteristic metaphors.Jason P. Franklinhttp://web.mac.com/jpfagapeunoreply@blogger.com