patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,249,262 comments by 14,901 users - askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, Ceffer, Dholliday126, Patrick online now
invite responseComments 1 - 8 of 8 Search these comments
1
Automan Empire
2021 Dec 12, 3:38pm
Automan Empire
2021 Dec 12, 3:38pm
25-30 years ago when I was involved with the legalize hemp movement, jury nullification was a big topic, as it was commonly invoked during alcohol prohibition. There was an initiative called FIJA or fully informed jury amendment, that never went far politically. Like many other Libertarian-esque initiatives and ideas, it's not the kind of thing one can get the masses interested in, much less passionate about. Even people favorable to the concept and who might personally benefit one day would just want to ARGUE over its feasibility etc.
That said, it's an important concept. No matter what judges may instruct, the role of juror is to serve as an ultimate check on government power to make, apply, and prosecute laws, thus to decide whether the law is being appropriately applied in the specific case, and even if indeed the act is a "crime" worth sanctioning the State punishing.
That said, it's an important concept. No matter what judges may instruct, the role of juror is to serve as an ultimate check on government power to make, apply, and prosecute laws, thus to decide whether the law is being appropriately applied in the specific case, and even if indeed the act is a "crime" worth sanctioning the State punishing.
2
Patrick
2021 Dec 26, 8:26pm
Patrick
2021 Dec 26, 8:26pm
FWIW, here is another petition against mandates:
https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/?source=patrick.net
https://lp.dailywire.com/osha-petition/?source=patrick.net
3
GNL
2021 Dec 26, 8:59pm
GNL
2021 Dec 26, 8:59pm
Automan Empire says
It only takes one juror to nullify?
25-30 years ago when I was involved with the legalize hemp movement, jury nullification was a big topic, as it was commonly invoked during alcohol prohibition. There was an initiative called FIJA or fully informed jury amendment, that never went far politically. Like many other Libertarian-esque initiatives and ideas, it's not the kind of thing one can get the masses interested in, much less passionate about. Even people favorable to the concept and who might personally benefit one day would just want to ARGUE over its feasibility etc.
That said, it's an important concept. No matter what judges may instruct, the role of juror is to serve as an ultimate check on government power to make, apply, and prosecute laws, thus to decide whether the law is being appropriately applied in the specific case, and even if indeed the act is a "crime" worth sanctioning the State punishing.
It only takes one juror to nullify?
4
stereotomy
2021 Dec 27, 3:59am
stereotomy
2021 Dec 27, 3:59am
https://www.quakersintheworld.org/quakers-in-action/96/William-Penn-Criminal-Justice-and-the-Penn-Mead-Trial?source=patrick.net
In 1670 Penn and William Meade were arrested in Gracechurch Street, London, for preaching. The recently passed Conventicle Act forbade gatherings for worship of more than 5 people, apart from for services of the Church of England. In the trial the prisoners appeared before twelve judges and twelve jurors. Penn challenged the legality of the indictment and would not plead without seeing a written copy; since this was not given, he pleaded not guilty. The next day the prisoners were fined forty marks for failing to remove their hats. Penn cited Coke on common law and the rights in the Great Charter (Magna Carta). Despite these arguments, the recorder charged the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. Four jurors dissented, and they were sent back to rethink their verdict. The jury then found Penn and the others guilty of “speaking in the street”, but refused to add the words "in an unlawful assembly". The magistrates refused to accept this, and ordered the jury to be "locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco", while Penn called to them not to give up their rights as Englishmen.
The charge that unarmed worshippers had riotously broken the peace was absurd. Yet the result was that Penn and all twelve of the jury were sent to prison. Someone, probably Penn's father, paid the fines, and they were discharged.
The jurors, released on a writ of habeas corpus, sued the mayor and recorder, winning their case before the Court of Common Pleas in a historic decision that conceded that judges "may try to open the eyes of the jurors, but not to lead them by the nose." Penn wrote a further pamphlet with an appendix citing numerous precedents since the Magna Carta of 1215.
This Penn-Meade trial became famous and showed that the arbitrary and oppressive proceedings of the courts badly needed reform. It is a precedent to this day.
In 1670 Penn and William Meade were arrested in Gracechurch Street, London, for preaching. The recently passed Conventicle Act forbade gatherings for worship of more than 5 people, apart from for services of the Church of England. In the trial the prisoners appeared before twelve judges and twelve jurors. Penn challenged the legality of the indictment and would not plead without seeing a written copy; since this was not given, he pleaded not guilty. The next day the prisoners were fined forty marks for failing to remove their hats. Penn cited Coke on common law and the rights in the Great Charter (Magna Carta). Despite these arguments, the recorder charged the jury to bring in a verdict of guilty. Four jurors dissented, and they were sent back to rethink their verdict. The jury then found Penn and the others guilty of “speaking in the street”, but refused to add the words "in an unlawful assembly". The magistrates refused to accept this, and ordered the jury to be "locked up without meat, drink, fire, and tobacco", while Penn called to them not to give up their rights as Englishmen.
The charge that unarmed worshippers had riotously broken the peace was absurd. Yet the result was that Penn and all twelve of the jury were sent to prison. Someone, probably Penn's father, paid the fines, and they were discharged.
The jurors, released on a writ of habeas corpus, sued the mayor and recorder, winning their case before the Court of Common Pleas in a historic decision that conceded that judges "may try to open the eyes of the jurors, but not to lead them by the nose." Penn wrote a further pamphlet with an appendix citing numerous precedents since the Magna Carta of 1215.
This Penn-Meade trial became famous and showed that the arbitrary and oppressive proceedings of the courts badly needed reform. It is a precedent to this day.
8
stereotomy
2024 Feb 29, 9:24pm
stereotomy
2024 Feb 29, 9:24pm
Always insist on a jury trial. Judges and prosecutors hate that. Just like the IRS hates paper 1040's.
Fuck the lot of them.
Fuck the lot of them.
https://unityprojectonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nullify-flyer.pdf?source=patrick.net
https://unityprojectonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Did_You_Know_Fact_Sheet.pdf?source=patrick.net
https://unityprojectonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/nullify-postcard-8.25-x-5.25-in.pdf?source=patrick.net