Thursday, August 7, 2008

Nullification: Last Exit Before Insurrection

The "People's Court" begins its work: Also called the "Blood Tribunal," the National Socialist court didn't permit jurors to interfere in the imposition of "justice."

From Singapore comes the unwelcome news that Gopalan Nair, a blogger who has dual citizenship in the U.S. and Singapore, is on trial for insulting a judge.

This is an unalloyed outrage.

Singapore is an authoritarian city-state notorious for its archaic methods of corporal punishment and its eccentric laws governing "public order." (For instance: Its government enforces both gun control and gum control.) Singapore's reputation for casual acts of despotism that it found itself paired with Iran in -- of all things -- a song by Australia's Little River Band. It's no species of surprise to me to learn that a government of that sort would punish people for criticizing judges.

My outrage is prompted by Nair's priorities. Why would anybody with U.S. citizenship bother to criticize Singaporean judges, when so many American specimens of that disreputable profession are much worthier of abuse?

Oh, so that's Fred Garvin's day job: Federal Bench-defiler William G. Young.

Among that legion of chair-polluting gavel-fondlers, U.S. District Judge William G. Young merits particular attention on account of his recently issued legal Memorandum in the case of United States of America v. Robert C. Luisi.

Luisi, a former capo in the Boston branch of the Mob, was accused of possessing three kilos of cocaine with intent to distribute. The charges arose from a 1999 FBI sting operation involving a federal snitch named Ron Previte. By the time of Luisi's trial earlier this year, the Mafia thug had been in prison for several years owing to a murder conviction.

The trial was nothing more than an exercise in resume-padding for the career-fixated US Attorney in Boston, Michael Sullivan. Of course, it meant stealing the irreplaceable time of those dragooned into jury service, who included my close friend and long-time colleague Tom Eddlem.

An exceptionally astute and principled man, Tom realized right away that the Luisi case, as he later recalled, "related more to career control than crime control." But he was willing to carry out his callings as what the Presiding Judge -- the above-mentioned William Young -- specifically called a "constitutional officer."

And therein lies the problem. Like anyone blessed with the ability to read and understand basic English, and acquainted with the text of the U.S. Constitution, Tom could see that the case against Luisi was entirely spurious, since it didn't involve any kind of activity crossing a state line.

The FBI-abetted drug deal took place entirely within Boston city limits. There was no nexus to "interstate commerce." Even if one agrees (as Tom does, and I do not) that any government should criminalize the sale and consumption of cocaine, the federal government simply had no proper constitutional jurisdiction over this drug deal.

Is this the face of a "Rogue"? Tom Eddlem, the man who knew the Constitution too well to serve on a federal jury.

When Tom pointed out that fact during jury deliberations, a fellow juror informed the judge that a supposedly rogue juror who refused to rule on the facts of the case was threatening a deadlock. This resulted in a special voir dire in which Young upbraided Tom (or tried to, in any case) for trying to exercise judgment "beyond your competency," a charge that would have been more compelling had it been issued by someone displaying minimal competence in the proper use of English.

He also accused Tom of seeking to take "authority that was not given to you" by assuming that his role as a "constitutional officer" (as Young described each juror as he swore them in) involved applying the strict language of the Constitution during deliberations.

Eventually Tom was invited, in effect, to take a second, specially composed oath affirming that he would "set aside [his] own reading of the Constitution, the Judge's past instructions, and judge the facts solely upon the Judge's explanation of the law...." He quite properly declined to be party to this act of jury-tampering under color of supposed authority, and was dismissed.

Now, little Billy Young, in an act of childish spitefulness, has traduced Tom in his judicial Memorandum. In the service of an arrogant and dishonest view of the constitutional assignment of judicial authority, Young's little missive misrepresents Tom's views, lies about his conduct as a juror, treats him to petty, gratuitous insults, and eloquently testifies that its author is unsuited by disposition for the position he occupies.

Much of the Memorandum consists of reheated leftovers from a speech delivered by Young to an audience of fellow robe-wearing miscreants in June, 2007. The epigram of that address was Jefferson's observation, "I consider trial by jury the greatest anchor ever yet devised by humankind for holding a government to the principles of its constitution." Much of it continues in this vein, praising the jury as one of "five classes of constitutional offices," empowered to "check and temper [the] judge...."

Good enough for government "work": FBI snitch "Big Ron" Previte, a key player in the spurious federal drug prosecution of convicted murderer Robert Luisi.

Unlike the other constitutional offices, which exercise delegated power in a fashion restricted by law, the jury represents "direct democracy, the people themselves ruling directly," Young exulted.

As he would write in his 2008 Memorandum, Young referred to the 1817 case of "The William," which arose from a challenge to Jefferson's Embargo Act, to underscore what he considers to be the proper relationship between judge and jury. In that case, a jury ratified the supposed authority of the trial judge to "say what the law is," thereby giving "constitutional interpretation to first-line judges."

Question: Can juries give to judges a power they don't possess?

Question the Second: If judges were dependent on juries for that grant of power, as Young claims, doesn't this demonstrate that judges are inferior to juries in this respect?

As Young pointed out, juries are, in a constitutional sense, independent and co-equal to other permanent constitutional institutions: Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. All federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, by way of contrast, have a contingent existence, since they can be created or dissolved by Congress, which has no similar authority over juries. This leads us to --

Question the Third: By what supposed right does a Federal District Judge, whose court was created in 1985 and can be dissolved at any time, accuse a juror -- a constitutional officer exercising power that is not contingent on congressional approval-- of trying to exercise "authority not given to you" when said juror seeks to apply the black-letter text of the Constitution?

What Tom did by taking seriously his duties as a constitutional officer, Young snivels in his Memorandum, was "a form of juror misconduct that could be classified as nullification."

"Jury nullification," for those who understand the origins of our Constitution and care about individual liberty, is the untrammeled exercise of the plenary authority of a jury to rule on both the facts of a case, and the justice of the law being enforced. Not only is ruling on both the facts and the justice of a given law an appropriate function of the jury, it is the only appropriate function. As Young himself pointed out, the jury is an exercise in direct democracy, and as such can take under advisement the recommendation of the skirt-wearing poser who holds a little hammer, but need not be governed by it.

Young seems to believe that jury nullification is running riot throughout our country. If only it were. He blames jury nullification for the supposed fact that "many cases never reach trial because the lawyers do not feel comfortable presenting their case to twelve of their fellow citizens." In fact, many cases don't go to trial, particularly at the federal level, because of the widespread and growing use of what should be called prosecutorial extortion: The extraction of plea-bargains through the threatened imposition of grotesquely inflated prison terms.

According to Young, jury nullification threatens the very existence of the jury system by adding "fuel to the flames of anti-jury sentiment" -- a public sentiment not easily detected by those of us who, unlike Young, aren't trying to defend an indefensible position. Yes, juries are widely despised by prosecutors, who covet the power to consign people to prison without the impediment of a jury. But that's a different problem from the one Young purports to see.

When juries exercise their power to set aside the application of unjust laws, Young whines, this is "misconduct." When judges set aside laws to impose their own views of abstract justice, on the other hand, they are practicing "instrumentalism" -- a conceit that the black-letter law is not binding on the dress-wearing oracles who infest the bench. As one legal analyst points out, instrumentalism means, in principle, that "judges should sometimes nullify statutes that are bad policy or create judge-made rules, when that would serve the ends of good policymaking."

Which is to say that Young embraces judicial nullification with the same fervor he displays in denouncing jury nullification. Judicial nullification, Young asserts, is indispensable to the role judges play in "ordering society." Absent that power, he insists, "the judiciary never could have become a vibrant countermajoritarian force ... [and create] a nationwide system that makes binding constitutional adjudication as close as the nearest federal courthouse."

Without jury nullification, there is no counter-elitist force that can interpose on behalf of innocent individuals victimized by institutionalized injustice. It's clear that Young appreciates this fact, given the unfiltered rancor he displays in writing about the fully-informed jury movement.

"Nullifiers do not openly disobey the law in order to change it," writes Young of those jurors who dare exercise their powers appropriately. "They conspire behind closed doors and cast the law aside at their caprice."

Once again, he is describing the conduct of judges, particularly those in exalted federal appeals courts whose binding constitutional errors stand to be loosed by diligent, informed citizens acting as constitutional jurors.

Mercs, Narcs, and Thugs -- oh my!
A scuzzy federal narco-thug confiscates medical marijuana legally grown and distributed to pain sufferers in California. A principled uprising in the jury box may be our final peaceful means of defending the public against people of this ilk.

This could mean sparing a property owner from being imprisoned for his violations of a manifestly unconstitutional federal policy, or a pharmacist from being sent to prison for dispensing medical marijuana to pain-wracked cancer patients in a perfectly legal fashion. Or, as in the case Tom Eddlem had the misfortune to hear, it could mean calling bulls**t on a make-work, garbage-time drug prosecution that fattens the resume of a self-promoting federal prosecutor while wasting the infinitely more valuable time of private citizens trying to make an honest living.

(Interestingly, Tom's views about such drug prosecutions -- if not the constitutional reasoning behind them -- are quite similar to those of Young's colleague, US District Judge Mark L. Wolf, who richly deserves to be pilloried for other reasons.)

Juries are too prone to adhere to what Young calls the proper "division of labor" -- permitting the trial judge to define the "law" and the body of admissible facts, then tugging at their forelocks, and doing his bidding. This is why, even when cases go to trial, injustice is the too frequent result.

It's clear, from the tone of outraged self-righteousness that permeates his sophomoric little screed, that Billy Young seems to think Tom Eddlem was a representative of, or even leader in, a widespread jury nullification movement. This isn't true, of course. But such a movement is desperately needed, and badly overdue.

Absent a rebellion on behalf of justice in the jury box, our remaining alternatives will be submission to despotism or undisguised insurrection.

On sale now!

Dum spiro, pugno!


Anonymous said...

Bravo, Mr.Grigg.

The Lady (Young) doth protest too
much, methinks!

There are 3 possible verdicts in
any American jury trial:
1. Guilty
2. Not guilty
3. The Law is a ass.

Of course the above order of weight
should be reversed. The very first
suspect in any trial is the law

The power to nullify a law is the
power to rule.

Only our Juries can slap down a law
and kill it dead in its tracks.
Even the Supreme Court cannot
enforce a law that the People will
not uphold.

IRS? Gone.
Drug laws? Gone.
Compulsory education? Gone.
Homestead taxes? Gone.
Fill-in-the-blank? Gone.

We have the power. Let's use it.

"Woe unto YOU, unjust Judges!"
-Jesus Christ

William N. Grigg said...

Thanks so much, Will -- but Tom's the one to whom a major "Bravo!" is due. He stood fast in the teeth of intimidation, and now has the immortal honor of being defamed by a tax-fed law-despoiler. That's impressive.

Anonymous said...

Bravo, Tom!

By exercising your constitutional
rights you are now an enemy of
the state.


Anonymous said...

Jury nullification can't even function when federal judges indulge in jury tampering by preventing the defense from presenting relevant facts. From Bryan Fischer's essay about the Lynn Moses case:


Presiding federal judge Lynn Winmill, who has a well-deserved reputation for judicial activism, refused to allow Teton County commissioners to testify to the original agreement [with Moses], nor would he allow the aggressive Corps staffer to testify about the refusal of the U.S. Attorney to prosecute in the mid-90s.

Before the jury was dismissed to enter into deliberations at the conclusion of his trial, Judge Lynn Winmill instructed the jury, believe it or not, to disregard every bit of information from 1980 to 2002, including the Corps’ denial of jurisdiction and the mandate from local government for Mr. Moses to maintain the flood channel.


The same thing happened in Ed Rosenthal's "trial" in San Francisco fedgov court. Rosenthal was not permitted to inform the jury that he was duly licensed by the City of Oakland, pursuant to California law, to grow medical marijuana. The jury, erroneously regarding Rosenthal as a common drug dealer, convicted. Several jurors, after finding out the pertinent censored facts, repudiated their conviction in a news conference later.

They felt suckered. They had been.

Fedgov courts, from their censored testimony, to their plea bargaining with harsh sentencing guidelines, to the unconstitutional "laws" they enforce, have become a scam from top to bottom. Thanks for reminding us that these Ceaucescu-style gilded palaces can, constitutionally, be abolished if the people so choose. Away with them!

Anonymous said...

Judge Young is one ugly chick! There's no way any man would marry such a homely woman. I don't care how much money she makes as a district court judge. No man with eyes to see would even date such a monstrosity! If I were one of Miss Young's jurors, I'd have to be dismissed for uncontrollable retching. Good Lord! I never imagined that God could create such hideous specimens of the female variety. Poor Tom, his eyes must still be bleeding!

Stormarm said...

There is, I'm sorry to say, an unfortunate flaw in the argument.

The question at issue is realy a matter of jurisdiction. While I would agree the Federal court had no de jure jurisdiction prior to the trial, jurisdiction must be challenged before entering a plea, otherwise the defense grants jurisdiction to the court and has agreed to be tried by it.

If jurisdiction has been conceded by the defense (however foolishly or ignorantly), the court's jurisdicition is henceforth an establised fact of the case, and jurors are not free to dispute it or disregard it.

Anonymous said...

Jury nullification can only work when the judiciary respects that right of 'the people'. As Will's article clearly points out judicial tampering now trumps informed jurors from exercising their right constitutional power.

The soap box (idiot box/tv/education) is under corporate/gov't control (we should be thankful we still have the Internet - for now anyway), the jury box has been nullified - there's only one box left. The sooner it is used the less painful it will be.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

Anonymous said...

Voir Dire = French for legal (not lawful) Jury Tampering

If it don't work the first time, extort, coerce and obtain compliance via oath or affirmation...or just seat another bozo who will.

The spectre of jury approval is required to avoid direct correlation to other despot's "lack of justice" long as there are neutered, spayed and otherwise maleable subjects nodding with the LEO/prosecutor/judge, the rest of the herd keeps grazing as they are siphoned off one at a time.

BTW +1 on the last box remaining.

liberranter said...


Your advice is technically correct. However, I have to believe that the defense in this case, even if they had thought of the argument, must have realized its sheer futility. No federal court in this land today will EVER deny itself jurisdiction over ANYTHING, unless the case before said court is one specifically involving a right or precept of law directly relevant, in constitutional terms, to the federal government. In that case it is certain that the sitting federal judge will refuse to hear it.


You're absolutely correct on "judicial tampering." The quickest way to get oneself dismissed from duty during voir dire is to display a knowledge of the Constitution (state or federal, although it would surprise me if even the average state judge or prosecutor has a clue what his or her state constitution has to say about anything related to the law).

Worse still, Joe Sixpack the Citizen, dragooned into jury duty and without any real stake in a case's outcome, has neither the inclination nor the education (or indeed any motivation) to educate himself as to his proper role as a citizen juror. Why? Mainly, because as far as Joe is concerned, if anyone is on trial for anything, they are automatically guilty as charged. After all, the omnipresent and omnipotent state that delivers Joe's mail, (mis)educates his kids, "defends" his homeland, and guarantees his medicare and social security/SSI payments wouldn't DARE harass an innocent person, would they?

A casual look around you at the local mall (or any other public place) answers the question as to what the odds are of "the People" exercising their constitutional powers in the jury box at any time in the foreseeable future.

Anonymous said...

Another great piece. I've only started reading your stuff very recently, and I must say I'm profoundly impressed with your passion and your eloquence. Thank you for what you're doing.

As to the piece . . .

Personally, I believe the fully informed jury to be the last line of defense against absolute tyranny. The final circling of the wagons, if you will. Anyway, I've sent the link to your article to FIJA; hopefully they'll post it and give it the wide exposure that it deserves.

Anonymous said...

Great blog post!
When you have a moment, would you please contact me?
Iloilo M. Jones at FIJA

...because I'd like to reprint your post on our site and perhaps in our newsletter.

zach said...

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.

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


Another fine piece. We have become a judgeocracy as black-robed tyrants trample on our traditions and laws.

I do have one point of order, more toward the miscreant judge than anyone: This was not really an example of jury nullification. The juror did not judge the law, but used the highest law (the Constitution) of the land to see how the lower law applied.

The defendant did not refuse to convict because he believed laws against drug possession were wrong, but only because the federal government had no constitutional authority to ban their sale unless the drugs crossed state lines.

I don't want to spam your thread with this, but I will give the URL to excerpts of a debate I had with a lawyer over another case. This case is far more outrageous because the defendant was a law-abiding productive citizen with no criminal record in 60 years of living who is now rotting in federal prison simply for possessing a home-made machine gun which was stamped "not for sale" and never crossed state lines.

Here is the URL....

Anonymous said...

I've served as the "12th" juror on a murder case and a drug and rape case. It was the later where I found that the very reasons for the trial were never directly dealt with. The defendant, a real work of art but that is irrelevant, was being prosecuted for drugs and not the secondary and more emotional issue of rape. To be honest, that term was stretched beyond the point of credulity. I was never "convinced" and it appeared the whole charade was being railroaded and WE THE JURY were "instructed" this and that. Afterwards I felt manipulated and truly used.

(begin rant) You have to love blogspot... I typed up quite a missive on the previous message from Will and it promptly barfed, which is not unusual with it, and all was lost. Lesson learned: Copy everything to notepad or text before submitting anything! (end rant)

Anonymous said...

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.

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.

Anonymous said...


i think your friend still has it wrong. he said this over at lewrockwell:

"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."

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?


Anonymous said...

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?

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

I also found Tom's article at disappointing.

Jurors are NOT obligated to uphold
a law they find objectionable.

"I was only following orders"
doesn't work for gulag guards nor

It is the duty of every Juror to
protect fellow citizens from
the state and its henchmen.

I have served on several juries
and consider it the highest
calling of an American citizen.

The power to nullify a law (as
well as the power to upold a law)
is the power to rule. The buck
stops with We the People.

As well it should!

Tom Eddlem said...

To all those people who are counseling that jurors should ignore laws they don't like:

The question is not what you believe about the law, or: Would you enforce a law in Nazi Germany?

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.

The juror's oath is to judge according to the "facts and the law."

The real question is, are you willing to take that oath and then make yourself a liar?

I'm not.

If there are really that many readers of this blog who would brazenly violate a commandment of God, that's disturbing.

I hope these posts are nothing more than hubris, and don't represent a real measure of honesty in this forum.

By the way, here's the Boston Globe's take on the story from today's paper:

William N. Grigg said...

It's clear that Tom and I disagree about the merits of jury nullification. In fact, that was clear before I wrote the piece above, and it's my fault that I didn't underscore that important distinction in the essay.

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.

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.

This isn't "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.

Young's reaction says a great deal about the true nature of the system that confronts us (as most people posting here already appreciate).

Anonymous said...


you don't just "judge the facts according to the law", but you get to judge the law itself.

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.

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.

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.

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?'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.

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".


Anonymous said...

"If there are really that many readers of this blog who would brazenly violate a commandment of God, that's disturbing."

Did God intend for us to take an oath that leads us to violate the God given rights of our neighbor?

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.

"The juror's oath is to judge according to the 'facts and the law.'"

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?

Anonymous said...

Here is a good radio show on this subject.

Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The judge did not even understand what he was hysterically defending.

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.

Permit me to try again.

Anonymous said...

"We don't live in Nazi Germany....

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.

"the defendant in my case was -- even by this own lawyer's admission -- a thief and otherwise frequent law-breaker."

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.

"The juror's oath is to judge according to the "facts and the law."

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".

"The real question is, are you willing to take that oath and then make yourself a liar?

I'm not."

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.

Anonymous said...

Zachary said...
"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 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.

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 hate cheaters. That's what bothers me.

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?

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.

Anonymous said...


Your post is quite disturbing!
Are you saying that if I don't
uphold the state's baloney laws
I am a sinner? I am not entitled
to use my gift of righteous
discernment bestowed upon me by
the Holy Spirit? As a Juror I
have lost my god given right to
free will?

You are saying I am obligated by
Heaven itself to uphold Man's law?

Are you derranged?

Why does Jesus refer to his Saints
as "King Priests?" Is it because
we bow and scrape to the Ruler of
this world?

When I serve on a jury I have the
state by the throat. That's why
they are busily undermining the
jury system.

As for your "oath," have you not
read where Jesus commands we NOT
take oaths? That every hair on
our heads is numbered?

As for your comment:

"I hope these posts are nothing more than hubris, and don't represent a real measure of honesty in this forum."

How dare us!

Hubris? No.
Honesty? Yes.
Righteous indignation? Yes.
Go soak your head? Yes.

Anonymous said...


"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."

Are you saying that this admission
weighed on your presumption of
innocence for the defendant?

Shame on you.
Talk about oath breaking!

Anonymous said...

To all of you dishonest, oath
breaking sinners out there who
won't kow-tow to any law the
state throws at you:


To all of you who refuse to devour
widow's homes, torture dissidents,
revoke habeous corpus and take
orders from wicked servants that
usurp the power of the layman and
are laying this land waste:


To all of you who honor the blood
and toil of the men and women who
gave all to place power into the
hands of the People rather than
live "by your leave" of the state:

Hip hip: Huzzah!
Hip hip: Huzzah!
Hip hip: Huzzah!

Anonymous said...

rick said

"hitler had the authority to do what he did with justly passed laws."

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.

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.

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

Anonymous said...

"a justly made law is one that has the consent, nay participation on (sic) the people in framing it."

That may be a statement of fact but would someone give me an example of that happening in Amerika?

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.
In fact, every effort I have ever made to have some say has been thwarted. Unless you call voting an opportunity.
Voter fraud takes care of that.
And though I made great effort to campaign for Ron Paul I see where that got me (and all the rest who did also).

Anonymous said...


I too supported, and still support,
Ron Paul. Where did it get me?

I attended 2 caucuses and the
Republican State convention here
in the great State of Texas.

The whole process was a sham.

Ron Paul is the genuine article.
The Republican party is an absurd
ship of fools.

No voting on platform issues or
anything else of substance was
allowed. Any objection from the
floor was overridden with
"parliamentary procedure."

All the State convention consisted
of was ridiculous videos of the
great Republican Party.
They didn't have the stones to
address ANY issue threatening our
State, communities or families.
NOTHING was discussed.
NOTHING was considered.
NOTHING was accomplished.

Anyone who has supported Ron Paul
should be proud of themselves for
putting their sand behind a real

Everyday another American is
unjustly robbed by our govt.
Everyday another American family
is ruined by our govt.
Everyday another American is denied
his inalienable rights, his
heritage and his birthright.

Everyday another American discovers
that the govt. is the only
obstacle between penury and plenty.

Everyday another Ameircan sides with
liberty and those who cherish it.

Everyday, Ron Paul captures another vote.

Anonymous said...

"I'm over 60 and I've never had the opportunity to consent to or participate in framing any law that I know of."

"No voting on platform issues or anything else of substance was allowed."

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 who 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.

Anonymous said...

Might this be the article by Fred Reed to which you refer?

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

"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"

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!

Anonymous said...


"You must operate under stealth."

Yes, agreed.

If you think the law is crap,
just render a verdict of
"not guilty."


If we try to use "nullification"
it will be pre-empted by the
Judge to prevent a "precedent"
from occuring.

Just say, "NOT GUILTY."

Don't 'splain it. Just say it.

Anonymous said...

Main Entry: com·pe·ten·cy
Pronunciation: 'käm-p&-t&n-sE
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being mentally competent —compare CAPACITY, INCOMPETENCE, INSANITY
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)>
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.