4 ms·

> The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you pay because you didn't "respect my authority" Generalizations like that are not helpful, I am not a law

> The judges are all crooks and liars and will make you pay because you didn't "respect my authority" Generalizations like that are not helpful, I am not a lawyer and I won in court with judge, he reversed his own ruling because I've proved he was wrong based on Supreme Court rulings.

pooper 4y ago
If you find me any precedent showing that I can openly discuss jury nullification without the judge throwing the book at me, I will be very indebted to you. Until then, the point stands. They do not take kindly any effort to disrespect them. Remember, a court of law has authority because we as a society gives them this authority. Since we don't live by divine rights of kings, they do not have any claim to authority other than through us, the people. This is the very foundation of our democracy. I agree that usually this is inflammatory language but in this specific case, you must walk into court assuming they are out to get you if you discuss jury nullification. Once again, this is not legal advice. I anal.
- labster 4y ago
  > I anal. Yes you are, pooper, yes you are. Jury nullification is not some divine right, it’s an unintended consequence of jury secrecy. It’s like going into a job interview at Twitter, and just talking about how everything is exploited by bots, and then you just complain about how you aren’t allowed free speech on the platform. Who would hire you? Wait, bad example.
- 3a2d29 4y ago
  Not being able to talk about jury nullification does not mean all judges are crooks. The reason people try to discourage “jury nullification” is because if a law is unjust, it should be removed, not be in place for certain juries to give _some_ people passes. The law should be the law. If you allow juries to decide to give “innocent” verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce something.
  - pooper 4y ago
    > The law should be the law. If you allow juries to decide to give “innocent” verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce something. This is the world we live in though. Imagine telling someone who is facing life in prison "tough luck but we need to fix the law first". 1. Congress is pretty much deadlocked and has been for decades. 2. This guy, Michael Flynn[flynn], received a presidential pardon. 3. Prosecution routinely uses its "discretion" on which cases to bring forward and what charges it wants to recommend. Police / law enforcement uses its "discretion" as well. If there is any justice, either this guy should serve his full sentence or we should immediately release anyone and everyone convicted of "lying to federal agents[making false statements]" from prison declaring the insane law null and void. [flynn] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn [making false statements] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
    - 3a2d29 4y ago
      Right but isn't the whole issue we have with white people walking free after crimes while black people face the actual punishment all because of this exact issue? White college girl has weed, jury nullifies. Black unemployed guy has weed, jail.
      - pooper 4y ago
        > White college girl has weed, jury nullifies. Black unemployed guy has weed, jail. I replied elsewhere but to tl;Dr what currently happens is: White college girl has weed, no charges pressed.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        No charges pressed because jury will nullify; it's a cycle. Jury nullification, of a sort, actually dates back to England. One of the pressures that diminished the penalties for theft (which had crept up to "death") was that juries, seeing a young man in the box with their whole life ahead of them whose only crime was taking from some unaccountable rich boffin, found themselves unwilling to toss the man in the gallows for taking from one who had plenty. Upon seeing this pattern emerge, the London merchant class panicked and petitioned the king to lower the penalty, lest no crimes against them be punished at all.
- vore 4y ago
  Jury nullification is the negative right of not punishing jurors for their verdicts, not the positive right of jurors being able to pick verdicts that rule against laws they don't like. We can talk all about how jury nullification allows the jury to dismiss unjust laws, but do keep in mind the oath a juror is required to swear: Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God? Threatening jury nullification is a clear violation of the oath (definitely not "a true verdict rendered according to the evidence") and the judge is well within their right to hold you in contempt of court for violating that oath.
  - Renaud 4y ago
    La last bit of the oath is so jarring… Aside from that problematic bit, is that oath performed before the jury hears the case or just before they deliberate? I’m asking because the details of the case may themselves reveal an unjust law that the jury may feel obligated to decide against.
    - vore 4y ago
      As always with these things, you can always ask to take an affirmation instead of an oath that omits the "so help you God". The oath is usually administered at the start of the case.

pooper 4y ago

If you find me any precedent showing that I can openly discuss jury nullification without the judge throwing the book at me, I will be very indebted to you. Until then, the point stands. They do not take kindly any effort to disrespect them. Remember, a court of law has authority because we as a society gives them this authority. Since we don't live by divine rights of kings, they do not have any claim to authority other than through us, the people. This is the very foundation of our democracy. I agree that usually this is inflammatory language but in this specific case, you must walk into court assuming they are out to get you if you discuss jury nullification. Once again, this is not legal advice. I anal.

labster 4y ago
> I anal. Yes you are, pooper, yes you are. Jury nullification is not some divine right, it’s an unintended consequence of jury secrecy. It’s like going into a job interview at Twitter, and just talking about how everything is exploited by bots, and then you just complain about how you aren’t allowed free speech on the platform. Who would hire you? Wait, bad example.
3a2d29 4y ago
Not being able to talk about jury nullification does not mean all judges are crooks. The reason people try to discourage “jury nullification” is because if a law is unjust, it should be removed, not be in place for certain juries to give _some_ people passes. The law should be the law. If you allow juries to decide to give “innocent” verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce something.
- pooper 4y ago
  > The law should be the law. If you allow juries to decide to give “innocent” verdicts even if someone broke it, then congrats you have made a system where the jury gets to decide randomly if they want to enforce something. This is the world we live in though. Imagine telling someone who is facing life in prison "tough luck but we need to fix the law first". 1. Congress is pretty much deadlocked and has been for decades. 2. This guy, Michael Flynn[flynn], received a presidential pardon. 3. Prosecution routinely uses its "discretion" on which cases to bring forward and what charges it wants to recommend. Police / law enforcement uses its "discretion" as well. If there is any justice, either this guy should serve his full sentence or we should immediately release anyone and everyone convicted of "lying to federal agents[making false statements]" from prison declaring the insane law null and void. [flynn] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Flynn [making false statements] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements
  - 3a2d29 4y ago
    Right but isn't the whole issue we have with white people walking free after crimes while black people face the actual punishment all because of this exact issue? White college girl has weed, jury nullifies. Black unemployed guy has weed, jail.
    - pooper 4y ago
      > White college girl has weed, jury nullifies. Black unemployed guy has weed, jail. I replied elsewhere but to tl;Dr what currently happens is: White college girl has weed, no charges pressed.
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        No charges pressed because jury will nullify; it's a cycle. Jury nullification, of a sort, actually dates back to England. One of the pressures that diminished the penalties for theft (which had crept up to "death") was that juries, seeing a young man in the box with their whole life ahead of them whose only crime was taking from some unaccountable rich boffin, found themselves unwilling to toss the man in the gallows for taking from one who had plenty. Upon seeing this pattern emerge, the London merchant class panicked and petitioned the king to lower the penalty, lest no crimes against them be punished at all.
vore 4y ago
Jury nullification is the negative right of not punishing jurors for their verdicts, not the positive right of jurors being able to pick verdicts that rule against laws they don't like. We can talk all about how jury nullification allows the jury to dismiss unjust laws, but do keep in mind the oath a juror is required to swear: Do you and each of you solemnly swear that you will well and truly try and a true deliverance make between the United States and ______, the defendant at the bar, and a true verdict render according to the evidence, so help you God? Threatening jury nullification is a clear violation of the oath (definitely not "a true verdict rendered according to the evidence") and the judge is well within their right to hold you in contempt of court for violating that oath.
- Renaud 4y ago
  La last bit of the oath is so jarring… Aside from that problematic bit, is that oath performed before the jury hears the case or just before they deliberate? I’m asking because the details of the case may themselves reveal an unjust law that the jury may feel obligated to decide against.
  - vore 4y ago
    As always with these things, you can always ask to take an affirmation instead of an oath that omits the "so help you God". The oath is usually administered at the start of the case.