Subject: Back to the subject of Jury Nullification
From: Veronica
Date: 8/3/13 10:14 am
To: undisclosed-recipients:;

If you read any substantial part of The Juror's Handbook I posted yesterday (http://fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf) ... you'll see that the Legal Profession is enraged by the thought of actually allowing Jury Members to know their Rights.

To know that, as the member of a Jury, you have the Right to make entirely your own decision on EVERYTHING ... including any Statute that a Judge might be pushing at you - and you can make your decision based on anything you choose (AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE A REASON!).

In fact, a Judge will either

(a) Omit to tell you that, or
(b) Actually LIE to you ... and tell you the OPPOSITE i.e. that as a Jury Member you must do what the he or she tells you to do.

(There have been a couple of 'spectacular' examples of Juries making their own mind up, and ignoring the Judge ... even in the last few years ... in the case of the Ian Tomlinson Inquest, and the Trial of Muad'Dib).

Judges will generally tell a Jury that they (the Jury) are Judges of the FACTS, whereas he or she, the Judge, is the arbitor in matters of LAW.

How do we know that this is patent and transparent BULLSHIT?

How do we know that Jury Members are free to make up their own minds?

How do we know that Jury Members are able to judge BOTH the FACTs AND the LAW?

We point out that a Judge is as capable of 'judging FACTs' as any Member of a Jury.

So we ask "Why then, Your Honour, don't you judge BOTH the FACTs AND the Law?"

And we ask "What then, Your Honour, is the point of going to all the time, trouble, effort and expense of convening a Jury ... if all they can do is to rubber-stamp what you tell them?"

Once again: WE HAVE A JURY SYSTEM TO GUARD AGAINST ***ALL*** TYRANNY ... FROM WHATEVER SOURCE ... WHETHER IT EMANATES FROM A KING, A QUEEN, A PARLIAMENT OF STOOGES, OR SO-CALLED JUDGES.   

That's the reason for a Jury. And it knocks everything else into cocked-hats.

And the English worked out the need for it in 1215. And nothing has essentially changed ever since.

(Imagine ... being on a Jury ... and being told - by the Judge - that The Law says you must find the Accused guilty ... even though ... in your heart ... you didn't feel that the Accused 'actually did anything wrong IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES'. How would you feel? You'd feel that you had better do what the Judge told you ... but ... in the back of your mind there would be this feeling of "It's all wrong, somehow ... don't know how ... just isn't right to find this guy guilty ... it just seems wrong to do so ... IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. This isn't really justice ... is it? Is it?". Well, quite simply, in Law ... it's NOT justice. In Law, a "Not guilty" Verdict - IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES - would be justice. And that's the point).

I've been reminded of we what we all talking about a few years ago:

"Consensus facit legem" ...
..."Consent makes the Law"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Consensus+facit+legem

Vxxx