kangaroo courts

vapor85

vapor85

Well-Known Member
Bear420

Bear420

Well-Known Member
re Judges working for the Police or the People ? Who is electing these Judges ?
IMO and many others I am sure, It is all about the money Period, If they quit the war on Drugs they will lose so much Capital that our taxes would drop, NOT. Because they won't and will keep stomping on our rights as Americans until they have us all under there thumbs. We will lose all of our rights except for Paying our taxes they will keep increasing until only the most wealthy people will be able to survive. United States should be flying High and leading by example, But instead of that we are looking more like Old Germany, except they are targeting the Poor and Middle Class, give as many people a felony as possible that way they can control us. Just look around and watch the news or read paper s happening, and this Post is a short story as of what is to come and is here ......
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Bear420 said:
Are Judges working for the Police or the People ? Who is electing these Judges ?
IMO and many others I am sure, It is all about the money Period, If they quit the war on Drugs they will lose so much Capital that our taxes would drop, NOT. Because they won't and will keep stomping on our rights as Americans until they have us all under there thumbs. We will lose all of our rights except for Paying our taxes they will keep increasing until only the most wealthy people will be able to survive. United States should be flying High and leading by example, But instead of that we are looking more like Old Germany, except they are targeting the Poor and Middle Class, give as many people a felony as possible that way they can control us. Just look around and watch the new or read a paper, its happening, and this Post is a short story as of what is to come and is here ......
Click to expand...
So quit whining and fight back. No one is going to simply apologise and give you your rights back; demand them! Fight for them! Do not back down in the face of corruption and wrongdoing!

Do not allow the powers that be to divide us or we shall surely fall. If we stand united they can never stop us, for We the People ARE the nation.
 
Bear420

Bear420

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
So quit whining and fight back. No one is going to simply apologise and give you your rights back; demand them! Fight for them! Do not back down in the face of corruption and wrongdoing!

Do not allow the powers that be to divide us or we shall surely fall. If we stand united they can never stop us, for We the People ARE the nation.
Click to expand...
fight back would have been fine, I really didn't think I was whining. LOL But I understand where your coming from, where is the Line to stand in ?
 
W

WeeblesWobbles

Well-Known Member
Educate yourself about jury nullification. Talk to your friends, especially if they're bitching about being notified to appear for selection.

For a better chance of being selected for jury duty, sever all affiliations with NORML, ACLU, etc. if you are called to appear. Answer all jury selection q's accurately but don't elaborate. "Can you render a decision to convict if the evidence shows the defendant was in possession of the cannabis?" "Yes, I can." (I can also stick a can of Drano up my pitooty, doesn't mean I'm going to do it.)

The fourth circuit explains it better than I can:

We recognize, as appellants urge, the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by the judge, and contrary to the evidence. This is a power that must exist as long as we adhere to the general verdict in criminal cases, for the courts cannot search the minds of the jurors to find the basis upon which they judge. If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision.

Nevertheless, in upholding the refusal to permit the jury to be so instructed, the Court held that:

…by clearly stating to the jury that they may disregard the law, telling them that they may decide according to their prejudices or consciences (for there is no check to insure that the judgment is based upon conscience rather than prejudice), we would indeed be negating the rule of law in favor of the rule of lawlessness. This should not be allowed.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Bear420 said:
fight back would have been fine, I really didn't think I was whining. LOL But I understand where your coming from, where is the Line to stand in ?
Click to expand...
Make one, and invite other like minded citizens to join you. It isn't easy, but It's the only strategy that works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top