What Are the Results If Jurors Veto Bad Laws?

In 1789 Thomas Jefferson accurately stated: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

The People of this country advanced individual human freedom above government power until corrupted judges usurped the jury system by refusing to remind jurors of their authority to judge the law and the facts of any case. Judges then imposed unlawful jury instructions that fooled gullible jurors into rubber-stamping guilty verdicts that the judge devised with instructions and by disallowing evidence that proved innocence. The lawyer-judge written Rules of the Court replaced the U.S. Constitution within the judge-ruled dictatorship of what were, once, our Courts.

The only anchor—a juror—holding government to the U.S. Constitution was thus rendered useless by this process, unless the juror knew prior to entering the courtroom about the authority of the juror.You know from reading the Constitution that nothing in the Constitution remains in effect in the United States of America, except at the personal whim of court judges who may grant their friends and colleagues the privilege of exercising humanrights, while sending others to prison for the exact same offense.

When jurors refuse to convict, legislators and prosecutors know that the law is NOT supported by the community. Acquittals and hung juries are politically embarrassing to the power-craving prosecutors, legislatures, bureaucrats and most judges. Do not underestimate the effect that acquittals have on the currently outof- control law and regulation writing process. One thinking person among each of only a few juries, who understands the value of individual liberty that cost so many lives to create, can regain gun owner rights in the U.S.

A very important point is that in recent jury decisionswhere the defendant may have been found not guilty of the felony counts but perhaps guilty of some minor misdemeanor counts, the judges will use these verdicts of guilt on lesser offenses to “throw the book” at the defendant, often sentencing the person on trial to the maximum allowed under the law such as happened in the Waco, Snipes and other trials. Jurors need to remember that government employees can be vindictive and, therefore, jurors should refuse to convict a defendant on any counts when it is apparent that the government wants to “get” the defendant and when there is no harm to another person.

For jury nullification to protect all human and constitutional rights, it is necessary for jurors to learn about their authority to judge laws and their application. The reason jurors can lawfully and logically ignore the traditionally corrupted judge’s instructions and apply their conscience alone for their decision as a duty created by the jury system is that no law requires, or can successfully require, a juror to reveal the reason she or he made their decision. There is no way to look inside a human mind to verify anything. To any government question of the juror’s decision, the juror can lawfully respond with silence, or respond that the question seems intimidating, and thus unlawfully tampering with the jury duties. Or the juror can simply state that the evidence was not credible or sufficient. Jurors need never reveal their conscience or their decision-making process.

For every person accused of a crime by the government, each juror would wisely ask his or her own conscience these questions: 1. Did the action of the accused result in a real person being damaged against their will? 2. Was the damage real and verifiable? If the answer is “No” to these questions, why would you, as a juror, agree to punish this person either with a fine or jail or prison time? And you might ask, “Why is government wasting my tax dollars on this case?” Refuse to convict. It is your right and your authority!

 If you enjoyed this article, please consider a subscription to Republic Magazine.