Dear KAG: 20200701 Open Thread

Anti-fa and BLM mobs / domestic terrorists have been surrounding cars and terrorizing the drivers and passengers for more than a month now.
Now the domestic terrorists are armed and hiding among the crowd, drawing their weapon and shooting occupants of cars after the car is surrounded:
More Domestic Terrorism – Armed Black Lives Matter Terrorists Shoot SUV Driver in Provo Utah…
Posted on June 30, 2020
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/30/more-domestic-terrorism-armed-black-lives-matter-terrorists-shoot-suv-driver-in-provo-utah/
The government has effectively abandoned the American People, they appear to be derelict, without any intention of intervention or even providing acknowledgment, much less guidance, leaving us to fend for ourselves.
Before, when a domestic terrorist mob surrounded your car, it might be argued that as long as you stayed inside your car and no one attempted to break in, you could effectively be (lawlessly) detained by the mob (kidnapped) and terrorized until they got bored and went away — or broke into the vehicle.
No longer.
As of yesterday, armed terrorists are among the crowd, using the mob for cover, and then shooting occupants of cars at point-blank range.
That’s a game-changer.
This murderous change in tactics by domestic terrorists, anti-fa and BLM mobs, makes any such mob surrounding a vehicle a deadly ambush threat to the occupants. It is not possible for a driver or passenger to identify whether (or which) individual(s) is/are hiding a firearm, waiting for a driver to be distracted, and then to pull his weapon and execute the driver or occupants.
From the perspective of a motorist, the act of a mob surrounding a vehicle is now an undeniable deadly threat to the occupants of the vehicle, requiring the driver to either surrender his life and the lives of any passengers traveling with them (friends, wife, children) OR to defend his life and the lives of his passengers by escaping, by driving away as quickly as possible, which necessarily means driving through whatever obstacle is in the path of the vehicle (i.e., the mob).
Since many states are exhibiting a condition of lawlessness and collusion and coordination with the terrorist mobs, looters, rioters, etc., there can be no expectation of fair treatment by the prosecutorial authority, i.e., to not bring charges against a driver for defending his life and those who may be with him by driving away to escape the deadly mob. Prosecution against a victim surrounded by a mob at this point in time would be an abuse of prosecutorial power, politically motivated, against motorist victims who, through no fault of their own, find themselves abandoned by the rule of Law and surrounded by a deadly mob.
At the likely trial in many of these states with corrupt government leadership, no doubt forums very much like this one would be examined by prosecutors and defense teams for evidence, either for or against the accused victim of the mob.
Any such clearly corrupt government proceeding which ignores the clear and obvious right of self-defense, to escape by driving away, when surrounded by a murderous mob would almost certainly also disallow any instruction to the Jury about the meaning of the term JURY NULLIFICATION.
So I would like to explain to any and all potential juries what JURY NULLIFICATION is, so that if any prosecutor seeks to enter comments from forums like this one into evidence, they will have opened the door to including this post as evidence as well, in which the term JURY NULLIFICATION will be defined and explained for any potential jury.
.
………………………………..
https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/jury-nullification/
What is Jury Nullification?
Julian Heicklen hands a jury nullification pamphlet to a member of the public. (Photo by George Donnelly)
Excerpt:
During a typical criminal trial, the judge will issue a set of jury instructions. The judge will tell the jury that they must set aside any personal beliefs and reach a verdict based solely on the facts presented at trial. But sometimes juries disregard these instructions and acquit defendants who clearly broke the law. They might do this because they think the law itself is unjust or they think it’s being wrongly applied to the defendant (i.e. the punishment doesn’t fit the crime).
When this occurs, juries have engaged in the practice of jury nullification. While judges and prosecutors make every effort to weed out “rogue jurors,” the history of the jury is replete with examples of courageous jury nullification.
For example, English jurors refused to convict William Penn when the government prosecuted him for practicing his Quaker religion. Colonial jurors acquitted John Peter Zenger, who was arrested for publishing remarks critical of the royal governor. Northern jurors refused to convict abolitionists accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act. Today, juries with misgivings about the War on Drugs have refused to convict medical marijuana defendants.
Why haven’t I heard of jury nullification before?
Despite this extensive history, modern judges mostly forbid any mention of jury nullification in the courtroom. This has happened in part because of an obscure Supreme Court decision. In 1895, the Court ruled in Sparf v. US that juries do have the power to nullify the law. But the ruling also stated that judges are not required to inform the jury of this. As a result, judges and prosecutors have exploited Sparf to forbid any mention of jury nullification from the courtroom.
Even though modern juries are kept in the dark about this right, jury nullification finds its moments in the spotlight. Here are links to the most important jury nullification how-to guides, thinkers, news, and various YouTube videos.
Robert Anton Wilson discusses jury nullification [link at article link above]
The whole purpose of the Magna Carta was for juries to make up their own mind as to what laws were to be applied to the people. If the jury is instructed to decide solely according to the facts, that instruction goes against the spirit of the Magna Carta.
Ron Paul on Jury Nullification [link at article link above]
Ron Paul explains the history and importance of jury nullification with a panel of legal experts.
Important Books
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine, by Clay Conrad [link at article link above]
The definitive scholarly work on jury nullification, reissued after the successful passage of New Hampshire’s jury nullification law.
An Essay on The Trial by Jury, by Lysander Spooner [link at article link above]
The clearest defense of the trial by jury and jury nullification. Spooner’s essay attacks the Fugitive Slave Act while asserting the right of the jury to nullify the law.
………………………………..
.
………………………………………………
Jury Nullification: Cause and Effect
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-jury-nullification.html
Jurors are supposed to follow the law, but sometimes don’t. Learn why they don’t, and what the result is.
By Sherilyn Streicker
“A trial jury is supposed to serve only as a “fact finder”: that is, to evaluate the veracity of witnesses and the strength of evidence presented at trial, then apply the law to that evidence in order to reach a verdict. The jury isn’t supposed to decide what the law is—or what it should be. Disagreement with a law, sympathy for a victim, feelings about a particular crime, or distaste for the defendant isn’t supposed to prevent a jury from following the law and making a dispassionate evaluation of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Jury nullification occurs when a trial jury reaches a verdict that is contrary to the letter of the law because the jurors either:
disagree with the law under which the defendant is prosecuted, or
believe that the law shouldn’t be applied in the case at hand.
How Jury Nullification Works
Jury nullification takes place when jurors acquit a defendant who is factually guilty because they disagree with the law as written. For example, during Prohibition, juries who disagreed with alcohol control laws often acquitted defendants who had been caught red handed smuggling alcohol.
Jury nullification also occurs when a jury convicts a defendant because it condemns the defendant or his actions, even though the evidence at trial showed that he technically didn’t break any law. For example, all-white juries in the post-civil war South routinely convicted black defendants accused of sex crimes against white women despite minimal evidence of guilt.
In the modern era, jury nullification is most common in drug cases, where some jurors refuse to convict on drug possession charges either because they believe in legalization or feel that the drug laws discriminate against certain groups.
The Effect of Jury Nullification
A jury’s verdict only decides the particular case before the court in that trial—it doesn’t change the law. But a consistent pattern of acquittals for prosecutions of a certain offense can have the practical effect of invalidating a statute. In fact, the pattern of jury nullification in alcohol prosecutions contributed to the adoption of the 21stAmendment, which repealed Prohibition.
Do Jurors Get Away With Ignoring the Law?
Jury nullification has happened since the beginning of the trial system and persists because of a number of idiosyncrasies in the legal system that are designed to protect the integrity of the jury process. The law limits the courts’ ability to inquire into jurors’ motivations during or after a verdict. Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, even if they reached it improperly. In addition, someone acquitted because of jury nullification cannot be tried again for the same crime because of the prohibition against double jeopardy. On the other hand, a conviction reached via nullification can be overturned on appeal or voided by a judge in some jurisdictions.”
………………………………………………
.
………………………………..
Jury Nullification
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/jury-nullification.html
Created by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and editors | Last updated February 27, 2019
The United States Constitution guarantees a trial by jury to all persons accused of a crime. That jury is comprised of average citizens from all walks of life with no special training or skills to serve other than being a U.S. citizen who is at least 18 years old, residing in the judicial district for a set period of time (typically one year), being proficient in English, having no disqualifying mental or physical conditions, and not having a pending or previous felony conviction. In fact, over 32 million people are called for jury service every year, according to the National Center for State Courts.
Serving on a jury is a hallmark of our justice system and a cornerstone of democracy. But did you know that, unlike judges, juries historically have been able to ignore the law in order to achieve justice in individual cases that involve unjust rules or their unjust application? This is known as jury nullification. Below, you will find a discussion of jury nullification, including how it’s defined, its legality, examples, and where to find more information.
Jury Nullification Defined
Jury nullification might sound like a convoluted concept in an already confusing legal system, but the idea is actually quite simple. It happens when a jury returns a verdict of Not Guilty despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. Why would a jury do this? Don’t jurors swear an oath to uphold the law? Yes, but oftentimes it is a tool juries can use to set aside a law they believe is immoral or wrongly applied to the accused.
For example, in the 1800s the government passed stringent fugitive slave laws that compelled citizens of all states to assist law enforcement with the apprehension of suspected runaway slaves. Known as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the law included large fines for anyone who aided a slave in an escape, even by simply giving the person food or shelter. Northerners used the jury box to voice their protest by refusing to convict in these cases and thereby “nullifying” the law on moral grounds. In other cases, juries nullified prohibition era laws and drug laws that they disagreed with.
Legality of Jury Nullification
Jury nullification is legal according to the U.S. Supreme Court, but whether or not juries need to be instructed on this right is a different matter. The Supreme Court has ruled that while the power of jury nullification exists, state courts and prosecutors are not required to inform jurors of this power. Accordingly, judges around the country have routinely forbidden any mention of jury nullification in the courtroom. For example, a 2016 push by New Hampshire lawmakers to require a jury nullification instruction was quashed in the state Senate.
The right to disregard the law if you morally disagree with it also comes from the fact that jurors cannot be punished for the verdict they render, no matter how unpopular it is to the general public or the specific judge presiding over the case. Also, defendants found not guilty cannot be retried for the same crime. Hence, once a jury finds a defendant not guilty, there is no mechanism for a prosecutor to bring the case against the same defendant again.
………………………………..
.
…………………………
Jury Nullification
https://famous-trials.com/zenger/99-nullification
———- What is jury nullification?
Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty” despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate they are charged with deciding.
———- When has jury nullification been practiced?
The most famous nullification case is the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, charged with printing seditious libels of the Governor of the Colony of New York, William Cosby. Despite the fact that Zenger clearly printed the alleged libels (the only issue the court said the jury was free to decide, as the court deemed the truth or falsity of the statements to be irrelevant), the jury nonetheless returned a verdict of “Not Guilty.”
Jury nullification appeared at other times in our history when the government has tried to enforce morally repugnant or unpopular laws. In the early 1800s, nullification was practiced in cases brought under the Alien and Sedition Act. In the mid 1800s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws. And in the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws.
More recent examples of nullification might include acquittals of “mercy killers,” including Dr. Jack Kevorkian, and minor drug offenders.
———- Do juries have the right to nullify?
Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty,” that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the “double jeopardy” clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.
Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: “You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge [both the facts and law].” In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.
Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney’s request to let the jury know of their nullification power.
Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.
Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.
——— If jurors have the power to nullify, shouldn’t they be told so?
That’s a good question. As it stands now, jurors must learn of their power to nullify from extra-legal sources such as televised legal dramas, novels, or articles about juries that they might have come across. Some juries will understand that they do have the power to nullify, while other juries may be misled by judges into thinking that they must apply the law exactly as it is given. Many commentators have suggested that it is unfair to have a defendant’s fate depend upon whether he is lucky enough to have a jury that knows it has the power to nullify.
Judges have worried that informing jurors of their power to nullify will lead to jury anarchy, with jurors following their own sympathies. They suggest that informing of the power to nullify will increase the number of hung juries. Some judges also have pointed out that jury nullification has had both positive and negative applications–the negative applications including some notorious cases in which all-white southern juries in the 1950s and 1960s refused to convict white supremacists for killing blacks or civil rights workers despite overwhelming evidence of their guilt. Finally, some judges have argued that informing jurors of their power to nullify places too much weight on their shoulders–that is easier on jurors to simply decide facts, not the complex issues that may be presented in decisions about the morality or appropriateness of laws.
On the other hand, jury nullification provides an important mechanism for feedback. Jurors sometimes use nullification to send messages to prosecutors about misplaced enforcement priorities or what they see as harassing or abusive prosecutions. Jury nullification prevents our criminal justice system from becoming too rigid–it provides some play in the joints for justice, if jurors use their power wisely.”
…………………………

Good. This needs to happen all over the place.

https://twitter.com/realannapaulina/status/1278185870076624896?s=20