Florida Homestead Services - Florida Homestead Exemption Act Forum
Visit our main website at Florida Homestead Services.com
 | Forums | Sign Up | Reply | Search | Statistics |
Courts and Procedural Matters Florida Homestead Services - Florida Homestead Exemption Act Forum / Courts and Procedural Matters /  


Author johnbsims3
Admin Male

#1 | Posted: 24 Nov 2006 18:54 

Each person on a Jury has the power to vote NOT GUILTY in any criminal or civil case even if it is obvious the Defendant broke the law (State Constitution, General Laws of Florida, Statutes, Penal Code, etc.). This tremendous power permits you, as a Juror, to NULLIFY or NEUTRALIZE a law or a statute (which is not a valid law, but an index of the Laws of Florida, see Art. 3, Sec. 6 Fla. Constitution last sentence) which is in your opinion "BAD". You may exercise this Power despite the Evidence presented or the Judge's Instructions (jury tampering) to you. No Judge will ever instruct you, however, that you have this Power to NULLIFY a bad law by voting NOT GUILTY. This is because legal tradition assumes that each Juror knows of this Power but should not be told of it, as it is not a Right. Did you know?! This is called tampering with the jury.

"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision." [Charge to the Jury by the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL 1, Pg.4 (1794). This Jury Instruction occurred in a civil (not criminal) case].
"'The verdict, therefore, stands conclusive and unquestionable, in point both of law and fact. In a certain limited sense, therefore, it may be said that the juries have a power and a legal right to pass upon both the law and the fact.'" [Chief Justice Shaw (state) quoted in Sparf v. U.S., 156 US 51, Pg.80, 15 Sup.Ct. 273, Pg.285 (1895)].
"The judge cannot direct [DEMAND] a verdict it is true [FROM THE JURY], and the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts." [U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes in Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 US 135, Pg.138 (1920)].
" In criminal cases juries remained the judges of both law and fact for approximately fifty years after the Revolution. However, the judges in America, just as in England after the Revolution of 1688, gradually asserted themselves increasingly through their instructions on the law. 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." [U.S. Appellate Court in U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002, Pg.1006 (1969); cert. denied in 397 US 910].
" The existence of an unreviewable and unreversible power in the jury, to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge, has for many years co-existed with legal practice and precedent upholding instructions to the jury that they are required to follow the instructions of the court on all matters of law. There were different soundings in colonial days and the early days of our Republic. We are aware of the number and variety of expressions at that time from respected sources -- John Adams; Alexander Hamilton; prominent judges -- that jurors had a duty to find a verdict according to their own conscience, though in opposition to the direction of the court; that their power signified a right; that they were judges both of law and of fact in a criminal case, and not bound by the opinion of the court." [U.S. Appellate Court in U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, Pg.1132 (1972)].

"The way the jury operates may be radically altered if there is alteration in the way it is told to operate. The jury knows well enough that its prerogative is not limited to the choices articulated in the formal instructions of the court. [...] Law is a system, and it is also a language, with secondary meanings that may be unrecorded yet are part of its life. [...] In the last analysis, our rejection of the request for jury nullification doctrine [IN THE FORM OF AN INSTRUCTION GIVEN TO THE JURY BY THE TRIAL JUDGE] is a recognition that there are times when logic is not the only or even best guide to sound conduct of government. [...] The fact that there is widespread existence of the jury's prerogative [NULLIFICATION], and approval of its existence as a 'necessary counter to case-hardened judges and arbitrary prosecutors,' does not establish as an imperative that the jury must be informed by the judge of that power." [U.S. Appellate Court in U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F2d 1113, Pg.1135-1136 (1972)].

In any criminal case each Juror can vote NOT GUILTY honestly and without fear of reprisal by anyone. The Jury, in any criminal case, acts as the 4th and Supreme Branch of Government, without whose approval One of its Own, One of the "People", may not be punished.

If someone is proved Beyond a Reasonable Doubt to have Willfully or Intentionally Hurt or Destroyed Someone or their Property -- vote "GUILTY". Remember, however, each Accused Person is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. However, if the Accused has hurt No One or their Property or has done so Only by Accident -- vote NOT GUILTY if you think the law is a "BAD" law.
In this way "We the People" will be telling our Government that we will support prosecutions in which a Member of our Community has been Deliberately Hurt or Wronged but that we will Not Permit Prosecutions based on "BAD" laws. Prosecutors will Not Bring Prosecutions they know local Juries will not support. Remember that it takes Only One Juror to make a "HUNG JURY". Be aware that Prosecutors, to improve their chances of scoring a win, will likely "Disqualify" you for Jury Duty if they learn you have Knowledge of JURY NULLIFICATION (handy if you Want to get Disqualified). Finally, Prosecutors may prosecute you for Jury Tampering if they learn later you Intended to NULLIFY before hearing the Charges or the Evidence. So, if you decide to NULLIFY a "BAD" law and vote "NOT GUILTY", fine, but keep your reasons for voting NOT GUILTY to yourself!
Please pass this information on JURY NULLIFICATION along to your Friends and Neighbors. Get on those Juries. Don't try to get out of it!. Your participation will make this country, state and city a better place for all and will let the judges know that they are not God in a black robe, but are sworn to uphold the laws of Florida and the Constitution, not the statutes!
Love your Country -- but Keep your (corrupt) Government in Check!

Courts and Procedural Matters Florida Homestead Services - Florida Homestead Exemption Act Forum / Courts and Procedural Matters /
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message

Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.
  Powered by Forum Software miniBB®