Prosecutor vs. Ron Paul YouTuber (FIJA, marijuana)

[MrAlpruitt]

I like the fact that this guy took the time to explain his position. The gentleman who made this recording however, could have won that debate, by arguing solely on the grounds that actually he is acting within the law. If you do some research on Jury nullification you will find it has roots in the UK and colonial America.

Of course, he is a prosecutor, that doesn't help him. :) Typically defense lawyers are sympathetic to jury nullification.

[tronclay]

i usually agree with most people who stand up for their rights etc, but people that go out desiring confrontation are idiots, and on the other hand guys like the cameraman in this video are just so hyped up and blinded by their own cause they cant even slow down long enough to LISTEN and THINK like a logical human being, they can only spew out the latest thing they read on some DefendYourRights forum

[WONDOCTORJ]

smoking reefer = no corpus delecti = case dismissed

[libertarianjury]

This prosecutor fuck is an abject idiot, but the defender of liberty appears to not know his history, or how to argue logically. Too bad. I would never have said "Thank you sir." I would have said "Your argument is the argument of the slavemasters and tyrants, and you are a petty tyrant for a living. It's no wonder you're blind to both history and logic." Once you get them into the area of history, their remaining argument disappears: why were juries perverted with "vior dire"?

[libertarianjury]

This prosecutor should be ridiculed severely, and insulted for being an un-American dog.

[foolcow1976]

Why the bizarre noises? Are you TRYING to reinforce the common belief that libertarians are a bunch of lunatics?

[mhirtes12]

LOL!

Stay classy, Loonietarians!

[daddyg321]

A verdict according to which law, a local law, county, state or the constitution as the juror sees it. How can I object to a law I do not know I will be dealing with at the time I'm chosen?

[thefakeyeti]

I would like to know what the law ACTUALLY states..

They probably do ask them if they agree or disagree with the law..

However, if they lie about it, than later aquit. I am sure one COULD argue that they changed their minds DURING the trail :P

[suedeslounge]

Texas constitution article 4 spells out the oath for us:

"I, (name), will carefully consider all information, testimony, and evidence to be presented in this trial and will endeavor to the best of my ability to determine if a crime as defined in the constitution has been committed and if, beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused committed the crime..."

Followed by section 8:

No juror shall be tried for any decision rendered while serving on a jury.

[suedeslounge]

And section 6, sub j.

"They shall render their decision, verdict, or order concerning all aspects of the case as they deem just and proper. "

[suedeslounge]

"crime" is defined in article 3, section 1

"A crime is any action taken by an individual wherein the individual intentionally initiates physical force, fraud, or theft which results in damage to another individual or damage or loss of another individual's property without the consent of that individual; or an action taken by a government official in violation of this constitution."

[thefakeyeti]

REALLY?

hmmm.. I wonder where prostitution and drugs fit in there...

[RidleyReport]

the prosecutor was in texas, i do not know that he was innacurate in his statements.

[starsstanley99]

no, he is not incorrect. if you object to a law, you take it up with those who make the laws (the legislature) and not those who enforce the laws (the courts). if you have a problem with the laws, you take it up with your state representative. the courts only enforce the laws handed down by the state legislature.

it defeats the purpose of having a fair and impartial jury if people are going to be on the juries who are not impartial.

[Chunkylover712]

@starsstanley99

This is absolutely incorrect. It is statements like this that welcome tyranny with open arms. The courts ARE the place to object to the law. The Judicial branch is a necessary check to the powers of the legislature. But jackass the cameraman here doesn't understand what he is being told, the jury decides FACT, and the judge decides LAW.

“The court is to protect against encroachment of constitutionally secured liberty.”

Boyd v. U.S

[suedeslounge]

Hey Dave, tell those activists to learn the jury oath so they can put the smack down on communist prosecutors who spew nonsense like that in the future.

[suedeslounge]

NH Jury Oath:

You solemnly swear or affirm that you will carefully consider the evidence and the law presented to you in this case and that you will deliver a fair and true verdict as to the charge or charges against the defendant. So help you God.

I don't see them swearing to uphold unjust laws - only to consider them.

The prosecutor is full of shat.

[CascaMMA]

Nice one suedes!

[jshafer817]

Prosecutor wins...

[Audirector]

ooh can i have the song from this? the product page seems to be down.

[harryogre]

As a Quaker, by law I don't have to swear any oaths or make any affirmations.

As a Quaker, I wouldn't even if the law required it.

Therefore I am free to exercise my right to acquit.

Of course, the only time I was called to jury service the judge dumped me by his "discretion".

Too bad there were about 40 sheep there willing to do the state's bidding.

[Tradethinker]

Aren't you sinning by using the internet? Or a computer?

[conspiracy777]

The "law" in this case should be explained to the juror before they are asked to swear or affirm an oath. If I were asked to affirm an oath to uphold the law I would say ... "what is the law"? They would be required to explain the entire law. If jurors would refuse to take such an oath or affirmation, they would not be able to get jurors.

[PalinRepublic]

Go FIJA Go!!!

Join FIJA today, we need to cover every court in the USA, UNTIL WE ARE FREE!!!

[peepnklown]

JOHN JAY

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.

[Anothercoilgun]

The law should be stated prior to any oath otherwise how can an oath be respected if the oathkeepers has no knowledge of what they attest to.

Just blindly comply is what a good society drone is supposed to do. I guess I am a savage.

[Anothercoilgun]

Shitty is the ebonicslover.

[utaptube]

This prosecutor lied by saying "before taking the oath to decide a verdict based on the law, you have the opportunity to not participate if you think the law to be unjust"

The oath is to decide a verdict based upon the law AS GIVEN TO YOU BY THE JUDGE!

I know for a fact, the law as given by the judge can and will be a lie for the purpose of obtaining a "directed verdict" especially against patriotic dissenters who are right in their legal position.

[FlailingJunk]

Google: FIJA true false

Its the first result.

[profreewill]

How can I get a copy or read online what they are passing out?

[AubernsRevolution]

Go to FIJA dotorg

[p00lman]

"And what if the law is immoral?"

What an idiot. If a law is immoral, you think one prosecuter can do anything about it? Do you think one prosecuter who takes an oath to uphold that law intends to do anything about it?

Free staters just love harrassing people, but they harrass those who have no power to change anything. It's pathetic and it's obnoxious. They're like kids who tell the teacher they don't want to do their homework.

[MagnusIan]

p00lman, you troll, go eat a bag of dicks.

[p00lman]

Can I share your bag?

[wait887]

well then. Hopefully your not in NH so that I won't have to interact with you.

[p00lman]

My not in NH?

[RidleyReport]

if a prosecutor resigned in protest of unjust laws, and announced it to the public, would that change things slightly or not?

[p00lman]

Of course not. One would have to wonder why he thought he wanted the job in the first place.

It would be like the nutty birther who enrolled in the US army, and then two months later tried to sue Obama over the birth certificate paranoia.

[nalejbank]

@RidleyReport Honestly and sadly... probably not. They would have to do that AND join the FIJA efforts and lead the charge at education and activism. Now, that would work.

[frzngds]

hmmm... did you expect any different response from an idiot attorney.

This completely ignorant attorney obviously does not know the difference between The Law(there is only one) and corporate codes and statutes.

The only way to break The Law is to infringe upon another persons rights or property.PERIOD

If this attorney was right then what the hell would be the point of juries?

The jury of our peers is our last line of defense from an out of control and unconstitutional Gov't.

[FlailingJunk]

In 1804 Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for denying a jury's right to judge the law.

"A common law jury is a final protection against abuse of the people. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his own fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation."

[CascaMMA]

I don't claim to be a lawyer or anything, but does a jury deciding a case based on personal moral interpretations of a law do anything to change the law itself?

[FlailingJunk]

In and of its self it does nothing to change the law. I cant change the laws of chemistry, but it is still good to put out an individual house fire.

[CascaMMA]

Junk - that was my point. There are more effective ways of changing a law. Which should be the goal.  You can worry about putting out all the house fires you want. I'll focus on preventing them by changing the cause. That's where we differ.

[FlailingJunk]

Name a law you have changed.

[CascaMMA]

The point is, there are more effective ways of changing "unjust" laws rather then being a deceptive juror or being a prosecutor that publicly resigns. It must be done through working with legislators to change, legislation. I guess I agree with RidleyReport that these tactic would "change things slightly" but it's not going to change the law. My only point.

You a firefighter huh? LOL!

[FlailingJunk]

"It must be done through working with legislators to change, legislation."

Let me know how that works out for you.

[CascaMMA]

No need for snottiness Junk Man. I've not insinuated that I'm out to change any laws.

But I can tell you that if you and I went out to do so, me working with legislators to change legislation would be more effective then you getting on jury duty and convincing fellow jurors to ignore an "unjust" law in that one case. Both have merits. One more then the other.

[FlailingJunk]

Name one government in the history of the world that was permanently reduced in size and power through the legislative process.

[CascaMMA]

Junk - There have been 27 amendments to the American constitution. All reflecting the law of the land.  All were done through legislation.

Are you seriously attempting to convince me that legislation plays zero part in changing or making laws?

[FlailingJunk]

I am trying to convince you that governments always grow their size and power, and trying to change that through the legislative process is futile.

The US government has been gowning in size and power since its inception and none of those 27 amendments have changed that.

[thefakeyeti]

Name me any other government that had power during this kind've expansion of knowledge.

The internet is a wonderful place to learn, people learn, than people vote. Government changes..

That is what sets our time apart from the rest of human history.

We can discuss politics with peple across the ocean! That is fucking amazing! Just a few decade ago, the only easily obtainable information/opinions came from the masses and the government!

[thefakeyeti]

I don't think what they are doing is to ultimately change the law, you're right when you say it would do anything on a large scale..

I think the point is to potentially save SOME people..

The only way to get this to work on a large scale would be to:

. Have a large segment of people that know their rights, feel strongly about the issues, and willing to stand up for it in trial..

By than, the politicians would back it up because it would be popular...

[FlailingJunk]

My hope is that as people better understand the state they will realize the moral action is to end it, not modify it.

[thefakeyeti]

And how do you plan on the people to "end it"?

Guns, and bombs?

Than they take control, and start a government that is better for a while, but winds up as corrupt as the old government?

here is the beuty with our system, it lets the PEOPLE vote and we can overturn old tired politicians (which isn't workign NOW because people seem to vote for the lesser of two evils)

If we implement instant voter run off, that alone would make modifying the state a helluva lot easier..

[FlailingJunk]

I advocate a peaceful evolution to a stateless society. If you are interested in the details i would recommend the free books(available as audio books) by Stephen Molyneux: Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy.

I would prefer that he didn't use the word anarchy because it implies to most people a society without rules, which neither he nor I are actually advocating.

If you are not sure those books are worth you time i would recommend this video as a starting point.: VIs5r3ujBmw

[watcher8o]

It doesn't change the letter of the law, but if courts stop finding the law breakers guilty, the executive branch doesn't have any reason to attempt to enforce the laws and a law that isn't enforced might as well be no law at all.

[CascaMMA]

This guy is giving the movement a bad name.

Why argue past the point where he was told "before taking the oath to decide a verdict based on the law, you have the opportunity to not participate if you think the law to be unjust"

Just about every way I can think of would be a better example of how to change a "cruel" law.

[FlailingJunk]

The politicians have no desire to change laws that empower their enforcers and line their pockets. Near term only juries have a chance to protect the peaceful from state violence.

[diggingforgold]

I'm curious to know exactly what the pamphlets say and what it was that the prosecutor was exactly objecting to as being false. Were these folks passing out misinformation? Or is what they are distributing open to interpretation. In my opinion, they would do better to sit at home than to pass out something that isn't true.

[FlailingJunk]

Just google FIJA im sure you can find the pamphlet.

[michaelhelmsjr]

I think this is an issue of "The Law" versus "The Statutes"... this attorney is correct in that "The Law" is what the jurors are swearing to uphold, however there are "Statutes" that are unlawful.

[gabeh73]

he lies!

The lawyer does want you to disqualify yourself from the jury if you think the law is immoral.

He is a advocate of "DON'T THINK, just take orders"

[woodlandcammo27]

Put me on a jury of a drug prosecution where knowbody was killed over it... It will be a hung jury. NOT GUILTY!

[p00lman]

I never realized that a single idiot could make up an entire jury.

[mcgrawtim123]

No, but a single idiot can make up one bad ass judge, or District Attorney, or sheriff.

Juries are the last hope for justice in a situation where the laws are written, enforced, and judged by the bad guys.

[p00lman]

That's a cute little fantasy.

[watcher8o]

Generally, it takes unanimous decision to issue a guilty verdict.

[HHODork]

How about laws that are unlawful? Like laws that regulate areas that are protected by the Constitution. They feel regulation and law can be above the Constitution when it cant. They can enforce an unconstitutional act and call it lawful. They do it all the time. Lawyers are part of the problem and are just word smiths.

[silentthriller]

He keeps going on about the law. The law=an opinion that's enforced by violence. So the law go where the sun don't shine.

[Chunkylover712]

@silentthriller

Law is not opinion. This is a common misconception amongst the ignorant masses. Law is something that is discovered, not invented. Rights are recognized, not created. Unconstitutional acts and statutes are not law, and are null and void of law from their date of inception. This means that any act or statute that diminishes liberty, life, or happiness arbitrarily is unconstitutional, and therefor not law. The guy with the camera is a moron.

[silentthriller]

@Chunkylover712 Ok dude.

[glenisah]

Legal Vs Lawful...there is a huge difference. For example, It is illegal to spit on the sidewalk in most states...Hover this is definitely not unlawful as It harms noone