38 votes

Jury nullifcation: powerful new video from Josie the Outlaw


http://youtu.be/l7nqdV7wV2k

Most of us here know all about jury nullification already -- this video would be a good one to send to friends and family who don't already know.

The thing to keep in mind, if you're ever called to jury duty, is that the judge will disqualify you if you refuse to swear to apply the law as he/she gives it to you. If you hope to get onto a jury, you need to be prepared to LIE. And I do mean "prepare." Wrap your head around the idea that someone's life, liberty or property, not to mention "justice," will suffer unless you are flat-out willing and eager to perjure yourself, to get on that jury.

Not that I'm advising you to lie under oath, you understand. Why, that would be illegal! "Illegal" meaning, of course, that tyrants politicians say you can't do it.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

oh come on

now you're just being disingenuous. This kind of crap is why I really need to leave this site.

You're just word bombing and gibberish-bombing with a long, unclear, rambling post, hoping that no one realizes you've been criticizing the Constitution and Constitutional government, which you express strong dislike for.

You seem to not like my using the word hate. Merriam Websters defines it as "extreme dislike or antipathy" which you've clearly stated.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

"gibberish"

"... really need to leave..."

Leave or change your false front?

"...criticizing the Constitution and Constitutional government, which you express strong dislike for..."

A dictator will repeat the same lies for as many times as necessary for the lie to be believed by the targeted victims?

"...you've clearly stated..."

I've clearly stated my thoughts in English.

I see as much folly in blaming a knife for the crimes of a murderer as blaming a piece of paper for the crimes of fraud, extortion, torture, and mass murder.

Joe

blaming knives for knife crimes is silly

but that isn't what you're doing.

Knives already exist, and have many uses. Their creation is not at issue. It makes a bad and misleading analogy.

You complain about how it was criminal to have the Constitutional Convention, and that the state created out of it is (in your opinion) a fraud, etc., and all persons who work within the structure of that government (which would include the namesake of this site, obviously) are frauds and criminals, and anyone who is licensed by them (okay by now everyone's family has been hit with your indiscriminate criticisms) or who works with them (still more of the same).

Hate being defined as intense dislike, your words evidence that - use of "fraud" "criminal" etc and many other strong emotional words - you clearly hate the way the Constitution was created, everything it stands for, the way it is perceived, and all of its effects and results.

So, I think I've hit the nail on the head.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

A fraud confesses eventually.

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade."

"(in your opinion)"

My opinion is that the document reports what actually happened as the frauds called together a meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade.

http://archive.org/stream/secretproceedin00convgoog#page/n14...

"One party, whose object and wish it was to abolish and annihilate all State governments, and to bring forward one general government, over this extensive continent, of monarchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few; yet it is equally true, Sir, that there were a considerable number, who did not openly avow it, who were by myself, and many others of the convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment; and, acting upon those principles, covertly endeavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished."

My opinion is that the word "covertly" means something to me. To someone else the word may be meaningless.

"You complain about how it was criminal to have the Constitutional Convention,..."

An opinion concerning what I did, such as that opinion quoted above, is false. The Con Con Con Job started out as a meeting of delegates called so as "to regulate trade" and other false claims while the actual intent of those who sought to Consolidate, Monopolize, the Free Market Government of many Constitutionally Limited Republics into one Voluntary Union of mutual defense, ended up being precisely that Consolidation and Monopolization.

As to who is and who is not guilty of fraud I can't claim to know since guilt of fraud would require that the person who is guilty knows that they perpetrated fraud. Many people are merely ignorant.

"...you clearly hate..."

Again the dictator resorts to the tactic of repetition in the hope that the lie will become true in the victims mind?

Joe

yep

you hate the Consitution. You hate that it was enacted - check. You hate its ideas - check. You hate the system it set up - check. You hate anyone who functions within that system sinc eit was enacted. You hate the Constitution.

And as far as the ad hominem attacks on the messenger, moi, let me remind you of that other thread, where you told a big fat whopper and got caught in it, then tried to change the subject. Yes, that one. The one where you claimed that in two of two jury experiences, you and your son both got to experience jury nullification. Wow! We've got a statistical miracle ladies and gentlemen!

The problem is, you were lying, ir implying a lie at very least....but weren't aware of the true implausibility of what you were claiming, simply because you don't know what you're talking about. And I think that can be said to be your stock in trade - rambling without knowing what you're talking about.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Creating a hate crime thought criminal?

"...you hate the Consitution [sic]..."

What could possibly be your motive for repeating the same false statements?

"...your son both got to experience jury nullification..."

Who is guilty of making this claim other than you?

"The problem is, you were lying, ir [sic] implying a lie at very least......"

An active imagination can create anything?

As to the request for information concerning personal experience as a jurist in a jury, the words I actually did publish was perhaps not the supply desired to meet the demand.

Joe

keep it vague so you can later back away from it?

You posted something which I thought, correctly or not, implied you were saying you and your son both experienced jury nullification. This is after all a jury nullification thread.

I then both pointed out the implausibility of that, and asked you to say if I was misinterpreting you. Here we are, several hours and several more posts later, and you now are finally saying that isn't what you intended to say.

Your behavior can be explained a couple of different ways.

1. You really were trying to say that, but didn't realize how outlandish it would sound to anyone who had actually been around a jury. You then didn't figure that out until a few hours later, and now are trying to back away from saying that.

2. You and your son really didn't have that experience, but did participate in a jury pool and maybe even a jury sometime, but there was no nullification experienced. You were trying to be vague about it, because your whole "fake law guru" internet shtick requires you to have others that believe you actually have some modicum of knowledge or experience. Not so much as one them "gosh-durned lowyurs" by gawd but you cant sell them anything if they're not thinking you have that. Then basically it plays out the same as in number 1.

3. You weren't trying to say that at all, but were too busy breaking the terms of use of this website by engaging in ad hominem attacks, to ccorrect the mis conception, even though you were asked to do it.

4. It really did happen, and that is what you meant, but because I am a mean, dastardly bullying agent of the state (or whatever your gibberish phrase today is) I forced you to submit to my strength of will and to deny the truth of your immense jury nullification experience. You then left on your unicorn.

Which one is it?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The law of diminishing returns?

"Your behavior can be explained a couple of different ways."

The multitude of ways that information can be falsified can be compared to the actual facts.

At some point your efforts are going to reach a point at which the return on your investment inspires you to stop?

Joe

entertainment

there are no monetary returns on doing this. Rather, I hope to get a chuckle, or a guffaw even, out of the inane attempts of prevarication that you put forth.

"gibber gibber blah blah...the actual facts"

What are the actual facts then? Get to the point. Short and concise, no b.s. this time! Go!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

wow, lasted all of a sentence

before she clearly stated she is not a libertarian and not interested in constitutional government. FAil.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Give it up -

You can't "troll" with the truth - it only adds to the pragmatic slant against it. Of course true anarchy can never exist - human control will always be in place no matter what it's called. And the people will always want justice, so there will always be some form of government. Whatever is considered "fail", then, is the way the system is manipulated by those who consider the Declaration of Independence to be relevant only to a certain few.

Give what up?

I honestly don't understand your response.

And, this is a site named after a government official, Dr. Paul, said to be for restoring Constitutional government. OUr Consitution, like it or not, sets up a representative republic. It does not set up a "true democracy" nor an anarchistic state of some sort. I fail to see how stating a certain concept is outside of those bounds, when it clearly is, is trolling.

I fail to see how it is in any way an inappropriate comment given the purpose of the board. I fail to see how it could in any way be offensive or obnoxious given the stated mission of the board.

There's some truth for ya, not sure that is what you're looking fo...

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

To get you heard -

Your argument made far too much sense to warrant the down-votes it received - I just gave it some leverage in your favor. Of course, what we both said is true, but I would rather others re-read what you have written - that "anarchy is mob-rule" - and think about it again than somehow fight for "my standing" in this forum. Hey, sorry I called you "troll".

thank you

and apology accepted!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

She's interested in freedom, not government.

Government does not promote or defend freedom; it only eats it.

Constitutions represent the quaint idea that words on paper -- which are to be interpreted and enforced BY the rulers, can restrain those selfsame rulers from abusing those they rule. How's that working out for you?

Josie is an anarchist, not a libertarian.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

and therein lies the problem

how does this anarchy fantasy play out in real world? Answer: Just like a true democracy, i.e., the tyranny of hte majority.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Anarchy is daily reality.

We live most of our lives in a state of anarchy. In our normal, day to day lives, we deal with almost everyone we meet voluntarily and peacefully, without government sticking its unsanitary nose in our business. I don't need or want government to control my dealings with my family, friends, or people I do business with. I don't need or want their ridiculous "laws" which try to control everything under the sun. I don't hurt people or mess with their property, and I expect the same treatment for myself. And I GET it -- from just about everyone EXCEPT the gangsters who call themselves "government."

You want to talk about fantasy? The idea of a government that stays "limited" -- that's a fantasy.

Government as a protector of rights: FAIL.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

false

we don't live in a state of anarchy. Against every decision, even if there are no government agents involved, is some understanding of what is legal and acceptable and enforceable, and that governs our behavior, the terms of our contracts, others' actions towards us.

I do agree that big government is not the answer. But apparently you've never heard of anyone in the private sector acting selfishly or unfairly. That to me sounds like wilfull ignorance, as it happens all the time, and you know it.

It may be that government has never stayed small permanently, but then again, until the US, there never was a country with a Constitution that purported to limit the size of government. Who is to say we can't shrink it back?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Moral rules vs. "laws"

Anarchy does not mean "no rules." It means "no rulers." Morality governs our conduct -- and what we use to determine whether an action is moral or immoral is rarely "a politician said so." Most people use religious or philosophical standards to differentiate right from wrong.

People who DO use government's edicts to guide their moral choices certainly do exist -- and they are to be pitied. May their chains rest lightly upon them . . . I mean, if you're willing to take moral guidance from POLITICIANS(!!!) you've got to be lower than worm sh!t, a natural born slave.

Libertarians and constitutional conservatives have been trying to shrink government for the last hundred years. It's still growing. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

I like that definition but we're not there yet

the LIbertarians haven't had the strength to do any of that. It doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future. Tell me again how an anarchist state would function vs. a true democracy?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

An anarchist STATE? LOL.

Should I also address questions about atheistic religions? Or foodless banquet plans?

How would things get done in a society composed of anarchists? Someone who wants something done either does it himelf, or he persuades someone else to do it, possibly by emotional appeal, but usually by offering payment. He could also attempt the "government method" of using threats and force to compel obedience -- but since no one in such a society would be likely to regard his demands as legitimate, such a person might quickly end up dead.

What about all the things that government does that nobody is willing to pay for? They wouldn't get done. That's usually a GOOD thing.

As for "true democracy" -- that would be two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. There are only three ways to get something you want from other people: you can beg, you can trade, or you can steal. "Voting" is not a fourth method. Neither is "government."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

in reality

it wouldn't exist. And it would function, or more precisely not function, like a true democracy. But yeah, it's fun to contemplate absurd b.s. realities ifyou've got nothing better to do.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Anarchy exists -- and works.

Every time you deal with other people voluntarily and peacefully, without threatening one another with guns -- or legal action -- you see anarchy in action. Contrast that to occasions with which you deal with "government" agents. Which do YOU prefer?

Anarchy isn't a "state" and it isn't a "system." It's a philosophy for dealing with others which asserts that initiating force against peaceful folk or their property is morally wrong, even when done by folks calling themselves "government."

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

wrong

if that happens while we have government, then what do we need any change for? I deal with people voluntarily or peacefully, without guns! all the time, but they all know there is a legal system out there. Of course I prefer dealing with private persons voluntarily. Of course Iprefer buying things I want or need instead of paying to get my car smog checked by a govt agency.

I don't agree with your definition of anarchy. The definition of anarchy is an absence of government. Due to common perceptions of what that would entail, it has developed a more commonly understood definition something akin to chaos.

Your definition is merely a fantasy about how anarchy would be utopia.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

(No subject)

Well done video!

I enjoyed it.

Voir Dire

Yes, you must survive "voir dire". Do not be too opinionated during jury questioning by the lawyers and judge. Be quiet. Your goal is to get ON the jury. Go to FIJA.ORG for help in this area.