Jury Myths

May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
The judge in ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s fraud trial revealed Friday he has received threats over the case and now travels with U.S. Marshals, as he turned back a media request to release juror information.​
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, in rejecting the motion, argued that he's confident the jurors would be threatened as well if their information were to be made public.​
“I can tell you there have been [threats]. ... I don't feel right if I release their names,” he said, adding that because of threats against him, “The Marshals go where I go.”​

August 17, 2018​
Judge in Manafort trial says he's been threatened over case​
By Alex Pappas, Jake Gibson​

The jurors hearing Paul Manafort’s case reaffirms my long-held belief that juries should be done away with. There is one overriding reason to eliminate juries. Take this one to the bank. Judges and lawyers decide every case before the trial begins —— everything that is done in a courtroom is Kabuki theater performed for jurors and for public consumption.

All of the legal bullshit lawyers have been spreading around for hundreds of years cannot sell the myth that juries are sacrosanct. If it was left to me I would do away with the jury system and let government judges decide every case. They do it anyway. In short: Do away with juries and Americans will finally see that the administration of law is rotten to the core with or without juries because the entire judicial system has been turned upside down.

Parenthetically, a juror is not supposed to vote his conscience, while our recent self-appointed spiritual leader did everything based on his conscience.

Swearing the presidential oath of office —— the only oath required by the Constitution —— was Obama’s first lie as president. He ignored laws although his oath of office demanded the opposite. He wrote unlawful EOs, and ordered his bureaucrats to write and enforce regulations that deny everybody else a day in court. EPA regulations levy fines, dictate the use of private property, and confiscates private property. Everything Obama —— who campaigned as a spiritual leader —— did was based on his conscience.

NOTE: Imagine what would happen if EPA regulation had to face an uncontrolled jury. In short: Absolute control over the administration of the law generates income for the second oldest profession. Lawyers losing any part of control is a threat to incomes throughout the legal profession. (Prostitution is the oldest profession. A cynic might say that lawyers were the first pimps.)

Nothing is going to eliminate the monumental flaws in our jury system. Too many lawyers make too much money to expect all of those lawyers in Congress to change anything. I am more interested in erasing the concept of judges having the authority to tell law-abiding citizens how they must behave irrespective of the occasional victory for the good guys.

This gag order in 2015 denied jurors the same choice Obama claimed for himself:

The brochure Wood was handing out, which comes from the Fully Informed Jury Association, from Montana, explains, “Judges only rarely ‘fully inform’ jurors of their rights, especially their right to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to conscience. In fact, judges regularly assist the prosecution by dismissing prospective jurors who will admit knowing about this right – beginning with anyone who also admits having qualms with the law.”​

“Conscience” used to be the crux of the jury system:

The brochure informs readers: “You may, and should, vote your conscience; You cannot be forced to obey a ‘juror’s oath’; You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”​
It quotes John Adams saying about jurors, “It is not only his right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”​
It continues, “Americans colonists regularly depended on juries to thwart bad law sent over from England. The British then restricted trial by jury and other rights which juries had helped secure. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.”​
It explains in 1972, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found a jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power … to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.”​

Dismissal sought for case that 'criminalizes' speech​
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/21/2015 @ 8:28 pm​

After a zillion novels, movies, and TV shows telling the public a jury is sacred ‘conscience’ has come to mean jurors must never, never, tell the government what it cannot do, while government lawyers and judges always tell the American people what they must do.

Incidentally, every lawyer is a government employee even if he never sets a foot in a courtroom. Lawyers are the law. To be more precise, after lawyers become judges they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave, and they do it without benefit of legislation. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all of those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.

There is one jury situation that nobody talks about.

I long-suspected that the government puts at least one double-agent on the jury in important cases. Such a person would need the institutional skills necessary to dominate a small group until the other jurors vote the government’s way. A hung jury is the government’s fallback strategy.

Also, a government plant can notify the judge which hard-nosed juror has to be replaced under one pretext or another.

Parenthetically, labor union officials were skilled at dominating recalcitrant members attending a union meeting. Union officials, who worked for management, kept talking until they wore everybody down. In the early years labor union officials controlled meetings by manipulating Robert’s Rules of Order, while judges manipulate jurors with rules made by lawyers. Basically, judges and lawyers are the officials, while jurors are the malleable rank & file.
 
Last edited:
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
More often than not courts rig juries in order to turn the guilty lose rather than shaft the innocent based on:

BLACKSTONE’S RATIO

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. William Blackstone (1723 – 1780)​

Take a look at the death penalty in relation to Blackstone’s Ratio.

Liberals always argue that the death penalty does not deter murder. That argument is absurd on the face of it. Execute a murderer and he/she will not murder again. Abolishing the death penalty most certainly will NOT deter murder.

And have you noticed that the Democrat Party’s Culture of Death does not include the death penalty?

The next favorite argument against the death penalty says that an innocent man cannot be brought back to life after he is executed. That line of reasoning is a piece of legal sophistry rooted in Blackstone’s Ratio.

Parenthetically, Blackstone’s Ratio depends upon who you quote. Charles Dickens put the morning line at 99 to 1 in favor of the criminals.

Blackstone’s Ratio probably made sense hundreds of years ago. It makes no sense today when you look at all of the protection criminals are given before trial in this country. Murderers are given even more protections in the form of endless appeals after they are found guilty. Twenty years or more often elapses before a murderer is finally executed. And executions are disappearing each time a state legislator abolishes the death penalty. Indeed, fewer executions take place than the number of convicted murderers released.

I doubt if all of those convicted murderers being set free are not guilty twenty years after being convicted. There is too much room for bribery and tampering with evidence to convince me that so many prosecutors made so many mistakes. Or maybe juries made all of those mistakes which does not say much for the jury system in my lifetime.

Life without parole is another myth.


A loophole in the 1987 life-without-parole law allows inmates to apply for clemency. In a move to clarify who might be eligible for clemency, the state Pardon and Parole Board recently enacted a policy that gives inmates with this sentence a chance for early release after 15 years.​

Loophole lets inmates seek parole Board changes life sentence policy​
Bob Doucette​
Published: Sat, March 9, 2002 12:00 AM​

Long before 1987 Clarence Darrow not only beat the death penalty he beat life without parole.

I believe that Leopold and Loeb beating the hangman was the most influential decision ever handed down in death penalty cases. Clarence Darrow’s entire defense was designed to beat the death penalty rather than get them off.


With their sons facing the hangman, the killers’ rich families called in a legal luminary — Clarence Darrow, 66, famed for saving 100 defendants from execution.​
“Not guilty,” the original plea, would have put them before a jury, not a wise move with a pair of defendants as arrogant and unlikable as Leopold and Loeb.​
Today’s touchy-feely garbage and psycho-babble gained nationwide acceptance because the Bobby Franks murder case got more publicity than did all of Darrow’s previous 100 death penalty cases combined.

Darrow, in a stunning move, changed the plea to guilty. Their case, with a parade of alienists, as psychiatrists were known in those days, would be presented to the judge, who would decide on life or death. In a three-day summation, Darrow quoted poetry, history and science in a plea for mercy so eloquent even the judge got misty-eyed. Darrow said that the boys, although not legally insane, were mentally ill and not responsible for their actions. “They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly.”​
Darrow ended up with two more notches on his saved-from-the-hangman’s belt. The judge gave his clients life plus 99 years.​

90th anniversary of Leopold and Loeb's horrific murder​
BY Mara Bovsun​
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS​
Saturday, May 17, 2014, 9:47 PM​

Life plus 99 years got lost when Leopold was paroled in 1958. Note that life without parole became another judicial myth after it was attached to a life sentence.

Then there is war and Blackstone’s Ratio. Many innocent people die in wars. The number of civilians killed in war has multiplied to the point of vulgarity in each succeeding twentieth century war. Civilians, by far, die in war in greater numbers than do professional soldiers. My point is: The public is told that there is a war on crime; so how is an innocent casualty in the war on crime any different than the innocent killed in shooting wars?

On the plus side, the number of innocent defendants juries execute by mistake in the war on crime will be negligible after you factor in all of the protections the accused are entitled to. The innocent slob who gets hanged will suffer to be sure, but I cannot see any great harm being done to society as Blackstone implied.

Judges overturing a jury verdict says everything you have to know about the jury system.


Jury Nullification​
A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a verdict based upon their own consciences. It espouses the concept that jurors should be the judges of both law and fact.​
The traditional approach in U.S. court systems is for jurors to be the "triers of fact," while the judge is considered the interpreter of law and the one who will instruct the jury on the applicable law. Jury nullification occurs when a jury substitutes its own interpretation of the law and/or disregards the law entirely in reaching a verdict. The most widely accepted understanding of jury nullification by the courts is one that acknowledges the power but not the right of a juror or jury to nullify the law. Jury nullification is most often, although rarely, exercised in criminal trials but technically is applicable to civil trials as well, where it is subject to civil procedural remedies such as the Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.​
In criminal cases, however, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes final a jury trial that results in an acquittal, and it guarantees freedom from Double Jeopardy. This gives juries an inherent power to follow their own consciences in reaching a verdict, notwithstanding jury instructions or charges to the contrary.​
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jury+nullification
 
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
The jurors hearing Paul Manafort’s case reaffirms my long-held belief that juries should be done away with. There is one overriding reason to eliminate juries. Take this one to the bank. Judges and lawyers decide every case before the trial begins —— everything that is done in a courtroom is Kabuki theater performed for jurors and for public consumption.

VIDEO ▼


http://video.foxnews.com/v/5825067825001/?playlist_id=938973798001#sp=show-clips

Do most Americans know that prison time for Paul Manafort justifies the FBI and the Department of Justice corruption? It is painful for me to admit that not one American among twelve jurors was smart enough to see what was happening. I know if I was on Manafort’s jury I would have hanged the jury and to hell with the fair trial bullshit. Nobody, and mean nobody, will ever get a fair trial when the FBI is out to imprison a defendant for political reasons. (Remember Scooter Libby.)

In short: No scum sucking Democrat will ever be found guilty of anything. Hell, those bums in the FBI will not even investigate Hillary Clinton who is surely guilty of espionage if not treason; hence, no American should ever find a defendant guilty of a non-violent when FBI prosecutors are out for blood.

Incidentally, Manafort’s lawyers stuck it to their client when they did not demand a change of venue. They should have known that jurors would be chosen in the heart of parasite country. I would like to know how many were on government payrolls, or involved with someone who is a government stooge.

Parenthetically, is there a legal term for ‘co-conspirator’ that covers murders committed by illegal aliens? If there is such a legal term every top Democrat is guilty of conspiring with illegal aliens to murder Americans —— mostly women and young girls.


Naturally, Nutso Nancy and top Democrats want to protect MS-13 gang members. President Trump should know from Pelosi’s track record that it is more devious than open-borders and illegal alien votes. Nutso and top Democrats are bringing in thousands of murderers who join the ranks of violent Democrats.​

http://defendingthetruth.com/crime-punishment/81479-pages-pages-whitewash.html#post1191333

Congressman Mo Brooks blamed "illegal aliens" and "insistence by Democrats for open borders and amnesty" in the death of University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts.​
"Mollie Tibbetts - another American who would be alive but for illegal aliens and insistence by Democrats for open borders and amnesty.​

Mo Brooks: Mollie Tibbetts 'would be alive' if not for 'illegal aliens, Democrats for open borders'​
Updated Aug 21, 9:59 PM; Posted Aug 21, 9:26 PM​
 
Jul 2008
19,326
13,427
Virginia Beach, VA
VIDEO ▼

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5825067825001/?playlist_id=938973798001#sp=show-clips

Do most Americans know that prison time for Paul Manafort justifies the FBI and the Department of Justice corruption? It is painful for me to admit that not one American among twelve jurors was smart enough to see what was happening. I know if I was on Manafort’s jury I would have hanged the jury and to hell with the fair trial bullshit. Nobody, and mean nobody, will ever get a fair trial when the FBI is out to imprison a defendant for political reasons. (Remember Scooter Libby.)

In short: No scum sucking Democrat will ever be found guilty of anything. Hell, those bums in the FBI will not even investigate Hillary Clinton who is surely guilty of espionage if not treason; hence, no American should ever find a defendant guilty of a non-violent when FBI prosecutors are out for blood.

Incidentally, Manafort’s lawyers stuck it to their client when they did not demand a change of venue. They should have known that jurors would be chosen in the heart of parasite country. I would like to know how many were on government payrolls, or involved with someone who is a government stooge.

Parenthetically, is there a legal term for ‘co-conspirator’ that covers murders committed by illegal aliens? If there is such a legal term every top Democrat is guilty of conspiring with illegal aliens to murder Americans —— mostly women and young girls.

Naturally, Nutso Nancy and top Democrats want to protect MS-13 gang members. President Trump should know from Pelosi’s track record that it is more devious than open-borders and illegal alien votes. Nutso and top Democrats are bringing in thousands of murderers who join the ranks of violent Democrats.​

http://defendingthetruth.com/crime-punishment/81479-pages-pages-whitewash.html#post1191333

Congressman Mo Brooks blamed "illegal aliens" and "insistence by Democrats for open borders and amnesty" in the death of University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts.​
"Mollie Tibbetts - another American who would be alive but for illegal aliens and insistence by Democrats for open borders and amnesty.​

Mo Brooks: Mollie Tibbetts 'would be alive' if not for 'illegal aliens, Democrats for open borders'​
Updated Aug 21, 9:59 PM; Posted Aug 21, 9:26 PM​
And here is why no one should take you seriously. If you can’t be bothered to research your own claims then there is no reason to think you have any clue as to what you are blathering on about.

Manafort’s lawyers DID request a change of venue, it was denied

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/manafort-motion-to-change-trial-venue-rejected-by-judge-ts-ellis-iii.html

Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your posts.
 
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
And here is why no one should take you seriously. If you can’t be bothered to research your own claims then there is no reason to think you have any clue as to what you are blathering on about.

Manafort’s lawyers DID request a change of venue, it was denied

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/17/manafort-motion-to-change-trial-venue-rejected-by-judge-ts-ellis-iii.html
To Nwolf35: I stand corrected. Nevertheless, the judge denied the request:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (CN) – Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked a federal judge Friday to deny former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s request to change the venue of his upcoming trial in Virginia.​
The federal judge presiding over former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s upcoming trial in Virginia should deny the lobbyist’s request for a change of venue, according to Special Counsel Robert Mueller.​
Mueller filed the motion on Friday, meeting U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III’s demand from earlier this week ordering special counsel to offer its argument for why Manafort should be tried in Alexandria, Virginia instead of Roanoke, Virginia.​
“Manafort contends that because this case and Manafort’s political work have attracted substantial pre-trial publicity, the trial should be transferred to Roanoke, Virginia where Manafort suggests that jurors are less likely to have followed the media coverage and to hold and be influenced by political views that Manafort views as unfavorable to him,” wrote prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, one of several attorneys assisting Mueller.​
But according to Weissman, the “common phenomenon” of major media coverage in high profile cases doesn’t mean that a jury should be “presumed to be tainted.”

Mueller Asks Judge to Deny Manafort Change of Venue Request​
July 13, 2018 BRANDI BUCHMAN​

Media coverage was a smokescreen. There is every reason to believe pro-government jurors were tainted.

In any event, moving from one city in Virginia to another would not have helped. The trial should have been moved halfway between Virginia and the West Coast for Manafort to have any chance of getting a fair shake.
 
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
In short: No scum sucking Democrat will ever be found guilty of anything. Hell, those bums in the FBI will not even investigate Hillary Clinton who is surely guilty of espionage if not treason; hence, no American should ever find a defendant guilty of a non-violent when FBI prosecutors are out for blood.
Micheal Cohen knew that prosecutors were out for President Trump’s blood. As a lawyer Cohen knows how ‘justice’ works. Cohen also knew better than to waste his time on the inevitable with a jury; so took an offer he could not refuse: