Jury Nullification

So, let’s answer the question concerning what can be done concerning the drug war.

First, have you ever noticed that war is everywhere…war on crime, war on drugs, war on obesity, war on…well, you name it and there is a war going on either for or against it. Because of its overuse, we have become insensitive to its meaning, thereby allowing Congress to shirk its duty (again and again!).

Ok, I digress.

So what can we do, to right the wrongs done concerning laws that, if the Constitution were the standard, really are no laws. Answer is use jury nullification, sometimes known as a fully informed jury.

Now, we are in an age of progressivism which believes that we must have experts to tell us mundanes how to live, what to think, etc. In fact, recently in a local political forum, an individual became irate when someone in the group suggested that the jury should be able to judge not only the facts but whether or not the law should actually be a law at all. The person became unglued and stated that the judge is to do that because he is a professional and is trained in the law. Of course, taking this to the extreme, why have a jury in the first place if they are a bunch of mouth-droolers who probably had a hard time feeding themselves before coming to the courtroom and wouldn’t know law or justice if it smacked them in the face.

How many laws are on the books that deal with victimless crimes? How many people are in jails serving time because of these victimless crimes? How do we, as a society, benefit from having all these people locked up, wasting away? The answer is, we don’t.

Who benefits (Cui Bono)? Well, for starters, the prosecutors are able to make a name for themselves. Next, the police and the community benefit by seizing the assets of the people who have harmed no one. In fact, many municipalities rely on this windfall, along with the federal largess that goes with drug task forces, etc. Finally, the prisons that have become privatized are making a killing (literally, in some cases).

With all of this money tied up in just prosecuting drug offenses, who in the government would be for nullification? (I think I hear crickets chirping). How many lives, families, even communities are destroyed because of this injustice…millions of lives and countless families and communities around the world, not just here in the US.

All it takes is one person on the jury to be informed and to tell the others on the jury. Sometimes, depending on the case, that one person can be the difference between conviction and acquittal. This is POWERFUL!

Has jury nullification ever been tried? Has it been tried fairly recently? What were the outcomes? I’ll tackle these questions in the next installment.

Nullification: Part 1 What is it and why does it matter?

Nullification: 1: the act of nullifying : the state of being nullified 2: the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States (merriam-webster online dictionary). There are a couple of types of nullification – that mentioned above and also jury nullification. Jury nullification is use of the belief that the jury should be able to judge not only the facts of the case, but the justness of the law being enforced as well.

Nullification and State Militias go hand-in-hand. Have you ever noticed that a bully will continue to bully until he is stood up to. Some bullies, all it takes is to tell them to stop their actions. This is not the usual; however. Most of the time, the bully will not stop until physically restrained or until he understands that physical harm is possible if he continues his aggression. From the trajectory of the current federal (and some state) governments, the need to be able to back up words with actions (the militia) should be obvious. With the push for national gun legislation and the purchase of a huge number of weapons and ammunition by the Homeland Defense apparatus, the need for some teeth to back the words is apparent.

Thomas Woods, Jr. has written a very powerful book concerning nullification – the cover is shown on this page. He gives the history of nullification from the founding to the present and busts myths like that it was used to justify slavery and that it is not necessary. You can get the book on amazon.com.

Does anyone remember the bailouts, how that the phonecalls to Congress were 10:1 against those bailouts. Now, we all know that if 99.9% of the people want something (say, your house), but the Constitution does not authorize it, then they can’t have it. In this case, however, what the people wanted WAS Constitutional and what the Congress was about to do was not. What if the states had nullified the Congress by withholding taxes for that year from the federal government, standing up for the people? That would have caused Congress to back off (possibly). How about the legislation going through many states now protecting the people from mandatory health care? Again, states standing for their people.

Some say it is not right, that the Supreme Court should decide these matters, that they are the experts. It is fallacy to believe that the federal government is going to police itself. The states already lost their seat at the table with the passage (some say railroading) of the 17th Amendment, electing Senators popularly rather than having them appointed by the state legislatures.

I wish to leave you with one thought before I end this first installment: if Prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment to become law, and required a Constitutional Amendment to be removed, why are drugs not treated in the same way? Is there something that can be done to correct this without an amendment?

One Final (Maybe) :) Thought on a Constitutional Militia

The following is a draft declaration that could be adopted by the Oklahoma legislature to re-institute the state militia. Also attached is a draft brief mission statement for the Oklahoma State Militia.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States, under Article 1, Section 8 states that the legislature has the power to…provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the State respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress

And

Whereas the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma, under Article V, Section V-40 states that The Legislature shall provide for organizing, disciplining, arming, maintaining, and equipping the Militia of the State.

And

Whereas the Constitution of the United States, under the 2nd Amendment states that a well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

And

Whereas the federal legislature and the state legislature have failed to honor their obligations concerning the militia for over 200 years and 100 years respectively

Therefore

We, the citizens of the sovereign State of Oklahoma, desiring to secure the freedom of the State of Oklahoma

Hereby claim the right as sovereign citizens of the sovereign State of Oklahoma to fulfill the obligations of the legislatures of the United States and State of Oklahoma

And

Give notice to all who read this proclamation, that we, the undersigned, have begun to form the legitimate, mandated militia of the State of Oklahoma, and doing so openly, swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

Mission Statement

The mission of the militia of the State of Oklahoma is to secure and safeguard the freedom of the citizens of the State of Oklahoma.

The Oklahoma State Militia will fulfill this mission by:

1. Ensuring its membership has read, understands, and will defend the US and Oklahoma constitutions.
2. Training its members in the martial arts of small arms and unarmed combat
3. Training its members in the medical arts such as emergency medical technician
4. Training its members in the fighting of fires and actions required in natural disasters

Activities in which the Oklahoma State Militia may be involved/assist:
1. Natural disaster relief
2. Law enforcement
3. Fire fighting
4. Repelling invasion

Qualifications for membership:
1. Between the age of 16 and 60
2. Regular specialty training (arms, medical, etc)
3. Equipment needed for specialty (weapons, ammunition, basic medical equipment, etc.)
4. Attend and pass training on the US and Oklahoma Constitutions
5. Take oath of loyalty to the constitutions

On a side note, I’m sorry it has been so long since the last post. I have been having vehicle troubles for the last several months and have been unable to find anyone (or anything) so far that can fix it. Consequently, as any good, self-reliant, American would do, I’ve invested in a diagnostic tool and have been scouring the internet in search of a solution to my issue. It is still not resolved so I can’t guarantee that another post will be any sooner forthcoming. My intention is still to begin covering nullification.

Oh, and by the way, if you have not heard, the US Attorney General has stated that the President does not have the authority to “drone” a non-combatant US citizen within the continental US. Be prepared to see a new definition of combatant appear. This, and the continued persecution of Bradley Manning, should give renewed emphasis on getting the militia and nullification going within each state of the union.

Just a bit more on the militia of the several states…

Before tackling the issue of what can be done once the state militia is reconstituted, I’d like to spend just a bit more time on the need to energize the Oklahoma legislature to re-form the Oklahoma State Militia.

First of all, for those who may think we already have a state militia and it is called the National Guard, you would be mistaken.

The militia, according to the Constitution, was for homeland defense. These individuals, frequently between the ages of 16 and 60, were to remain within the United States and within the specific state itself unless called out for national service. This is why the National Guard is not the militia discussed in the Constitution-as we all now know, the National Guard can be deployed overseas.

I wish to leave you with this quote from the Declaration of Independence: “…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce the [people] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security…” Now, how would the people be able to effect this if they were unarmed?

Book cover, written by Edwin Vieira, Jr. ISBN (10) 0-9671759-2-5

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”

Needed to insure a free state

Today I’d like to talk a little more about guns and the ongoing loss of freedoms in general within the US and Oklahoma.

First of all, let’s set the record straight. The last part of the 2nd Amendment states “…shall not be infringed”. The definition of infringed is, according to the Free Legal Dictionary, The encroachment, breach, or violation of a right, law, regulation, or contract. It seems to me that any law pertaining to arms, whether background check, license, registration, etc. is an infringement on the amendment.

Of course there is a remedy for this. It is called amending the Constitution. Now, the last time the social progressives tried doing that was with Prohibition. At least they did it right, with an amendment (18). After a while it became blatantly obvious, even to those do-gooders that Prohibition only drove what the people wanted underground. They finally cried “Uncle” and made another amendment (21), repealing the 18th. Using the logic that an amendment was needed to ban alcohol, doesn’t it seem reasonable that one would be needed to prohibit drugs. Didn’t happen and won’t. Why? Because it is too hard for them and not expedient (and there is too much money to be made in keeping it illegal).

Now, back to the 2nd Amendment.

Had each of the states kept its militia, would we be in the dire straights we are in? Would there have been a 16th or 17th Amendment? Would there have been an income tax? These are questions I have. Bringing the argument up-to-date…would it be difficult to nullify all of the unconstitutional garbage coming from Washington, DC? I say, no.

Our Oklahoma Constitution has a provision in it for a state militia. Article V, Section V-40 states that The Legislature shall provide for organizing, disciplining, arming, maintaining, and equipping the Militia of the State. Edwin Viera has written extensively about the militia and has recently completed an exhaustive reference on the subject.

A year or so ago I wrote a draft bill for our legislature to adopt that would re-institute the militia for Oklahoma. I have placed it in the Flash Widget box for you to review.

So, what is the first step to reclaiming our individual and state sovereignty? It is to follow the 2nd Amendment and the Oklahoma State Constitution by revitalizing the state militia. Only this will allow us to move forward in our struggle to regain the liberties we and our forefathers have lost.

In the next article, I will discuss the next step – nullification. If we don’t have a militia to give the nullification teeth, we might as well not waste breath. Not that we have to use it or cause a confrontation, it just needs to be available and visible. “Speak softly and carry a big stick.”

Gun Control – Concentrate on the front sight and squeeze the trigger

Sorry to have been away for so long. It was quite depressing after the Republican National Convention and the election. I will try to be more consistent in my writing for the upcoming new year!

Posted on Yahoo News – SAN DIEGO (AP) — Moviegoers at a San Diego theater ducked for cover as officers stormed in during a film screening and shot and critically wounded a gunman hiding in their midst.

No one else was hurt in the shooting Saturday inside Reading Cinemas Carmel Mountain in northern San Diego, officer David Stafford said.

The gunman, identified as 20-year-old Tom Billodeaux of Escondido, was taken to a hospital after being shot in the arm and chest, police said.

Billodeaux became the target of an intense police search after witnesses reported seeing him get into a fight with his girlfriend across the street from a shopping plaza where the Cineplex is located, Lt. Ernie Herbert said.

Witnesses tried to intervene, but he threatened them with a gun and ran to the shopping plaza.

The owner of a business next to the Cineplex said police shut down the shopping center’s parking lot and stopped every car to look for the man. Officers with dogs checked each store, while a police helicopter hovered above.

“There were 20 police cars blocking the entrance, then the fire truck and the ambulance rushed in,” Steve Krongard, the owner of the Nickel City arcade, said. “Then we saw seven cops with what looked like rifles, then paramedics went into the theater.”

Now consider this.

Click here for Sandy Hook questions.

What has been the common denominator in almost all of the past mass shootings (besides, of course, the individual(s) being on prescription medication) and most other illegal instances where guns are involved? Yep, the police arrive just in time to put the chalk lines around the victims.

Doesn’t it seem just a little odd that in the first instance cited above that the police got there first and shot the accused? It seems to me that with the current debate on gun control (notice that there is not a debate on amending the Constitution to allow for the gun laws THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS and to create more). The San Diego story adds legitimacy to police being able to “keep us safe”.

However, as some may know, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police are not obligated to protect you.

Of course, if the progressives who believe they know what is best for everyone, would follow the Constitution, they would have to amend it to allow for not only the current laws concerning guns (“shall not be infringed” really is pretty easy to interpret), but for any new ones they might dream up.

The progressives, of course could not do this, however, because the house of cards would then fall. The “War on Drugs”, FISA, Patriot Act 1 and 2, NDAA 2012/2013, etc, would all require amending the Constitution to make them legitimate laws.

Now if you are an NRA member you might believe that your organization is doing great things to protect your gun rights – you might be surprised. Mr. William Grigg has done an excellent job in chronicling the web of organizations assisting the UN in its quest for total control. If you are an NRA member (and even if you are not!), you owe it to yourself to get the book and read it cover to cover.

So where does it leave the “law-abiding” gun owner who doesn’t want to give up his guns, no matter what the powers that be (PTB) say? I’ll discuss that in the next post.

Social Security – To Take or Not To Take, That is the Question

Title from the SSA website

Well, it seems that time is speeding up on me. It won’t be long until I will be at that age when it is time to decide when to take my SS “benefits”. Do I take them early and reap the “benefits” while the program is still viable, incurring a penalty for not waiting? Or should I wait, betting that the “benefits” will continue and that I’ll live long enough to recoup that which I would have had earlier. What a quandary!

Of course, we all know that the money I will be receiving came from someone else and that all of the money I paid in has been long gone, paying into someone else’s benefits, the wars, abortion, etc. But is that really the end of the argument? Since it would not really be my money, but money stolen from someone younger than myself, is it moral to take the money at all?

It seems that although when SS was first started, it was to be an account with your name on it, being saved for you when you retired. Naturally, Congress could not stand to have all of that money just sitting around idle, so it appropriated it, co-opting the scheme, making it into a giant Ponzi. All of the money goes into the General Fund – a big hopper that can be used for anything.

Upon considering that the money will never sit unused if Congress has any say in the matter, I have decided to go ahead, when the time comes, and take the money. By doing so, I hope to deprive the government from using it to further another war or some other program to rob all of us of our freedoms. I just hope it won’t be long before the younger folks do not have to pay into the Ponzi and are allowed to invest their money as they see fit, not fronting the Congress with free money to squander. Of course, after wasting the money and seeking to get re-elected, Congressmen will come up with excuses why they may have to stop SS altogether (unless party A or B gets a majority in the House/Senate).

In fact, in a perfect world, I would 1) continue to pay those already on SS until they pass; 2) return the money paid into the system to those that have paid in; and 3) anyone coming into the workforce and anyone receiving the lump sum payment would be free to invest as they please, no longer contributing to someone else’s “benefits”.

Anyone care to share their thoughts on this?