Ok, the title above is not a quote, but that's essentially what an Orange County judge is saying in a decree he issued January 31st, 2011 declaring it illegal for individuals to distribute flyers or pamphlets, hold signs, talk about or in any way attempt to discuss jury nullification with prospective jurors (and all adults are prospective jurors) on the Orange County courthouse complex grounds. In an interview on the radio show Free Talk Live James Cox of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) explained that Chief Judge Elvin Perry, Jr. has issued an order threatening to charge any public taxpayer exercising their first amendment right to free speech on public land that his taxes supposedly helped pay for with contempt of court. The order is limited to people attempting to educate people on the right to jury nullification, all other speech is still acceptable on said grounds. This might cause one to question why the "authorities" would want to stifle such speech. What is it about jury nullification that would cause such worry to the justice system?
Of course the answers to the above question are numerous. Most of those answers are likely going to be nothing but excuses for usurping your power. One such answer is that they don't feel you're smart enough to determine right from wrong. The political masters write laws that criminalize normal human behavior, create victimless crimes and extort money in order for you to do business with your fellow humans. They don't feel you're able to determine for yourself whether such behavior equates to a crime and you need to be told which activities are criminal and which are not. You are too stupid to judge the laws that are written by our much smarter masters elected to the federal and various state congresses. Such is the disdain the political and elite classes hold for the common folk.
Yet, one could wonder if it was something different that caused Judge Elvin Perry, Jr. to issue such a dictatorial order. Could it be that he did it out of fear? Could it be that he knows that most people inherently know right from wrong and he's frightened of losing his power? Is it possible that he realizes that if enough people were educated and discovered their true power to judge the validity of a law that they would soon discover the scam and begin to expose bad laws meant to generate revenue for and funnel power to the state? Is this man and his ilk so afraid of challenges to their power that they will stoop to unsavory and, in my humble opinion, unethical methods to prevent such challenges from even materializing?
Consider for a moment the nature of a contempt of court charge. This is a charge that in many cases is simply leveled by a judge and then not reviewable. One can be kept in jail basically indefinitely without trial. This ability can easily create political prisoners in the purest form. One can be thrown in jail for rolling one's eyes in court, if the judge feels inclined to do so. There are cases of people held in contempt for months, cases as non violent as reporters refusing to give up their sources or someone expressing a difference of opinion. This is a power that is antithetical to the principles this nation was founded upon and should be done away with.
But that is beside the point. Let's take a quick look at the history of jury nullification. The modern practice stems from English common law, which was influenced in turn by Roman law. Even Roman law relied upon jurisprudence that went back into antiquity. The point is that jury nullification, or more generally the practice of common folk judging whether a law is just or unjust, goes back thousands of years. In our modern society our youth are no longer taught such things. I wasn't taught such concepts in school. It is obvious that the powers that be don't want the public knowing such history. This should be taught in every basic civics class and everyone graduating high school should understand this power that the individual has to influence jurisprudence.
Why is this such an important practice? It's just another check on tyranny. In medieval Europe the word of the lord of the land the serf lived upon was the law. It didn't matter if it was unfair or not. It didn't matter how cruel or brutal the punishments were. It was likely during this period of time the common folk began to yearn for freedom. They began to understand just how dismal their fate was, how awful it was to subjected to the whims of one man. It was during the time when feudalism began to fade that mankind took its first small steps toward a freer society for all peoples after an era of great tyranny and oppression.
As humanity rose up and cast off the shackles of serfdom slapped on by the privileged landowners, one of the demands made was a more fair application of justice and law. Natural law is the law that is obvious and intuitive. It is the law that almost everyone knows and understands naturally. It is the law that tells us it is wrong to cause harm to another. It is wrong to aggress or initiate violence against one's fellow man. It is wrong to willfully cause damage to another's property. It is wrong to steal. It is wrong to commit fraud. It is wrong to infringe upon the rights of others. These are laws based on the morality of how we treat one another. These are laws that the common folk wish to see adjudicated. These are laws where when someone has wronged another, guilt needs to be determined and restitution made.
Manmade laws, however, are not so obvious and intuitive. They are prohibitions on behaviors that one might engage in but another might find problematic. They are also restrictions on how one does business with others. It is basically a set of rules that may make sense to a lot of people and seem fair, but often times at their core they tread upon the rights of individuals and give unfair advantage to the already privileged. They are often times designed to protect the already established. These laws are made up by the elite, by the ruling class, and they are often designed in a way to prevent the common folk from understanding their true meaning and nature.
Jury nullification is a counter measure to the abuse of manmade laws. It is a way for the common folk to voice their opposition to bad laws that are written by men. In this nation's history, jury nullification has helped end the prohibition of liquor and laws that would send runaway slaves back to their owners in the south. It could, if given a chance, help end other laws that create victimless crimes such as marijuana prohibition, The Patriot Act, Obamacare, and other recently passed legislation that helps funnel power away from average individuals to the ruling corporate political class.
The elite in control don't want such laws ended. They don't care what the peons in the lower or middle classes think. They want to collect their money. They want to collect their fines. They want to collect their lawyers' fees and court costs. They want to continue to fleece the average Joe while the established elite get wealthier. They want to keep you in the dark as to the real power you wield. This is why a judge would issue an order to silence those who would try to speak out at a venue where it matters most. They not only believe the common rabble are too stupid to judge whether a law is good or bad or fair or unjust, they believe you are too stupid to even learn or care why such matters are so important to maintaining your freedoms.
Yet while in Florida dissent is being quashed and freedoms threatened, there is still hope. In New Hampshire a new law is being proposed to make it mandatory for all judges to explain to jurors that it is their right and their duty to judge the law. That's more like the laws legislators should enact, mandating how government servants should behave rather than dictating to the masses where and how they can exercise their god given rights. So how is it that two states could be so diametrically opposed when it comes to the same legal issue? One way is based on the principles of the founders while the other is an attempt to establish authoritarian rule.
Those of you who read through this thinking I was just some jerk spouting off, there's your evidence that there's other people who think like I do. There are people who actually care about maintaining respect for the freedoms that the common folk have struggled for centuries to realize. It was individual freedom respected by government that gave rise to such prosperity in this nation. Such prosperity lifts all, the wealthy and the poor, to greater heights. It spurs more opportunity for more productiveness and prosperity. We should not allow such historical precedence for the foundations of free society to be so utterly disregarded by one thoughtless individual trying to maintain his grip on what he likely considers his fiefdom.
My archived articles are available at szandorblestman.com. Please visit there to help support me and my efforts. I also have an ebook available entitled "The Ouijiers" by Matthew Wayne.