Answer to God, Official Tells Potential Jurors

FauxNews.com

GOLDEN, Colo. — A county treasurer is handing out booklets to potential jurors saying they are answerable "only to God almighty" and not to the law when it comes to deliberations.

snip

Jefferson County Treasurer Mark Paschall (search), a former state lawmaker known for his anti-abortion and pro-gun views, said the booklets are "my personal gift to the people." He said the booklets, many stamped with his name and elected title, were bought with $500 to $600 of his money and that of two political allies who work in the treasurer's office.

snip

You are above the law!" the booklet says. "As a juror in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to God almighty."

snip (Here's my favorite)

While the conservative concept is relatively new, juries have always in effect practiced nullification from time to time. Juries refused to convict people who harbored runaway slaves before the Civil War, sold alcohol during Prohibition or resisted the draft during the Vietnam War.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98816,00.html

Do you answer to dog?

<woof>

A county official is telling a jury to ignore the law?? He's trying to influence the way the jury makes its decision - isn't that jury tampering? Isn't that illegal?

Come on boys and girls, let's spell it together: M-I-S-T-R-I-A-L

home of the Coors Nazi Dynasty

And we're trying to get rid of Coors. They claim to use the pure spring water. Truth is, they use contaminated water, and EPA has cited them numerous of times, but continually ignored.

Hawkeye-X

For eating shrimp. And adultery, with death sentences. And any withches or wizards will be in big trouble.

It's little known that a jury can rule supreme in a court of law and can and may rule contrary to the law and/or the instructions of the judge. No "officer of the court" will inform a jury of this, though.

They "can" do it, and the state has no recourse, since there is no appeal from an acquittal. However, I'm not aware of any jurisdiction that does not swear jurors to follow the instructions of the judge on the law, and apply it to the facts as the jury determines them.

IMHO, this is a HUGE separation of church and state issue, even beyond the "jury nullification" issue. A court official telling people they are answerable only to God, not the law as it is given them or the public that stands behind that law, seems to me to pole vault over that line, particularly where he is handing out the pamphlets on government time, with his name listed over his government title. Regardless of who paid for the printing, the pamphlets carry his imprimatur of authority.

Not sure if that's totally right, but it's a cornerstone of the beliefs of the "ruby-ridgers" and Christian Identity.

I've seen the pamphlets. they tell you that you, as a juror, have a moral obligation to judge the law as well as the case before you, and if you find that the law is improper, or against "natural law" (like somebody being RICO'd for protesting "abortion clinics") then it's your DUTY to aquit, because it's a "bad" law.

And don't expect the judge to tell you that you can do this, because the flag behind his bench has a gold fringe, thus making it an "Admiralty flag", the symbol of Martial Law, which what's actually practiced in US courtrooms, and....

Need I go on?

the right of jury nullification has been upheld by the supreme
court, and while the concept might be "preached" by the
"ruby-ridgers" and Christian Identity movements, it is also
a core part of the "balances" of our justice system.

While some of the posters below seem to be aghast at the
concept, think for a minute about the possibility of mass
arrests of protesters in the future under some "patriot* act provision". Say the law is unpopular, the gov't feels under attack,
etc. They charge everybody w/ a "Felony Protesting" or something like that...

Then the juries just start acquitting everyone.

This concept is not a bad one. As I said, it is actually one of our
few real tools against an over-reaching gov't . peace.

AS far as I can see, he has no authority to distribute this propaganda to jurors. Any lawyer peading cases in that court should demand a mistrial.

He should be found in contempt of court and put in jail.

In addition, the material should be confiscated and burned.

He should be found in contempt of court and put in jail.

In addition, the material should be confiscated and burned.


On the issue of nullification... if the law is wrong then the jurors should make that ruling.

How many laws are there that are improper, illegal or not needed?

Just as how many times have State Supreme Courts and U.S. Supreme Courts made the wrong ruling?

Isn't making a decision according to the law exactly the proper function of a jury??

Apparently not in Jefferson Davis county Colorado :eyes:

Hey, you never know. This cat might be promoting jury nullification in protest of the inhumanely long mandatory sentences for marijuana possession.

....Gosh we're really impressed down here I can tell you...fogive us Oh Lord for this our dreadful toting....and well...You're just so Super...Amen! :evilgrin:

the minute it came out, I see. (Like I did)

Did you watch the extras regarding school choice? The first part is about a sex-ed school, but the second is for "The Halliburton Business School" featuring Dean Ken Enron Cheney, and praises their instruction on "essential corporate skills" like being present for important decisions, but uninformed enough to avoid conviction. Hilarious!

....on it but....now...I...must....have...the new one...just from hearing THAT snippet of extras....gotta have the NEW STUFF too!! :D


The Meaning of Life...is my most favorite comedy..OF ALL TIME!!:evilgrin:

They have a "virtual reunion", commentary by Jones and Gilliam (not as funny as you'd think, but interesting), and 30+ minutes of "What Fish Think" - literally fish swimming in a tank with the guys providing dialogue like "ooh, I love turning around, it's the best!"

Also a "Director's Cut" with a couple of additional scenes including a short on Martin Luther presented in "Reformoscope"

Well worth the price

Similar pamphleting has been done around plenty of county courthouses for quite some time, the idea of nullification itself is not news. Technically, if a jury acquits, the state has little recourse even if the DA presented the case flawlessly. The jury is nominally made of "peers" from the surrounding community, so if a law is considered ridiculous by the overwhelming majority there, it may be nearly impossible to get a conviction.

Of course, it is the duty of the judge to tell jurors that they can only consider the case, not the law. But I'd hate to be a DA trying to convict Eric Rudolph in Murphy, NC, where he was caught. Even extradicted to Birmingham, he may get a lot of cause sympathy from a local jury.

If I'm a juror, I'm answerable only to myself, so far as my voting on a verdict goes. That's always been true.

But the County Treasurer is not above the law -- he has no right to use his position to further a religious end. Does he use his position to get access to jurors? He already misuses his position in his placing of his elected office in the books.

would refer to "the conservative concept" of jury nullification as being "relatively new" (see the Zinger case of American pre-revolutionary, colonial times). Clearly, a petit jury in a criminal trial has the *power* to exercise nullification, but does it have the *right* to do so? And, if so, when does it have the *obligation* to do so? Judges in American practice seek to reserve to themselves the implied power(?!) to declare otherwise valid laws *generally* unconstitutional, and they jealously guard the court's legal right(?!) to void legislation. They can and do punish lawyers or declare mistrials when the power of jury nullification is mentioned to the jury. Also, judges have denigrated the legitimacy of nullification when they have castigated jurors for the act of nullification. Learned hands (pun --but no disrespect-- intended) may attempt to script procedure until the jury box draws division between justice and law and tell the jury that it's a trier of facts rather than law, yet in the selection of a jury we see the incorporation of a ruling majesty --not merely parallel to or co-existent with the authority of the government-- distinctly beyond and above the competency of the governors: the multi-member personification of popular sovereignty. Statutory law may not contradict the constitutionally-recognized right of this free and independent entity to work its will within its legitimate realm of responsibility, which includes the righteous duty to fulfill its ultimate obligation: the *specific* repudiation of tyranny. Through the jury system, "We, the people" exercise our inherent --some would say God-given-- right to responsibly defend ourselves *as only "We" can*. I may not agree with the tactics or presumptions of the official in Colorado, but in these days when even US citizens are held by government *power* without the *right* of a (speedy) jury trial, I am *obliged* to defend a jury's 'divine right' to tell The State to go to the Devil. Before a sacred oath is administered to the jurors, they should be read their rights, too.

dammit

Some news stories should come with their own laugh-track!