You Have The Right To Remain Silent, But Not To Speak The Truth

When I was growing up, I was taught in school that the legal system treated everyone that they were innocent until proven guilty. I was taught that, if you hadn’t broken any laws, then you didn’t have anything to worry about from the police and the judicial system. I was taught that speaking the truth, even if unpopular, was a legal thing to do.

But, in Big Rapids, Michigan, all of this is wrong.

Here’s what happened: a former pastor stood outside of a courthouse and told the truth about the legal rights of jurors and what kind of power that they actually have. He was arrested and sentenced to prison time for doing this. John Vibes writes about it,

For those who don’t know, jury nullification is the right for any juror to not only judge the facts of the case but also to judge the validity of the law itself. If a jury feels that a defendant is facing an unjust charge, they have the right to rule in the defendant’s favor, even if they are technically guilty under the court’s standards.

Federal and individual state governments are terrified about this concept becoming mainstream as it could lead to radical change in regards to victimless ‘crimes.’

Wood wanted people to know about their rights on a jury so he printed out pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association and began passing them out at his local courthouse.

By the time he could hand out 50 fliers, court officials had Wood arrested. Wood was on a public sidewalk, which should have given him additional protection under free speech laws, but he was arrested anyway.

Wood was charged with a five-year felony for obstructing justice and a one-year misdemeanor for jury tampering. This week in court, Wood was found guilty on the obstruction of justice charge and sentenced to eight weekends in jail plus six months of probation and additional fines.

Now, in case you’re skeptical and are wondering if Wood was distributing information about the case being tried that day, the answer is that he wasn’t. It was general information about jury nullification which is legal but not talked about in the court system.

Jury nullification is the legacy given to the people by the founding fathers to fight back against an overbearing and oppressive government (without having to resort to full scale violent revolution). The police state wouldn’t want you to know that you can tell them that they’re wrong, would they?

I’m not going to suggest that most police officers are evil people. I don’t believe that. What I will tell you, though, is that they will tend to bring you in for violating laws that are invalid because that is what they are told to do to keep their jobs.

It’s not enough to know your rights. You have to know how to exercise them and make use of them, too.

 
 

  • MBounce

    Anyone that does not already understand that we already live in a police state, should read this article, three times. The Gestapo and the court enablers that back them up do not want you to know your rights. They certainly don’t want you to exercise them. Refuse to convict whenever your conscience tells you that the law or the way that it was “enforced” is wrong. NEVER let a judge tell you that, “You must convict if…”

    • Steve Bergin

      Go to Hillsdale College and take a free Constitution course America!

  • TS

    He was not a lawyer and a lawyer will not do this because the lawyer’s first obligation is to the court. A roundabout. Such argument is for final statement to the court and jury. Please note that the court gave leniency and did not impose sentence for more than a year. For a fee and in five years such sentence can be brought to the court for annulment.. LoL Best done with a lawyer. Make those of the court happier.

    • Rod

      Who gives a shit, he was telling the truth about the power of a jury. He was within his rights and stating the law even though the COURT didn’t like it. Piss on the court and the damn politicians.

  • Rod

    The GD judges making law, they aren’t legislators. Damn politicians don’t want anyone to rock their boats; punish them, kill them, lock them away. Things need to be changed, drastically if necessary. The damn courts don’t pay any attention to the law, they decide how the law will be interpreted. Our justice system needs to be wiped out and started over again.

  • Dave

    It’s not what you know but who you know yes it is gestapo rule look how are schools are run and all the stupid shit taught not what happened in history but what they want you to believe you just can’t drain the swamp you have to get rid of it

  • Estell Newton

    Glad I left Michigan years ago. You’d be shocked at some of the laws that exist there.

    • scout finch

      Michigan? Isn’t that the state that has so many Muslims that they are beginning to bow to Sharia Law? If so, they are even worse than GD California!

      • Estell Newton

        That’s what I heard.  They weren’t when I left but that’s been 10 years ago.  This world is going downhill in a speeding up spiral.  All the more to believe that Jesus is coming soon.  My guess, and that’s what it is, is that Trump will be our last president.  The liberals are going too far and unfortunately some states are following their philosophy.  Add that with what the Pope and the UN are doing it all points to this system ending very soon.

      • Alexander Constantopoulos

        Ah that would be Dearborn, MI. They do not speak or teach English there. They do not fly the American flag and I swore I was walking down the streets of Sana’a, Yemen.

        • scout finch

          That will be all of US if we don’t stand NOW. Already Sharia BS. And the NFL a-holes are turning kids against their country. Players should be influencing good things in our kids as they used to do instead of filling them full of hatred for the country that’s like no other on earth!

  • Terry Butts

    Remember this is in Michigan where in many places they have begun enforcing FOREIGN RELIGIOUS laws thus since Jury nullification is about refusing to convict someone UNJUSTLY based on unconstitutional laws, dictates, or regulations the politicians and judges who wish to use those to punish people for not obeying those unconstitutional laws, dictates, or regulations do not want people to understand their power when it comes to being on a jury.

  • Dexter L. Wilson

    As i have said many times and I continue to do so. Judges are not above the law and impeachment is legal. If a judge presents misconduct that is for breaking the law as in this case, they must be made to pay. Impeachment can be used against federal judges, and elected judges can be recalled. We are at the stage now where too many judges legislate from the bench and the only way to scare these judges into obeying the federal as well as Constitutional law is to recall elected judges and or impeachment federal judges and many legislators are refusing to follow the Constitution and they don’t need to see the light as President Reagan said they need to FEEL THE HEAT both the judges and your legislator.

    • Fredrick Rehders

      Dexter, I do not refute what you say, but make the following points; First, every citizen should know his rights. Police and officers of the court are sworn to uphold The Law, which may or may not be Constitutional. It is The Law, until struck down, upon appeal. I certainly agree with your paraphrasing of President Reagan, about feeling “The Heat”, but how many Judges do you know about, that have been Impeached, let alone removed from The Bench?

      • Dexter L. Wilson

        No the law is the Constitution, and not an oligarchy of 9 people. Your doctor is not God but if he acts like he thinks he is we can get another doctor, when a judge thinks he is God then you have to go to the fact that we have 3, count them 3 branches of government, each with the ability to exercise their authority and legislating from the bench ain’t one of them for a judge so from my perspective it is way past time for the legislature to use their authority over the judicial bench. Did you know that the legislature can pass a law that the Judge cannot adjudicate (they can really say, “you can’t touch this” to quote hammer time.)

        • Fredrick Rehders

          I prefaced my reply with, “I do not refute what you say”, Dexter! I asked only, that you consider my points. Now, please allow me to clarify. The legislature passes a law, either State or Federal and it gets signed into law. Said law gets contested in the appropriate court. It is my understanding, that the presiding judge/jury is obligated to determine if the plaintiff or defendant prevails, under the law, as written. Then the loser may appeal, by reason the statute is un-Constitutional and it goes to the appellate court and possibly the highest court, in the land, for final interpretation of Constitutionality. The Supreme Court, like it or not, has the final say on the Constitution. The only remedy we then have is A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! If I am not correct, please point out, exactly where, without a misdirected rant on “oligarchy”, unless you want to address the Not so Federal Reserve! FR

          • Dexter L. Wilson

            When you have 9 people who changed a Supreme Court Decision from 1854 concerning a letter by a president as being directed to not having a Church of England and then redefining the true intent, I call that misconduct The legislature in 1879 investigated that same concept laid out in the First Amendment and determined it did not say Separation of Church and state and a Supreme Court reverses what both a previous Supreme Court and the legislature said was correct. I call that misconduct and legislating from the bench. The law was laid out for layman and could not be misconstrued. Making up law as you go along is, YOU GUESSED IT, Misconduct. When you have two Supreme Court Justices who refuse to recuse themselves breaking 2 federal statutes to change time honored existing principles, I call that misconduct. When you have a Judge attempt change an existing Constitutional statute that President Obama used himself (temporary travel ban), I call that misconduct.

          • Fredrick Rehders

            Wow! Mr. Wilson, that post made me feel like Dennis The Menace! You obviously have a better grip on history, than I. I feel very foolish, with my elementary post, of how courts are suppose to work. I humbly defer, sir.

  • Dave from San Antonio

    Jury nullification is a jury’s right if they so determine. Our current legal system, at one point, recognized this, but…not today. Judges and lawyers are terrified of it and many will not even let the jury know about it. So many of our laws are ambiguous, or flawed to the point of absurdity that it may be difficult for an individual to even get a fair trial. There is the written law and then there is the spirit of the law that it was written under. I’ve served on several juries and in two of them I recommended jury nullification while we were in deliberations. When it was found out by the Court…I was promptly hauled before the judge and threatened with jail time. My response, in both instances, was to just ask if what I said violated any written law…and then asked for a lawyer. Nothing ever happened to me, but…I’ve never been called upon to serve on a jury, again, in the last ten years.

    • Alan404

      You likely won’t be either.

    • mustangsallyann

      I have a degree in C.J., and the first thing they told us in college was that we’d never get on any jury. The first time my number came up, they dismissed me immediately. The second time I made it to final selections and was the last peremptory challenge of the defense and they sent me packing. I’ve never been called on again. They don’t want anyone with any legal background for fear they can sway the others. Just another dirty way for the legal system to keep others ignorant of the law.

      • themancalledx

        They do not want police officers or their wives on juries either. All I said was that I was a retired officer, and the judge disqualified me. A couple of years before my wife was disqualified because I was an officer at that time.

  • Alan404

    Jury Nullification, eclipses of the sun or the moon, edicts from the court bench aside, it was and remains my understanding, correction if I’m in error here, that it is the jury that can acquit the defendant if it so chooses, “evidence” and judicial dictates aside. Once again, is my understanding incorrect? By the way, by virtue of exactly what power or authority was it that the authorities blocked a citizen from informing the general public encountered on the public street of the facts? Additionally, where did the authorities dig up, a jury so ignorant of it’s powers.

    • Fredrick Rehders

      Quite possible you are correct, regarding federal cases, Alan. State laws may vary. In Texas a jury must be unanimous to convict. If not, the prosecution may choose to re-try, if the majority of the jury found the defendant guilty. So a jury can acquit, or convict, but not an individual juror, the individual can only hang the jury, metaphorically speaking. Think O.J. Simpson and his California murder trial. Convicting a Muslim man in Dearborn, MI would not be a slam dunk, regardless of the damning evidence to convict.

      • Alan404

        I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that in criminal cases that are tried before a jury, the legal requirement for conviction is the entirety jury voting for a guilty verdict. Jury trials in civil matters might be different, however I was not speaking of civil actions, only criminal cases that are tried before a jury. I believe that the defendant can opt for a “bench trial” where the trial judge renders the verdict, rather than trial by jury. If you see error in my comments, give me a shout.

        • Fredrick Rehders

          No, I do not see an error in this statement, Alan and I was seeking clarification, with no intention of being argumentative. “Unanimous” = “the entire jury”. My point was; One juror cannot acquit! One dissenting juror can create a mistrial and the prosecutor has the option to retry, with a different jury, in Texas. I am not an attorney and really should know more about federal law, than I do, as all elected offices and all law enforcement officers in Texas, swear to the same oath, to uphold The Laws and Constitutions of both The State of Texas and The U.S.A. thus any mayor, sheriff or chief of police in Texas, that refuses to honor their oath to enforce federal law, including immigration and federal drug laws can and should be removed from office, at the very least. That is my opinion! A tad off topic, I know… but sanctuary cities should never have existed, here.

  • bob

    the police that enforced such an illegal warrant should be fired and charged. they took an oath to uphold the constitution and the bill of rights, not to blindly follow orders

  • Fred James

    Drain the swamp? To them we are the vermin in the swamp.