nhjury.com how you can help

[Free libertarian]

John, I understand. 

Jacobus, many thanks, that was a very generous donation. 

We're very appreciative of every donation, soon NHJury.com signs will start popping up!

[Free libertarian]

Recently a letter to the editor concerning Jury nullification was published in the Concord Monitor 1/24.   Today the same letter was published by the Nashua Telegraph.  They maintain the ability to post comments at their site should anyone wish to post supporting commentary that might be read by the general public.

Several other of the larger Newspapers in NH have received the same letter, but have yet to publish.   

Now I will use my ESP to reveal what you the reader are thinking... "Hey why should I let those guys at NHJury.com have all the fun!  I'm gonna write a letter to the editor(s) 'bout jury nullification too!"    C'mon you know you were thinking that !   

[John]

On 1/27/11  at 11:00 am in Concord, LOB Room 208  there is a public hearing on HB-146.

I'll be holding my nose as I enter the place where laws are made, but I AM going to support passage of this bill.  If there was ever a time that a bill was designed for government to lose power and that of the individual to gain it, this is it.

If this bill passes judges MUST allow jury nullification arguments in "their" courtroom. 

I hope to see you there. Bring your own clothespin.

Anyone else going?
I'm probably going to make it.

[Free libertarian]

We'll see you there John.   

I believe 2 of the instigators from NHJury.com will be there, arriving separately without any video capabiity, both coming from locations outside of Free Grafton, so the carpool thing won't work at least for them.   

If you have a video camera and are willing to bring it, that would be a good thing.  Or if anybody else can bring one that would be much appreciated. 

REMINDER - TODAY 1/27  AT 11:00 AM   HEARING FOR THE JURY NULLIFICATION BILL  HB-146
CONCORD LOB ROOM 208   

[John]

Thanks to everyone who came out and did this part today. If I had checked my phone messages this morning we would have had one more. Sorry about that!

I am happy top report that the Civil Liberties Union has moved at least a little bit in our direction. They did not outright oppose this time but, instead offered an idea for a possible amendment ...

I was happy to hear that more and more people are beginning to use the word "responsibility" when explaining about jurors judging the law. I have been strongly expressing that for a number of years.

I think I did an OK job addressing the "one singal  juror" concern (which was asked of others), and the "things were different back when the king made all the rules" argument (which was used by the one guy - from the supreme court - who is completely against us.) Both of these come up over and over again. I'm kind of surprised that some still don't seem to have good answers to these.

I notice a few on the committee seemed to get a little  bit of a kick out of it when I (somewhat casually) referred to  "when Thomas Jefferson - and the guys - drafted the Declaration."

I think that I made my point most clearly and got their attention when I said that if we are not going to let jurors do what juries were designed to do then, "Let's stop pretending, and then maybe we should just set the juries aside ..."

I hope others will tell their stories here also.

[Free libertarian]

Thanks John.   

Rich gave testimony which focused alot on the fact that many cases are usually the defendant vs the state.  A defendant being prosecuted by an employee of the state, in front of a judge employed by the state, represented by a lawyer or public defender beholden and approved by the state and in front of hand picked state approved jurors.  He effectively got his point across that it's pretty much a STATE party against a lone defender.

My testimony focused on deflating the argument from an anonymous lawyer henchman sent from the NH Supreme Court to suggest that jury nullification isn't a right and the rest of his testimony which was pretty much...well er um we don't really need it anyway yada yada yada. 

I gave quotes from 3 former Supreme Court Judges affirming that  jury nullification IS a right, jurors CAN and should judge both the fact and the law.  Trumped the State guy with old dead white guy quotes from the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Also I mentioned since it clearly IS a right, the only question before the legislators is, will we continue to allow this right to be hidden from jurors on the arbitrary whim of a judge or will we make it known as it should be?  I also used some political judo and quoted the right of conscience from the NH Constituion.  Love that political judo.   

Okay I did my time in Concord...I used their magical incantations and wore a clean shirt.  How can they NOT pass this bill? I used their magical incantations! 

[Lloyd Danforth]

Kudos to you all!

[MikeforLiberty]

Good work folks! Sorry I couldn't stay for the whole show. And damn good turn out for a hearing 80% pro-Liberty?

[Free libertarian]

Good to see you there Laconia.   I think the only one opposing was the serpent tongued lawyer that spoke. I'd say he was outnumbered by about 14 or 15 to 1 yesterday.

Last year the room was packed with alot more people for the bill, maybe 30 or so and  there were  about 3 statists that spoke against it, a judge, a state attorney and some other anonymous hench lady.

I remember Rich mentioning then as  he did yesterday, the only people that ever oppose this bill are those state employees seeking to cling to their power.  He questioned why they should even be there testifying as it represnts a conflict of interest etc.   

The bottom line is we uttered the magic words, we smiled and curtsied in front of our representatives, now we see if they throw us some bread crumbs or pat us on the head and say run along.   That's how they make the sausage.  It's an offal process.   
 

[MikeforLiberty]

just making a mental note here. The forked tongued serpent slipped a clue. I hear this has been a biennial issue; can only be brought up every other year. If it were to fail this year and could not be brought next year, he mentioned a conflict with another existing 'law' (I think a current mandated jury instruction), we could look at changing that jury instruction next year.

Of course, next year sucks for those with a state boot upon their neck this year

[Free libertarian]

Laconia, thanks for the reminder.  I caught that too.   I will dig around and find a way to deflate the alarmist serpent's allegations that if the jury nullification bill passes it will conflict with other laws or the jurors oath.  Well maybe they ought to change the jurors oath!  His bag of tricks has a hole in it, let's make it bigger. 

Both the jurors oath and the instructions the jurors get from the judge before they go to deliberate (wentworth instructions) are slanted and intentionally taylored to keep jurors eyes focused on "facts" and "the law", no need for morality to enter the equation .   It is a purposeful sleight of hand, it keeps their conviction batting average high.

Anyone know where I can find a copy of the Wentworth instructions?  I have printed a copy of the jurors oath which I pulled from a state website and have already started to attack that with my yellow hi-liter. 

[MTPorcupine3]

and some other anonymous hench lady.

That other anonymous hench lady was representing the NH ACLU. Her argument was that although she supports jury nullification, she opposed the bill as written because it would force the judges to be told how to run their courts.

This year, rather than oppose the bill, she suggested amending it so that the prosecuting team has a chance to rebut. One more thing that makes you wonder whose side the ACLU is on. This year, her position was an improvement.

[John]

Her argument was that although she supports jury nullification, she opposed the bill as written because it would force the judges to be told how to run their courts.

When she mentioned this again yesterday, I made a note: "Amendment, Civil Liberties Union, Mass."

I was considering bringing to the attention of the committee the possibility that she/the ACLU may have been mistakenly thinking of the Massachusetts Constitution, because it is there that the legislature is forbidden by their constitution to do such things - Not here in New Hampshire.

But I though it was better to just tell the committee that I appreciate and compliment the ACLU for moving in the right direction on this issue.

Also, I noticed that she spent most of her time there talking with the lawyer's lawyer from the supreme court.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Networking

[Free libertarian]

Potential disturbing news.  It appears from a thread over at the NHLA forum that the bill to permit the defendant / counsel to inform the jurors of the right to nullify may have been ITLed (inexpedient to legislate) .  If anybody  has more info. please post it.

All the more reason for activists to take the ball and run with it. I appreciate the efforts of the  "in the system activists" re: this bill, but waiting for government to correct itself can take a long time and yield very little.  <takes off Capt. Obvious hat>

...so don't all rush the gate to signup for distributing pamphlets, but there are still plenty of opportunities to help out in other ways...http://nhjury.com/