The controversy over jury nullification reduces to a simple trade-off:
The risk of local tyranny of the majority vs the risk of global tyranny of all kinds.
No humane and sane person would choose the later risk over the former.
No one is truly sovereign without the rightful power to grant amnesty. The most direct expression of a sovereign people is their rightful power to grant amnesty in jury nullification. The systematic and systemic attacks on jury nullification are acts of treason against the sovereignty of the people. The traitors responsible for these attacks should be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced in order to restore the institution of jury nullification as the penultimate palladium of liberty before it becomes necessary for the sovereign people to take up arms against the de facto government.
The program for overcoming intransigence toward this reform in a timely manner cannot rely on politics, as the de facto government has neutralized the political process. Nor can it rely on the de facto government’s courts, as they — particularly the Supreme Court — have organized the attack on jury nullification. Nor is State nullification a remedy as these same courts have arrogated to the Federal government unconsititutional powers so great as to render State nullification impotent. This particular failure-mode of the Republic was forewarned during its formation. Specifically the tendency of the Federal courts to arrogate power to the Federal government was seen as counter-balanced by State nullification. This failure mode has now been realized. State nullification is rendered impractical by the bias in revenue and authority in favor of the Federal government. States are de facto agents of the de facto Federal goverment.
The remnant of the institution of jury nullification still retains enough power to remediate the de facto courts’ treason against the people. Therefore the program for overcoming intransigence toward reinstituting jury nullification in a timely manner is to utilize what is left of jury nullification, itself.
Let us herewith establish an internet-based sovereign people’s jury consisting of no less than 1,000 identified (verified as registered voters) citizens wielding openly published, revocable proxies on specific resolutions, indictments, judgments and sentences.
No calls for specific action are permitted but formal calls for jury nullification of the following form:
“It is the decision of this sovereign people’s jury that all patriots vote not guilty on any count of indictment, in a trial held in the de facto government’s courts on which they sit as a juror, if the indictment is that the accused is guilty of carrying out the sentence of this sovereign people’s jury, which is hereby declared to be that…. Patriots have a duty to use any means necessary to seat themselves on the de facto government’s juries in such cases.”
In such a program, there will be 4 classes of actors:
- Those sitting on the sovereign people’s jury.
- Those spreading the word about the sovereign people’s jury.
- Those who manage to get onto the juries of the de facto government’s treasonous courts.
- Those who carry out acts that end up in the de facto government’s treasonous courts.
Classes 2 and 3 are available to people who have children or for whatever reason are unable to bear the burden of risking prosecution. Class 1 is available primarily to single men who are not disposed to other forms of action. Class 4 is, in part, drawn from the ever-increasing (due to ongoing de facto government treason) population of single men who are otherwise more likely to act injudiciously and trigger martial law, thence bloody revolution as the ultimate “palladium of liberty” within the second amendment.
The need for at least 1,000 members of the Sovereign People’s Jury prior to any action is to ensure that any action taken against the Sovereign People’s Jury results in sufficient public awareness of Jury Nullification that it will be difficult to exclude from the de facto government’s courts at least one juror who understands the techniques of penetrating the treasonous government’s jury selection process.
Since the problem is that the risk of Federal tyranny has been realized as a consequence of attacks on both State and jury nullification, the sovereign people’s jury must consist of those from around the country who have a history of loyalty the the sovereign people and who are willing to put their names forward, publicly, for this purpose. This large and geographically diverse jury necessitates the aforementioned, internet-based open proxy system — open so that it is publicly auditable at all times. This will expose those sitting on the sovereign people’s jury to attacks from the enemies of the sovereign people, but that is necessary for garnering the sovereign people’s trust in its verdicts. As a large number of jurors sit, unanimity must be approximated. A reasonable approximation of unanimity would be 12 parts in 13 of those whose votes, or proxies are, present (voting either yea or nay).
As the First Amendment is still largely functional, this call for specific action is defensible, even when carrying out the sentence may violate the de facto government’s arrogance.
All members of the sovereign people’s jury must formally and publicly report to the “authorities” of the de facto government any and all attempts to discuss with or suggest to them plans for carrying out sentences when those would entail “illegal” activity as defined by the de facto government.
Presently, the treasonous courts will prosecute attorneys for reminding juries of their duty, as sovereign individuals sitting as jurors, to nullify injustice in the case before them. But what happens when the case before them is about, precisely, jury nullification? The treasonous courts can bar from “the facts of the case” obviously relevant information such as the case for jury nullification. In so doing, they will be providing a conspicuous example of the tyrannical behavior of the government toward the sovereignty of the people. Moreover, the number of people that must be indicted under such a prosecution would be so large — numbering at the very least in the thousands — that it will be very difficult to contain news about the conspicuous treason of the judge sitting for the case.
The treasonous courts will have a hard time keeping from its carefully-selected jurors, who are deciding “only the facts of the case”, the facts of jury nullification.
In that case, the inescapable judgement call between risking localized tyranny of the majority vs risking globalized tyranny all kinds may be presented, not only to the jury of the de facto government’s courts, but to the sovereign people themselves.
The sovereign people, then, ruling in favor of their own local rightful powers and duties, and doing so within the de facto government’s own courts, the sovereignty of the people might be reasserted peacefully, thereby avoiding the chaos of bloody revolution — the ultimate palladium of liberty embodied in the Second Amendment.
There is a lot of work to be done for this program to be workable but this work is tractable, unlike the work demanded by the treasonous electoral and judicial processes.
The two primary tractable problems to be solved are:
1) Develop software (donations will help expedite this) that realizes the potential of an open proxy system, as outlined in the aforelinked demonstration. Among the sub-problems to be solved are security measures to ensure the authenticity of votes and proxies in a timely manner — possibly involving repurposing recent innovations in cryptographic currency systems.
2) Develop a method of identifying registered voters who have a history of resisting treason against the people’s sovereignty so that they can be invited to sit on the sovereign people’s jury.
Contact James Bowery if you can contribute at this stage.
