I'm Just Sayin'

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question."

Ayn Rand...

Do judges lie? Specifically...do judges lie to jury members when the judges give their "charge" (instructions) to the members of a jury in a court of law? What do you think? Judges do lie....let me explain.

At the beginning of each trial by jury, the presiding judge instructs the jury as to their obligations and the rules of  jury trial. The charge is usually a little lengthy but will include the following although the wording may differ:

        "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury: At this point in the trial, I am required to inform you as to the law governing this case to guide you in your deliberations. This statement by the Judge as to the law of the case is known as a Charge; it is also called instructions.

        It is my duty to preside over the trial and to determine what testimony and evidence is relevant under the law for your consideration. It is also my duty at the end of the trial to instruct you on the law applicable to the case.

        You, as jurors, are to decide the facts. But in determining what actually happened in this case -- that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts -- it is your sworn duty to follow the law that I am now in the process of defining for you.

        You must not change the law or apply your own idea of what you think the law should be. Both you and I are bound by the law as stated in this charge.

        You are not to single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the instructions as a whole. Neither are you to be concerned with the wisdom of any rule of law stated by me. Regardless of any opinion you may have as to what the law is or ought to be, it would be a violation of your sworn duty to base a verdict upon any view of the law other than that given in the instructions of the Court, just as it would be a violation of your sworn duty, as finders of the facts, to base a verdict upon anything other than the evidence in the case."

The juries are triers of fact...or so they are told.

But, what if the jury does not agree with the charges against the defendant? What if the jury does not agree that the charges are fair or appropriate or "just" as applied in the trial in which they sit? What if the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charges levied against him but the jury thinks the circumstances of the infraction of the law by the defendant are such that the law has been applied unfairly? Remember...the judge has instructed that only the law can be considered. THE JURY CAN STILL ACQUIT!

This concept...one of NOT applying the law in a specific case, is called jury nullification. The jury can decide that the law is unfair as applied IN THIS ONE CASE and ignore the law and find the defendant "not guilty". If repeated cases using the same law also result in a not guilty finding, the law may be later challenged as not effective or not enforceable.

This Jury Nullification is a safety check that helps to insure that unfair or biased laws cannot be successfully applied by  those who have passed a law that suits a particular point of view or effort.  For instance, a law could be passed in an area in which the majority of it's residents believe that owning a dog should not be legal and therefore a law banning dog ownership is written.
See this article: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Here is where insult to injury is blatantly demonstrated. THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY CAN NOT "INFORM" THE JURY OF THIS RIGHT OF NULLIFICATION. He would face charges of contempt of court if he brings up or even hints to the jury that they have this right. The most vocal and the largest group whose purpose if to spread the word about jury nullification is the "Fully Informed Jury Association".   http://www.fija.org/

Every American should be aware of the right of jury nullification. Please help spread the word. Tell others and help protect our Constitution.

OK...here we are...Obama has given one hell of a speech and everyone has reacted in some fashion...almost everyone. Lots of folks think he delivered one of the best speeches in history, others think he just blew hot air and fanned the flames of racial strife. Some have come to think more of Obama's stature as a leader..and others less. He has been criticized for speaking up and criticized for saying too little.

 One thing is certain and cannot be disputed. He has incited interest in this election...and action. Voter turnout in the primaries has been at record levels. People who have, in past elections, stood by passively, have become interested...and some actually involved this time around.

Consider this question..how would the election of Obama sit with the rest of the world? On pure... initial reception...how would the rest of the world react to the election of Obama? Of course you say...EVERYBODY will figure Obama will be an improvement over noodle headed Bush. But from a realistic standpoint...would  the world give Obama a fair start?

I guess the place to start here is a brief outline of the history if the ACLU. In 1920, Crystal Eastman and Roger Baldwin founded the ACLU. Today the ACLU reports a membership of over 500,000 and it's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the constitution and laws of the United States." The ACLU is a marvel of organized efficiency. In order to focus upon important local issues, this organization bases it's headquarters in New York City but has 53 locally based operating agencies or affiliates, each with it's own board of directors and staff. Each of these affiliate offices is registered as separate 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) entities.  This allows tremendous flexibility with respect to responding to very local situations and the need for help or council. It also is beneficial with respect to the educational efforts of the ACLU as they are able to better target these efforts. The ACLU operates as the ACLU Foundation which focuses on litigation and policy distribution and education and as the American Civil Liberties Union which, because it's effort is geared toward legislative lobbying, does not have tax exempt status. Most of the funding for the ACLU and the ACLU Foundation comes from private donations...about 87%. Other sources of income include awards of legal fees from litigation, royalty income, the sale of literature and from investment income. It also receives funding from certain foundations.

Most of us are familiar with at least some of the efforts and court cases in which the ACLU has been a part.  And most of us have cheered a cause or effort the ACLU has taken on ... and I'm sure, cussed a few also. From this point forward this article will be riddled with my personal opinions. I will be biased and unabashedly so. The comment feature of this blog site allows for rebuttal and I encourage it's use.

The ACLU is the watchdog for rational thought and logical application of equal opportunities and Constitutional guarantees. Rational and logical are key words here. Most of the decisions we make are best considered without or in the absence of emotion and that is why many of the efforts of the ACLU meet with so much controversy. Briefly, here are the major positions of the ACLU:

Religious liberty...meaning that the protection of the first amendment is of paramount importance to the continued freedom of the  choice of worship or non worship we own. Most of us are in support of this effort, however there are some who have made a mission of insisting that superior insight gives them permission to insist that all are subject to the moral judgements of their interpretation of their god's laws. This group of people hates the ACLU.

The separation of church and state......In order to allow for religious freedoms for all, no state agency must be influenced by any of the various religious entities. Again, most of us subscribe to this policy, but there are some who want their religion to be part of the government. This group of people hates the ACLU.

Full freedom of speech and the press...we all are allowed to speak our minds. Dissent is even protected when it is directed against the government. Some think that they alone are specially qualified to think for the rest of us. This group of people hates the ACLU.

Abolishment of capitol punishment....this is one of the most debated topics the ALCU has addressed. Opinion is all over the map on this one and each side has valid points....proponents of the policy of capital punishment frequently hate the ACLU.

Reproductive rights or the right to use contraceptives AND the right to have an abortion.  This is bigger than the capitol punishment issue. Another reason for some..a bunch of people, to hate the ACLU.

Full civil rights for  lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans gender people, including government benefits for same-sex couples equal to those provided for heterosexual ones. Narrow minded, often the morally anointed and thus morally superior hate the ACLU because of this stance.

Affirmative action as a means by which racially diverse student body can be established. Hey...I hate the ACLU for this one!!! 

The rights of defendants and suspects against unconstitutional practices....almost all of us are afraid of a run away police state and abusive police powers..few hate the ACLU because of this ACLU effort.

The decimalization of drugs...pot, heroin, opium, coke...all that stuff... I could really get going on this one. The war on drugs..ie.. the war against the rights of any of us to destroy ourselves if we wish is a hot topic and one of the most flagrant violations of logic and reason we have ever been a part. But still, many hate the ACLU because of this effort.

The protection of privacy...this has become a lightening rod of support for the ACLU as the current administration has violated the monkey shit out of this one.  Some hate the ACLU for this one, but they are probably a part of the very small percentage of Americans who think Bush is doing a good job. This dwindling number includes mostly delusional, brain dead and morally corrupt members of our society.

Immigrants' rights...this topic of concern is, in my opinion, given the least consideration and careful thought by most Americans. It's a complex issue, but one that is tainted with a high level of emotional distortion. Some of us hate the ACLU because of this support of immigrants' rights, but I think those have not REALLY considered the complete issue and the facts of this policy.

Gun control...the ACLU has basically declared itself to be neutral on this issue!  The ACLU has determined that the Second Amendment is not an individual guarantee to keep and bear arms and they have stepped aside in order to encourage each individual STATE to determine how much freedom of protection should be allowed the residents of each state.  Hey...I hate the ACLU for this one too...well I hate this policy of the ACLU's.

The above outline of the ACLU's positions was taken, mostly from wikipedia. It's just a general outline of these positions and is not complete with regards to all of the activities of the ACLU.  

There are many organizations who have dedicated themselves to the opposition of the ACLU....like this one: www.stoptheaclu.com . This is amazing. Rather than take separate issue with the ACLU depending on the topic at hand, these people are at complete  odds with the ACLU...this is a quote from one of the letters posted on their website, "If you are a faithful Stop the ACLU reader, you know full well that we do all we can to expose the ACLU and its affinity for the unnatural and perverse".  Do what???

The application of reason and logic to the decisions we make as we determine our parameters of freedom cannot be allowed by those who have narrow minded, bigoted beliefs. My effort as I write this article, is to encourage the unbiased consideration of all the facts and ramifications of each topic we address rather than the blanket dismissal of one of the most valuable groups of Constitution protectors we have. "If the rights of society's most vulnerable are denied, everybody's rights are imperiled."

Even when the ACLU is protecting the rights of someone we consider to be the worst of the worst...we can only support their effort and we must realize  that the overall concept and protocol is more important than the specific individual the ACLU protects. Actually there is really no such thing as specific protection...the protection is one of the protection of an ideal....in the broad sense. Just as the trial defense of a known child molester has to be vigorous and complete, we must allow for concept of presumed innocence. Our legal system would collapse otherwise.

I am of the opinion that the ACLU is one of the most important organizations  in existence. I don't agree with everything they do...no one does. But the thing to take into close consideration is that we are being protected by the ACLU...all of us.  

Hey what's up with Huck? I mean...why is Mike Huckabee staying in the Republican primary when he has absolutely no chance of gaining enough delegates to win the nomination? (Hint...Huckabee believes in miracles). When asked why he is hanging in there...his reply is, "I hate to leave the courtroom until the verdict's in". Wow...do you think he is delusional? Well of course he is, but I'm referring to being delusional about his chances of winning the nomination.

I have a theory. OK...maybe not a totally original theory, but  let's not nitpick. Huckabee thinks there is a chance that McCain will drop dead. It's as simple as that. McCain is getting on up there and with that temper and all... he could just drop dead of a heart attack or stroke. High blood pressure IS the silent killer. Especially if he keeps pissin' the conservatives off. They have connections you know. I'm not really sure how the process would proceed if Mac does kick the bucket. Surely this has been considered and there are rules in place.

There is another possibility. What if...what if with all the dirt digging that's going on...you know, the digging for trash against McCain that is underway...what if somebody finds something really bad. Really, really bad... illegal and he is indicted for a felony? The Republicans can't run a candidate for the presidency who is under indictment. Can they? What if he is elected anyway and then sent to prison? You see, by hanging in there, Huckabee stands to be next in line if something goes really wrong for McCain.

The kicker is this. Huck can then claim that whatever happens to McCain is God's will.

I can't prove any of this. Hell, that's what conspiracy theories are...unprovable speculations. And there have been other hangers on like Huck. Jerry Brown did it, so did Howard Dean, Bill Bradley, George H W Bush and Ronald Reagan...and others. Were they all secretly waiting for something to happen to their opponents? I'm just sayin'.