Man Found Guilty of Jury Tampering For Handing Out Pamphlets on Jury Nullification (Video)

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

justice court

In this News Shot, Joe discusses the case of Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, Michigan, who was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

This is bad news and sets a bad precedent for people fighting the injustices of our court system.

When you embark upon a road of seeking justice for those that can’t or won’t stand up for themselves, you subject yourself to constant attack as the darkness always tries to snuff out the light.

We need more light bearers to shine a light on this injustice!

Watch on YouTube

Source: Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL

Related Reading: Jury Nullification – Exercise Your Right to Fight Unfair Laws

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Joe Joseph of

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Czajk

    We’re doomed…

    • BR549

      Nah, that’s just Michigan; those judicial whack jobs are just trying to earn brownie points before moving to California. The next thing you know, they’ll be jailing people handing out fliers for reminding people that defendants are innocent until proven guilty.

      Michigan is Michael Moore’s planet, I believe; that would explain SO MUCH.

  • David E

    Fortunately, the fight for jury nullification is not all bad news even if it is in Michigan.
    In Kansas, the state Supreme Court is gradually inching closer to a just treatment of the issue. In 2014, in the case of State v Smith-Parker, the court disapproved the use of the word “must” or “will” or “shall” in the court’s instructions as “flying too close to the sun” and “going too far in the opposite direction” and essentially directing the jury’s verdict. They are still approving not telling the jury of their rights to acquit on their conscience, but they are acknowledging the jury’s lawful right to do so, but the use of these words instead of “should” obey the judge’s instructions or “should” convict is impermissible because it forecloses the jury’s prerogative to decide the case on their conscience.

    More or less, the Kansas Supreme Court is keeping the issue neutral, rather than lying about it or trying to overtly discourage the jury.

    That’s a step in the right direction.

  • FIJA has been fighting this fight for many decades without much support from those who it could benefit if it were to receive the support it deserves.

  • Phil_Ossifer

    And whether it is a right boot or a left boot makes precious little difference.

    • Irenerdavis

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !dp356c:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. Follow this link for more information
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs646DigitalPlusGetPaid$97/Hour ★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫★★★✫::::::!dp356c:….,….

  • Phil_Ossifer

    When someone is arrested he is read the Miranda warning (“You have the right to remain silent, etc.”). This is the result of a Supreme Court decision (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966). But U.S. courts have steadfastly refused to allow juries to be informed of their inherent right to nullify. Now, why is that, he asked rhetorically? Answer: POWER. No government is going to willingly cede any portion of its power to a bunch of (gasp!) ordinary citizens. This is why a grassroots campaign to inform citizens of their rights as jurors is so important because the government sure as hell isn’t going to tell you about them.

  • G’ma G

    He was convicted by a jury. The only rational explanation is that they shoot brain waves into the jurors heads that destroys any critical thinking cells.

  • Bruce David

    Figures this took place in MI-it is one of the moron capitals of the union and nullification is not illegal despite what these twits did to this man. I guess like so many other elements of freedom, one needs to be very discrete in order to exercise ones rights. Nullification dates back to the 1700s in this country and there are organizations which provide how-to information on how to go about using this-all it takes is one person who doesn’t agree with a law to ‘nullify’ a judges ruling. Always remember, just because something is a law doesn’t make it moral or ethical, otherwise we’d still have slavery. [do an internet search for jury nullification to find more information].

    • Ed Schrade

      Bruce… Years ago I was on a jury for a DWI case. The officers and highway patrol looked like keystone cops and the highway patrolman was arrogant and didn’t want to answer questions. The breathalyzer wasn’t working properly either. Upon deliberations we the jury voted innocent except 2 old women. We discussed the case over and over and the vote came out the same. Finally the 2 women that voted guilty admitted that they didn’t believe in drinking and he should go to jail for this reason. It was explained to these two that it’s not against the law to drink, just not drink and drive over the allowable limit. They would not change their vote and the out come was a hung jury. I wanted these 2 liars to go to jail because they lied about not having anything against drinking before jurors were selected. This is some of the problems with juries. Now if I think the law is wrong I will not convict on it. On one jury I was on we had someone with legal experience as jury foreman and she said it doesn’t matter what you think about the law this is not the place to try to change it. I said that this is EXACTLY the place to begin to change it. Rant over.

  • “…Most Constitutionalists favor the jury system, provided jury nullification (a juror’s right to judge a law as unjust, oppressive, or inapplicable to any particular case) is in force. However, even if jury nullification were restored, juries would still render decisions based upon each jury’s collective standard of morality or immorality. “A jury drawn from the [Biblically] uninstructed population is no better equipped to administer the just requirements of God’s law than a corrupt judge.”35 A jury awarded $2.3 million to Stella Liebeck when she burned herself with McDonald’s coffee, and a jury found O.J. Simpson innocent on all charges. Although it might be argued that it only takes one juror to dissent and prevent a “railroad job,” most people lack the independence and resolution to resist the will of a majority. More often than not, today’s jurors reflect the type of people we are warned against in Exodus 23:

    ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment.’ (Exodus 23:2)

    “Juries produce, at best, erratic justice. Without Yahweh’s law as the standard, jury decisions are based upon the capricious morality of its members. Nothing demonstrates this better than Jesus’ trial by a jury of His peers with Pontius Pilate presiding. The prevailing immorality of the day demanded Jesus be crucified even though He was clearly innocent….

    “The constitutional right of a trial by a jury of “impartial” peers is regarded by Americans – especially Christian Constitutionalists – as one of the last bulwarks against tyranny. If this is true, Yahweh (who is unquestionably a God of justice and liberty) would have included juries somewhere in His perfect law and righteous judgments. Surely, one of the reasons He did not provide for them is that juries (like elections) place government policy and juridical determinations in the hands of an unpredictable and unequally yoked public, the majority of whom are not Christian (Matthew 7:13)….”

    For more, see online Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    • David E

      You know, you’re not supposed to add anything to or take anything away from the scriptures. That would include making up Jesus’ jury trial.

      And even if he was tried by a jury, it would have been Yahweh’s will. Jesus himself let himself be led to slaughter when he could have called a legion of angels to defend him.

      I have faith plenty of us are well enough instructed in scripture to render just verdicts.

      Next up, you aren’t well versed enough in the facts of the cases you cite. McDonald’s did NOT merely serve ORDINARY hot coffee. They served coffee almost boiling well beyond the safety regulations in place knowingly and willfully. They did this so travelers would still have hot coffee down the road. You shouldn’t be subject to scalding burns from almost boiling coffee if you have an accident.

      The O.J. Simpson case had evidentiary problems and credibility problems with its chief witness. If you want to be upset with someone, be up[set at Mark Fuhrman who lied on the stand and got caught. Doesn’t Yahweh’s law say something about false witness?

      Finally, scripture mandates that a Christian subject himself to authority, which in our country under rule of law, is the Constitution.

      You sound like a wolf in sheep’s clothing to me.

      “For my people perish for lack of knowledge.”

      Take your lies back to your father, the father of lies.

  • Trust No One

    There is too much missing from this pod cast to make an intelligent judgement.

    What is left out is the judges testimony. And that of the cop.

    The pod cast established the defendant was inside the courthouse.
    And that Potential Jurors had the pamphlet.
    It only quotes the DEFENDANT’s statement that he only entered because he was ordered to.

    What was the testimony of the police officer who allegedly told him to come into the courthouse?


    Was he handing out the pamphlets on the street, or inside the Courthouse? Methinks that would weigh heavily in deciding intent.

  • Synickel