What Police State? Father of 8 Sentenced to Jail for Distributing Jury Nullification Pamphlets

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

jury nullification

Image: WZZM13/Twitter.

A former pastor from Michigan discovered the hard way informing people of their rights under the law as jurors doesn’t sit well with the U.S. government when a judge sentenced him Friday to eight weekends in jail, six months of probation, and fines — all for passing out pamphlets discussing jury nullification.

Keith Wood contends passing out the information is well within his constitutional rights to inform potential and selected jurors that, enshrined in the Bill of Rights lies the potent ability to find a defendant not guilty if the law in question is unjust, flawed, or otherwise untenable — even if the accused indeed technically violated.

Jury nullification thus arguably acts as citizens’ access to checks and balances: When legislators craft worthless, harmful, inequitable, or just plain ‘bad’ laws, jurors can, in essence, refuse to enforce any punitive measures — refusing to find a person guilty of breaking a law that never should have been inked into the books.

This tool shines most prominently when used consistently to thwart oppressive policy. Illustrative of this principle is continued federal prohibition of cannabis and transformed public sentiment, as anti-marijuana propaganda falls apart at its politicized roots for the incarceration nightmare it created — among many others. Jurors faced with a choice in guilt of sending a nonviolent drug offender to prison might instead find the concept of incarcerating this petty ‘criminal’ who had done no harm to another unethical and ill-conceived — and choose instead a finding of not guilty to compensate for the unjust law.

But most judges refuse to or have strict rules against informing jurors about the little-known nullification right; so, Wood’s education activism, handing out pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA), entitled “Your Jury Rights: True or False?” in front of the court in Big Rapids, led to a verdict of guilty for attempting to influence a jury in Mecosta County.

Initially, Wood had been charged with a felony — which was dropped last March — for obstructing justice, and a misdemeanor jury tampering, carrying potential sentences of five years and one year, respectively; but prosecutors ultimately sought a sentence of 45 consecutive days with fines.

District Judge Kimberly Booher concurred the father of eight, husband, and sole family breadwinner should serve time, but felt the requested sentence too harsh in light of the circumstances and for his lack of prior offenses, ruling instead he will spend eight consecutive weekends in jail and work 120 hours of community service — suspended — provided he completes six months of probation without issue.

But the judge wasted no time having Wood begin his sentence, stating, after delivering the verdict,

“He’s going straight to jail today.”

According to RT, “Prosecutors argued that Wood was trying to influence potential jurors before they heard a case against Andy Yoder, an Amish man who was accused of draining a wetland that was on his property.

“Yoder took a plea deal that day and the case never went to trial. Wood said he did not know Yoder, and he only wanted to inform potential jurors that they had the right to vote their conscience over the law.”

In June, a jury found Wood guilty of ‘attempting to influence a jury,’ which Michigan defines as “[willful] attempts to influence the decision of a juror in any case by argument or persuasion, other than as part of the proceedings in open court in the trial of the case” — despite his lack of knowledge or interest in specific cases ongoing at the time, as well as his presence on a public sidewalk abutting the courthouse in question.

“This is not a person who made a one-time mistake, he hasn’t demonstrated that he has kind of shown that he realizes now the significance of what he’s done, in fact the testimony shows the contrary,” prosecuting attorney, Nathan Hull, told WMXI, of Wood’s pamphleting outside the courthouse.

Wood’s attorneys contended the father had not discussed specific cases, and had merely been exercising First Amendment-protected free speech in distributing pamphlets to willing takers in a public area.

That prosecutors, judges, and now, a jury, found the distribution of educational material not only an (albeit murky) violation of the law, but worthy of locking a father of eight in a cage for any amount of time at all, vivifies the sharp shift toward authoritarian thinking over subjective analysis, morality, and ethics — and, perhaps, further emphasizes the reasoning behind Wood’s attempt to educate the public, in the first place.

“He exercised what he believes are his free speech rights, did it out on the sidewalk before this court, and that because of that, that deserves 45 days in jail, let alone one day in jail?” David Kallman, an attorney representing Wood, told a local FOX News affiliate. “I totally disagree with that.”

Indeed, while the rights, freedoms, and their protections traditionally afforded every American seemingly vanish by the hour, this case — a father sentenced to jail for even informing juries they have rights indelibly inked into the Constitution — proves we’re losing the battle with a control-freak State.

If educating our neighbors of their rights thus entails a possible stint in the slammer, it may behoove all of us to hit the books — as what happened to Keith Wood could prognosticate a coming tourniquet on the free flow of information.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

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

Contributed by Claire Bernish of The Daily Sheeple.

Claire Bernish is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Claire’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.

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

    Where do they find these juries that are traitors to the constitution and the first amendment?

    • Freespirit

      Read my comment and you will understand

    • They are trained to ignorance in the public fool system, reinforced by watching Law & Order. I wouldn’t let them be jurors until they, at least, read Lysander Spooner’s Trial by Jury.

  • Phil_Ossifer

    Incidents like this illustrate how scared the system is of people actually knowing what their rights are. Judges can’t stand the idea that the jury ranks higher than them and is free to vote their conscience regardless of what the law says. The irony here is, Pastor Wood was convicted by a jury that obviously doesn’t understand their right of nullification.

    • David E

      I guarantee they were carefully cherry picked and intimidated that they too would be in jail if they did not enforce the “law.”

      • Phil_Ossifer

        Probably. A judge instructing a jury that they must follow the law or face contempt is illegal. But higher courts reject appeals based on that so judges keep doing it. Until there is legislation at the federal level mandating that all juries be instructed that they have the right to nullify, nothing is going to change. But such legislation will probably never happen.

        • Most judge’s “instructions” to the jury are perjurious.
          How long have you been a member of FIJA?

        • David E

          I don’t think that 3BrO understands that judges aren’t under oath when they give instructions or that the giving of instructions aren’t about facts…

        • David E

          It is. And thankfully, courts in Kansas now understand this and our supreme court recently struck down the MUST OBEY instructions as coming too close to coercing the jury. This will next spill over into voir dire, I am betting.

          They are still not allowing anyone to INFORM the jury, but they are on the ball about not letting the courts PREVENT jury nullification. IMO this makes Kansas the leader in the nation in the area of correcting the jury nullification misinformation.

        • David E


          “Both the wording of the instruction at issue in Lovelace—“must”—and the wording at issue here—“will”—fly too close to the sun of directing a verdict for the State. A judge cannot compel a jury to convict, even if it finds all elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

          State v Smith-Parker Kansas Supreme Court Nos. 105,918, 105,919. (2014)

      • jimmy joe

        That you can be absolutely sure about!

    • Freespirit

      Check my comment

    • The jury doesn’t outrank the judge, it is the judge.
      Most jurors, if they know anything at all about nullification, believe it is illegal.

      • Phil_Ossifer

        “It is the judge” only because judges and the court system have succeeded in conning the sheeple so well about their “duty” to “rule as instructed.” A jury can bring in any verdict they damn well please and the judge only has the authority to overrule the jury in instances where the jury votes guilty. A trial judge cannot overturn a jury’s decision to acquit.

        • An acquittal is overturned by the declaration of a mistrial, which overrules the legitimate claim of double jeopardy until they can jury shop for unanimity.

          • Phil_Ossifer

            This is true, but mistrials are generally declared prior to the rendering of a verdict due to some technical or procedural problem. Then there is the appeals process to consider. If judges can simply declare mistrials every time a jury brings in a verdict a judge doesn’t like, what, then, is the purpose of the jury system?

          • In a properly operated jury trial, the judge is only there to explain the law to the judges in the jury box. When a judge acts beyond his/her authority, nothing else matters any longer in the trial, which is why We the People’s ignorance is the problem, not the judge’s malfeasance.
            Have you read Lysander Spooner’s expert documentation of the original American jury system?

          • Phil_Ossifer

            The problem is WTP’s ignorance of the fact that the judges’ behavior is malfeasant in the first place.

          • It is just a part of their overall ignorance of the legal system, regardless of how well it functions, or not.

    • Freespirit

      For reference and so that there is no doubt of this being true as we continue down the rabbit hole, the definition of the UNITED STATES in Black’s Law dictionary is “…a corporation”. Also, you can look at the UNITED STATES CODE (this being in all capital letters due to its corporate structure representing the codes of the UNITED STATES corporation). The code is: U.S. CODE/TITLE /28/3002/15 (A) (B) (C). These codes state that the UNITED STATES is unequivocally a corporation.”

      Further- A close review of 31 U.S.C. disclosed that the Internal Revenue Service, a
      Private Corporation, is not shown as a division, bureau, or any part of the
      U.S. Treasury Department. All this can be looked up any time on Firstgov. 31
      U.S.C. Chapter 3 does not list the IRS as an agency or part of the Treasury
      Department. 31 U.S.C. Subtitle VI section 9101 does not show the IRS as a
      Government Owned Corporation under “ Government Corporations “. 31 U.S.C.
      Subtitle I Chapter 9 section 901 does not list the IRS as an authorized

      The Constitution of the these united States:

      Your STRAWMAN- A “strawman” is a fictitious legal entity, created from your BIRTH CERTIFICATE with the hope that as the child grows up, he will be fooled into believing that he is actually the “strawman” Capitalized NAME on the Certificate (which he/she most definitely is not) and pay all sorts of imaginary costs and liabilities, such as traffic fines, taxes etc. which get attached to the “strawman” by con artists, taking advantage of your lack of knowing the truth. Especially those in Governments and Corporations. : http://www.yourstrawman.com/

    • David A. Wissler


  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    As if there were further need for hating the government and it’s rampant abuses of power, there comes this.

    • NonYo Business

      Despise the idiocy I do.

      • Karlagkwan

        Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !pm410d:
        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.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash700TopOnlyPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!pm410l..,..

  • Ratcraft

    I don’t get called for jury duty. I have more bias than a 1950’s retreaded tire.

  • David E

    In U.S. v. Dougherty, the majority held in explaining why the court should tell a jury of their right to disregard the law or judge’s instructions, that the jury will find out about it through the media and the public. I would take Dougherty to instruct the civic minded citizen to pass out jury information.

  • Freespirit

    His problem was fighting the CHARGES in Commercial/Corporate/Maritime ( Martial) Jurisdiction instead of COMMON LAW jurisdiction

    It is how they deceive you Americans into thinking the Constitution FOR the Republic is going to protect you when it has no authority in the Commercial/Corporate/ Maritime Jurisdiction . It only has its AUTHORITY in the COMMON LAW Jurisdiction

    ONLY the Constitution OF the UNITED STATES (Corporation) ,Amendment 14

    is being used and it can be used to do just about anything it wants to you as long as you. hire LAWYERS of the BAR, who work for the courts, NOT for you.

    Next time when you are FORCED to attend court ( which you always are), when the Judge calls your name ASK HIM if the spelling is in ALL UPPER CASE letters. If YES ( and it is), then tell him or her, THAT is not you and you cannot represent that CORPORATE entity due to lack of FULL DISCLOSURE and you have only PRESENTED yourself against your WILL, by fear of FORCE and demand COMMON LAW Jurisdiction

    If he states anything and then asks you if you UNDERSTAND,SAY NO I do not .

    It is trickery to use that word which means something entirely different in the court from the normal English usage. Legally it means do you STAND UNDER the court or judge so if you say yes, your goose is cooked. You have then stated you will submit to their court and its Jurisdiction.

    NO matter what the Judge say INSIST on your RIGHT to COMMON LAW Jurisdiction and if you can find an HONEST lawyer who will fight for you in a Common Law court, you’ve got it made.

    You will NEVER be convicted in a Common Law court of anything Statutory and with Criminal charges they MUST have ONLY a HUMAN victim.

    Corporations, Governments and other non-human entities, cannot be victims under Common Law.

    • Phil_Ossifer

      Have you ever tried the “common law vs. corporate/maritime/admiralty law” ploy in court? How did that work out for you?

      • Freespirit

        Never had to ,so far and it is NOT a ploy but it seems you may be familiar with the LAWFULNESS of it as you used “Admiralty”, which is correct

        • Phil_Ossifer

          I doubt any court would take such an argument seriously, anyway. They would file that under “tax protestor” and treat you accordingly, similar to the way Irwin Schiff was persecuted for most of his life.

          • Freespirit
          • My first question would be, was this in an administrative law court or an article 3 court?

          • Freespirit

            I have no idea what it was but when it comes to COMMON law,it does not matter.

          • Common law was suspended by the Clearfield Doctrine.

          • Freespirit


          • It really sucks when other people use your deceit, huh?

          • Freespirit

            Do I hear a buzzing sound?

          • Did you forget to wipe?

          • Irwin Schiff never needed to resort to that silliness. His problem was in failing to recognize that they didn’t recognize or respect black letter law. His son is doing better knowing that.

          • Freespirit

            His son.Peter is a Zionist shill

          • You tend to use Zionist in the same way that racists use nigger, which is like someone with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

          • Freespirit

            You lack the intelligence and discernment of a nail, so you”Reap what you Sow”

          • Those who sow nails expecting to reap nails lack something.

          • Phil_Ossifer

            As you note, Irwin’s problem is that he actually believed he could persuade the courts with reasoned argument based on law, precedent and logic. That might work in a few other types of cases but when it comes to taxes it’s strictly a system of kangaroo courts, star chambers and ad-hoc rulings. Saying that the tax game is rigged against us is a gross understatement. The government’s attitude toward tax protestors is “kill ’em before they multiply” and they’re taking the same attitude toward jury nullification. The last thing they want is for the people to figure out that we are the ultimate source of power.

          • “Saying that the tax game is rigged against us is a gross understatement” because the whole damn game is rigged against us. The best we can mange is an end run around the system.

        • Admiralty law has never applied in a civilian court on land.

          • Freespirit

            nice tryN

          • Your ignorance of the authority and jurisdictional differences between administrative law and article 3 courts hardly makes your arguments better than poorly persuasive.

          • Freespirit

            I am not interested in persuading you

          • It is always easiest to avoid attempting that which one is ill-equipped to accomplish.

          • Freespirit

            There’s that Buzzing sound again – SHOO, fly

          • David E

            It’s cause you’re full of shit!!!

          • Maybe your personal hygiene is lacking if you are attracting flies.

          • Freespirit

            When you are here the Buzzing begins and not here, the Buzzing is gone

            It’s a miracle !

          • When you stop writing ad hominem against me, it gives you more time to wipe properly?

          • Freespirit

            Theer is that Bzzzzzzzing again – SHOO fly

          • Until you stop smelling of poop, the flies are gong to stay close by.

          • Freespirit

            Damn that Bzzzing again-SHOO,fly

          • Do you have a colostomy bag, or what?

    • Did you misunderstand this from Blackstone or some other irrelevant commentary?

      • Freespirit

        Nice try

        • Weak rebuttal.

          • Freespirit

            NO it is the only rebuttal you deserve.

          • I don’t deserve anything, but the truth deserves an accurate portrayal that you are unable and/or unwilling to provide.

          • Freespirit

            There is that buzzing sound again- SHOO fly

    • David E

      this nonsense about the UCC gets so annoying…

      • Freespirit

        The only thing annoying is you and if you are American you should be ashamed of yourself wanting to mislead your fellow Americans

        Now SHOO,fly

        • David E

          If this is about being American, why is your so called citation proving your case from Canada?

          • Freespirit

            What do you not understand about “SHOO fly”?

          • David E

            Probably the same thing you don’t understand about showing me one court case won by your methods.

    • David E

      I strongly urge defendants NOT to do this. It is nonsense, and after annoying the court with this incessantly, they usually won’t be eager to listen if you happen to stumble upon a legitimate argument. These kinds of arguments do not win, they are fashioned by crazy people, and they do not help you one bit.

      Make your arguments out of the caselaw and statutes instead, which are common-law; albeit a distorted common law.

      • Freespirit

        WRONG but enjoy your cowardly fantasy

        • David E

          I win cases, you don’t, end of story.

          • Freespirit

            If so then you are a SHILL for the system, working in the BAR on STATUTORY Law Jurisdiction-shame on you

            Much of that money goes to the British Royal Family, and London which makes you a TRAITOR,also

            Just another Zionist scum bag, for whom TREASON is just another day

            OH and you have no idea what I win.

          • David E

            I said I win cases. I NEVER said I work in the bar or receive payment.

            Show me one case won on appeal by your methods. JUST ONE. What really happens is people like you rant and rave in prison.

          • Freespirit

            I never said the BAR pays you, either, and read those sources I provided by links, to whatever his name was if you want verification of who won.

            I have neither the interest nor time to waste on people like you………so…….. move on to people who will believe you. I don’t and wont

            We are done now.

          • David E

            You’re the fake. In all you provided, charges got dismissed because of OTHER reasons, not any of your bullshit corporation capital letters UCC flag-fringed nonsense.

            Besides that, the proof I am demanding is a court record, NOT someone’s blog where they can make up anything or a YOUTUBE video. Get the difference?

            I can make a youtube video claiming you have the worst shit stains I ever saw in your pink panties, get it?

            And may claim was independent, not a denial that the bar pays me. The bar does not pay any lawyer. My denial is two different things–I do not belong to the bar AND I do not give legal help for money, period.

          • Freespirit

            YOU say I am wrong so PROVE me wrong. You will not get away with reversing Natural or Common Law

            Isn’t that the legal System – “Innocent until Proven Guilty”

            Prove I am guilty with examples as I never mentioned anything about an “Appeal” being won

            You did

          • David E

            Umm, no, the burden is not on me to prove your claims wrong, the burden is on you to prove them true.

            The reason for asking for an appellate opinion is the reasons are clearly explained, and not often in district court.

            But, any court record proving your reasons are the reasons a case was dismissed would do. JUST ONE.

            Instead is all you got is “Well-the-witness-didn’t show-but-we-all-know the real-reason-is-they-were-afraid-of-my-argument” and that isn’t proof.

          • Freespirit

            “Umm, no, the burden is not on me to prove your claims wrong, the burden is on you to prove them true.” …….oh but you are totally WRONG. Have you forgotten” Innocent until Proven Guilty”- COMMON LAW

            YOU MUST prove me wrong and you cannot

            For the LAST time now, SHOO,Fly

          • David E

            This is not a trial, and I am not your prosecutor, and it is not a matter of your guilt or innocence, but I am glad you are demonstrating for any readers how stoopid you are. This is a debate, (well, except for the fact you’re not taking it seriously) and in debate, one has to support their claims. The one making the claim has to support it.

            Otherwise, I establish that you wear your shit stained pink panties on your head in public merely by saying so, and it is up to you to disprove it, otherwise it is true. Now you have to provide photographs of every time you have been in public without wearing your pink panties on your head, or I win. That is not how it works. If I claim the moon is made of green cheese, it is not up to you to prove it is not so;it is up to me to prove it is.


          • Freespirit

            LOL. You made my day with your dying words

            thank you now, SHOO, fly

          • David E

            Anything but the relevant, right? As in, proving the truth of your claims.

      • G’ma G

        Sigh. You are right but it is unlikely you will find much support here. There is a great mis-understanding about what common law is in the United States. Many patriot minded are desperate for solutions and cling to their interpretation of common law as the old English common law adopted when the United States was created. Yes, today’s common law does include pre-U.S. common law but also, as you note, the distorted common law created by case law and statute. The big “secret” is that statutory law is just another name for our common law as it exists today.
        It gets frustrating trying to educate to open eyes and minds when trying to bridge the reality gap between what is supposed to be and what is. 3fbro is a classic example: Obviously in the know about what is written and how things are supposed to work but can’t grasp how corrupt the system is–that it doesn’t follow it’s own rules much less the Constitutions. Our legal systems are infested with avowed liars and frauds.

    • G’ma G

      With all due respect, you are preaching to the choir here. The problem we have to figure out how to deal with is the corruption. While it is crystal clear that judges cannot lawfully do what they are doing, they just keep doing it. For example those of us making the distinction and not falling into their trap by crossing the bar until the judge answers the question of what jurisdiction the court is operating under (common law, equity, admiralty) are arrested for failure to appear or jailed for contempt of court. Words are not going to solve this problem.

      • Freespirit

        They use FORCE so we must use FORCE back. It is the LAW the Universe -Natural Law – “For every action there is and EQUAL and OPPOSITE REACTION

        Think Patrick Henry who finally got fed up with WORDS and Peaceful Gestures and finally made other Americans see what must be done

        If Americans don’t do it now,while they are still armed they will be forced to do it WHEN they are DISARMED and we all know how that will end !

        They WILL BE DISARMED if they continue the course they are on.

        • G’ma G

          I don’t like it one bit but you are spot on about the natural order and what that means we are going to have to face and do.

          • Freespirit

            The SOONER the BETTER

            The ENEMY is getting STRONGER with every day by WEAKENING US with every day.

            So we get weaker as they get stronger

            Not a good scenario for our success

  • SP_88

    Informing a jury of jury nullification should be part of the jury’s instructions. It should not be against the law to inform people of their rights. The fact that he was punished for telling people about their rights is just as unConstitutional as the laws that a jury should nullify.
    This judge is simply upholding a tyrannical regime. And any jury that doesn’t know about jury nullification is also potentially upholding a tyrannical regime if they find someone guilty of breaking an unConstitutional law.
    I think it’s time to take this a step further and try to get the laws regarding jury tampering changed so that information about jury nullification is not considered jury tampering. And also the judges should be forced to inform jurors of jury nullification as part of their instructions.
    If these judges are so sure that these laws are good, what are they so worried about?
    We the people should have the final say on what laws are enforced, and what laws should be repealed.
    We are supposed to be governed by the laws of our choosing. Not the whims of some bureaucrats who work for the government.

    • You need to remember that the judge was probably educated in an ALA-approved law school, which is like expecting a medical doctor who was educated in an AMA-approved medical school to know anything about nutrition, which has never been on the curriculum. American lawyers are seldom taught squat about the Constitution or the original legal system.

      • Smarty

        That’s actually very true. I’ve rarely seen an attorney that knows much about the constitution, and when you bring things to their attention, they look at you like a deer in the headlights. We’re doomed.

        • We’ve been doomed from the very beginning, largely because the majority of us abstained from participation.

      • SP_88

        That’s true. Any judges or lawyers who really know about those things are almost always self taught. It’s pretty rare for a judge or lawyer to have the ambition to learn about the Constitution and the legal system that was around at the time. Since it’s not being taught, the only way to learn about it is if you take the time to do it yourself.
        The exception being Obama, since he was a Constitutional lawyer and professor, and the smartest man in the world who apparently taught Constitutional law in college. Not. I’m still amazed at how many people actually bought that BS. But I digress.

        • The most successful criminals are the ones who know the law best, and thus, how to get away with subverting it.
          There are increasing numbers of medical doctors who are discovering that the AMA/FDA conspiracy is best avoided as much as possible.

  • Smarty

    So the fucking jurors had a chance to actually use the tool he was distributing to nullify this case and stick in in the STATE’S ASS, but instead they sheeped out? Either they’re just too far down the I-Phone highway, or they were threatened. Wow….what an unbelievably wasted opportunity they squandered. I tend to absorb most of this stuff these days because 95% of our fellow citizens are stuck on stupid, but this one really hits home…..

    • David E

      In the vast majority of cases, they were threatened.

      It is an empty threat, however. A juror does not have to tell anyone why they voted to acquit, and they can always claim they did not believe the evidence even if they did.

      • Smarty

        Oh, I’m quite sure it’s an empty threat, but to the common carpet sheep, it’s a life altering proposition. If they tried that on a guy like me, I’d laugh at them until I pissed myself. Unfortunately, I didn’t get the opportunity, but if it ever happens, I’ll be singing like a bird in that jury room if the situation warrants it….

        • G’ma G

          I was actually physically threatened by the foreman of the one jury I sat on for insisting the government failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt when it lied about the evidence (claimed drug amount was 10x what it said on the evidence packet that was passed around, among other lies). The foreman had to be restrained by other jurors.

          • Smarty

            I’m sorry to hear that the other jurors restrained the foreman, preventing you from delivering the ass kicking he so desperately needed. It should have been an 11-1 bashing the moment he openly showed his stupidity…

          • G’ma G

            Yeah. Ya know, I always, always, always fail to take into account how fear controls so many people. I just didn’t get that gene.

          • David E

            You should have told the judge, because intimidating a juror with violence is jury tampering.

          • G’ma G

            Choose not to in order to create the hung jury needed to prevent conviction. The Defendant (female) was actually the victim of abusive males setting her up to take the fall. I knew there was little chance the prosecutor would re-try her and he did not.

          • David E

            You could always have waited until the verdict or declaration of a hung jury was in.

  • 0or8afh

    Disappointing, but not necessarily surprising to me. A similar thing happened to me some time back.

    I had (finally) been presented with the opportunity to be on a jury. With the other potential jurors, I went through the selection process. Myself and one other potential juror questioned a thing or two that ultimately got both of us removed.

    For my part, I recall that my departure had something to do with my referring to the “American Dictionary of the English Language” (1828 edition; Noah Webster). Specifically, I read from the definition of “Petty juries,” to wit: “…to try matters of fact in civil causes, and to decide BOTH THE LAW and the fact in criminal prosecutions” (emphasis added).

    God forbid I ever have to end up in a courtroom to try and get a fair trial.

  • gazoo3

    These traitor Judges and prosecutors need to be executed for treason immediately.

  • Hates Liberals

    Just more crapping on the constitution.

  • “…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….

    “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 http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html.

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

    • David E

      We’re not interested in your theocracy, Ted. Tell it to your deluded church.

    • David E

      The People Of Yah are supposed to be HONEST, Ted. Here are the facts about what the McDonald’s coffee burn case is all about. It’s about McDonald’s not caring their coffee was dangerously hot 700 times before. How do you get a corporate giant to listen? 3 million dollars is how.


      “In 1992, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck bought a cup of takeout coffee at a McDonald’s drive-thru in Albuquerque and spilled it on her lap. She sued McDonald’s and a jury awarded her nearly $3 million in punitive damages for the burns she suffered.

      Typical reaction: Isn’t coffee supposed to be hot? And McDonald’s didn’t pour the coffee on her, she spilled it on herself! Besides, she was driving the car and wasn’t paying attention.

      Now for the facts:
      Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

      The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

      Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

      Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

      Here is some of the evidence the jury heard during the trial:
      McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
      Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
      The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
      McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
      An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
      At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted, “there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
      McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
      McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
      McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

      In a story about the case (pdf) published shortly after the verdict was delivered in 1994, one of the jurors said over the course of the trial he came to realize the case was about “callous disregard for the safety of the people.” Another juror said “the facts were so overwhelmingly against the company.”

      That’s because those jurors were able to hear all the facts — including those presented by McDonald’s — and see the extent of Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries. Ask anyone who criticizes the case as a “frivolous lawsuit” that resulted in “jackpot justice” if they have done the same.”

      • You have no case, David. Unless McDonald had somewhere claimed that their coffee would never be served above a specified degree of temperature and the coffee Liebeck left the establishment exceeded that degree of temperature, or the cup was faulty that she left with and caused the accident, she had (should have had) no case.

        Without these exceptions, the coffee became her responsibility once she too possession of it and she had only herself to blame for spilling it on herself, regardless the temperature.

        You sound like a flaming liberal who refuses to take responsibility for your own actions.

        • David E

          There is an implied warranty of safety in all products sold without a warning label, Ted. McDonald’s vioalted that, knew it was a problem and did nothing.

          What makes one a liberal about loving justice against those who abuse their customers?

          If you got third degree burns and spent weeks in the hospital from food, I am sure you would sing a different tune.

        • David E

          McDonald’s DOES claim their coffee is SAFE when they do not give an express warning that it is NOT. At those temperatures, it is not SAFE and burns your mouth at 190 degrees. It is our LAW and you know it is our LAW that any product sold without a warning carries an IMPLIED WARRANTY OF SAFETY. There is nothing unreasonable about this.

          The product could not be used as intended at the time it was served and was dangerous at the time it was served.

          I can tell you what you DON’T sound like–a compassionate man speaking the words of Yahweh. You sound like a corporate shill. You sound like someone who would eliminate religious freedom so that you can impose your iron fist upon others against their will. YOU SOUND LIKE THE BEAST.

          I URGE YOU TO REPENT and learn the grace of Yehushua and his mercy.

          Take your theocracy and give it right back to your father, the father of all lies and repent!!! Our savior COMPLETELY rejected political power. YOU WILL NOT DECEIVE FURTHER!!!

          Be AFRAID, be very AFRAID of the judgment reserved for you unless you repent and seek the truth of YAHWEH!

    • David E

      And, as to OJ, do you forget that the principle witness and evidence collector was caught lying on the stand?

      I suppose your theocratic system approves of lies told on the stand, just so long as we can string up another nigga, right?

      You’re a racist liar and I urge you to repent.

  • Larry

    One more reason we need to kill a bunch of prosecutors, judges etc…. Take America back…. the hard way… the easy way…. enough of this bullshit. TAKE AMERICA BACK BY ANY MEANS !!!

  • Oboehner

    Ranks right up there on the BS list with the Supreme Court having the ability to strike down any law it chooses.

  • David A. Wissler




  • Talcum X

    I guess now that MI is cashing in on pot sales and locking up fewer potheads, they need to start creating criminals from the churches. Those cops should lock up the librarian too. Have you seen the kind of dangerous information that is exchanged there?

  • Rascally Rabid

    8 weekends in jail is 16 days, why the reference to 45 days?

  • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

    I’ve never been.