Time: Fri Jul 04 10:09:52 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA20265;
	Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:10:45 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 13:10:23 -0400
Originator: heritage-l@gate.net
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
To: pmitch@primenet.com
Subject: SLS: jury nullification

As long as all jury candidates must be
federal citizens, this blatant discrimination
against a whole class of state Citizens
has the unavoidable result of rendering
every jury decision null and void, without
exception.  This class discrimination is
evident in state AND federal jury selection
procedures, so let's not put the cart 
before the horse.

A jury can't nullify ANYTHING, if it is not

Add to this the evidence now indicating that
U.S. Attorneys routinely receive $25,000 
for obtaining indictments from federal grand
juries against "illegal tax protesters"
(whatever THEY are), and you have a colossal
case of jury tampering and illegal kick-backs,
in violation of 41 U.S.C. 51 et seq.

For more details, read "The Kick-Back Racket"
and "Juries in Check Around the Nation" in the
Supreme Law Library, at the URL right below my 
name here.

/s/ Paul Mitchell

copy:  Supreme Law School, Liberty Lists

At 10:24 PM 7/3/97 -0400, you wrote:
>Mark Greer wrote:
>>	Ed Rosenthal wrote:
>>>MAP of course can't endorse or back candidates and I don't mean this as an
>>>endorsement but I am interested in hearing how MAPers view Kubby's
>>>candidacy as it pertains to our objectives of educating the media and
>>>public on drug policy issues.
>>The reliance upon promoting jury nullification as a policy is frightening
>>is very unlikely to garner votes, in my view.
>I'm all for Steve Kubby and his bid for the California gubernatorial slot.
>He comes down hard on the stagnant, intellectually and morally bankrupt
>parties, politics and policies that have driven America to new lows of
>cynicism, distrust and hypocracy with their unceasing promotion of the "war
>on drugs." 
>The idea of promoting jury nullification seemed frightening to me too, at
>first glance. However, why do we assume people will abuse jury
>nullification? If the jury is properly picked, they would have no personal
>motives, other than their beliefs, which is the point. If you don't believe
>that average Americans can be trusted to act in the lawful interests of a
>case, then why are we pretending we're ready for "true democracy." Sounds
>pretty "republican" to me.
>Randy Vlahos

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail