The Rise and Fall of Jury Nullification Review III
by Joe Kelley
3-2-2022

The Rise and Fall of Jury Nullification
by James Ostrowski
[cdn.mises.org];

“The United States Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases.”

That opening statement was footnoted with the following reference:

“U.S. Constitution, art. 3, amend. 6, and amend. 7.”

“3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

I have not managed to get past these footnotes following the opening statement to this Essay by James Ostrowski from the Mises Institute because I already have a working understanding of Trial by Jury from my study of other works, not the least of which is the Essay on The Trial by Jury by Lysander Spooner published in 1852. 

The basic problem with the false statement is that the message written and published for Public Publication constitutes Treasonous Fraud from my individual viewpoint as someone who can accuse that writer of that crime, and then as someone who can then prosecute that writer of that crime, and then as someone who takes my Treasonous Fraud case to a Grand Jury for validation, and then if those Independent Grand Jurors validate my accusation and those Independent Grand Jurors write a True Bill, then my Treasonous Fraud case is moved by the inculpatory evidence I have assembled, and the inculpatory evidence the Grand Jurors determine to pass the threshold of probable cause, that inculpatory evidence with me as prosecutor go before an Independent Trial Jury in the county where the victim was damaged by that example of Treasonous Fraud. 

The Constitution does not guarantee shit. In fact that National Constitution that over-ruled the Federal Constitution claims to take from independent prosecutors their power to expose Treasonous Fraud with the Law by The Public which is The Law of The Land, which is the common law, which is private access to independent grand jury validation of crimes and then private prosecutor access to independent trial jurors in the counties where criminals injure innocent people, to offer the defendants their private access to justify their actions before an independent trial jury in the county were the injuries were allegedly caused by the defendant upon the private prosecutor, or if the private prosecutor was not the victim, then the trial takes place where the injuries were caused to the victim whose representative is the private prosecutor in that criminal case, in that Federated Republic County, in that Federated Republic State, in that Federated Republic. 

“The United States Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury in both civil and criminal cases.”

That is a Treasonously False claim, and those injured by that false claim would be those fooled into abandoning common law in favor of an obvious counterfeit version of common law. Someone reading that False Propaganda would be someone giving credit to an Injustice System that was put in place to enforce Injustice from Top to Bottom, instead of The People commanding their common law bottom-up system to keep Treasonous Frauds out of government. The Justice System run by The People themselves in a Republic is the common law with private prosecutor independence, grand jury independence, and trial jury independence from The British, or any other, Injustice System made for the expressed, or covert, purpose of creating slaves for masters of slaves, which is ludicrous, no one is a slave, there are only criminals and victims, kidnappers and kidnapped victims, forced to work, or forced to reproduce to make more kidnap victims, or forced to kill each other to make room for more criminals.   

Here is one useful case history in American history that would add to the evidence moved to an Independent Grand Jury, and then add to the evidence moved to an Independent Trial Jury, in the county where a victim was misled into a false belief that a System of Enforced Injustice was their only option to redress the grievances causing injury to The People by Treasonous Frauds. 

THE REVOLUTIONARY AMERICAN JURY:
A CASE STUDY OF THE 1778-1779
PHILADELPHIA TREASON TRIALS
Carlton F.W. Larson

"The British occupation of Philadelphia was the seminal event of the War for Independence in Pennsylvania. Following Washington's defeat at Brandywine Creek, the British army entered Philadelphia on September 26, 1777. The Continental Congress and the Pennsylvania state government had already fled the city, and Washington would eventually withdraw his army to Valley Forge for the winter. Historians estimate that about one-third of Philadelphia's population, some 12,000 people, had fled the city in advance of the invasion.
The state government, in exile in Lancaster, soon began hearing reports of Pennsylvanians who were actively aiding or joining the British army. In March 1778, the Assembly, with assistance from Chief Justice McKean, passed a law entitled "An Act for the attainder of divers traitors." The law named twelve prominent individuals who had sided with the British and required them to appear for trial by April 20, 1778. If they failed to appear, they would be deemed "convicted and attainted of high treason, to all intents and purposes whatsoever." The Act also authorized the Supreme Executive Council to issue additional proclamations naming persons who had joined the British army. Any such persons who failed to appear for trial would also be attainted of high treason. Although such conditional bills of attainder would soon be prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania did not seek primarily to hang people without trials, but to seize promptly the abandoned estates of loyalists who had fled to the British. The law accordingly set forth various procedures for seizing the estates of those persons who failed to report for trial."

During the Regulation of The Criminal British Slave Army Attack on Americans, The People who volunteered to fight the legal battle first were forced into the legal publication of a common law defiance, which is a Notice of Liability, also known as a Solemn Notice of Mixed War, also known as a Declaration of Independence, and confirmed with Bonding Code, and confirmed as a Military and Commercial Lien Right. 

When all peaceful means won’t stop the aggressors from rioting in the blood of the innocent the remaining option is defensive violence used to stop the aggressors from rioting in the blood of the innocent as the last resort after having exhausted all peaceful, lawful, legal, moral, justified Publications of Public Notices, for The Public in a Re-Public. 

That is basic, logical, reasonable, common law, common-law, the law of the land, since 1774 in America. 

14th of October, 1774
"On the same day, Congress unanimously resolved, “that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law.” They further resolved, “that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable to their several and local circumstances.” They also resolved, that their ancestors, at the time of their immigration, were “entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities, of free and natural-born subjects within the realms of England.”

That is a Public Notice for The Public in a Re-Public. It does not guarantee shit. People have to volunteer to exhaust peaceful, legal, lawful, moral means in the face of Treasonous Frauds rioting in the blood of the innocent, or having ignored that peaceful option, The People will either have to fight with military force or be unjustly consumed by their kidnappers.

If The Public is in a Republic and another Republic with The Public safely in it, are voluntarily binding themselves into revocable (meaning voluntary) Defensive Associations, then there can be two Republics, or three, or thirteen, or fifty Republics bound into those revocable Defensive Associations. 25 Republics forming One Federation of Republics, and 10 forming another Federation of Republics, whatever The People in those Republics consent to, doing so with informed, revokable, consent.

If all 50 Republics are bound into the same revokable Defensive Association, then there would be One Federal Legal Fiction Body of people elected to preside over Federal Interests that are Interests determined by The Public in those 50 Republics, and those Interests of The Public in those 50 Republics would not be Interests determined by those who preside over the One Federal Government. Those interests the Federal government is interested in would be interests determined by the Republics. To suggest otherwise is to suggest the formation and maintenance of a Nation-State Monopoly of Power and Profit, where The Public is considered as property to be consumed by those with their National Interests.  

Those presiding over the One Federal Government would be asking those presiding over the 50 Republics what can or cannot be done according to the agreements agreed upon by those presiding over the 50 Republics by some means of finding those agreements. 

Hear ye, hear ye, now hear this:  

Page 4 Luther Martin

"The members of the convention from the States, came there under different powers; the greatest number, I believe, under powers nearly the same as those of the delegates of this State. Some came to the convention under the former appointment, authorizing the meeting of delegates merely to regulate trade. Those of the Delaware were expressly instructed to agree to no system, which should take away from the States that equality of suffrage secured by the original articles of confederation. Before I arrived, a number of rules had been adopted to regulate the proceedings of the convention, by one of which was to affect the whole Union. By another, the doors were to be shut, and the whole proceedings were to be kept secret; and so far did this rule extend, that we were thereby prevented from corresponding with gentlemen in the different States upon the subjects under our discussion; a circumstance, Sir, which, I confess, I greatly regretted. I had no idea, that all the wisdom, integrity, and virtue of this State, or of the others, were centered in the convention. I wished to have corresponded freely and confidentially with eminent political characters in my own and other States; not implicitly to be dictated to by them, but to give their sentiments due weight and consideration. So extremely solicitous were they, that their proceedings should not transpire, that the members were prohibited even from taking copies of resolutions, on which the convention were deliberating, or extracts of any kind from the journals, without formally moving for, and obtaining permission, by vote of the convention for that purpose.

"But, Sir, it was to no purpose that the futility of their objections were shown, when driven from the pretense, that the equality of suffrage had been originally agreed to on principles of expediency and necessity; the representatives of the large States persisting in a declaration, that they would never agree to admit the smaller States to an equality of suffrage. In answer to this, they were informed, and informed in terms that most strong, and energetic that could possibly be used, that we never would agree to a system giving them the undue influence and superiority they proposed. That we would risk every possible consequence. That from anarchy and confusion, order might arise. That slavery was the worst that could ensue, and we considered the system proposed to be the most complete, most abject system of slavery that the wit of man ever devised, under pretense of forming a government for free States. That we never would submit tamely and servilely, to a present certain evil, in dread of a future, which might be imaginary; that we were sensible the eyes of our country and the world were upon us. That we would not labor under the imputation of being unwilling to form a strong and energetic federal government; but we would publish the system which we approved, and also that which we opposed, and leave it to our country, and the world at large, to judge between us, who best understood the rights of free men and free States, and who best advocated them; and to the same tribunal we could submit, who ought to be answerable for all the consequences, which might arise to the Union from the convention breaking up, without proposing any system to their constituents. During this debate we were threatened, that if we did not agree to the system propose, we never should have an opportunity of meeting in convention to deliberate on another, and this was frequently urged. In answer, we called upon them to show what was to prevent it, and from what quarter was our danger to proceed; was it from a foreign enemy? Our distance from Europe, and the political situation of that country, left us but little to fear. Was there any ambitious State or States, who, in violation of every sacred obligation, was preparing to enslave the other States, and raise itself to consequence on the ruin of the others? Or was there any such ambitious individual? We did not apprehend it to be the case; but suppose it to be true, it rendered it the more necessary, that we should sacredly guard against a system, which might enable all those ambitious views to be carried into effect, even under the sanction of the constitution and government. In fine, Sir, all those threats were treated with contempt, and they were told, that we apprehended but one reason to prevent the States meeting again in convention; that, when they discovered the part this convention had acted, and how much its members were abusing the trust reposed in them, the States would never trust another convention."
Secret Proceedings and Debates of the Convention Assembled at Philadelphia, in the Year 1789, for the purpose of forming the Constitution of The United States of America, published 1844 
[archive.org];

Slaves are not to know how they were enslaved, and slaves are not to be allowed to know how they can un-slave themselves with their anti-slave common law. 

And you are made to jerk your knee and salute your corporate false flag because I dare to publish the facts that matter in the case. 

On the 20th day of October 1774
“This agreement contained a clause to discontinue the slave trade, and a provision not to import East India tea from any part of the world. In the article respecting non-exportations, the sending of rice to Europe was excepted."”

On the 1st of April, 1775
"On this occasion, the importation of slaves was expressly prohibited."

Thomas Jefferson
Declaration of Independence, 1776
"he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

“A jury of twelve local farmers, all men and all white according to Levinson, rule in favor of Freeman in 1781, giving her freedom and awarding her 30 shillings in damages.”

George Mason, June 17, 1788:
“Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this state, and most of the states in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the states; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness, and not strength, to the Union.”

Garrison's Constitution
The Covenant with Death and How It Was Made
By Paul Finkelman, 2000
“The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison thought the U.S. Constitution was the result of a terrible bargain between freedom and slavery. Calling the Constitution a "covenant with death" and "an agreement with Hell," he refused to participate in American electoral politics because to do so meant supporting "the pro-slavery, war sanctioning Constitution of the United States." Instead, under the slogan "No Union with Slaveholders," the Garrisonians repeatedly argued for a dissolution of the Union.
“Part of Garrison's opposition to continuing the Union stemmed from a desire to avoid the corruption that came from participating in a government created by the proslavery Constitution. But this position was also at least theoretically pragmatic. The Garrisonians were convinced that the legal protection of slavery in the Constitution made political activity futile, while support for the Constitution merely strengthened the stranglehold slavery had on America. In 1845 Wendell Phillips pointed out that in the years since the adoption of the Constitution, Americans had witnessed "the slaves trebling in numbers—slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government-prostituting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere—trampling on the rights of the free States, and making the courts of the country their tools." Phillips argued that this experience proved "that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery."

Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard
Chapter 18
Slavery in Virginia
Page 584
"The prevalent practice of fornication by the masters with the female slaves was regarded as “a pleasant method to secure slaves at a cheap rate.”

One might want to check their facts. 

Caveat Emptor