prosecuted for the truth...

just when Obama's department of justice was getting things right by refusing to argue that the unconstitutional DOMA should be upheld, this story comes out...Julian Heicklen, an old man with convictions and obviously an understanding of the law and history of the american judicial system, is being indicted by federal prosecutors for telling the truth. see, Mr. Heicklen hands out pamphlets on the steps of the courthouse and talks to people that ask questions about the power of the jury in our legal system. unlike prosecutors and judges, he does not lie to them. he tells them they have the absolute right to ignore the law and refuse to convict if they feel a conviction would be unjust - even if they believe someone is technically "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." the age-old tried-and-true basis of the anglo-american criminal justice system...jury nullification.

of course prosecutors hate that jury nullification exists...because they love their seemingly unadulterated power to decide who gets charged with what crimes - a power that in this day and age, essentially makes that single person the most powerful individual in your town. they really really do not want jurors to know that they have an ancient duty to nullify a law if they believe it is unjust, that jury nullification is the reason juries came into existence in the first place. and while everyone in the system recognizes that jury nullification exists and is the absolute right of the jury, we tell them otherwise - unconstitutionally. just ask some long-dead names you might recognize...

John Adams recognizing jury nullification -

"It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

and Alexander Hamilton telling us how un-American and stupid (and contemptible) it would be to shun jury nullification, let alone prosecute someone for advising that it exists -

"The jury have a power of deciding an issue upon a general verdict. And, if they have, is it not an absurdity to suppose that the law would oblige them to find a verdict according to the direction of the court, against their own opinion, judgment, and conscience?"

"By withdrawing from the jury the consideration of the essence of the charge, they render their function nugatory and contemptible. Those opinions are repugnant to the more ancient authorities, which had given the jury the power, and with it the right, to be judge of the law and fact, when they were blended by the issue, and which rendered their decisions in criminal cases final and conclusive."

think about it - why do we even have the jury system?

because "fear of unchecked power, so typical of our state and federal governments in other respects, found expression in the criminal law in this insistence upon community participation in determination of guilt or innocence." Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 156 (1968). "Those who wrote our constitutions knew from history and experience that it was necessary to protect against unfounded criminal charges brought to eliminate enemies and against judges too responsive to the voice of higher authority." Id. Now, "just as suffrage ensures the people's ultimate control in the legislative and executive branches, jury trial is meant to ensure their control in the judiciary." Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 306 (2004).

Thus, those old white men gave us the jury, they gave us a group from the community that would "guard against the spirit of oppression and tyranny on the part of rules" and act as "the great bulwark of our civil and political liberties. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 239 (2005). and now, we are prosecuting an old white man for telling members of the community what that actually means, for telling them what history has marked out as the role of the jury, even if the government wishes it were different. in this, he is doing America's work, because "the very reason the Framers put a jury-trial guarantee in the Constitution is that they were unwilling to trust government to mark out the role of the jury." Id., 542 U.S. at 307.

but the government wants to mark out the role of the jury, because once it can do that, nothing short of revolution can stand in its way. for this, those original old white men would be horrified and have taken to revolution, because the history they lived through taught them a simple truth about juries...

"other liberties would remain secure only so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate, not only from all open attacks (which none will be so hardy as to make), but also from all secret machinations, which may sap and undermine it."

Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 246 (1999).

if we continue to lie to juries and turn them into just another arm of the state, if Mr. Heicklen can be prosecuted for spreading the truth about the historical and important role juries play, what is left to stop them from running all over all of us?