A campaign for justice

The idea of jury nullification is generally viewed as an abuse of power by twelve citizens whose only legitimate role is to apply the law as given to them by a judge to the facts that they find in a case. Yet it has not always been so. There are legal, historical, and philosophical arguments to justify a jury’s right—as opposed to its inherent power—to nullify the judge’s instructions on the law. ~ David Farnham, Former Senior Trial Attorney, Office of Consumer Litigation, US Department of Justice—Civil Division, 1999.


“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

It has been close two years since I wrote an article, On Jury Nullification and Rape. In it I used all the information I could find to articulate a condensed, 3,500 word examination of the investigative, prosecutorial and legislative components of how we handle alleged sexual assaults within our criminal justice system. That examination resulted in a multiplicity of very disturbing observations.   In distilled form, my conclusion was, and remains, that the handling of alleged rapes, from the original accusations, to police investigations, to the ensuing prosecutions, and indeed many questionable irregularities in the laws themselves are systemically wrought with what can only be called corruption.

We have a system that is past broken. False accusations are rampant and go largely unpunished. As documented in the first article, police investigations are often tainted with misconduct or incompetence, as are criminal prosecutions. Rape shield laws have been documented to withhold crucial evidence regarding the credibility of alleged victims, as well as fostering courtroom practices that are clearly prejudicial to juries.

The system is so bad that it rewards and advances prosecutors like Mary Kellett, Jody Vaughn and David Corisica. The list goes on and on, disgustingly, revealing a culture of prosecutorial misconduct where those sworn to seek justice instead go after men they have every reason to believe are innocent, do so unrepentantly, and feverishly resist efforts to correct the injustices they have inflicted on innocent persons.

In a stable, self-correcting society, attention would be drawn to these problems and efforts to ameliorate them employed. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened.  In the scant time since I penned the original article, the Supreme Court has ruled that no matter what a prosecutor does; witness tampering, withholding evidence, even suborning perjury, the victim of their crimes has no legal recourse against them.

Add to that the fact that the FBI redefined the meaning of rape after a series of closed door meetings. Those definitions now make consensual sex a rape if the woman has ingested alcohol, even if the man was also intoxicated. Consider, too, that colleges and universities have been instructed by the justice department to reduce the burden of proof in alleged sexual assault cases to the “preponderance of evidence” rule, as opposed to the “reasonable doubt” standard, eliminating the possibility of an accused rapist to get a fair hearing on campus. Where it concerns the allegation of sexual crimes in this country, we no longer have a system of criminal justice.  What we have is a system of state induced criminal tyranny that has become a malignancy eating through the fabric of our system of justice.

When the government becomes an instrument of tyranny against its own people, it becomes the responsibility of the people to put an end to it, by whatever means are at their disposal. Fortunately, our founding fathers possessed the wisdom to construct a constitution that empowered the people to do that within the framework of the law.

It is called “Jury Nullification,” and it has a long standing history of use within our criminal justice system. Sometimes that use was to poor ends, as when all-white juries summarily acquitted white defendants for crimes committed against black citizens. It has also been used to challenge and protest government actions; to put the law’s application, or the law itself, on trial.

“It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” ~ John Adams

Jury nullification has been employed in a variety of ways. In the mid 1800’s, northern juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of harboring slaves in violation of the Fugitive Slave Laws.  In the Prohibition Era of the 1930s, many juries practiced nullification in prosecutions brought against individuals accused of violating alcohol control laws. Jury nullification has also been used in cases regarding gun laws and as apparent retaliation for the so called “War on Drugs.” Activists for gay rights have encouraged its use against anti-sodomy laws.

It is with consideration of the dire need for legal reform and reconstruction; for accountability of state functionaries and for constitutional integrity in applying the law, that AVfM launches the Movement to End Legal Tyranny (M.E.L.T.). It is now the editorial policy of this website to advocate for all men and women to become educated about the ongoing, systemic corruption it the legal system, and to provide them with knowledge and applicability of jury nullification in matters where the state has lost all contact with the concept of justice.

We will be authoring, and soliciting for, many more articles in the future that address this subject, with the aim of informing fellow citizens that while their “right” to practice jury nullification may be in question, depending on who you ask, the power to practice it is without question in the hands of the juror. When you sit on a jury, you are the law for all practical purposes. That is a critical reality in a time when the legal system has abandoned its responsibility to pursue justice.

The image used at the top of this page is freely available for distribution across any other blogs or websites that share our concerns. We would appreciate your linking that image back to his article.

  • Dr. F

    Well prong me with a fish fork.

    This Jury Nullification idea is a ripper. I’ve not heard of it before, but I tell you having this one up our collective sleeves when things go bung up could very well prove to be miraculous.

    If it’s kryptonite to a tyrant then yeah, let’s do it.

    • Bev

      As an Australian perhaps you should be aware of the following:
      After the Eureka Stokade rebellion 13 diggers were tried for sedition and high treason. The juries aquitted all of them. Though legally they were guilty. The juries did not believe the laws were just.
      This perhaps Australia’s best example jury nulification

      I think the following quote sums it up:
      LYSANDER SPOONER (An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852):
      “The authority to judge what are the powers of the government, and what are the liberties of the people, must necessarily be vested in one or the other of the parties themselves–
      the government, or the people; because there is no third party to whom it can be entrusted. If the authority be vested in the government, the government is absolute, and the people have no liberties except such as the government sees fit to indulge them with.”

      • Dr. F

        You’re right Bev, the Eureka Stockade was indeed by definition jury nullification. I didn’t think about that.

        One thing I admire about America is it’s jury system in that the average person knows they can, just maybe, beat the other guy no matter how big.

        Sure, there is the matter of money and how if you have loads of it you have a better chance, but the very idea that you can actually beat a much bigger bastard is understood by just about everyone.

        I have to admire that, and even though I am repelled by the likes of that scrawny self flagellated puffed up git Judge Judy, that show she is on reminds the little guy that there is hope for the lot of us, and that in itself is great reason for it’s existence.

        The content of this article becomes all the more compelling with that thought.

        If you said the term, “jury nullification” here in Australia, the average person would look at you blankly as though you just said something about courtroom executions or something.

        Myself included… almost, but not now as I read this article.

        • Paul Elam

          Unfortunately in much of Australia it appears that unanimity is not required for a conviction.

          In most places in the US however, it is.

          Anyone know about the standards in Canada and the UK?

          • Dr. F


            The jury must reach a unanimous decision on criminal cases but not in civil cases. If the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision, a hung jury is declared. A new panel of jurors will be selected for the new trial.

            England and Wales:
            A majority of 10-2 is needed for a verdict; failure to reach this may lead to a retrial.

            United States:
            The result is a mistrial, and the case may be retried. Some jurisdictions permit the court to give the jury a so-called Allen charge, inviting the dissenting jurors to re-examine their opinions, as a last ditch effort to prevent the jury from hanging.

            The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure state, “The verdict must be unanimous…If there are multiple defendants, the jury may return a verdict at any time during its deliberations as to any defendant about whom it has agreed…If the jury cannot agree on all counts as to any defendant, the jury may return a verdict on those counts on which it has agreed…If the jury cannot agree on a verdict on one or more counts, the court may declare a mistrial on those counts.

            A hung jury does not imply either the defendant’s guilt or innocence. The government may retry any defendant on any count on which the jury could not agree.”

            In Australia majority verdicts are allowed in South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia, Tasmania, the Northern Territory, New South Wales and Queensland, while the ACT require unanimous verdicts.

            Since 1927 South Australia has permitted majority verdicts of 11:1, and 10:1 or 9:1 where the jury has been reduced, in criminal trials if a unanimous verdict cannot be reached in four hours. They are accepted in all cases except for “guilty” verdicts where the defendant is on trial for murder or treason. Victoria has accepted majority verdicts with the same conditions since 1994, though deliberations must go on for six hours before a majority verdict can be made.

            Western Australia accepted majority verdicts in 1957 for all trials except where the crime is murder or has a life sentence. A 10:2 verdict is accepted.

            Majority verdicts of 10:2 have been allowed in Tasmania since 1936 for all cases except murder and treason if a unanimous decision has not been made within two hours. Since 1943 verdicts of “not guilty” for murder and treason have also been included, but must be discussed for six hours.

            The Northern Territory has allowed majority verdicts of 10:2, 10:1 and 9:1 since 1963 and does not discriminate between cases whether the charge is murder or not. Deliberation must go for at least six hours before delivering a majority verdict.

            Majority verdicts were introduced in New South Wales in 2005.

            End of very long post and thank you and turn off the lights when you leave. :)

          • Tom Snark

            Also in the UK


            “In the United Kingdom, a similar power exists, often called “jury equity”. This enables a jury to reach a decision in direct contradiction with the law if they feel the law is unjust. This can create a persuasive precedent for future cases, or render prosecutors reluctant to bring a charge – thus a jury has the power to influence the law.
            Perhaps the best example of modern-day jury equity in England and Wales was the acquittal of Clive Ponting, on a charge of revealing secret information, under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 in 1985. Mr Ponting’s defence was that the revelation was in the public interest. The trial judge directed the jury that “the public interest is what the government of the day says it is” – effectively a direction to the jury to convict. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.”

            Let me draw attention to this in particular –

            The trial judge directed the jury that “the public interest is what the government of the day says it is”

            Holy shit.

          • Raven01

            Juries in Canada must come to a unanimous decision. If only we could apply for jury hearings in family courts aswell.

          • Bev

            There is a further fly in the ointment. Section 80 of our constitution only gives the right of trial by jury for indictable offences not summary offences. This applies to Federal offences and does not always extend to State offences. Theoreticaly any offence could be made summary removing the right to a jury trial. This loophole is exploited by governments when they set up tribunals for rather than use law courts. In many cases tribunal members are not neutral. Feminists have used this to their advantage in sex discrimination and other tribunals to stack the deck.

            Sir William Blackstone
            January 01, 1700 – January 01, 1700

            “Every new tribunal, erected for the decision of facts, without the intervention of a jury … is a step towards establishing aristocracy, the most oppressive of absolute governments.”

        • Bev

          A long time ago I did some research in this area. The high court of Australia is well aware of nullification and some of their decisions over the years reflect this. They have struck down guilty verdicts where the judge has directed the jury to convict. I wrote a letter to Justice Kirby (when he was serving on the high court) on this subject (citing a number of cases) and arguing that nullification could be a better protector of human rights than any bill of rights handed down from on high.
          After all the people have a better notion of what their rights should be than those in power and what was fair and unfair law.

      • peterandrewnolan

        those of us who actually bothered to read the history books find out that prior to 1066 the english peoples (and the Irish) used to hold jury trials to sort out disputes. These jury trials are still held today in India. It is a panel of elder men of the village who judge things. As one indian man told me “we can not afford to have the government help us to run courts”.

        The people who live on the land have the supreme authority to deal with THEIR own issues and do not need to delegate it to someone else and then ludicrously call those whom they delegated this job to “authorities”.

        The PTB (call them the Illuminati if you like) conquered the English peoples in 1066 via their agent William the Conqueror. Soon after (1100) Henry the Lawgiver decided to “help” these poor ignorant serfs who had been solving their own criminal problems since the romans left by sending out agents to gather up court results and collating them into what was then called “common law”. The law was to be standardised all across the realm. Well? What does standardisation do? It introduces tyranny. That is what it does.

        Under the guise of “helping” Henry the Lawgiver started the process of subverting the jury trial by the people and taking the law into the hands of the CROWN. In these times there were NO JUDGES and NO LAWYERS. The judiciary like to paint these people as “primitive” but they had learned all this stuff from the ROMANS 1,000 years earlier and were doing quite well by themselves thank you very much.

        The KING knew that to control the people he had to control the judiciary and so he chose to create a judicial system where the members of the judiciary owed their allegiance to the CROWN and he did NOT want the people performing law for themselves. He used the usual ruse of calling those who served HIS interests alone PUBLIC SERVANTS and told the serfs that he LOVED HIS PEOPLE and was HELPING THEM by creating PUBLIC SERVANTS. Yet? These public servants made oath to the LAW SOCIETY which owed its allegiance and privilege of existence to the CROWN. After all? Even today the courts are the CROWN COURTS. All members of the LAW SOCIETY owe their allegiance the THE CROWN. So they serve THE CROWN and NOT YOU. In the US the courts serve your guvment and since people like George Bush Senior and Rudi Guliani have accepted honours from the QUEEN you know who they work for. Hint. NOT YOU!

        After issuing the common law by DECREE, meaning as a TYRANT, Henry and then his successors sent out MAGISTRATES to help these poor stupid serfs implemented the common law. The magistrates had NO STANDING in the courts. They were PURELY advisors. But slowly, over time, the magistrates role was changed by the king. The “common law” was made more complicated so that the average serf could not understand it as he could not read or write. So soon the serfs were offered the “help” of “advocates”. These were people who also owed their allegiance to the KING and NOT the people. Advocates eventually evolved into LAWYERS.

        Soon the magistrates went from PURELY ADVISORS to JUDGES who were INSTRUCTING JURIES rather than independent parties who were ADVISING JURIES. Hhhmmm?

        There was also the case that the Barons and the King really wanted the whole deal sewn up between them to better exploit the serfs. So it seems that they cooked up a plan called the MAGNA CARTA and they pretended that the Barons had won a great victory over the king to ensure that all free men could not be disposed of their property without a trial by Jury. The LIE of the Magna Carta can be seen when it notes that magistrates form a part of the judicial process and only those “well minded to keep the laws” would be appointed. Appointed by who? THE KING THAT’S WHO.

        So once the Magna Carta was in place it was just a matter of time that people would be taught that it was this great and wonderful document that guaranteed freedoms when, in fact, it was a total lie. The way you guarantee your freedom is either via a jury trial (no lawyers and no judges who owe their allegiance to the crown) or with guns and bullets. There are no other ways known to man to guarantee your freedoms.

        So. Since the English system of law, and then the irish, has been subject to subversion for 1,000 years it is hardly any wonder that most people have NO IDEA of what came before that WORKED and has worked across many cultures over the centuries. And that would be for a panel (we now use 12) of older men of good standing to fairly and justly judge an issue and to name the remedy if they find the defendant guilty.

        That MRAs have refused to listen to the lessons of history when I have presented them is NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY. It is the responsibility of each man as to what HE WILL LISTEN TO and what HE WILL LEARN. This subversion of systems of law goes on again and again. Once people free themselves from tyrants the tyrants do NOT go away. They seek another way to subvert and enslave. That has been the history of mankind.

        • Bev

          This is a reasonable account of the progress of common law. However the Bushell case in 1670 has had a profound affect on the course of justice and the rights of juries/nullification can be traced back to this event.
 Case 1670
          Interestingly this trial of Quaker William Penn (founder of Pennsylvania) resulted in the rights of free assembly and association just as the trial of Peter Zenger was instrumental in fostering the idea of a free press.

  • AntZ

    Wonderful article! There is a detail which might make some of you laugh …

    “Those definitions now make consensual sex a rape if the woman has ingested alcohol, even if the man was also intoxicated.”

    This sentence is technically unclear (it does not specify that when sex occurs between two intoxicated partners, legally the woman is raped and the man is a rapist — but NOT vice versa).

    However, rape hysteria and presumption of male guilt are so universal that everyone will know what is meant :)

    It is a compelling demonstration of the prevalence and power of rape hysteria that there is no need to specify perpetrator and victim when talking about rape. It is contextually understood in any rape discussion that the woman is the victim and the man is the perpetrator — even when the discussiont takes place on an MRM board!

  • St. Estephe

    AvfM provides a necessary service in publishing articles like this which go deeply into civics (self-governance and mastery of the Constitution and law). We all must prepare ourselves for the coming time when the Federal Reserve / fractional banking / frauduent derivities scam runs out of steam and the anti-Constitution gov’t bureaucracies can no longer fully operate. At that time, those who are well-versed in the true laws of the republic will lead the restoration. The feminist tyranny is only a branch of a larger totalitarian corporate/gov’t social engineering machine, which, because its pseudo-science notions of what a human being is happens to be entirely erroneous, will fail, and fail in a big way. Nullify!

  • justicer

    Every group of disadvantaged people, in every country and jurisdiction, will have to weigh the benefits of jury nullification. As Paul has written, it has been used both to render justice and to hinder justice, so it’s double-edged. Great news on Monday may be overcome by a jury decision on Wednesday that is influenced by crass misandry or by moral panic.
    It may depend upon the balance of need and power. But there’s always a benefit to campaigning for citizen power and for enlightening the juries.
    In Canada, on rare occasions, jury nullification has occurred in some highly politicised cases. The legalization of abortion clinics was achieved by jury nullification of the law against abortions outside of hospitals.
    However, in that same jurisdiction, a jury decision is not subject to scrutiny or challenge, exept on formal appeal. This means that a jury may nullify a law by simply refusing to convict someone charged under it, and the jury does not have to explain why — and, most importantly, the jury is prohibited by law from revealing the debates that gave rise to the verdict.

    • Ray

      “…jury nullification. As Paul has written, it has been used both to render justice and to hinder justice, so it’s double-edged. “

      I think there was more jury prejudice and racism at work in the O.J. case than jury nullification. The prosecution did a really poor job of presenting the DNA evidence too. There was way too much “scientific” explanation – above the heads of the jury, IMO.

      All that said, I don’t think jury nullification has anywhere near the despicable history of trampling justice as our present, corrupt, feminist trained judges. They routinely strong arm juries into acquiescing to our feminist friendly, legal system.

      • OneHundredPercentCotton

        I hate to defend the OJ case, but in hindsight what this jury said loud and clear is that when cops are found to be lying and tampering with evidence, you must aquit, even if they were just doing it to “enhance” an acutal crime.

        We live in a day and age when juries will BELIEVE a cop or overlook when cops are obviously and blatantly lying or cooking the evidence. Cops lie, cops tamper with witnesses and evidence, labs have been found to purposefully skew results, yet we contine to BELEEEEVE the cops.

        It’s tragic the woman’s life was taken in vain and anger misdirected towards the “ignorant” jury instead of excusing police and prosecutorial misconduct.

        OJ might has “gotten away with it”, but countless innocent people have paid the price since.

  • Mr. J

    “nullification” is a fancy word that just confuses most people.
    People should just realize they have the power to do whatever their conscience tells them on a jury regardless of what the “judge” says.

    That should be just OBVIOUS.

    WHY isn’t it?????


    • Fidelbogen

      Nope. It clearly is not obvious, or they would have seen it. Nobody told them this, but maybe if somebody introduced the fancy word “nullification”, along with a simple, capsule explanation of this straightforward legal concept, it might dispel their confusion and indeed make it “obvious”.

      In the end, the word nullification is not really fancy or confusing at all. But best of all, . . . . it has gravitas.

      And gravitas makes an obvious impression on simple minds, say what you will.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      I’ve never been involved in jury duty, but my sister was screamed at and threatened by a Kansas Judge when questioned whether or not she would go along with “The System” or vote her conscious.

      She was a High School History teacher at the time, a True Believer in The Greatest Justice In The World and until that day considered herself a Good Citizen.

      She was summarily dismissed as unfit for being a juror. Needless to say it was quite an education for one who educates America’s children of our vaulted judicial system.

  • CCRoxtar

    To be exact, Prohibition lasted from 1919-1933. Otherwise, excellent article!

    • Paul Elam

      To be really exact, that is not contradicting what I said. I looked for examples of jury nullification during prohibition. All that I found were from the thirties.

      Otherwise, excellent comment! :)

  • keyster

    It’s the proverbial double-edged sword and one that lawyers (and defendants) might like to have at their disposal…depending.

    Who is the jury? If they’re afforded the time to sit on jury duty (or lack the intelligence to wriggle their way out of it), they’re not my “peers”. They’re retirees, housewives, unemployed, students, etc…who think a $10 per diem for food is cool. They’re not middle-aged, white male, professionals.

    So do I want a jury smart enough to understand nullification, in the instance I’m innocent? Or do I want a jury stupid enough, that can be swayed by emotional appeal, in the instance I’m guilty? Either way, my jury will most likely be a cross-section of people who are relatively clueless; that’s good AND bad…and lawyers know it and use it. Lawyers like maleable idiots on their jurys. They hate people who’re too smart for their own good. They want average and predictable.

    What’s needed is a change in the perception our culture has about rape vs. false rape accusation. If I were to be falsely accused, I would NOT want a jury of men, galant white knights with daughters and sisters. I would want women because they’d see right through the intentions of my accusor. The men would be biased against men in ANY rape case. But yet they’d be considered my peers!

    OJ Simpson didn’t have a jury of his peers, he had a jury of OJ Simpson fans, that wanted to send a message about supposed injustice towards blacks in our legal system.

    Casey Anthony had a jury of her peers. SIngle moms, sympathetic retirees, enamoured with puppy dog eyes and crocodile tears vs. a mountian of circumstantial evidence against her.

    It’s a flawed system, but its still the best one in the world. The guilty go free. Make sure you can afford a REALLY good lawyer or a distracted incompetent public defender will be appointed to represent you…and by all means be careful where you deposit your DNA.

    • BeijaFlor

      Keyster, I’ve served several times on petit juries in my county, and one three-month session on the Grand Jury. I served because I see it as the one place where the average man can make a difference in the cause of justice – sure-as-hell not for the lunch money. And my arguments in the jury chambers served, at least, to turn down a couple of the “ham sandwiches” the D.A. brought up for indictment.

      (PS, though, to Paul – I would really like that MELT logo as a lapel pin, to wear the next time I am called to jury duty.)

      • keyster

        The times I was “summoned” to serve I worked in High Tech Encorpera Encampments and there is NO WAY taking off several days for jury duty would have been acceptable. It’s not like your peers or boss will gladly fill in for you out of a sense of supporting you for doing your “duty” as a good citizen either. In a very politicized environment, if you’re not around to defend yourself you will be weakened in the eyes of management. NO ONE “has your back” in Encorpera, except waiting for
        the opportunity to stab it.

        The Jury selection process here has become a science, with consultants and specialists. You don’t want smart people, you want “sympathetic” simpletons. The folks they end up with are not the brightest bulbs, on purpose.

        People that are too smart might cause trouble, like threats of nullification. The days of “12 Angry Men” are gone. They want passive and very average.

        • Paul Elam

          One of the things I really like about smart people: They can be passive and average any time they want to be.

          I will be researching to write an article on how to get picked for jury duty.

          • keyster

            The cases I was called for were not very compelling. Believe me, if the right right case came up I’d be juror selection numero uno. Both sides would love me for my “moderate, every-man appeal”.

          • Izzey

            I could not resist looking this up. I just got home from a long day, and a few of these made me crack up laughing.

            “How To Get Out Of Jury Duty Summons- 16 Fool-proof Excuses”


            Number 16 just made my day.

          • Dr. F


            U nut :)

        • Bev

          I have mentioned this before. The prosecution tries to get as many men as possible onto the jury for rape trials they are more likely to convict. An example of the White Knight syndrome at work.

        • OneHundredPercentCotton

          After having one family member serve on the Heidi Fleiss jury and another on a high profile Mafia case, I will do whatever it takes to avoid jury duty as long as I live.

          The Fleiss case dragged on and on for months and months. He looked like he aged 10 years and became physically ill from having to listen to the relentlessly perverse “evidence”. In the Mafia case the defendant openly threatened the jury members, and had the chops to back it up. He was a WWII combat Marine, but I’ve never seen a grown man so scared in my life. This was a direct threat against his wife and children.

          Both these men were Engineers and upper middle class, thinking they were being “Good Citizens”.

          I would never qualify for Jury Duty anyway. As the mother of a convicted felon I’ll never be a Good Citizen again.

      • Paul Elam

        We might be able to do it. JtO designed the logo, which was fashioned, interestingly enough, after a really well known logo from an exterminator company.

        I can’t tell you the name, but it rhymes with Dworkin. :)

  • Ray

    “I serve the corrupt (misandric) government of L.A. County under a jury “duty” summons only because of the enforcer in the courtroom (wearing a badge and gun), and the threat of fine and imprisonment on my jury “duty” summons. I do not serve out of any real sense of duty or obligation to the corrupt (misandric) County of Los Angeles for the same logic stated by our founding fathers in their Declaration of Independence. I have told several judges as much.”


    During voir dire, when the activist L.A. County judge asks me if I will follow a judge’s instructions, I reply, “As a jury nullificationist, I cannot in good conscience do so, but will under duress. The Constitution of the United States says, ‘We the people,’ not, ‘We the judges.’ In addition to the facts in evidence in the case before us, as a juror, I will sit in judgment on the legality of the law itself.”


    “My statement is usually received with a glower and harsh words and tone from the pompous, black robed, activist judge, staring down from his/her perch in his/her L.A. County courtroom.”

  • Ray

    Great article. Thanks Paul.

  • peterandrewnolan

    Hi Paul,
    Campaign for justice? Since justice is best served by a jury trial of ones peers should not a campaign for justice simply be a campaign for juries?

    Anyway. I do not intend to post here very often unless you specifically want me to. I just dropped by to let you and your readers know that I have served the following Lawful Notice onto all members of both houses in Ireland. This is part of the process of putting all members on the hook as accessories after the fact of the criminal acts of “judge griffin”.

    This lawful notice is similar to the one I did for all members of the Australian Parliament last April.

    We have our numbers for our juries in Australia. I am now just waiting a man to step up to the plate to be the Secretary of the Court in Sydney. I have one for Brisbane and one for Melbourne but not Sydney. Obviously I can not be a secretary of the court for processing my own case. I have a conflict of interests in having my own case processed.

    It is sad to see men too afraid to step up to this very important job. Most men I talk to about this job are afraid of the backlash of the guvment when we run these early cases. And backlash there will be. We do not expect the criminals in the guvments to back down easily. They have made it clear they know they are criminals and they do not intend to give in easily. So we have to do this the hard way.

  • peterandrewnolan

    “We have a system that is past broken.”

    I have said at least 100 times on the spearhead that the criminal just-us system is NOT broken. It is doing EXACTLY what it is supposed to do. Destroy men. The justice system is designed by the ruling elite to make sure they REMAIN the ruling elite.

    Just today I have sent a Lawful Notice to Mark Zuckerberg, in part to put him on the hook for not making the crimes of the judiciary public. Here are some quoted from Jefferson I sent to Mark.

    In 1789 Thomas Jefferson warned that the judiciary if given too much power might ruin our REPUBLIC, and destroy our RIGHTS!

    “The new Constitution has secured these [individual rights] in the Executive and Legislative departments; but not in the Judiciary. It should have established trials by the people themselves, that is to say, by jury.”

    The Judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric..” (1820)

    “…the Federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scarecrow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one….when all government…in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government which we separated. 1821

    “The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

    “…judges should be withdrawn from the bench whose erroneous biases are leading us to dissolution. It may, indeed, injure them in fame or fortune, but it saves the Republic…”

    As you can see Thomas Jefferson labeled the judiciary and irresponsible body in 1821. In 1821 he was talking about how the judiciary were becoming part of an oppressive government and allowing the judiciary to nominate what was and was not constitutional was the road to despotism.

    MANY have openly ridiculed me for suggesting that the entire operations of guvment and the judiciary are a criminal cartel. But does not what Obama announced on new years tell you all you need to know? He announced the guvments “right” to indefinitely detain people without trial OR EVIDENCE. The US is a police state. Anyone with a brain can see that. The answer does NOT lay in asking your jailers to loosen your chains a little. The answer lay in casting off your chains and putting your jailers on trial. I have presented the method by which to do this and MRAs have steadfastly refused to listen. Well I am in good company with the likes of Jefferson in telling you what has happened and what the remedy is. The remedy is 12 honest men of honour and integrity sworn under oath to try cases fairly and justly.

    And if men are NOT willing to do that? Then they can have no complaints. I have created mens and womens CAF sites for the major english speaking countries. If fathers are NOT willing to sit on juries? If they WISH to obey their slave masters from a place of fear of reprisals? Then they are slaves. And they deserve their slavery.

    “Those who give up freedoms for security and safety end up with neither and deserve neither”…or close to it…by Benjamin Franklin.

    • keyster

      If somone ever figures out how to bottle Peter-Andrew Nolan’s tenacity and grit, please let me know.

      (Just make it the low calorie version if you can.)

  • Dannyboy

    Love the article and idea Paul !

    Canadian law on this topic.

    Section 11 f of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

    11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

    (f)except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

    In the supreme court case of R. v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2001 SCC 1

    “Guarding against jury nullification is a desirable and legitimate exercise for a trial judge; in fact a judge is required to take steps to ensure that the jury will apply the law properly”

    “57 The term “jury nullification” refers to that rare situation where a jury knowingly chooses not to apply the law and acquits a defendant regardless of the strength of the evidence against him. Jury nullification is an unusual concept within the criminal law, since it effectively acknowledges that it may occur that the jury elects in the rarest of cases not to apply the law. The explanation seems to be that on some occasions, oppression will result either from a harsh law or from a harsh application of a law.

    58 This Court has referred to the jury’s power to nullify as “the citizen’s ultimate protection against oppressive laws and the oppressive enforcement of the law” and it has characterized the jury nullification power as a “safety valve” for exceptional cases: R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 (“Morgentaler (1988)”), at pp. 78-79. At the same time, however, Dickson C.J. warned that “recognizing this reality [that a jury may nullify] is a far cry from suggesting that counsel may encourage a jury to ignore a law they do not support or to tell a jury that it has a right to do so” (emphasis in original).

    So while jury nullification is a possibility, ” Guarding against jury nullification is a desirable and legitimate exercise for a trial judge” The Supreme Court is of the view it is to be frowned upon.

    Note this case as well references the Morgentaler case, which Justicer has pointed to.

    Other than that it seems to boil down to a sympathetic jury, a decent trial judge, and a good defense lawyer.
    The last two should be on an endangered species list.

    A little off topic but I feel bears mentioning if you’re having trouble with your lawyer in Ontario I would suggest you have a look at the The Dirty Lawyer Registry Ontario website found here:

    Give Marc a call he won the common folk the right to sue dirty liars erm lawyers.
    His number is on the website.

  • wholebrainartist

    Institutionalized corruption. At all levels. Chilling stuff. This is the kind of article that is a reminder of why it’s not so bad to be labeled an “anti-government extremist.”

    Back during the the Clinton Years my husband and I were quite active in “pro-2nd amendment” politics (he still is) and it was then that we first heard about this ( group, Paul, which you should seriously connect with. Back in the 90’s they had produced bookmark-sized (if memory serves me) Jury-Nulification handouts that they would distribute outside courtrooms.

    God bless the internet, eh?

    • justicer

      Fascinating link, wholebrainartist. I do have to ask an obvious question. If I were a judge, and I saw potential or real jurors being handed materials about jury nullification, I might think the jury was being influenced. Perhaps more reasonably, I might think it was my job, as judge, to ensure that jurors were well informed. So my question is: was there any resistance to your handing out those “bookmark-size” handouts?

      • wholebrainartist

        Did not hand them out myself. Saw them at various meetings, rallys, etc. but I imagine there was resistance, though again if I remember the material was not “personal opinion” rather quotations from court cases, judges, etc. Perhaps they have a stats page on their with or anecdotes from people who regularly use their materials.

  • Dazza

    Great article Paul and a great name for the campaign.

  • justicer

    Just read this: “In asking for the claim to be tossed out, the Iowa prosecutors asserted ‘there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed’.”
    Here’s an idea. Start a campaign to put that slogan on the state flag.

  • Tatyana

    In my brothers re-trial the judge barred defense from asking questions or showing the jury evidence of the witness’s and prosecutor’s lying. Everything was done behind closed doors to assure his conviction and to make an example out of him. In the end, the judge even threatened the jury against jury nullification by saying that it didn’t matter whether they agreed with the law or not because they were legally required to find my brother guilty if they believed any events even took place.

    • keyster

      That’s Bangor, Maine.
      A White-Knight/Feminist paradise.
      Putting men behind bars there for the slightest hint they might have harmed a woman or child, is a cottage industry. It’s open season on men there year round. Even deer get a break in the summer months.

  • Ray

    “…the judge even threatened the jury against jury nullification by saying that it didn’t matter whether they agreed with the law or not”

    He’s just another black robed Stalin who tramples on the Constitution and “We the people” like the criminal tyrant he truly is.

  • Bombay

    Ray is right on target on how the US judges deal with jury nullification. Before being selected, the judge has you take an oath that you will do as he instructs. If you do participate on a jury with the intention of nullification, you could be prosecuted.

    A very relevant case is CO vs Laura J. Kriho. The judge who charged her with contempt was the same judge that presided over my divorce. He crucified me.

    Here is a link to the ruling:

    This is the important part:

    ” THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that, based upon this Court’s finding that Ms. Kriho deliberately and willfully withheld and concealed information which was relevant and important to selecting a fair and impartial jury, and that Ms. Kriho did so with the intent of serving on the jury for the purpose of obstructing justice, the Court finds Ms. Kriho in Contempt of Court.”

    I think she got off in the end, but only after a lot of litigation, the typical action of government to rape someone of money/life whether they are guilty or not.

    There are many reviews and articles on this case on the Internet.

    • justicer

      Bombay, this tends to reinforce my suspicion, that judges will be very aggressive to obtain docile juries.

      • Bombay

        And to do whatever they want.

        This is the case that is cited by the court if anyone sues a judge for misconduct.

        “(a) A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority, but rather he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the “clear absence of all jurisdiction,” Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 351. Pp. 355-357. [435 U.S. 349, 350] ”

        Notice “was done maliciously”. A judge can be as vengeful/cruel as he/she wishes and will be immune. This is not law – it is all derived from judges ruling for themselves.

        And they (the judges) have extended this protection to the prosecutors – again not a law, but through their own rulings.

        This is all a part of the corruption that Paul describes.

  • Dannyboy

    Ot sorry don’t know where to post this

    Could use a little help at the Hamilton Spectator in an opinion article the topic of msiandry is brought up. Look for an opinion article “Commercials belittle men and women “

    • by_the_sword

      Please Give us a link to the article.

  • Primal

    I’ve always hated the tyranny of being forced to serve on a jury for an insane system (See Al Pacino in And Justice for All). Jury nullification is better than going to prison for contempt of court (imposed by courts of contempt.) That said, jury nullification is essentially defensive. I believe that particularly for men’s issues, it will take offensive initiatives (like say Daddy Justice’s) to carry the day. This branch of government is the most tyrannical, the most hidden and the most in need of disinfectant (sunshine) than the the other two. It’s no accident that the ‘men’ who run the Justice racket wear ‘dresses’ either.

  • Dannyboy

    More Cdn Bigotry

    “Ottawa teacher fired after she was accused of having ‘sexual relationship’ with two male students”
    “The incidents in question involved four male students and span the school years 2001-02 to 2005-06. The school in question is not named.”
    “The committee agreed with Leger-Legault’s own admission that she violated student/teacher boundaries by engaging in inappropriate relations with a total of four students and chastised her for abusing the position of trust and authority she had over the students.”
    “Ottawa police presented documents at hearings in May and September last year, which Leger-Legault did not attend, the decision notes.”

    “Ottawa Police said Monday they have no record of any criminal charges being laid in these incidents.”

    “In a statement, the OCDSB said police investigated but found insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges when a complaint about a female teacher first surfaced in 2006. ”

    Yes she plead no contest agreed with uncontested statement of facts and the cops do what?
    While there might have been insufficient evidence in 2006 why is the justice system doing nothing now?

    transcripts here:

    candidate for register-her I’d say

  • keyster

    And who even bothers to investigate a judges record of rulings before voting for them? …Assuming the judge is an elected position, if not he’ll be a political “appointment”.

    The mere fact that the media alludes to the Supreme Court as “ruling along ideological lines”…is proof positive justice is not blind. And it’s astounding that we accept this as OK or “normal”.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      During my son’s trials, I was in contact with people from all over the US who had been put through the Court System wringer.

      One woman, whose son had been taken by CPS because of her messy house and was in the process of being adopted by a gay couple in Seattle, told me she demanded the gold fringed flag be removed from the courtroom during her “fitness ” hearing. She claimed such flags, which you will notice ARE in every courtroom, nullify the Constitutional rights of defendants.

      She won her case, and took her son to live as a survivalist in Montana…(does anyone do THAT anymore)?

      I’ve tried to research gold fringe on the flag, but can’t find definitive answers. Anyone familiar with this?

      I remember my sister being threatened with jail by a raging Judge during her Jury duty (in Kansas) if she did not “vote” guilty the way he ordered her to. She was a High School Civics teacher and utterly devastated by the experience.

  • Ray

    The National Organization for Women is on the march. While many judges are staunch feminist ideologues, many other judges are spineless cowards who just follow misandrist laws that are shoved down their throats by feminist activists. NOW is now pushing for even stronger misandrist law in congress. Here is this disingenuous, feminist propaganda now being foisted in congress from NOW’s most recent newsletter:

    “VAWA Focuses on Prevention – The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act as introduced in the Senate on Nov. 30 by Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and joined as co-sponsors by Sens. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho) and Paul Kirk (R-Ill.), would maintain VAWA’s crucial support and services for survivors of violence.

    VAWA 2011 also includes prevention programs that focus on children and youth, as well as ways to engage men as leaders and role models in ending violence against women. The bill provides tools to prevent domestic violence homicides by training law enforcement, victim service providers, and court personnel on identifying and managing high-risk offenders and connecting high-risk survivors to crisis intervention services. Here’s this from NOW:

    Rural, Tribal Assistance Provided – VAWA 2011 improves responses to the high rate of violence against women in tribal communities by strengthening concurrent tribal criminal jurisdiction over perpetrators who assault Indian spouses and dating partners in Indian country.

    VAWA programs have provided survivors with critical services such as transitional housing, legal assistance, and supervised visitation services. It has addressed the unique barriers faced by victims in rural communities, elderly victims, and those with disabilities. The bill strengthens housing protections for victims by applying existing housing protections to nine additional federal housing programs.”

    I’m thrilled by SAVE’s work to oppose the misandry and unjust proposed legislation. But remember, if you contact the Senate Judiciary Committee, be polite when talking, or FAXing the Senators. That’s important. We can always say how deeply we’ve been screwed over on AVfM. :-) If we want to really be effective, be polite, and hopefully watch VAWA get some badly needed accountability.

  • AntZ

    Has anyone noticed how feminists who are confronted with facts frequently find salvation by criticising punctuation? I think that this is actually men’s fault, especially since the use of “logic” is a form of domestic abuse:

    Since feminists often run out of “logic” in discussions with MRAs (which is domestic violence), I think it is the duty of all MRAs to use grammatically incorrect punctuation. This will give feminists a shield against our oppressive “logic”, preventing the situation from escalating into “assault with a logical weapon.”

    This leads to the question of what kind of punctuation error is most optimal. Fear not! I have also investigated this very important issue, and I conclude that the “two dot ellipsis” is the ideal punctuation error that should pepper every MRA argument with a feminist. While it allways a good idea to add a “two dot ellipsis” when talking to a feminist, this practice is mandatory if you intend to use “logic” against her.

    Here are the results of the investigation into the most appropriate form of intentional punctuation error that we MRAs should employ in our writing (so that feminist can have something to criticize when we use “weapons of logical destruction”):

    1) “the author actually inserts an ellipsis. Lard help me, it’s a four-pointer!” — I blame the Patriarchy, Nov 23, 2008


    3) “I particularly enjoyed the (somewhat incorrect) use of the ellipsis …” Equal Writes, Jan 28, 2009

    4) “… turns three periods into an ellipsis and stuff (yes, there’s a silly joke in there somewhere) …” — Feministe, Nov 22, 2007

    Clearly, intentional mis-use of the ellipsis is the go-to relief valve needed for the safe use of oppressive patriarchal “logic” ..

    • by_the_sword

      Personally I don’t bother “discussing” anything with women or feminists. They will never see the light. I reserve my discussions as terse warnings to my fellow men and I try to guide them here where they can be enlightened by better voices than my own.

  • Me

    Jury Nullification and the ability of the jury to judge not only the case but the laws is probably the most important aspect of the American system. It’s the power for the people to check against corruption in government and the courts. If every official and judge is corrupt and they make corrupt laws, juries can refuse to recognize and have citizens be persecuted by those laws.

    Being one of the most important important aspects of the system, of course most people don’t know about it.

  • JinnBottle

    “We have a legal system that is past broken…a time when the legal system has abandoned its responsibility to pursue justice.”

    That says it all. In this election year, we have a chance to grab the pols by the ear and yell the above into them.

  • Primal

    Speaking of justice, the voices of boys need to be included. While mothers love to murder boys and probably murder them in bigger numbers than do fathers, AS MALES we need to focus first on fathers who murder boys. This father was the worst kind of traitor to his own sex and he is exhibit A for feminist bigots who love to demonize men. This kind of heartbreaking horror (one which also forms the foundation for the 3 Western religions…religions which delight in starting male on male murder crusades) needs to be addressed on sites like this.

    • Bombay

      I respectfully disagree. As humans, we recognize that there are unstable people of both genders. If people are playing the gender card here – then they are gender bigots.

      • Primal

        Of course there are unstable people of both sexes (‘gender’ is Valley Girl nonsense for sex…no offense to you of course). However, males are at far higher risk of death or serious injury from other males than they are from females. The hidden story behind male on male violence is female vice, but that doesn’t mean that A Voice For Men should ignore the huge number of males who suffer from other males. We need to go to the root of the problem, which is that males murder or injure other males primarily to get access to that most holy of grails…the female thing. We also need to show that we take male violence seriously so that we can defang the feminist rattlesnakes who scapegoat all males as violent ‘patriarchal’ brutes.

  • db917

    I am not sure where to post this request. I am soliciting help in addressing the family law circus.

    I’d like to share my experience in the Texas Family Law Courts. My reason for doing so is because I hope by making it public that others can benefit. I can substantiate disregard for the law and evidence by the Court appointed Amicus with e-mail correspondence or attorney correspondence and this is not all of it. The actions of the Court appointed Evaluator and Judge were equally as prejudiced; or whatever you’d like to call it.

    I have three daughters. Two who are teens that I have raised mostly on my own since infants and who are two the most well adjusted and accomplished kids that any parent could ask for. I went to trial to determine primary residence for my youngest daughter – the other two girls are mine from a previous marriage. I came away with less time than the Court appointed Evaluator recommended, limitations on the care I could provide for my youngest child and a non dischargeable debt of about 108K for the fees of opposing counsel and the amicus.

    I am completely amazed by how hypocritical our family law system is here in Texas and no doubt throughout the nation. I think this is important to discuss, because this bias and incompetence has harmed those it claims to protect – the children. Exclusive of the damage it did and continues to do to me, it’s tainted my older girl’s views of the Family Law courts (they are only knowledgeable of a small part of this) and deprived them financially, while enriching a female whose financial situation is very well to do.

    I am willing to provide court documents and e-mails to prove my position. But, I want to do this right and not compromise my position for future legal actions. I am really at a loss for what my constructive options are… any advice is appreciated.

  • quolls

    Dr. Leon Koziol Introduces the Founding Fathers March to America


    This video is an introduction to the Founding Fathers March to Washington, D.C. to reform divorce, custody and support laws on April 20, 2012.

  • quolls

  • Michael

    Sorry about the de-rail: I couldn’t find a better place on this site to make this request.

    I would like to request that Tracy Odell be removed from your “featured offenders” list. I looked up her site, and found that its general tone was not anti-male at all. In fact, I discovered on it a truly beautiful, kind article called “50 rules for Dads of Daughters” which I recommend to everyone. Please don’t lump this site in with men-haters such as Radfem Hub and false rape accusers.

    • Paul Elam

      Request denied.

    • Dr. F


      Hitler made a great omelet I heard, and Tracy Odell can thread a needle in a pitch black room. – ok… and… ?

      Nope. She stays.

      We could scrub away much of her bad behaviour as you wish it, but the very stench of her is electronically stamped online. Forever.

      As it should be, don’t you think ?

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “In a stable, self-correcting society, attention would be drawn to these problems and efforts to ameliorate them employed. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened.”


    Nothing is “self-correcting.” When one side inflicts harm and the harmed do nothing, guess what happens?

    The only “unfortunate” thing is that men expect Martians to rescue them from fembotulism.

    When a bully knows she can mess you up, do you think she will stop on her own?

    Oh, right. She will learn a handfull of victims will gather online and rant.

  • anangrymother

    Back in 1999 my sons father had consensual intercourse with a 16 yr old, he was 17. He did something stupid, but afterwards he rejected her. She cried rape and they arrested him. They dropped the rape charge to an indecent assault. He was convicted and did 5 years in jail. He has to register lifetime on Megans Law. His public defender told him he could have won his case for him if he would have slipped him some money. My issue is, he passed 2 lie detector tests, evidence shows the girls actions such as putting on her shoes and finishing her beer, as told by one witness, seeking medical attention 2 days after the supposed “attack” no signs of struggle, rips, bruises tears, etc, she told one witness she said it because her parents would beat her for not coming home that night. These witnesses were not brought up on stand. Reading over his discovery packet there are many more problems with his case not being properly handled. Before being charged being he was only 17 the Lebanon County posted his name in the newspaper etc. He did 5 yrs and both his parents passed away during his incarceration.He lost his son and gets harassed all the time. Remember she was 16, he 17, he gets called a child molester. And he is a lifetime register. They denied him an appeal. He cant find work to hire a real lawyer. His case is public anyone can see for themselves. Oh, could it be maybe because he was a poor hispanic male and she was not? Can something be done about the corruption. I heard this Public Defender is now a Judge.