http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
http://isil.org/resources/lit/new-hope-fija.html
http://www.juryduty.org/JuryDuty.htm
http://www.fija.org

Once seated on a jury, the citizen becomes higher in power than the law, and can return a “not guilty” verdict, even if doing so obviously violates the law, and holds the court in contempt.

There are two sets of laws. The “common law” is also known as outlawing “mala in se” crimes or “actions that are crimes, in and of themselves”. “Mala prohibita” laws, on the other hand, prohibit victimless crimes (Things that would not commonly be considered a crime, if it were not for legislation against it. “Victimless crimes” fall into this category. They are things that might cause a crime –in a weak-minded person– but not cause a crime in a strong-minded person, such as drinking alcohol or snorting cocaine. Doing the thing by itself doesn’t need to harm anyone. Only when incorrect socialist views of life are applied as a standard is there “harm”.)

On the other hand, “mala in se” crimes always cause two things: “harm” and “causation”.
1) Harm is obvious. Someone’s person or rightfully-acquired property has been forcibly damaged, removed, or destroyed, against their will. (examples: assault, theft, murder)
2) The person doing the damage knew that they were violating their victim’s rights, and they did it anyway. …The person knowingly “caused” harm. (everyone knows that assault, theft, and murder are wrong, except the insane and severely mentally retarded, who are held to a different legal standard precisely for this reason.)

The Libertarian view of reality is that “mala in se” crimes should be the only things considered crimes on the books.

Since the government has no right to do anything except defend the innocent, the courts should be virtually empty, even if noone pays their taxes, and everyone uses dangerous drugs. The government should not steal from anyone (tax them). The government should come to the people with their hat in their hand, and beg for money.

All payments to the government should be voluntary.

If this was the case, then I imagine there might be a stigma associated with tax nonpayment, especially among the wealthy, and especially on government workers who failed to pay.

In the current situation, the government tries to create a social stigma by threatening everyone with imprisonment if they don’t pay taxes. Therefore, anyone who stil refuses to pay is seen as “getting away with something”. The government is therefore relying on jealousy to turn Americans into a nation of backstabbing snitches.

Imagine the once proud and rebellious citizen-jurors of the Founding era, now reduced to being hauled into tax court and violated by the willing accomplices of the British. Then remember that the 2% tax on tea that the colonists rebelled against was nothing in comparison to the crushing regulation and taxation of the current day.

Of course, the idea that you’re getting anything in return for your money is absurd. The typical American purchases only coercion against innocent people with his cowardice in the jury deliberation room.

Sam Dodson is a hero.

Someone I know got a letter from the IRS today. It appears they may wish the Sam’s fate upon me, and for us all. They now have enough cages to hold us all, and are most likely willing to go to any length to destroy us all. Everyone on this board, everyone who thinks for themselves. Everyone willing to move to an inhospitable state away from their families in the service of individual freedom.

They can put me in a cage, and if I die there, know that it was them that killed me.

(Anyone who is arrested for a “malum prohibitum” offense should ask the cop who arrested him if the citation is a cause of action against them. If he says yes, ask him what the elements of a valid cause of action are. (The prosecutor and judge won’t allow this, and will declare the cop unfit to comment. If he’s unfit to comment, object, and move to dismiss his testimony/”testilying”) If you ask the average cop on the police stand if he took an oath to uphold the constitution, he will say “yes”. –This happened when I asked that question in a traffic case in Racine, WI.– If you ask the average cop if he knows the difference between the “common law”, and “mala prohibita” laws, he will not. If you ask him if he knows the difference between a “common law jury trial”, and a rigged jury trial, he will not –and the prosecutor and judge will tell him not to answer–. If you then ask him if he’s read the constitution, he will say “yes”. If you then ask him if he understands the constitution’s bill of rights, he will stutter and the judge and prosecutor will come to his “defense”, declaring him unfit to comment. This means he is not competent to give testimony against you, since he doesn’t know how to honor his oath. If the questioning is allowed, simply probe him on:
1–How can he allow “voir dire” to transpire, if he took an oath to uphold common law jury trial? After all, “voir dire” directly negates the existence of the “common law jury”.)

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=044844&From=News

you don’t ever want to end up in a real jail.

trust me,you don’t.

decent article …. funny use of the term “authorities”, as if the government thugs are them