Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.960 --> 00:02.320] Welcome back to the podcast. [00:02.320 --> 00:05.280] Many years ago, I appeared on a local TV show in Southern California [00:05.280 --> 00:08.240] to debate the topic of jury nullification. [00:08.680 --> 00:12.000] I thought that old footage was long lost, but a few years back, [00:12.000 --> 00:13.480] it was found on an old hard drive. [00:13.480 --> 00:17.960] That footage was placed on YouTube and then subsequently lost again [00:18.200 --> 00:21.400] when YouTube removed my channel for telling the truth about various aspects [00:21.400 --> 00:23.600] of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and the vaccines. [00:24.120 --> 00:27.680] All the things I said, having since been scientifically proven factual. [00:28.280 --> 00:31.200] What a world we live in when big tech removes science [00:31.800 --> 00:34.280] because it conflicts with falsehoods put out by government. [00:34.800 --> 00:38.080] Today's presentation is the third time this information is being provided [00:38.080 --> 00:41.360] to the public because this time it's being posted to Rumble, [00:41.360 --> 00:42.800] a free speech platform. [00:42.800 --> 00:45.560] Hopefully it will now remain available forever. [00:46.320 --> 00:52.480] Jury nullification is a completely lost aspect of our criminal justice system. [00:52.680 --> 00:55.400] People in our society often rail against government [00:55.400 --> 00:58.720] overreach while ignoring what is perhaps the most effective [00:58.720 --> 01:02.000] and important nonviolent means of blocking that overreach. [01:02.720 --> 01:06.320] Every American should be thoroughly educated about jury nullification. [01:06.880 --> 01:09.840] Jury nullification is as much a part of our liberty [01:10.120 --> 01:14.120] as is free speech, freedom of association, freedom from unreasonable [01:14.120 --> 01:17.440] search and seizure and every other unalienable right. [01:17.720 --> 01:23.000] Jury nullification is a critical aspect of our liberty equation. [01:25.400 --> 01:31.120] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [01:39.480 --> 01:40.760] Let's start with this. [01:40.760 --> 01:43.000] One of the things I appreciate about this footage [01:43.000 --> 01:46.240] is it embodies something rarely seen in America anymore. [01:46.840 --> 01:50.160] Open debate between people with knowledge and expertise. [01:50.720 --> 01:53.040] A couple of months ago, I did a presentation on which I discussed [01:53.040 --> 01:56.320] the fact that experts are no longer willing to debate [01:56.320 --> 01:58.560] in order to defend their publicly stated positions. [01:59.160 --> 02:03.360] My personal view is that if a so-called expert refuses [02:03.360 --> 02:07.160] to debate his or her publicly stated position, then whatever he or she said [02:07.400 --> 02:10.280] should be considered non-credible and ignored. [02:10.280 --> 02:12.160] I'll put a link to that video in the notes. [02:12.160 --> 02:15.000] I should also let you know that the discussion of jury nullification [02:15.000 --> 02:18.680] takes place within a broader discussion of jury duty generally. [02:19.280 --> 02:22.000] Because I was given permission years ago [02:22.360 --> 02:26.080] to use clips of the show, but not air the entire show. [02:26.080 --> 02:28.800] You're going to see a series of meaningful clips. [02:29.120 --> 02:32.840] Speaking of clips, a quick word to those listening via the podcast. [02:33.080 --> 02:36.240] Between the various segments, there will be a couple of seconds of silence. [02:36.240 --> 02:38.520] Not to worry. Nothing is wrong. [02:38.520 --> 02:41.240] It's just the way the clips are from an earlier version. [02:41.760 --> 02:46.480] Also, as I said in the introduction, this show took place a long time ago, [02:46.480 --> 02:49.000] so you may be shocked at the difference in my appearance. [02:49.360 --> 02:50.960] I hope you enjoy the information. [02:50.960 --> 02:52.920] I'll touch base with you again at the end. [03:21.840 --> 03:22.360] That's quick. [03:25.080 --> 03:28.400] Jimmy Orland, a recurring panelist, a regular guy, regular panelist. [03:28.400 --> 03:30.400] We can keep you off the panel here. [03:30.400 --> 03:31.880] Well, thank you very much. [03:31.880 --> 03:33.920] I appreciate the sincerity. [03:33.920 --> 03:35.200] And you are an attorney at law. [03:35.200 --> 03:36.320] I am, yes. [03:36.320 --> 03:37.760] Practicing. [03:37.760 --> 03:39.440] I practice from time to time. [03:39.440 --> 03:41.000] Actually, I'm so good now, I don't even practice. [03:41.000 --> 03:42.320] You got it perfectly down. [03:42.320 --> 03:43.200] Good. [03:43.200 --> 03:44.920] All right. And Tom Helen, [03:44.920 --> 03:48.920] portfolio manager and with stocks and bonds and all that stuff. [03:48.920 --> 03:50.080] And mostly stocks. [03:50.120 --> 03:52.680] OK. And first time on the on the panel. [03:52.680 --> 03:53.960] Welcome. Thanks for being here. [03:53.960 --> 03:54.840] Thank you. [03:54.840 --> 03:58.240] And Patrick Lindstroth, you know, you're a business owner [03:58.240 --> 03:59.760] and you also work with Dave Champion. [03:59.760 --> 04:02.560] You're in charge of political affairs over at OriginalIntent.org. [04:02.560 --> 04:04.000] Correct. OK. [04:04.000 --> 04:06.480] Now, we're mentioning this political this OriginalIntent.org. [04:06.480 --> 04:08.480] What let's just get this out of the way. [04:08.480 --> 04:10.280] What is OriginalIntent.org? [04:10.280 --> 04:12.640] Because I don't think people are clear on what that is. [04:12.760 --> 04:15.680] Original Intent is an organization dedicated to the restoration [04:15.680 --> 04:19.520] and revitalization of the inalienable rights spoken of in the Declaration of Independence. [04:19.840 --> 04:22.920] Sort of like the civil rights movement was in the 60s. [04:22.920 --> 04:24.920] This is what we're we're after today. [04:29.360 --> 04:31.600] What's your position on the jury system? [04:31.600 --> 04:33.360] Are you pro or con? [04:33.360 --> 04:36.400] I don't think there's there's an issue of pro or con with the jury system. [04:36.400 --> 04:41.960] I think the issue is how can the jury system be that which it has always been [04:42.240 --> 04:45.160] and has lost much of its zeal and appeal over the years? [04:45.520 --> 04:48.400] The jury system has always been, as Patrick said, the last line of defense. [04:48.440 --> 04:50.200] It is something we should participate in. [04:50.200 --> 04:52.200] It is something we should be a part of. [04:52.200 --> 04:55.120] Although today it it was it was a right. [04:55.120 --> 04:57.080] You remember probably when you were growing up like my parents, [04:57.080 --> 04:59.520] it's a right to go sit on a jury. [04:59.520 --> 05:01.600] But today it's not treated like a right. [05:01.600 --> 05:04.800] Today, it's it's if you don't go, it's treated like a criminal act. [05:05.080 --> 05:07.840] If you get that piece of paper in the mail, this is jury summons [05:08.040 --> 05:10.800] and you don't fill it out and you don't sign it and you don't send it back. [05:11.000 --> 05:11.840] What does it say on there? [05:11.840 --> 05:13.560] They may issue a warrant for your arrest. [05:13.560 --> 05:14.680] What kind of right is that? [05:19.360 --> 05:20.920] Well, obviously, that was a criminal case [05:20.920 --> 05:23.000] because, you know, we're dealing with the prosecution and the defense. [05:23.000 --> 05:24.680] But that's what's called voir dire. [05:24.680 --> 05:27.880] And it's a process where they get to pick the jury. [05:27.880 --> 05:31.880] And, you know, when when you're a defendant in a criminal matter, [05:31.880 --> 05:33.880] you want your lawyer to go there and [05:35.000 --> 05:38.480] make sure you have a jury that is acceptable to you. [05:38.480 --> 05:41.160] And that's part of the whole process, part of trying a case. [05:41.240 --> 05:44.880] I understand. Are you identified, though, by your socioeconomic status [05:44.880 --> 05:46.520] in that process? Absolutely. [05:46.760 --> 05:51.000] So don't they want people who are less [05:52.080 --> 05:55.600] less up there on the socioeconomic scale and maybe, you know, [05:55.800 --> 05:58.080] somebody who maybe is not as bright? [05:58.080 --> 06:01.120] Well, they like they'd love to get especially, you know, the the defense [06:01.120 --> 06:03.280] would love to get the jurors from the OJ Simpson trial. [06:03.280 --> 06:05.200] That would be optimal. [06:05.200 --> 06:08.880] But it's important to note that the voir dire process has over the years [06:08.880 --> 06:11.360] become far and away something it was never intended to be. [06:11.680 --> 06:15.880] Originally, it was meant to prevent people who had excessive biases. [06:16.520 --> 06:18.520] For instance, if you're trying a rape case, [06:18.520 --> 06:21.320] if there's somebody who's been raped or their wife, if it's a man, [06:21.320 --> 06:24.560] his wife has been raped, is meant to keep those sort of people off of the jury. [06:24.800 --> 06:27.320] For the obvious reason, they cannot judge the facts objectively. [06:27.320 --> 06:28.880] They have an emotional bias. [06:28.880 --> 06:31.200] However, the system today has gotten down to are you black? [06:31.200 --> 06:32.520] Are you white? How much money do you make? [06:32.520 --> 06:33.920] Do you drive a BMW? [06:33.920 --> 06:36.040] Do you cycle as a recreational sport? [06:36.200 --> 06:37.840] And these questions are wholly inappropriate. [06:37.840 --> 06:39.920] And you can't ask questions about your race. [06:39.920 --> 06:42.040] You cannot exclude a juror based on the race. [06:42.400 --> 06:44.960] But the black guy is fairly obvious. [06:45.000 --> 06:47.040] You can make your decision based on that. [06:47.640 --> 06:49.560] But the point is the voir dire process in its entirety, [06:49.560 --> 06:53.320] I think you would agree, is far and away not what it was originally designed. [06:53.600 --> 06:57.840] You know, but I mean, you have basically if somebody has an obvious [06:58.160 --> 07:00.800] prejudice or bias, then they could be excluded for a cause. [07:01.080 --> 07:03.560] And each side has a certain amount of peremptory challenges [07:03.560 --> 07:06.960] where for whatever reason, although it's not supposed to be for race and, [07:06.960 --> 07:11.840] you know, obviously, in certain cases, you want a certain ethnic makeup. [07:12.160 --> 07:16.400] But, you know, you can basically exclude a juror for any reason without saying [07:16.400 --> 07:19.720] you just say, you know, I'd like to thank and excuse juror number 12. [07:20.440 --> 07:21.720] And they get up and walk away. [07:21.720 --> 07:24.560] And, you know, it's sometimes there's a gut feeling when you're trying [07:24.560 --> 07:28.560] a case about, you know, this person, some person might be staring, glaring [07:28.560 --> 07:33.080] at glaring at the party you represent, whether it's civil or criminal. [07:33.080 --> 07:34.040] And you just get a feeling. [07:34.040 --> 07:35.000] So that's what it's for. [07:35.000 --> 07:36.480] You have a certain amount of peremptory challenges. [07:36.640 --> 07:38.480] And at the end, you're supposedly have a jury. [07:38.480 --> 07:39.560] And you're a litigator. [07:39.560 --> 07:40.960] So you're out there picking juries. [07:41.000 --> 07:41.440] Yes. [07:41.840 --> 07:48.280] Some people believe that it's your that you should serve on a jury. [07:48.280 --> 07:51.320] And there's a lot of people that I know that want to get out of jury duty. [07:51.320 --> 07:53.280] And it seems like it's more difficult these days. [07:53.520 --> 07:55.120] So I'm glad about that, by the way. [07:55.160 --> 07:55.640] Okay. [07:55.680 --> 07:59.240] Our whole system is, it's, it's based on citizens going and doing [07:59.240 --> 08:00.840] their civic duty, going to jury duty. [08:01.040 --> 08:05.040] I mean, it would, there'd be anarchy if, if nobody went to jury duty. [08:05.040 --> 08:08.120] But if I walk in to go to jury duty and I walk in with the constitution, [08:08.120 --> 08:09.600] aren't they going to dismiss me anyways? [08:09.600 --> 08:11.040] I mean, wouldn't instantly. [08:11.440 --> 08:11.840] Really? [08:11.840 --> 08:14.920] So that's one way to get out of jury duty is to have a citizen's rule book [08:14.920 --> 08:17.600] and say, I, I, you know, can we go over? [08:17.600 --> 08:19.120] I have some questions about the constitution. [08:19.280 --> 08:20.560] Can you answer these for me? [08:20.720 --> 08:25.040] If you do something as simple as ask some definitions off of the jury [08:25.040 --> 08:28.520] summons before you sign it, before you execute, if you send in a letter, by [08:28.520 --> 08:31.440] the way, the letters posted on our website under the educational, you've [08:31.440 --> 08:32.760] done this with this letter. [08:32.800 --> 08:33.040] Yes. [08:33.040 --> 08:35.760] And then as many, many people, so people can download this letter if [08:35.760 --> 08:36.640] they want to get out of jury. [08:36.920 --> 08:38.040] Well, I wouldn't phrase it. [08:38.040 --> 08:38.960] They want to get out of jury duty. [08:39.480 --> 08:40.080] But the point is, [08:40.080 --> 08:41.040] It just happens to work that way. [08:41.040 --> 08:42.400] It's an interesting exercise. [08:42.520 --> 08:43.720] Everybody's attorneys around here. [08:43.720 --> 08:45.600] Suddenly the language gets real tight. [08:45.640 --> 08:48.640] When you ask them for the definition of certain legal terms they use on the [08:48.640 --> 08:51.320] jury summons, because they don't want to let you know what the true definitions [08:51.320 --> 08:54.360] are, when you ask them in writing and you don't send the summons in, that's [08:54.360 --> 08:55.240] the last time you'll ever hear from them. [08:55.280 --> 08:57.040] They will not answer your question. [08:57.040 --> 08:59.480] They won't tell you what the definitions are and you'll never hear from them [08:59.480 --> 08:59.800] again. [08:59.920 --> 09:03.080] So by asking them something they don't want to reveal, they [09:03.080 --> 09:03.960] will take you off the list. [09:04.000 --> 09:04.240] Okay. [09:04.240 --> 09:05.360] So how do I get that letter? [09:05.600 --> 09:10.960] Go to www.originalintent.org and click on the educational category. [09:10.960 --> 09:12.960] And there's a link on the left that says jury letter. [09:13.240 --> 09:13.840] Click on that. [09:13.840 --> 09:14.760] It'll take you right to that page. [09:14.760 --> 09:16.360] Not that I want to get out of jury duty. [09:16.360 --> 09:17.400] I just want to see the letter. [09:21.440 --> 09:25.520] Well, that's another issue is the concern about who is responding to the [09:25.520 --> 09:26.800] jury summonses these days. [09:27.480 --> 09:32.880] Obviously an executive who's making $150,000 a year and he's putting in 60, [09:32.880 --> 09:34.760] 70 hours a week and he's got a family and kids. [09:34.760 --> 09:37.720] He's going to find a way not to go sit on that jury. [09:38.280 --> 09:42.760] Um, somebody who has an eighth grade education and isn't working and is on [09:42.760 --> 09:46.280] unemployment is going to rush right down and participate in that process for [09:46.280 --> 09:47.240] 14 bucks a day. [09:47.240 --> 09:48.440] Or what, what is the pay now? [09:49.240 --> 09:51.280] Exactly 14 dollars a day. [09:51.720 --> 09:52.400] So, okay. [09:52.440 --> 09:56.320] So I think it's questionable today, unfortunately, probably because of the [09:56.320 --> 09:59.480] way the jury system has been operating for the last 30 or 40 years, it's [09:59.480 --> 10:03.400] unfortunate that the people we really want to see on the juries, the people [10:03.400 --> 10:06.320] who can make heads or tails out of you, say the law or the fact, as you said, [10:06.320 --> 10:07.440] the jury disregarded both. [10:07.760 --> 10:08.120] Oh yeah. [10:08.840 --> 10:09.080] Right. [10:09.080 --> 10:12.680] We need juries who can understand the law, decide if it's pertinent in the [10:12.680 --> 10:15.760] case, decide if it's pertinent in their community, can look at the facts and [10:15.760 --> 10:19.200] determine whether the person did the act or didn't do the act and then render a [10:19.200 --> 10:20.080] correct verdict. [10:20.080 --> 10:23.520] And I question whether the, the way the system is operating today, if that's [10:23.520 --> 10:30.520] really taking place, let's say Jimmy's an attorney and he's a representative [10:30.520 --> 10:35.720] defendant and he wants to, to make the jury aware of the type of things you're [10:35.720 --> 10:38.880] saying that they don't have to listen to the judge's instructions about the law. [10:38.920 --> 10:39.800] The judge will sanction him. [10:40.320 --> 10:40.720] Really? [10:40.720 --> 10:42.200] You couldn't bring that forward. [10:42.560 --> 10:46.120] The prosecutor would object as being argumentative and these [10:46.120 --> 10:49.680] booklets, these booklets here that I think you've seen before, which deal [10:49.680 --> 10:52.520] with the fully, fully informed jury concept, which is what we're discussing. [10:52.840 --> 10:56.760] If you attempt to pass these out in the courtroom, they will, or in the [10:56.760 --> 10:59.880] hallway for that matter, the security personnel will remove you from the court [10:59.880 --> 11:03.000] building for attempting to let jurors know what their rights are. [11:04.640 --> 11:09.440] And any juror, by the way, who tries to explain fully informed jury to their [11:09.440 --> 11:12.920] fellow jurors, if one of those jurors goes to the judge, the juror who was [11:12.920 --> 11:15.440] attempting to do the education will be ejected from the jury. [11:15.440 --> 11:18.320] Now, before you put that book away, let's tell our audience what that book is. [11:18.320 --> 11:19.880] The book is the citizen's rule book. [11:19.880 --> 11:21.800] It contains jury rights. [11:22.080 --> 11:26.640] It has the constitution, it has jury rights, constitutions, points of law, [11:26.640 --> 11:29.360] which have been fairly well lost that are important to our constitutional [11:29.360 --> 11:29.840] foundations. [11:36.160 --> 11:37.600] What are the instructions of the judge? [11:37.600 --> 11:42.080] Because like in the, aren't they supposed to judge everything, including the [11:42.080 --> 11:43.120] law as well? [11:43.120 --> 11:45.160] And they're never instructed that they can judge the law. [11:45.160 --> 11:45.800] No, no, no, no, no. [11:46.480 --> 11:50.520] Jurors are not allowed to, questions of law are up to the court. [11:50.520 --> 11:52.360] Questions of fact are up to the jury. [11:52.440 --> 11:52.760] Okay. [11:52.800 --> 11:55.640] No, that is a serious point of contention. [11:55.640 --> 11:58.400] Now I agree with Jimmy, the judges do give that instruction. [11:58.920 --> 12:01.600] However, that instruction is instruction, which is not lawful. [12:01.920 --> 12:04.480] There is no precedent for that in the law, other than the fact that after the [12:04.480 --> 12:09.880] civil war, the judges began to tell the jurors that if you, if you read back to [12:09.880 --> 12:13.880] the quotes of the original chief justices of the U S Supreme court, they completely [12:13.880 --> 12:15.560] dashed that concept upon the rocks. [12:16.120 --> 12:19.880] John Jay, the very first chief justice of the Supreme court said the jury has a [12:19.880 --> 12:23.720] right to judge both law as well as the fact in controversy. [12:23.960 --> 12:26.200] And that was in the first jury trial of the Supreme court. [12:26.240 --> 12:26.720] It was. [12:26.720 --> 12:31.600] And as recently as 1972, the court said the pages of history shine. [12:31.640 --> 12:35.240] Obviously shine is a complimentary word in instances of the jury's exercising. [12:35.240 --> 12:38.080] It's prerogative to disregard the instructions of the judge. [12:38.800 --> 12:42.120] So, and there's many more sites and I won't bother to read them, but the point [12:42.120 --> 12:44.760] being that the historical history of this country is that citizens have the [12:44.760 --> 12:46.800] right to judge both the fact and the law. [12:47.240 --> 12:51.320] What has taken place is that judges tell the jury, you are to take the [12:51.320 --> 12:52.880] law as I give it to you. [12:53.400 --> 12:58.160] So if I tell you it is illegal to do this and such, your only determination [12:58.160 --> 12:59.240] is did the defendant do it? [12:59.920 --> 13:04.240] Well, in reality, one of the aspects that the jury system was created to preserve [13:04.600 --> 13:08.280] was if a community does not like a law that the legislature passes, because [13:08.280 --> 13:10.520] there's, we, we all know how politics is, right? [13:10.520 --> 13:11.720] So it's frivolous, right? [13:11.720 --> 13:14.760] So if the community ends up with a law because of what's going on, you know, [13:14.760 --> 13:18.320] with a cigar smoking crowd in the back room with the legislature, they have the [13:18.320 --> 13:22.840] right to do away with that law by jury nullification, which is where the jury [13:22.840 --> 13:27.040] decides, yes, in their own minds, yes, he did this, but the law is wrong. [13:27.040 --> 13:27.840] The law is bad. [13:27.840 --> 13:30.040] Therefore I will not convict, I'll acquit. [13:30.680 --> 13:33.960] And by that, they can preempt laws that should never have been passed because [13:33.960 --> 13:35.760] the community does not want to live under them. [13:40.000 --> 13:43.480] A jury cannot make a, make a determination as to whether a law is [13:43.480 --> 13:44.480] constitutional or not. [13:44.480 --> 13:47.800] Or so does the judge have more power than the jury or does the jury have more power? [13:47.800 --> 13:51.720] And I'm not talking, are you talking about a trial judge or, or a justice on [13:51.760 --> 13:54.360] an appeals court or a judge is untouchable. [13:54.360 --> 13:56.280] I mean, you can't really go after a judge. [13:56.320 --> 13:58.080] Well, the only thing is you have a jury trial court. [13:58.080 --> 13:59.640] So we wouldn't be talking about the appellate process. [13:59.640 --> 14:02.560] That's what I'm, well, I'm talking, I'm not talking about trial judge. [14:02.560 --> 14:04.160] I'm talking about the appellate process. [14:04.400 --> 14:09.280] Those are the justices who make, uh, make an interpret, uh, whether a law [14:09.280 --> 14:10.480] is constitutional or not true. [14:10.480 --> 14:12.920] Now, if we run a case all the way up through the appellate process, all the [14:12.920 --> 14:15.560] way to the United States Supreme court and the United States Supreme court says, [14:15.840 --> 14:18.040] we find this statute constitutional. [14:18.440 --> 14:23.560] There's nothing barring in America, a jury from hearing a case on that issue [14:23.560 --> 14:27.080] the next day and acquitting because they disagree with the court. [14:27.720 --> 14:28.760] There's nothing in law. [14:28.760 --> 14:30.760] There's nothing actually, I should say the opposite. [14:30.960 --> 14:32.400] It is the tradition of this country. [14:32.400 --> 14:34.120] It is the tradition of the founding fathers. [14:34.120 --> 14:37.760] It is the statements of the founding chief support chief Supreme court justice. [14:38.240 --> 14:41.960] That that is exactly as Patrick said, the last line of defense. [14:42.000 --> 14:46.040] If, if the entire government structure says we say so, the jury has the [14:46.040 --> 14:47.280] right to say not in my town. [14:48.040 --> 14:54.680] I think it is your civic duty to go in and serve on a jury. [14:54.720 --> 14:55.440] And I would agree. [14:55.440 --> 14:57.840] I would just like every single person that walks through that courtroom [14:57.840 --> 15:00.960] door to know exactly what their prerogatives are as a citizen, rather [15:00.960 --> 15:02.520] than sit there like government drones. [15:02.520 --> 15:05.640] And the judge says, you will take the law as I give it to you. [15:05.640 --> 15:06.840] And you have no discretion. [15:07.080 --> 15:12.160] My point is if he wants to say that all God bless him, but as far as the [15:12.160 --> 15:15.600] 12 folks sitting in that jury box, it's, it would be nice if they knew, yep. [15:15.640 --> 15:16.720] Thanks for sharing that with me. [15:16.720 --> 15:18.480] And I'll go ahead and make my decision as I see fit. [15:22.600 --> 15:26.640] And the part that I think you were probably shooting for in Jimmy probably [15:26.640 --> 15:29.560] know the phraseology that I would probably knows it by heart, the part [15:29.560 --> 15:33.880] about that the jury must take the law as I give it to you and that you are [15:33.880 --> 15:36.160] not allowed to decide the law for yourselves. [15:36.200 --> 15:39.800] That's the message that the judge gives as at the end of his jury instructions. [15:39.880 --> 15:40.080] Okay. [15:40.080 --> 15:45.720] Now he says, uh, the judge will just basically tell them that, um, you, [15:45.760 --> 15:50.960] you're here to interpret the facts, um, and, but you're not to make any rulings [15:50.960 --> 15:55.320] on law and to, and typically, I mean, a lot of different types of cases, if [15:55.320 --> 15:59.560] there's a question of law, um, it's going to be decided by the court, the [15:59.560 --> 16:03.640] question of law only typically normally out of the hearing of the jury. [16:07.600 --> 16:13.280] It's significant to note that prior to the civil war, no judge ever instructed [16:13.280 --> 16:16.200] a jury that they were to follow his version of the law. [16:16.560 --> 16:21.160] What happened was after the civil war, uh, when the, the, the, uh, the [16:21.160 --> 16:24.880] slaves had become free, the Southern citizens still weren't too keen on that [16:24.880 --> 16:26.240] idea, even though they'd lost the war. [16:26.480 --> 16:30.040] So what would happen is a, uh, a white man would go out and beat a black man [16:30.040 --> 16:31.480] on the street, he'd be put on trial for it. [16:31.880 --> 16:35.040] Well, the jury would acquit the white jury would acquit the white man, [16:35.040 --> 16:36.560] obviously down south in those days. [16:36.880 --> 16:40.160] And so because the Southern States were under federal rule at that time as a [16:40.160 --> 16:44.360] defeated foe, the federal judges that had been placed down there began to [16:44.360 --> 16:48.680] tell the juries, you may not determine whether or not you like this law. [16:49.000 --> 16:50.240] I will give you the law. [16:50.400 --> 16:52.000] And that's how this tradition started. [16:52.000 --> 16:55.960] Well, we're well past an environment where that needs to take place, but yet [16:55.960 --> 17:00.560] now it's used as a method where the government says, if you don't like the [17:00.560 --> 17:05.000] law tough, eat it, you have to, you have to take it the way I give it to you. [17:05.120 --> 17:06.320] And if you don't like it, so be it. [17:10.520 --> 17:14.640] And it also can't be, if you look at the jury has also been, you know, described [17:14.640 --> 17:18.400] as like the last line of defense of protecting liberties from an abusive [17:18.400 --> 17:21.920] government, if we left it up to the government to decide whether or not a [17:21.920 --> 17:26.560] law is constitutional or not, what recourse do we have when they're wrong [17:26.960 --> 17:29.520] and abusive, it's always been the jury. [17:30.160 --> 17:33.040] You know, can just say, we say this law is unconstitutional. [17:33.040 --> 17:35.240] It doesn't necessarily have to be decided by the courts. [17:35.240 --> 17:38.320] I think a perfect issue that this would ring true with a lot of people is say, [17:38.360 --> 17:44.000] marijuana laws, to ask a jury to convict and whether or not a person thinks that [17:44.000 --> 17:47.480] marijuana should be illegal or not illegal is not the point, point being that [17:47.480 --> 17:51.360] jury has the right to decide whether that law about marijuana is something they [17:51.360 --> 17:55.720] want to enforce in their community, despite what somebody 300 miles away in [17:55.720 --> 18:00.600] Sacramento says, that jury still has the right to determine in their town whether [18:00.600 --> 18:03.840] they want people prosecuted for marijuana offenses. [18:03.840 --> 18:07.080] And if they acquit everyone that the city attorney or district attorney brings [18:07.080 --> 18:10.000] to trial, that's going to send a message and you're not going to see any more [18:10.000 --> 18:10.520] prosecutions. [18:14.680 --> 18:18.680] I disagree with the fact that you're basically telling these jurors who have, [18:18.920 --> 18:22.040] they've never had any legal training to take the law into their own hands, to [18:22.280 --> 18:23.640] interpret the law themselves. [18:23.640 --> 18:24.640] That's not their function. [18:24.640 --> 18:28.080] Their function is to decide the fact, the fact that they're going to be [18:28.360 --> 18:32.160] their function is to decide the fact, the factual issues, they're given an [18:32.160 --> 18:34.400] instruction and apply those facts to the law. [18:34.880 --> 18:37.400] If it's not their job, it's not their job. [18:37.400 --> 18:40.320] The jurors have the right to decide the law, but they don't have to be told about [18:40.320 --> 18:40.480] it. [18:40.800 --> 18:42.240] And what does that end? [18:42.920 --> 18:46.280] This is based on the Doherty decision that he mentions. [18:46.280 --> 18:50.320] It's conforming to an 1895 Supreme Court decision that held the same thing. [18:50.600 --> 18:53.520] Court ruled that those juries have the right to ignore a judge's instructions in [18:53.520 --> 18:53.720] the law. [18:53.720 --> 18:55.600] They don't have to be made aware of the right to do so. [18:59.080 --> 19:05.080] So basically you can't get the Constitution or educate the jury on the [19:05.080 --> 19:07.240] Constitution if you're going to be in court. [19:07.240 --> 19:10.960] No, I believe the jurors, well, I think it's one of the failures in our system [19:10.960 --> 19:15.040] where the jurors just by growing up and being educated don't know that these are [19:15.040 --> 19:15.680] their rights. [19:15.920 --> 19:19.440] You know, they walk into a courtroom, they have no idea what their rights are. [19:19.440 --> 19:24.360] I think most citizens fear the courts in a lot of ways and they get there, they're [19:24.360 --> 19:27.400] given these instructions and they're like, well, I better do what I'm told. [19:28.160 --> 19:31.840] And that's kind of the way we're raised as far as us and how we relate with the [19:31.840 --> 19:32.320] government. [19:33.360 --> 19:38.000] So definitely people need to be educated before they get into the courtroom. [19:38.000 --> 19:38.240] Sure. [19:38.240 --> 19:41.160] Most people go into a courtroom and I would imagine it was a bit intimidating [19:41.160 --> 19:41.800] when you were there. [19:42.640 --> 19:43.120] Somewhat. [19:43.360 --> 19:45.960] I admit I didn't know that I had the rights that it's fine. [19:46.120 --> 19:49.520] Well, good for you for standing up and saying that I think that this process is [19:49.520 --> 19:49.960] flawed. [19:49.960 --> 19:52.480] I mean, most people, you were the only one who did it in your group, right? [19:52.520 --> 19:53.600] I believe so. [19:53.840 --> 19:54.360] Absolutely. [19:54.440 --> 19:56.000] People at home are applauding you right now. [19:56.000 --> 19:56.600] And if people... [20:01.720 --> 20:03.160] That's not the procedure for doing it. [20:03.160 --> 20:07.600] The procedure is if the legislature creates a law, the executive branch [20:07.600 --> 20:10.880] enforces a law and the judicial branch interprets a law. [20:11.200 --> 20:15.840] And if there's a law that's unconstitutional, then the judicial branch [20:15.840 --> 20:18.880] reviews it and strikes it down or upholds it. [20:19.240 --> 20:25.120] John Jay, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Stone, these Supreme Court justices of the United [20:25.120 --> 20:26.000] States, disagree with you. [20:26.000 --> 20:29.520] So I, with all due respect to you, I think I'd probably take their word for it. [20:33.960 --> 20:36.400] I was on the internet and I want to, because we're getting short on time. [20:36.400 --> 20:39.680] I did want to address, I was on the internet and I saw this fully informed [20:39.680 --> 20:41.960] jury association that I didn't really understand. [20:42.320 --> 20:45.680] They want to inform juries or they're talking about what we were talking about? [20:45.680 --> 20:51.480] Yes, fully informed jury is basically the tag phrase for all jurors, including [20:51.480 --> 20:54.440] grand jurors, by the way, which we haven't discussed tonight, knowing what [20:54.440 --> 20:58.000] their rights are, as opposed to what they're allowed to know their rights are [20:58.000 --> 20:58.880] when they go into the forum. [20:58.920 --> 20:59.960] Well, exactly what we were talking about. [20:59.960 --> 21:00.320] Exactly. [21:00.360 --> 21:04.400] So this group wants to do something to make sure that everybody knows what [21:04.400 --> 21:04.920] their rights are. [21:04.920 --> 21:08.320] I think if jurors actually knew that when they were sitting on the jury, they had [21:08.320 --> 21:11.720] more power than the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial [21:11.720 --> 21:16.640] branch combined, you know, I think more people would be interested in jury duty. [21:20.800 --> 21:21.040] Okay. [21:21.040 --> 21:21.560] Solutions. [21:21.560 --> 21:22.480] What's the solution then? [21:23.480 --> 21:24.080] Counselor. [21:25.080 --> 21:28.720] You know, it's, it's not a perfect system, but it's the one we have. [21:28.720 --> 21:35.520] And I think that the unfortunate fallout from your website and your advocacy is [21:35.520 --> 21:41.960] that it's going to result in people absconding from their jury duty, which I [21:41.960 --> 21:46.560] think is, it's not a positive force. [21:46.840 --> 21:50.880] I think we, we need to encourage people to serve as jurors, not encourage them [21:51.240 --> 21:53.120] to find loopholes to get out of jury duty. [21:53.120 --> 21:56.720] And I support what you're saying, by the way, I'd love to see more people go down [21:56.720 --> 22:01.160] to the jury hall and know what their rights are and to exercise those rights [22:01.160 --> 22:02.200] when they walk in the door. [22:02.640 --> 22:04.800] The only reason I brought up the letter is because it illustrates that there's [22:04.800 --> 22:08.200] certain things that they don't want to tell you, uh, just like the judge. [22:08.200 --> 22:09.280] And I like that we've got it. [22:09.280 --> 22:10.040] We're out of time. [22:10.040 --> 22:13.560] We're out of time guys, but I do like that concept that I'd like to know what [22:13.560 --> 22:15.200] my rights are, if I'm going to serve on the jury. [22:16.560 --> 22:17.920] There you have it. [22:18.560 --> 22:22.440] A disturbing aspect of that discussion is your right of jury nullification was [22:22.440 --> 22:28.520] not only frowned upon, but argued against by an attorney, an officer of the court. [22:28.960 --> 22:32.800] The attorney was so angry with what had transpired during the show that as soon [22:32.800 --> 22:37.080] as the red lights on the cameras went dark, he stormed out of the studio [22:37.080 --> 22:39.280] without a word to anyone, including the host. [22:40.120 --> 22:43.800] It's important to keep in mind that it doesn't matter if the entire court [22:43.800 --> 22:47.040] system, including judges, wants to prevent you from exercising the right [22:47.040 --> 22:48.080] of jury nullification. [22:48.600 --> 22:53.680] Those who oppose your right are a tiny minority of the U S population [22:53.680 --> 22:56.760] concentrated within one particular industry. [22:57.520 --> 23:02.360] As you know, during 2020, 2021 and 2022, Americans saw the right of free [23:02.360 --> 23:06.800] speech denied on platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and pre-Musk Twitter. [23:07.240 --> 23:10.920] In certain circles these days, it seems to be thought acceptable to treat your [23:10.920 --> 23:15.240] rights as if they are subject to consensus, even if that consensus is [23:15.280 --> 23:17.040] only within a small minority. [23:17.280 --> 23:21.720] And to be clear, that's 100% not acceptable. [23:22.160 --> 23:25.080] If that was the way it worked, rights would not be rights. [23:25.120 --> 23:29.840] They'd be privileges you'd be allowed to exercise only at the whim of one group [23:29.840 --> 23:36.000] or another. That is exactly what the left turned free speech into during 2020, [23:36.000 --> 23:41.120] 2021, and 2022, something you could no longer exercise because a minority [23:41.120 --> 23:43.800] disapproved of open discussion and debate. [23:44.320 --> 23:48.360] I should also add that open discussion and debate includes the right to be [23:48.640 --> 23:52.920] wrong. If the yardstick for free speech was that you could only speak when [23:52.920 --> 23:56.600] you're not wrong, then somebody else would always have the power to [23:56.600 --> 23:59.640] determine when or if you're able to speak. [24:00.520 --> 24:04.640] Don't let another right get trampled simply because a tiny group of [24:04.640 --> 24:09.200] asshats doesn't want you to know you have the right of jury nullification [24:09.200 --> 24:10.760] and don't want you to exercise it. [24:11.560 --> 24:12.360] So what's the answer? [24:13.080 --> 24:15.160] Simple. Ignore the asshats. [24:15.160 --> 24:18.080] And if you feel jury nullification is the right thing to do in a particular [24:18.080 --> 24:19.520] case, do it. [24:20.080 --> 24:21.840] Lots of people are afraid of the courts. [24:21.880 --> 24:26.040] But the nice thing about jury nullification is if you keep your mouth [24:26.040 --> 24:29.880] shut in the jury deliberation room and simply vote as your conscience [24:29.880 --> 24:33.200] dictates, there is nothing anyone can do about it. [24:33.960 --> 24:38.400] What's the difference between engaging in jury nullification and not engaging [24:38.400 --> 24:41.120] in it? In most cases, knowledge. [24:41.600 --> 24:45.680] The government literally counts on you being ignorant and fearful. [24:46.120 --> 24:49.800] While the government relies on your ignorance, once you become informed, [24:49.800 --> 24:53.920] the government then relies on you, fearing you might get in trouble for [24:53.920 --> 24:55.360] exercising your right. [24:56.080 --> 24:57.080] Let me say that again. [24:57.080 --> 25:02.600] The government is relying on you being too afraid to exercise your rights. [25:03.320 --> 25:04.720] Let me phrase it more directly. [25:05.160 --> 25:07.200] The government is counting on you to be a coward. [25:08.120 --> 25:09.360] To that, I have two questions. [25:10.360 --> 25:11.640] How does that make you feel? [25:12.080 --> 25:14.960] And are they wrong about you? [25:15.520 --> 25:18.160] Of course, jury nullification isn't the only right the government doesn't [25:18.160 --> 25:20.240] want you knowing about or exercising. [25:20.480 --> 25:24.000] The government also doesn't want you to know about or exercise your property [25:24.000 --> 25:26.360] rights. Are you aware that under the U.S. [25:26.360 --> 25:28.000] Constitution and decisions of the U.S. [25:28.000 --> 25:33.080] Supreme Court, the pay you receive when you work is your property that no [25:33.080 --> 25:37.240] one can take from you except through the courts with due process. [25:37.680 --> 25:41.880] And when I say no one can take it from you without going to the courts with [25:41.880 --> 25:45.640] due process, that includes the government. [25:46.080 --> 25:50.920] That's why despite the 60-year false narrative, Congress has never imposed [25:50.920 --> 25:53.160] the income tax on ordinary working Americans. [25:53.880 --> 25:58.760] If your mental knee-jerk reaction to me saying that was that the income tax is [25:58.760 --> 26:03.680] an exception to your right of property, that it sets aside your constitutional [26:03.680 --> 26:07.000] right to keep the fruits of your labor, I hate to tell you this, [26:07.000 --> 26:10.320] but you are totally brainwashed. [26:10.880 --> 26:13.000] Let me share two Supreme Court decisions with you. [26:13.440 --> 26:14.880] In Butcher's union company, V. [26:14.880 --> 26:18.440] Crescent City Company, the Supreme Court said, quote, [26:19.000 --> 26:23.400] The property that every man has is his personal labor and it is the original [26:23.400 --> 26:27.600] foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. [26:28.560 --> 26:30.280] What does inviolable mean? [26:30.800 --> 26:32.920] Here's how several dictionaries define it. [26:33.640 --> 26:35.440] Secure from violation. [26:35.960 --> 26:38.560] Impregnable to assault or trespass. [26:39.240 --> 26:40.080] Invincible. [26:40.680 --> 26:44.000] Incapable of being transgressed or dishonored. [26:44.560 --> 26:46.000] Immune to attack. [26:46.440 --> 26:48.840] Incapable of being tampered with. [26:49.640 --> 26:53.200] Now, let's add the words of another Supreme Court decision. [26:53.400 --> 26:54.200] In McCullough v. [26:54.200 --> 27:00.840] Maryland, the court said, quote, The power to tax is the power to destroy. [27:01.680 --> 27:07.720] So the court said your labor, which is the basis of your survival, is secure [27:07.720 --> 27:12.760] from violation, impregnable to assault or trespass, invincible, incapable [27:12.760 --> 27:16.560] of being transgressed or dishonored, immune to attack, incapable of being [27:16.560 --> 27:22.440] tampered with, and then said the power to tax is the power to destroy. [27:23.320 --> 27:26.960] I hope you understand that the court said you have a right to your labor, [27:27.280 --> 27:31.720] which includes the fruits therefrom, that cannot be transgressed, dishonored [27:31.720 --> 27:36.200] or assaulted, and if the government could tax the fruits of your labor, the [27:36.200 --> 27:40.680] right you have in your own labor would be destroyed. [27:41.600 --> 27:44.840] I know this may sound theoretical to you, or you may think the government [27:44.840 --> 27:48.400] doesn't obey such rulings, and while I won't totally disagree with you [27:48.400 --> 27:51.880] in a general sense, when it comes to the income tax, Congress and the [27:51.880 --> 27:55.920] executive branch have followed the case law impeccably. [27:56.280 --> 27:59.720] And then they just lie to you about what the law says. [28:00.120 --> 28:03.480] Instead of reading it for yourself, you just took the government at its word. [28:04.840 --> 28:06.320] Why would you do that? [28:07.000 --> 28:09.720] There are things everyone knows not to believe. [28:10.240 --> 28:11.600] The check is in the mail. [28:12.400 --> 28:13.640] I'll only put the tip in. [28:14.840 --> 28:15.920] Safe and effective. [28:16.760 --> 28:18.680] And anything the government says. [28:19.400 --> 28:22.760] Since everyone knows to never believe anything the government [28:22.760 --> 28:26.320] says without researching it, why would you have bought the government's [28:26.320 --> 28:31.120] disinformation that Congress has authority to tax your labor without [28:31.120 --> 28:32.760] reading the law for yourself? [28:33.400 --> 28:35.800] The good news is I'm going to help you correct that. [28:35.880 --> 28:41.320] All you need do is read Income Tax Shattering the Mist, and you will never [28:41.320 --> 28:45.680] again be fooled into thinking Congress has imposed the income tax on the labor [28:45.680 --> 28:48.360] of ordinary working Americans like you. [28:49.080 --> 28:52.040] This would probably be a good time to let you hear what your fellow [28:52.040 --> 28:54.400] Americans have said about Income Tax Shattering the Mist. [28:54.960 --> 28:58.480] Hey, Dave, just wanted to say thank you for writing your book. [28:58.560 --> 29:00.800] I got it Friday and finished it yesterday. [29:01.160 --> 29:04.280] It was amazingly clear and explained so much. [29:04.520 --> 29:07.520] I had a discussion with our company accountant in HR today and the [29:07.520 --> 29:10.680] accountant was blown away and said that it all made sense. [29:10.880 --> 29:12.720] He said he's buying the book today. [29:12.880 --> 29:13.800] Again, thank you. [29:14.280 --> 29:17.400] Rip said, love your book, Dave, and have put it to practice. [29:17.600 --> 29:19.800] This should be a best seller. [29:20.280 --> 29:21.920] And thanks, Dr. [29:21.920 --> 29:25.440] Dave, I'm walking the walk on taxes thanks to you. [29:25.440 --> 29:30.240] And as what I call a moral obligation, I have given five copies out to my [29:30.240 --> 29:32.360] family members, as well as body science. [29:32.840 --> 29:34.160] I can't thank you enough. [29:34.200 --> 29:34.720] Close quote. [29:35.240 --> 29:38.360] When you read Income Tax Shattering the Mist, what can you expect? [29:38.920 --> 29:44.160] You can expect a massive amount of conclusive evidence that Congress [29:44.160 --> 29:48.200] has constitutionally barred from imposing income tax on the American people. [29:48.200 --> 29:52.320] And for that reason has, in fact, never done so. [29:52.840 --> 29:55.560] What is this massive amount of evidence, you ask? [29:55.880 --> 30:00.760] It's Supreme Court decisions, statutes, regulations, internal IRS documents. [30:00.760 --> 30:03.360] The IRS never thought anyone outside the service would ever see. [30:03.640 --> 30:06.560] Treasury decisions, Treasury orders, determinations of the [30:06.560 --> 30:10.680] Congressional Research Service, presidential executive orders and more. [30:11.480 --> 30:14.440] Remember I said you bought the government's false narrative [30:14.440 --> 30:15.720] without doing any research? [30:16.440 --> 30:21.160] This is all the material you would have found had you done the research. [30:21.600 --> 30:24.960] It's all laid out in a manner that makes it easy to follow and understand. [30:25.360 --> 30:29.360] When you close the final page, you will know the truth of the income tax [30:29.560 --> 30:33.360] with the same level of certainty that you know your own name. [30:34.040 --> 30:37.000] It took me 17 years to compile all the evidence. [30:37.360 --> 30:41.600] You can see it all and know the truth in the time it takes you to read [30:41.600 --> 30:42.760] Income Tax Shattering the Mist. [30:43.480 --> 30:46.400] The information is presented like a mystery novel. [30:46.600 --> 30:48.200] It draws you in. [30:48.400 --> 30:50.800] You want to know the entire scheme. [30:51.240 --> 30:54.160] Because of that, many readers have referred to it as a page [30:54.160 --> 30:56.160] turner and finished in just a few days. [30:56.440 --> 30:58.160] It is that compelling. [30:58.600 --> 31:00.320] What do you do once you know the truth? [31:01.160 --> 31:02.120] That's up to you. [31:02.560 --> 31:06.400] I would say that at a minimum, if you care about your country, you should be [31:06.400 --> 31:09.480] informing everyone you know about the government scam. [31:09.920 --> 31:11.960] As Leonardo da Vinci said, [31:11.960 --> 31:15.480] nothing strengthens authority so much as silence. [31:15.920 --> 31:19.200] If you want to end the scam, the first order of business is to make sure [31:19.440 --> 31:23.040] everyone who has taken the government at its word knows [31:23.040 --> 31:26.520] they were lied to in the income tax does not apply to them. [31:27.040 --> 31:30.960] If you're so inclined, the next step is to safely walk away from the scam. [31:31.080 --> 31:34.520] As I did decades ago, I haven't filed an income tax return [31:34.520 --> 31:37.600] or paid a penny in income tax since 1993. [31:37.880 --> 31:40.000] Of course, as we sit here talking today, [31:40.360 --> 31:45.640] that's probably a scary proposition for you because you haven't yet seen the facts. [31:46.040 --> 31:48.600] You haven't yet seen what the law really says. [31:49.040 --> 31:52.520] Once you read income tax shattering the miss, you'll be a lot more comfortable [31:52.520 --> 31:55.760] considering whether you want to safely leave the scam behind [31:56.400 --> 31:58.080] and keep what's yours. [31:58.080 --> 31:59.640] To be clear, after reading income tax [31:59.640 --> 32:02.760] shattering the miss, you are under no obligation to do anything. [32:03.000 --> 32:05.440] But at least you'll understand the government is knowingly, [32:05.440 --> 32:07.800] willfully and intentionally stealing from you. [32:08.120 --> 32:10.960] And having seen it with your own eyes, you'll be in a position [32:10.960 --> 32:14.440] to make an informed decision whether you want to allow it to continue [32:14.960 --> 32:17.120] or safely leave the scam behind. [32:17.840 --> 32:18.640] You can get income tax [32:18.640 --> 32:22.440] shattering the miss by going to DrReality.News [32:22.440 --> 32:25.360] DrReality.News, the link is down in the notes. [32:25.760 --> 32:27.880] While you're there, check out Body Science. [32:28.120 --> 32:32.440] It explains why Americans are the most chronically ill people on the planet [32:32.680 --> 32:34.800] and in all of human history. [32:35.160 --> 32:39.040] And gives everyone a crystal clear path to living healthy, happy lives. [32:39.240 --> 32:42.680] If you or someone you care about is suffering with chronic diseases, [32:42.680 --> 32:44.800] you need to read Body Science. [32:45.040 --> 32:49.480] As many readers have commented, Body Science is a complete game changer [32:49.560 --> 32:53.440] for gaining a proper understanding of human nutrition, physiology [32:53.560 --> 32:55.920] and getting incredibly healthy. [32:55.920 --> 32:59.440] Also, by purchasing income tax shattering the miss and or Body Science, [32:59.720 --> 33:02.520] you help me to continue to be here for you with these thought [33:02.520 --> 33:04.000] provoking presentations. [33:04.000 --> 33:06.120] Please share this vodcast. [33:06.160 --> 33:07.960] Thanks for being here and take care.