7 thoughts on “More Of That “Wave Of Right-Wing Terror” We’ve Been Warned About

  1. Wait a second . . . you mean that land use decisions in rural Oregon were being made by urban liberals in DC, over 2,000 miles away?
    I guess liberals are in favor of colonialism after all. Provided they are the ones doing the colonizing.

  2. What we have here is a redneck version of the OJ verdict. Sure, they did it, but the locals don’t exactly care. Maybe the message will get through to Washington, but I doubt it.

  3. “Jury nullification” – the words that must never be uttered (unless you are looking to get out of jury duty). Judges won’t let you talk about it, and the media doesn’t understand it. It is our civic right, though, and one of the last bulwarks of liberty.

    After this verdict the feds may not want to let these cases get to trial. That doesn’t mean they won’t try other ways to protect their interests. As an example, look what happened to the Bundy’s co-counsel when he tried to insist that his client go free after the verdict: jumped and tased by 6 bailiffs while the judge was the one ordering, “Stop resisting!”

  4. All you have to do to get labelled as a radical these days is to quote the Founding Fathers, NW. And John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Founding Father, wrote in Georgia the formal encapsulation of the jury nullification right that judges and prosecutors are now trying desperately to push down the memory hole (Sparf ,for example, was just the beginning of judicial resistance to the rights of juries). Some of us resist that and will never be chosen for jury duty for that reason.

    “It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy”.

  5. Now this is interesting . . .
    “We are dealing here with a situation of a confidential informant who is participating in the commission of the alleged offense,” defense lawyer Marcus Mumford said in court.
    . . .
    Defense lawyer Matthew Schindler, who represents defendant Kenneth Medenbach, argued that the defense team had the right to know who the “mystery people” were who brought the 22 long guns and 12 handguns to the refuge that prosecutors had FBI agents parade before jurors. Schindler pointed out that prosecutors and the FBI didn’t identify who brought most the guns.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.