Jury Nullification

Ever heard of jury nullification?

Probably not. Because the courts, with typical hypocrisy, have ruled that they should not inform jurors of this legal right. The courts want to enforce their right to make you serve on a jury, but not tell you that as a juror you have the right - and the obligation - to sit in judgment on the judge, the attorneys, and the law itself.

In her divorce case, Venessa Mills' husband, through his attorney, stated that he wanted a jury trial. This is almost unheard of but allowable for certain aspects of a divorce in North Carolina. I will let you come to your own conclusions about Mr. Mills' motives for this move. But, for now, there should be people down at the court house passing out information about jury nullification. Jurors should have full knowledge of their rights when they are called to jury duty and, most importantly, someone needs to teach our children that they can and should be bold and courageous enough to take a stand for what is right.

As you read the following story about a man who spent 83 days in jail for not showing up for jury duty - because the legal system cannot keep proper track of who is in jail - keep in mind that the courts do not really want free-thinking jurors. Of course, there's also the small matter that, if the courts cannot even keep track of such basic things, why should we believe they are qualified to handle something as serious and life-changing as a divorce case? The evidence shows they are not.

But back to jury nullification. Every homeschooler should be taught this concept and start actively getting in line for jury duty. It is time for those who understand the notion of good government to nullify the courts when they even remotely make an unjust decision that violates our Constitution. There is no excuse for courts, judges and lawyers having to be told over and over again that they have violated a person’s rights. Why are there so many stories of this happening? Because they are not subjected to any consequences, because people don't know that it's even possible for their to be any consequences.

If, during any case, the truth is mishandled by judges, attorneys, or even the law itself, a verdict of not guilty through jury nullification is required.

As a final note: All good men and women have a moral obligation to nullify anything the courts do that is the least objectionable to common sense, the protection of others, and the moral good. Otherwise, we are no better than the Nazi officers who claimed that they were only doing what was legal and what the law compelled them to do.

Texas man jailed 83 days for skipping jury duty

May 9, 1:56 PM (ET)

McKINNEY, Texas (AP) - A man arrested for allegedly failing to appear for jury duty was released Saturday after spending 83 days in jail, a length of detention that a judge called "unacceptable."

Douglas Maupin was released a day after The Dallas Morning News brought his plight to the attention of a Collin County judge.

Maupin, a masonry contractor, was arrested Feb. 15 after police pulled him over for speeding. Police then detained him on a 2003 warrant for failure to appear for jury duty.

He wrote a letter to the newspaper about his lengthy jail stay, then said in a jailhouse interview that he, his friends and family could not afford his $1,500 bail.

He said his attempt to get a public defender was rebuffed by a jail clerk.

District Judge Chris Oldner said he was unaware of Maupin's detention until Friday, even though the case was assigned to his court. The judge who signed the original 2003 warrant had retired, and officials said the case was assigned to the court of his replacement but the offense didn't fall under that court's responsibility.

"He should not have spent that much time. This is unacceptable," Oldner told the Morning News. "I don't know why the process failed to notify us."

Oldner also said that Maupin should have been allowed to apply for a public defender.

Maupin, 34, said he just wanted his day in court.

"I do know I have the right to due process and a speedy trial," he said. "I've had neither. It's not right."

The judge said he was "disappointed this has happened," and promised to investigate.

Compulsory Volunteers

The apathy that would cause anyone to dismiss the injustices of Venessa Mills' case as "only a divorce" will lead to the same dismissive attitude of other issues.

Some extracts from a recent HSLDA e-mail ... first:

HSLDA has reviewed H.R. 1388, and there is nothing in the bill as passed by both the House and Senate that would threaten the freedom of homeschool families, whether or not they live in states that treat homeschooling as a private school or as a homeschool. While the original version of H.R. 1388 contained a mandatory service requirement for public school curricula, the bill as passed does not mandate any volunteer service for public or private schools.

So, nothing to worry about. Great. Oh, but then:

HSLDA has several concerns with H.R. 1444. Although it will only create a commission to research volunteer service, the commission would be tasked with determining “whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed.” Most parents would be very concerned if their children would be required by the government to volunteer their time. And such a requirement—if it ever became law—would completely defeat the voluntary nature of this type of service.

We support the HSLDA and encourage parents, whether homeschooling or not, to take serious note of what the government is laying the groundwork for with these Bills. However, their refusal to acknowledge the implications of Venessa Mills' case because it is "only a divorce" is short-sighted at best.

Not Alone

One Missouri mom is among the many suffering at the hands of an unjust judge. Here’s part of her story:

I was forwarded the WND article about your case and have been reading the website with a sense of surrealism. I am going through a divorce and our stories are identical.

We have two children, ages 15 and 13, whom I have homeschooled for more than 8 years. As a result of the divorce proceedings, my husband is attempting to deny our children their right to be homeschooled. It is important to note that he had no objection to homeschooling before he filed for divorce.

This is so much more than a homeschooling issue. It speaks to a much larger cultural crime against women. I have found that most women do not believe/understand the magnitude of the obstacles that women face, in this day and age, in divorce. There is no accountability for the breech of the marriage contract or consideration for the sacrifices made by women who provide the comforts to men in the current marriage culture. Family courts have shaped a culture in which there is no respect for the family structure and further have denigrated women to chattel.

This homeschool mom is also being forced by our legal system to provide documentation that is not required by Missouri State law. She has started her own blog about the injustice she is facing, and you can visit http://homeschool-discrimination.blogspot.com to find out more.

It does indeed sound like the same legal torture Venessa Mills is experiencing.

The misery our system creates is damaging the lives of real people and children. Any court that orders joint custody with a 50/50 split does not have the best interest of the children in mind. This half-baked concept may be considered "fair" to the parents, but is never, ever fair to the children.

Another mom recently shared with me how her son cries and begs to not have to move each week. This young child pleads to no avail to at least have two consecutive weeks before being bounced back to the other parent.

Isn’t stability and consistency the cry we constantly hear from the childcare experts as what is best for children? But, maybe they’re playing a game too.

Why should anyone be subjected to ongoing torment at the hands of an adulterous spouse, an unprincipled attorney, or a biased judge? It’s time our legislation and legal system step up to level the playing field and start protecting the best interest of our children.

Thanks again to everyone who has contacted us and is supporting Venessa and her children. We need to all encourage one another to persevere and not give up.

It's A Game!

Want to know a common phrase heard among those in the legal world?

Here it is: It’s a game!

That’s right - a game. And who wins? The children? No. The faithful spouse? No. The winner is the one who doesn’t run out of money or wear out physically and emotionally. Yep, and this is in America - the land of the free - and despite Judge Mangum’s claims that Venessa Mills’ case is "not a win or lose." A game without a winner or loser? What a joke!

With all the judicial games and attorneys fees it’s easy to understand why so many become worn out by the system and simply give up. This is the very system that is supposed to help our citizens, especially the children, when they need it the most.

However, we find very little truth in our courts. But, hey, since it’s just a game why would that matter? Isn’t that the object of any game - to outwit and wear down your opponent? When a judge can change the rules in the middle of the game it’s no wonder people break down and give up.

This is why we see the injustice of temporary orders, mental health evaluations ordered on good moms, condemnation of friendly postcards, and slander used against innocent people – all to win the game.

Ever wondered why attorneys and judges always seem to deliver bad news or make their moves on a Friday. It's no coincidence. It's part of the game. Hit the “opponent” right before the weekend so they don't have the chance to respond for more than two days.

Venessa Mills’ case is not just a divorce, and it is certainly not an isolated one. We’ve received several emails from other women and men in these same circumstances. In my next post I'll share one of those stories.

30 Days In Jail For ...

"A Utah mother of four small children has been jailed on a judge's order to serve 30 days behind bars for allegedly sending a text message while she was watching a court proceeding."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96487

Any injustice, no matter how "small," should not be acceptable. To dismiss the multiple injustices perpetrated in Venessa Mills' case as "only a divorce" is an attitude that will lead to "small" injustices becoming big injustices. Anyone who ignores these things does so at their own peril.

Judge Mangum's Holiday Planning

In any divorce case, settling which parent has the children for significant holidays and events is a standard part of the visitation schedule. The holidays and events in the list below are the ones that are normally included.

Can you guess which of these Judge Mangum made provision for in his temporary order for Venessa Mills?

New Years Day?

No.

Martin Luther King Day?

No.

Presidents Day?

No.

Memorial Day?

No.

July 4th?

No.

Labor Day?

No.

Columbus Day?

No.

Veterans Day?

No.

Christmas?

No.

Easter?

No.

Birthdays?

No.

Mother's Day?

No.

Father's Day?

No.

Spring Break?

No.

Winter Break?

No.

Thanksgiving?

Yes! Judge Mangum was very specific about Thanksgiving - giving Wednesday through Sunday to Mr. Mills on odd-numbered years and to Venessa Mills on even-numbered years.

Coincidentally, Thanksgiving is when Venessa Mills' church holds their annual conference - one of the only times when Venessa and her children can travel to fellowship with the other parents, adults, and children who attend. It's a great time that they all look forward to every year.

I find it interesting that Thanksgiving was the only holiday that Judge Mangum felt the need to address in his temporary order. I'm sure you can also come to your own conclusion based on these facts.

Oh, and, yes, this is an odd-numbered year.

Would You Testify?

Would you testify on behalf of Venessa Mills before Judge Mangum?

After Judge Mangum passed his judgment in the form of a "temporary" order, the process of gathering evidence to prove him correct is now underway. This seems to be the new legal principle in operation in Judge Mangum's courtroom - guilty until proven innocent.

But who would want to testify after the way that Venessa Mills has been treated? When all it takes is an allegation of "brainwashing" to bring down a mental evaluation and a court order filled with slander, who would want to stand up in court and tell Judge Mangum he's wrong?

Here is a sad story.

I ran into a fellow homeschool mom the other day. A few years ago this mom met Mr. Mills at a homeschool event, and described his participation. Students of all ages gathered to premiere their projects. Mr. Mills marveled over the students' creativity and hard work. He easily engaged in conversation and was very supportive of homeschooling, sharing what his own children were learning and expressing how proud he was of them.

Oddly enough, though, this year Mr. Mills didn't have the same attitude. This same homeschool mom couldn't believe the difference in Mr. Mills' behavior when she saw him - quite the opposite of what it had been.

As Judge Mangum has found it as a "fact" that Mr. Mills never agreed for his children to be homeschooled, this information would be very relevant. But it doesn't seem that real facts make much difference to the honorable Judge Mangum.

In my opinion, of course.