WATCH: Cops Arrest Innocent Man, Record Themselves Pondering What to Charge Him With

For informing citizens of their rights while on a jury, an innocent man was kidnapped and caged by the very people tasked with protecting his right to do this.

Innocent Man Sentenced to Prison for Standing on a Sidewalk, Informing People of Their Rights

Big Rapids, MI — A former pastor will serve time in jail for a conviction of “jury tampering,” after he was arrested and charged with a felony for handing out jury information pamphlets outside of a courthouse.

Keith Wood is innocent. He was merely attempting to educate his neighbors about their rights on a jury, which should be protected free speech. However, courts are intent on using their power to hide the full scope of the jurors’ responsibility and they will apparently go to great lengths to do so — including throwing an entirely innocent man in prison.

For those who don’t know, jury nullification is the right for any juror to not only judge the facts of the case but also to judge the validity of the law itself. If a jury feels that a defendant is facing an unjust charge, they have the right to rule in the defendant’s favor, even if they are technically guilty under the court’s standards.

Federal and individual state governments are terrified about this concept becoming mainstream as it could lead to radical change in regards to victimless ‘crimes.’

Wood wanted people to know about their rights on a jury so he printed out pamphlets from the Fully Informed Jury Association and began passing them out at his local courthouse.

By the time he could hand out 50 fliers, court officials had Wood arrested. Wood was on a public sidewalk, which should have given him additional protection under free speech laws, but he was arrested anyway.

Advertisment

Wood was charged with a five-year felony for obstructing justice and a one-year misdemeanor for jury tampering. This week in court, Wood was found guilty on the obstruction of justice charge and sentenced to eight weekends in jail plus six months of probation and additional fines.

READ MORE:  WATCH: Man Films as Police Enter His Home Without a Warrant, Kidnap His Children

After his arrest Wood told Fox 17, “I truly believe in my heart of hearts I didn’t do anything wrong, I didn’t break the law.”

When asked if he felt that his first amendment rights were violated, Wood responded, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.”

The judge entirely ignored Wood’s rights and treated him like a criminal, telling the court that “He’s going straight to jail today,” as she handed down the sentence.

“This is not a person who made a one-time mistake, he hasn’t demonstrated that he has kind of shown that he realizes now the significance of what he’s done, in fact, the testimony shows the contrary,” Mecosta County Assistant Prosecutor Nathan Hull told the court.

Wood’s defense attorney, David Kallman, argued that his client did nothing wrong, and was acting within his rights as a US citizen.

“He exercised what he believes are his free speech rights, did it out on the sidewalk before this court, and because of that, that deserves 45 days in jail, let alone one day in jail?” I totally disagree with that,” Kallman said.

As The Free Thought Project reported last month, Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool.

“’I thought this was going to trash my jury trial, basically,” testified Judge [Peter] Jaklevic. “It just didn’t sound right.’

Jacklevic ended up sending that jury pool home on Nov. 24, 2015 when Yoder took a plea.

Jaklevic continued to testify that he stepped into the hallway with Mecosta County Prosecutor Brian Thiede when Det. Erlandson and a deputy brought Wood into the courthouse that day. Mecosta County Deputy Jeff Roberts testified he ‘asked Wood to come inside because the Judge wanted to talk with him,’ then threatened to call a city cop if Wood did not come inside.

Wood testified Judge Jaklevic never spoke to him that day, or him any questions, before ordering his arrest. He tells FOX 17 he had concerns his case was tried in Mecosta County where all of this happened, involving several court officials including the judge.”

To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying informational pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Wood arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Wood was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired, where county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place.

READ MORE:  Mainstream Media and Government Remain Silent as Activists From All Over the US Deliver Aid to Flint

“So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Wood. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.”

Defense attorney Kallman noted that during Wood’s trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury.

“And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” Kallman said. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.”

After the guilty verdict was announced, Kallman told FOX 17 that he plans to appeal the case.

Jury nullification is a tangible solution to the problems that we face with the justice system. Through this loophole, we as average citizens have the power to free our neighbors from unjust laws and government persecution.

The next time that you get a jury notice in the mail, forget about the minor inconvenience and think about the human life that you could save.

One thing that is important to mention is the fact that you probably don’t want to mention jury nullification until you are selected as a juror, that is likely to get you dismissed immediately. However, once you are on the inside, you can spread the word by telling the other jurors that they have the right to vote with their conscience.

READ MORE:  Judge Threatens To Impose A "Secret Jury" After Activists Try to Inform Jurors of Legal Rights

Please share this story so that this innocent man’s case gets the scrutiny it deserves. When a person can be thrown in a cage for passing out flyers on a public sidewalk, informing people of their rights under the law, tyranny is not approaching — it is here.

Court Sets Ominous Precedent: Informing Jurors of Their Rights Is Now ILLEGAL

Big Rapids, MI — As constitutional rights are steadily eroded in the U.S. through the burgeoning police/surveillance state, one case in Michigan provides an example of just how dire the situation has gotten. Keith Woods, a resident of Mecosta County, was charged and recently convicted for the “crime” of standing on a public sidewalk and handing out fliers about juror rights.

Woods was exercising his First Amendment rights and raising awareness about something the courts deliberately fail to tell jurors when beginning a trial – jury nullification, or the right to vote one’s conscience. For this, Woods – a father of eight and former pastor – was charged with jury tampering, after an initial felony charge of obstructing justice was dropped following public outcry.

Even with the reduced charge, the case has very troubling implications for free speech rights. The county prosecutor, seemingly furious that a citizen would dare inform the public on jury nullification, said Woods’ pamphlet “is designed to benefit a criminal defendant.”

The prosecutor then seemed to contradict himself in a statement, saying, “Once again the pamphlet by itself, fine, people have views on what the law should be, that’s fine. It’s the manner by which this pamphlet was handed out.”

Woods, who testified in his own defense, stated under oath that he did not ask anyone walking into the courthouse if they were a juror, remained on the public sidewalk and never blocked any area. He decided to hand out the pamphlets at a Nov. 24, 2015 trial of an Amish man accused of draining a wetland on his property in violation of Dept. of Environment Quality rules.

READ MORE:  Jury Rights Activists Refuse To Back Down To Court Bullies Or Cops. Rights = Flexed

Woods’ pamphlet did not contain anything specific to the case or any Michigan court, according to defense attorney David Kallman. But this innocuous behavior, which should be viewed as a public service, drew the attention of a judge who became “very concerned” when he saw the pamphlets being carried by some of the jury pool.

“I thought this was going to trash my jury trial, basically,” testified Judge [Peter] Jaklevic. “It just didn’t sound right.”

Jacklevic ended up sending that jury pool home on Nov. 24, 2015 when Yoder took a plea.

Jaklevic continued to testify that he stepped into the hallway with Mecosta County Prosecutor Brian Thiede when Det. Erlandson and a deputy brought Wood into the courthouse that day. Mecosta County Deputy Jeff Roberts testified he “asked Wood to come inside because the Judge wanted to talk with him,” then threatened to call a city cop if Wood did not come inside.

Wood testified Judge Jaklevic never spoke to him that day, or him any questions, before ordering his arrest. He tells FOX 17 he had concerns his case was tried in Mecosta County where all of this happened, involving several court officials including the judge.”

To recap, this judge said “it just didn’t sound right” that people were carrying information pamphlets on their rights as jurors, and he possibly lied on the stand to justify the fact that he had Woods arrested for doing nothing wrong. What’s more, Woods was brought to trial in the same court where all of this transpired and county officials had literally teamed up to violate his rights in the first place.

READ MORE:  Jury Finds Woman NOT Guilty of "Manufacturing Drugs" Because the Pot She Grew Was Medicine

“So our taxpayer dollars are paying their salary, and they were the actors in this case to arrest me, to imprison me, and all that,” said Woods. “I did have a very great concern that they were the ones trying the case, because they work together day in and day out.”

Defense attorney Kallman notes that during Woods’ trial, they were prohibited from arguing several points to the jury.

“And of course, the First Amendment issues are critical: that we believe our client had the absolute First Amendment right to hand out these brochures right here on this sidewalk,” said Kallman. “That’s part of the problem of where we feel we were handcuffed quite a bit.”

When asked how he felt about his First Amendment rights, Woods replied, “Oh, I don’t feel like I have them.”

We had briefs about the First Amendment, free speech. It was very clear today, I know the jury doesn’t hear that, but it was very clear that the government did not meet their burden to restrict my free speech on that public sidewalk that day. It was very clear.”

What Is Jury Nullification?

In its strictest sense, jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a Not Guilty verdict even though jurors believe the defendant has broken the law. Because the Not Guilty verdict cannot be overturned, and because the jurors cannot be punished for their verdict, the law is said to be nullified in that particular case.

In what can be said to be a milder form of jury nullification, some of the jurors, or even just one in most cases, can hang the jury by maintaining a Not Guilty verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law. There is no requirement that jurors must come to a unanimous verdict. If the jury cannot unanimously agree on a verdict of either Guilty or Not Guilty, this is known as a hung jury. When further deliberation clearly will be unproductive, the judge will declare a mistrial. The prosecution may or may not retry the case in the future, but the law has at least been nullified in the trial at hand.

Former prosecutor and current Georgetown University Law Center professor Paul Butler has dubbed another variation on this theme to be “jury nullification 2.0”. He used this term in reference to the case of Touray Cornell, a Missoula, Montana man charged with possession of 1/16th of an ounce of marijuana in a county that had passed a citizen initiative instructing law enforcement to make marijuana enforcement their lowest priority. Of 27 potential jurors questioned during voir dire, only five said they would vote to convict a person of possession of such a small amount of marijuana. Skeptical that it would even be possible to seat a jury, the judge in the case called a recess during which time the lawyers worked out a deal known as an “Alford plea” in which the defendant didn’t admit guilt.

When these kinds of rejections of enforcement of laws stack up over time, the laws become unenforceable. We’ve seen this rejection of the Fugitive Slave Laws and alcohol prohibition, for example, undermine such laws’ enforcement. Eventually it is no longer worth the time or hassle or embarrassment for government officials to try to enforce these laws. They may be further nullified in a sense either remaining on the books but not being enforced, or being repealed altogether

Other terms you may hear in place of jury nullification are conscientious acquittal, juror veto, or jury pardon.

This information is provided for educational purposes only. These are our observations only and do not constitute legal advice. FIJA does not have any lawyers on staff and we do not offer legal advice or legal referrals.

Read more at:  Fully Informed Jury Association

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

Federal Judge Gloria Navarro Has Appointed Herself Ruling Queen Of Her Las Vegas Territory

Federal Judge Gloria Navarro no longer acts as a Federal Judge—by her blatant disregard for the United States Constitution or the rights of the People, she has proclaimed herself Queen of her territory in Las Vegas Nevada. She considers herself, like a Queen, untouchable and unaccountable to laws or the Constitution that she swore an oath to uphold. Instead, she makes up her own laws, makes her own rules and violates and mocks the People attempting to defend themselves from corrupt federal employees. The massive list of Constitutional and legal violations in Queen Gloria Navarro’s court in Las Vegas, Nevada continue to grow on a daily basis. Particularly in the case of Cliven Bundy et al vs. United States of America.

The Peoples’ Constitutional Rights are not only being violated, the Peoples’ Rights are being mocked and disposed of by Gloria Navarro as if they are nothing more than suggestions from peasants. A court of Justice can only exist if all parties involved follow the Law. A judge is required to be an independent NEUTRAL entity in court. There is a reason Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold—she’s not supposed to know who is before her, just the facts. Queen Gloria Navarro on the other hand, is openly deciding what is a fact and what rules to follow. She has obviously gotten away with violating the US Constitution and acting as Queen of her kingdom for so long, she no longer feels any guilt about violating and even mocking the People or their “Constitution” in her courtroom. It’s as if she’s challenging the People to “stop me if you can, ha ha ha, for I am Queen of all that I see.”

This list is just a few of the treasonous violations the People of the United States suffer from inside Queen Navarros’ Court. This is not Justice:

1. Queen Navarro has forbidden The US Constitution to be visible in her court room. The only way she will allow the United States Constitution in the Queens courtroom, is if it’s disrespectfully turned backwards in the observers pockets. This is what Queen Navarro thinks about the Peoples’ Constitution.


2. Defendant in the Queens’ Court, Todd Engel, has been denied by the Queen of his Constitutionally protected right to represent himself. Why would the Queen deny one of the People their Constitutional right to defend themselves? Because Todd asked an FBI agent on the stand if the top BLM agent in the Queens territory, Dan Love, was in fact under investigation for misconduct. That question alone, caused Queen Navarro to strip Todd of his Right to self represent. Even though the defense has a Constitutionally protected right to call the corrupt agent, Dan Love, to the stand, the Queen is over-ruling Constitutional law and has decided the agents testimony is too damaging to the Queens’ agent and therefor the agents’ testimony is not necessary for the jury to hear.


3. The People have a Constitutionally protected right to face their accusers. However that is only allowed in Queen Navarros’ Court if it pleases the Queen.  FBI agent Adam Nixon took the stand and testified that he had obtained a warrant to search FBI Informant Greg Burleson’s Facebook page. Adam Nixon went through his paid informants Facebook page in Queen Navarros’ Court and NEVER mentioned he was colluding with Burleson in 2013 to create a false narrative that the Bundy’s were violent. The paid FBI informant was the only “defendant” who promoted violence and Queen Navarro did not allow any defense attorney to cross examine the Federal agent to get more information about Burleson’s time as a paid informant.


4. Queen Navarro does not believe in the Peoples’ Constitutionally protected right to self defense or the Second Amendment. She does not believe the People have a right to point a weapon at any law enforcement ever, EVEN IF we believe we are going to be killed. The Queens’ position is that the People must submit to being shot by corrupt police officers. In fact, Queen Navarro has stated that if the People have a weapon in sight of a corrupt police officer they can be killed by the police officer if he/she so chooses.


5. No where in the constitution does it regulate how many or what kind of witnesses can be called by the People. Yet Queen Navarro denied every defense witness they have attempted to call to the stand. On the first day of witnesses not a single one was allowed to take the stand by the Queen. Not only that but, the witnesses who are willing to testify are being threatened with arrest by the Queen’s federal agents. The corrupt federal agents claim this an “ongoing conspiracy”and they can indict more people any time they want. After giving the prosecution 7 weeks on the stand, the defense was not able to start their day with even one Queen approved witness. Family members who were first-hand eye witnesses, including the wives of the defendants, were denied their Constitutional Rights by the Queen for being ‘unprofessional or lay or political’ witnesses. The Queen wont allow them to discuss the cows being shot or their property being destroyed. The Queen wont allow a discussions about defendant Ammon Bundy being tazed, or defendant Dave Bundy being abused and arrested on the road for recording the activities of corrupt federal officials. The Queen won’t allow testimony about Margaret Houston being thrown to the ground and abused by corrupt federal agents. Queen Navarro won’t allow the defendants to discuss how scared they were of the unethical agents or anything that might show the jury how badly the agents acted. Queen Navarro also objects to any topic that might risk Jury Nullification.

Read more at 1776 Again

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.

Judge Openly LAUGHS At Defendants Rights – Bunkerville Trial

By Shari Dovale

Judge Gloria Navarro made a mockery of the judicial system today.

The first Bunkerville trial is underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The prosecution has had over five weeks to present their case. Now that the defense is ready to put on their case, Judge Gloria Navarro has shut them down.

Out of the entire witness list, there is one witness, other than the defendants, that she will allow to testify. Garrett Frenner was a witness to the slaughter of the Bundy cattle. However, Judge Navarro will not allow him to testify to those events. The prosecutors and the FBI spent a couple of hours harassing this man, threatening him with prosecution if he dared to testify. She has made it clear that he can ONLY testify to which of the defendants he saw with guns.

Every witness that the defense tried to proffer today was questioned by the Judge. She stressed to each one of them that she was ready to have them removed from the courtroom in handcuffs, if she thinks they are committing perjury.

Judge Navarro then backed up the prosecution when they threatened witnesses by naming them as “UNindicted Co-conspirators”. Navarro allowed this bullying, and took part in it herself.

After the intimidation of their witness, the defense believes he has been compromised and stated they are unsure of calling him as a witness. This made Eric Parker so distraught and upset that they have no witnesses for their defense that he broke down and cried in the courtroom. This, of course, made his wife and supporters cry as well.

Judge Navarro showed no sympathy. Reports are that she actually laughed out loud at their distress. The prosecutors also laughed and joked at the defense. She continued to reiterate that they have no rights as defendants.

Navarro also stated in the courtroom that no one is guaranteed their first amendment rights or their second amendment rights. Additionally, she told everyone that there is Never a time when anyone is allowed to defend themselves against a Law Enforcement Officer, even if they caught him breaking into their home. If he even sees a gun near them, they are guilty of assaulting him.

The defense had plans to call numerous witnesses, including Carole Bundy, Shawna Cox, Michele Fiore and more. Judge Navarro refused to allow them to testify because she feels their testimony might risk her jury to nullify.

Jury Nullification is her worst fear. She continues to tell the defense that she will not allow them to put on any defense that might sway her jury to nullify. This includes any information of why these men came to Bunkerville, the abuses of the BLM agents, and more.

Judge Navarro is quoted as saying, “The risk of jury nullification… for the jurors to hear about different defense witnesses, that can’t happen!” Navarro mentioned this at least three times during the day.

When the defense team attempted to object, she shut them down again, saying “Don’t bother to object.” as she intendeds to side with the prosecution each time.

And she carried through with this threat, not allowing the defense any leeway at all.

Dan Love was the Special Agent in Charge of the operation in Bunkerville, and his testimony was the main evidence in front of the Grand Jury. However, because he is under investigation for abuses, Judge Navarro has ruled his testimony is irrelevant and will not allow him to be called to testify.

Eric Parker has now decided that he has no choice but to testify. He may very well be the only witness in the defense case. This case could end up in the jury’s hands as early as tomorrow.

The heavy-handed judge has ruled these men do not deserve the right to defend themselves.

Bundy Ladies:

John Lamb and Andrea Parker:

 

From Redoubt News

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies,  foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.   You can donate HERE.