Katy and I passed out a different brochure [PDF] this time, “A Primer for Prospective Jurors.” We think it is more professional looking in addition to providing some useful tips on answering private questions during voir dire.

Some of the common questions about jury nullification are also addressed in the brochure. For example, “Once on a jury, must I use the law as given by the judge, even if I think it’s a bad law, or wrongly applied?” There are also historic examples of jury nullification being used to right a wrong, like the trial of William Penn.

Following our previous outreach event, FIJA donated about 1000 copies of literature and other merchandise, so we should be stocked up for a good while. We will set another event for next month. I know I said this last time, but I will make time for a training session sometime for any newcomers who like to attend FIJA events in the future.

Monday’s Fully Informed Jury Association event for the Campaign for Liberty — Tarrant County went beyond expectation. We passed out close to 400 trifolds, had some good conversations and met a total apologist for government aggression and discrimination.

So here is the background. Tom and Rafael joined Katy and me downtown at the Tarrant County Justice Center on Monday morning. I had never seen such a large jury pool. The line stretched into the street. We were not approached by any law enforcement, and everything was going as expected. Although, one uniformed officer asked what we were doing while waiting for the signal to say walk. I asked if he would like to know about the rights of jurors. He said he already knew about them.

Well, about the time we were passing out our last few trifolds, around 7:50 a.m., another group of people walking toward the Justice Center found their way to our intersection. They appeared to be led by this woman with an official-looking placard around her neck. In the video, she identified herself to be a licenced attorney. She was instructing the group of people with her about the location of restaurants in the neighborhood.

At first, the lady said she did not want any literature. However, once people around her started reading our paperwork, she asked for a copy. Tom said something about judges not informing jurors of their rights to examine the law, and the lady butted in and said that that was illegal for jurors to do.

By that time, I got my camera and asked if she would talk about it. That is when the video started rolling.

Tom then asked her a hypothetical about the obsolete three-fifths clause in the constitution which counted blacks as just a fraction of their actual population for congressional representation. In the clip, she admits she would be willing to enforce racial discrimination laws, among other laws. Tom then turned in disgust to her answer. What you don’t see in the video is that she quickly yanked on his elbow to get his attention. It was not a rough yank, but it was something that would have gotten some fierce retaliation had we done that to a government employee.

She suggest that we try to change the law through the legislative process rather than practicing jury nullification. She did acknowledge she does not like many of the laws either.

I asked her to respond to Martin Luther King’s line that “An unjust law is no law at all.” She said, “Generall, yes, an unjust law is not law.” (So I don’t understand her reasoning about enforcing obviously discriminatory laws.)

Tom further asked, “What if I don’t agree with the law that Jews are no longer persons?” She said, “Then you don’t sit on a jury that is judging that question.” I cringed. I could not believe her response. She again insisted that we respect the rule of law and work within it to affect change. Rafael started to question her if the US PATRIOT Act was just, but she must have misunderstood him and said something about a trade law.

Tom then gave us some historical examples that we was talking about, but I had to cut him short because YouTube videos can only be so long.

As I have been informed, the Texas constitution does have some language somewhat favorable toward jury nullification. (Edit: See Chris’ comment below for a more detailed explanation.) In the Texas Bill of Rights, it states that “in all indictments for libels, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.” This would seem to lend itself to support for the right of jurors to determine which laws they wish to have enforced in their communities.

What we plan to do is to prepare and practice delivering talking points about some common objections and questions we get during our outreach events. I think that may help overcome some common concerns and also encourage more people to attend the events.

Leonard Read, the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education, said principles are not compromised; they are abandoned. Principles, by their nature, are utilized or they are not.

That is an important reminder for those who believe the maximum role of government should be the protection of life, liberty, and property — which I think, logically construed, means self-government; however, I respect that others disagree. Our time is going to be most wisely spent improving ourselves and building relationships with like-minded liberty people. Even still, while the conventional political process is still dominant, there are ways for principled people to use political tools for their own benefit.

The conventional political dichotomy is a struggle between short-term opportunism and long-term progress. I think there is a simple reconciliation that can be made between the two camps. That is, under no circumstances, never ever, should we ever support an expansion in the role of government or a further restriction on a peaceful person’s liberty. Second, any policy support should be done with the explicit purpose of decreasing the role of government and directly benefiting peaceful individuals.

Any strategy or policy goals that we recommend or follow should be consistent with the purpose of restoring individual liberty and responsibility. I understand the importance of intermediate goals or markers to help fully achieve our ultimate purpose. But our means of achieving that purpose should not be contradictory to that end. For example, a lot of politicians try to justify tax cuts because they believe it will actually increase the total revenues to the government treasury. I believe this is wrong and sends an inconsistent message.

The goal of a tax cut should be to reduce the burden of government. Again, we should not advocate the re-legalization of cannabis on the grounds that it will raise tax revenues, but because prohibition is immoral and counterproductive. Expanding government and further restricting the liberty of others to correct another ill-fated government policy is an abandonment of principle. As Ron Paul said, “Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive.” Reducing the level of coercion in people’s lives is a worthy goal.

Principles in Practice

The goals that we have should be radical — not liberal- or conservative-lite. This serves two purposes. First, it provides cover for not-so-radical views to be considered more mainstream, thus limiting the fear of ostracism people might have for holding these slightly less radical views. It provides an objective guidepost — like a lighthouse — for gauging the success of our efforts during darker times.

I would also like to suggest two methods of communicating these ideas. We should definitely take the time, on an intellectual basis, to refute anti-liberty or collectivist ideas. But we must acknowledge that the people advocating these mistaken ideas are not dimwitted. In fact, many know exactly how they benefit from these policies. They are ripping us off, so we must make direct, populist appeals that reveal that fact.

By its nature, government is crude and unaccountable, so there will be an infinite supply of aggrieved individuals. Ideally, that means that we don’t have to convert individuals fully to the virtue of liberty before taking action together. Over time, I hope that those who are “liberty minus one” or “liberty minus whatever” come to see the error of their ways.

Some Ideas to Bat Around

Sometimes, pick losing issues to get the message out by presenting a pro-liberty analysis. I’m not saying be a stick-in-the-mud. The situation might provide an opportunity to get some free media publicity or lay the groundwork for winning progress on the issue in the future. Liberals have deployed this technique by pushing socialized health insurance and environmental regulations.

Now, I don’t even know how possible this next one is. Those arrested for committing consensual crimes could be high-target prospects for the liberty message. When I’m passing out Fully Informed Jury Association literature on jury nullification, those called for jury duty are naturally receptive to the material I am providing. I’ll usually stay a little past the time when potential jurors are due to report in downtown Fort Worth in order to catch any stranglers. When I do, I just happen to pass out literature to defendants, and they are just as interested in the concept of jury nullification as potential jurors, if not more so. There has got to be a way of contacting those folks by getting ahold of  some public records.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center this morning for the second round of Fully Informed Jury Association activism when I was confronted by a county officer who asked me to leave. Luckily, I got most of our interaction on video. My friends at the other end of the block later told me that the same officer told them they had to leave county property. They wrote down his name, but I forgot to ask them how to spell it. The same officer confronted me about five minutes after filming the video and asked me for my name and contact information. He said he wanted it in case the footage was made public. I told him I was a private person, so I refused. I almost began filming again when he just walked away as I said “On the job means on the record.”

I also ran into county prosecutor Kevin Rousseau, who starred in the first FIJA event on Aug. 24. He was almost across the intersection when I called out, “Hey, Mr. Rousseau.” He kind of hung his head in disappointment and then asked for a copy of our literature. The bureaucrats seemed more interested in us than before. Another lady who had a government ID asked if I had a permit. I replied, “Yes, it’s called the First Amendment.” Although I don’t believe my rights come from the constitution, at least that right is theoretically protected from violation by the government. I met two men who identified themselves as county judges who asked for a copy. I asked if they would mind being interviewed, but both declined being on camera.

Except for the officer in the video, I think I was friendly to the government people. I feel I was too confrontational with the officer and not informative enough, and that is something I’ll need to get better at. After all, I forgive all of them for what they do to my neighbors and myself, and I always will. I just wished they would stop hurting peaceful people. If I had to do it over again, I would have offered him a hug.

I think we’ll be having another FIJA event in the next week or two, when jury trials are being held.

If you’re interested in achieving “Liberty In Our Lifetime,” visit the Free State Project.

The process was easy but also rewarding. We found a lot of sympathetic ears, and we let them know how to get involved locally in the Tarrant County Campaign for Liberty. I don’t know if we’ll save someone from an unjust law; however, I know for sure that we reached some other hearts and minds seeking liberty.

I didn’t have any trouble except for this one assistant district attorney. In the accompanying YouTube video I posted, I described the events just prior to the footage.

I was outside the Tarrant County Justice Center in downtown Ft. Worth, passing out Fully Informed Jury Association literature to potential jurors with some other activists, when I was approached by a man who identified himself as a county prosecutor. He repeatedly questioned who I was and who I worked for. I, of course, repeatedly ignored his questions, and that only seemed to upset him more.

I intentionally avoided approaching anyone wearing a suit or an employee ID badge because I was trying to be as inconspicuous as possible. I stood by myself on the northeast corner of the building, while Katy and Raymond were on the southeast corner attending to bus loads of potential jurors. Most people had their jury summons or a big thick book in hand, so they were easy to spot. There must have been 40 officers and security personnel who passed me, and not one threatened me or tried to intimidate me in any way. They were true professionals. One even thanked me for what we were doing. However, Katy later told me about an officer who yanked the flyer away from a woman who he didn’t appear to know. The officer apparently read the first few sentences and scoffed as he walked away.

I’d say that nine out of 10 people took the handout. We dressed sort of business-like, so a lot of people might have assumed we were with the city. I borrowed from a line and would say, “Have you got your juror’s rights information, yet?” or just “Here’s your juror’s rights information” and then hand them the paper.

At about 8:45 or so, we decided to close shop. If we had gone Tuesday through Friday, then we would have waited because the jury summons is 30 minutes later during those days of the week. Parking was also easy. We parked next to the building at a parking meter, and since the hours of operation don’t start until 8:00, it only costs less than a dollar to park.

Ideas to consider

If we plan to make this a regular thing, then we’ll need to find a print shop sympathetic to our message to achieve some costs savings.

I think eight, two at each street corner around the building, is an optimal number of participants for this kind of event.

Any other ideas or suggestions are welcomed.