Talk:The Annotated Citizen's Rule Book

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


This should be re done in a side-by-side format
Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.
anyone? - User \scriptstyle4\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}(-1)^{n}(2n+1)^{-1} 23:48, 13 March 2009 (EDT)
I was about to say the same. I'll to-do it - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


THese guys who are practically Neo confederates quote Lincoln!? Isn't that like a libertarian quoting Lenin?

  • Calling them neo-Confederates is being entirely too nice. There were honorable Confederates, despite their motives. If the story on Wikipedia about who wrote it is true, the easiest description of the authors is a cross between the Nazis and the Taliban. EVDebs (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying that rights are acquired through social contract is not entirely right. Thomas Pain argues in his Rights of Man, and I think he is right, that the rights are natural. Government is formed to protect these rights. So in order that our rights can be protected we surrender some other rights. For example, we live in a society and so we have to follow some norms which we need not if we lived by ourselves. But because we live in a society other rights which we consider more important are better protected. If a 7 foot 350 pound man took my money, then in a jungle scenario I would not be able to do anything, but now I can call cops and they can take him down for me. In return of this protection, I have to pay taxes, obey laws and stuff. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs


I don't think in the US that jury nullification is a loophole. It seems to be in place rather by design. That said, it is certainly open to abuse. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Clarification of position about jury's right to be informed about jury nullification[edit]

In the section YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!, the first annotation states "There's no reason a juror can't know about this power." This statement seems somewhat at odds to other parts of the article as it stands. Under JURY TAMPERING, the first annotation notes "The instructions basically read that if all 12 jurors believe that a certain set of facts are true than it must convict the defendant," and the first annotation under "The Right of the JURY to be Told of Its Power" notes ". . . there's quite a lot of judicial precedent for disqualifying information about jury nullification. It's a common law thing." Should these annotations have a link or reference to arguments or notes about jurors knowing about nullification? The conclusion seems to recognize a legitimate use of jury nullification, and some judges have advocated in favor of jurors knowing about nullification, such as William Goodloe, former Chief Justice of the Washington State Supreme Court.

(Added after polite reminder) Imarcuson (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

please sign your comment.Waronstupidity (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a distinction between the juror knowing about nullification in advance and a defense attorney arguing for it in court. The former is unavoidable; the latter is a blatant attempt to break the system. In other words, if the defendant is hoping for nullification, they'd better hope the jury agrees, because their attorney could be held in contempt for asking the jury to do it. EVDebs (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with your statement. The change I am proposing would be some thing like ". . . there's quite a lot of judicial precedent for disqualifying information about jury nullification. It's a common law thing. However, an argument could be made for letting jurors know about nullification. Some judges have advocated for this." (bolding mine) Imarcuson (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Side by sides as editorials[edit]

These end up essentially being essays written by one or a few people, replete with first person references and a healthy lack of citations. No offense to the authors intended. It's been the Way since the beginning. I just question whether it's really an appropriate way to present something as "from RW" rather than a few people's opinions. And some of this stuff is wrong. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 15:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Some belong as essays. It'd be nice to fix this up. (I am working on a response in the Wikipedia arbitration case regarding Chelsea Manning, so am not starting big projects anywhere else for a short while.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A lot of this is in my wheelhouse, but I'm really jammed up for time as well. I just moved and I'm up to my ears in meetings and other nonsense talking people into giving me money. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


"The only thing that would be result from being a lone holdout is a mistrial and retrial of the defendant, as well as a possible (though unlikely) citation for jury tampering." It doesn't have to result in a retrial. The prosecutor can drop the case if he thinks that he's going to keep getting hung juries. Hence the statement in A Primer for Prospective Jurors, "Many a bad law has been changed or taken off the books because juries routinely hung when asked to apply it. (Laws which made it a crime to help slaves escape, laws which did not allow working people to go on strike, and laws which prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcohol are a few examples.)" Mistrials increase the cost of enforcing the law; if the government cares about such things, that provides an incentive to stop trying to prosecute the kinds of cases that result in a lot of hung juries.

It is possible that an uncooperative juror could get kicked off the jury, if he doesn't even pretend to participate constructively in deliberation. As Surviving Voir Dire points out, "If the juror has doubts on the facts, she cannot be dismissed." That guide advises jurors to pretend to be skeptical about the evidence rather than to openly bring up nullification, unless the "not guilty" votes are in the majority. I'm not aware of any case in which a juror was convicted of jury tampering for nullifying, though; it might be unheard-of rather than merely unlikely. Take a survey (talk) 07:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lincoln and Adams.[edit]

The first paragraph has a pair of quotes from Lincoln and Adams and squeezed between them: "RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, NOT THE STATE!" so that it looks like they endorsed this point of view.

But isn't this a complete mischaracterisation of both their views? Weren't they both theists? Is there some quote mining here or is my understanding of their views at fault?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

During Adams' time, natural law was more in vogue as a legal theory than it is now. That's why you see references to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and the like in the Declaration of Independence. On the other hand, the founders opposed any kind of theocracy. This may be seem odd, considering that they claimed God as their source of authority for breaking away from the U.K. Apparently they figured it's one thing for people to, acting on the dictates of their own (God-given?) consciences and their own beliefs as to what God's will is, break away from an imperial power; and another to have a priesthood telling people what laws they should obey. The former is pro-liberty; the latter is anti-liberty. Take a survey (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


Googling "twelfthindi" or "twelfth indi" produces nothing of interest to even confirm that such a title existed

It did existed, however it is not a title, but a term, and also obscure one. Not to speak, that author of this "Rule Book" gives a corrupted form, proper form would be twelf-hid1. Hid- or hide in modern spelling- is land measurement unit. More specifically it is piece of land, that can support one household (basically the same thing as volok in East Europe). Traditionally hide is taken to equal to 120 acres, but actual size varied depending land quality and taxes.

Twelf-hid is simply a person who own 12 hides of land. That is a lot. Geþyncðo states, ceorl (a freemen) that owns 5 hides2 is eligible to the rank of theng (noblemen). 12 hides is somewhere in the level of eorls, heahgerefas (high-reeves) and kings (think of 1st class of comitia centuriata under Servian reformors).

However it was by no means "highest rank in Saxon government". Member of Witena gemot might claim such position under circumstances3, but generally that is the king and the king alone. Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania used Anglo-Saxon hundreds as administration units, it is possible that some other pre-Norman nomenclature was invoked from time to time. It would explain how such obscure term become known to the person how show extraordinarily lack of knowledge in legal topics. And, off course it has no place in UK or USA legal system as it has no place in Anglo-Saxon legal system- it just an old equivalent of billionaire.

1 Some classic authors (like Sir James Mackintosh) gives form hind. Don't know from were that come from.

2 Plus church, fortified manor and office in kings court

3 Very, very extraordinary circumstances. -— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 18:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

If someone can add a condensed version of the above with a ref or two, that'd be awesome - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

'vs.' and 'v.'[edit]

The publishing industry etc convention for spellings and similar is to 'follow the national style' - so why the use of 'vs.' here? Anna Livia (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)