https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvmtsznrZz4

For those people who have a good grasp on the geopolitical Q movement and who are ready to further expand their thinking, look at this.

I bloody hope so 🙏😁

All depends on whether the judge was presiding in a courtroom with a gold fringed flag.

Before the U.S. Corp we hanged a lot of people. I'm OK going back to that. Life imprisonment should just be a death penalty.

If government put them there, the conviction must be suspect.

The burden of proof the founders put in place was that even the mother of the accused would have to be convinced of guilt.

“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions, and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President Letter to Francis W. Gilmer (27 June 1816); The Writings of Thomas Jefferson edited by Ford, vol. 10, p. 32.

“If a juror accepts as the law that which the judge states, then the juror has accepted the exercise of absolute authority of a government employee and has surrendered a power and right that once was the citizen's safeguard of liberty.” ~ Justice Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 2 ELLIOT’S DEBATES, 94, BANCROFT, HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.267, 1788.

“But, sir, the people themselves have it in their power effectually to resist usurpation, without being driven to an appeal of arms. An act of usurpation is not obligatory; it is not law; and any man may be justified in his resistance. Let him be considered as a criminal by the general government, yet only his fellow-citizens can convict him; they are his jury, and if they pronounce him innocent, not all the powers of Congress can hurt him; and innocent they certainly will pronounce him, if the supposed law he resisted was an act of usurpation.” ~ Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813) in the Massachusetts Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, January 23, 1788, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.2 p.94 (Philadelphia, 1836)

“Nullification is but one legitimate result in an appropriate constitutional process safeguarded by judges and the judicial system. When juries refuse to convict on the basis of what they think are unjust laws, they are performing their duty as jurors.” ~ Judge Jack B. Weinstein (1921-) United States federal judge Considering Jury “Nullification”: When May and Should a Jury Reject the Law to do Justice?, 30 Am. Crim L. Rev. 239, 240 (1993)

Yale Law Journal Quote “The right of the jury to decide questions of law was widely recognized in the colonies. In 1771, John Adams stated unequivocally that a juror should ignore a judge’s instruction on the law if it violates fundamental principles: “It is not only ... [the juror’s] right, but his duty, in that case, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” There is much evidence of the general acceptance of this principle in the period immediately after the Constitution was adopted.” ~ Yale Law Journal Note: The Changing Role of the Jury in the Nineteenth Century, Yale Law Journal 74, 174 (1964).

“By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion.” ~ Lord Acton [John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton] (1834-1902), First Baron Acton of Aldenham Lord Acton, in The History of Freedom in Antiquity (1877)

“In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism -- including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?” ~ Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) [Claude Frederic Bastiat] French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before -- and immediately following -- the French Revolution of February 1848 What Is Liberty? "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat (1848)