Stephen Pidgeon nails it. Prosecution rebuts; “HE WAS NOT NICE”!

A closing defense does not get much better than this. If this man was on the Supreme court we would have a different America. But in today’s corrupt courts you only convicted, unless one of the jurors has the courage to stand up and say no more. In fact about 92% of jury trials convict in America.

For the result you can watch the update on my conviction. This was streamed in the unprecedented live stream of my trial. Our attorney Stephen Pidgeon takes on the closing argument, walking the line with the judge and destroying every element of the State’s case, just like in my Dad’s trial. He did an amazing job, but the system is rigged for conviction.

If this iconic argument will not open the eyes of jurors, what chance do you have in a court like Douglas County. It’s worth it for the education alone. It also illustrates that no matter how good your argument or how much your experience, you will likely lose in our corrupt courts. You get a jury of slaves, NOT your peers.

Folks are always telling me I should use this or that technique to make the courts run away. It usually comes from those that beat a traffic ticket at best. What they don’t understand is that these tyrants don’t care about the facts, the law or what you think. If they really want you, they could care less what approach you take.

Don’t kid yourself into thinking you’ll walk into court and win with legal name arguments, jurisdiction, opt outs or anything else. As we saw in the pro-se Shatseen trial, you will not even be allowed the latitude Stephen was. Even Stephen could not speak openly. He was not allowed the self defense argument in instructions, he cannot talk about nullification (though here he proved the law was not broken anyways) and he must follow court protocol.

If you refuse to show up they arrive at your door with guns. If you refuse to cooperate they lock you in a cell. If you are silent, they simply convict you. The only way to restore justice is to restore liberty.

Everyone involved in judging is paid by the State. The jurors are made to take an oath to obey the goverment and apply the law as they are told. Despite the fact that that instruction is unconstitutional and that a jurors actual duty is to conscience alone as I explained in THIS VIDEO.

I’ll add a copy of the jurors oath below so you can see just how bad it is. Is it any wounder why jurors do exactly what the State tells them. They are intimidated into doing just that and we have built a nation of spineless people who would rather go home and watch sports than stand for what is right.

I could not be more proud to stand up to the thugs in Douglas County. I could not be more proud of my family who has also been abused by them. I could not have held my head nigher in that courtroom. We did the right thing in standing and it’s time to start standing all over America. This nation is about to come apart.

Yes we will appeal to the next court, yes we try to make an example of them. But the most important thing is to keep standing for what is right.

Be bold, be principled appeal to heaven and stand, come what may.

— Gav

Note: I will try to upload the prosecution first closing argument so you can compare, but it’s mainly a long and boring version of his second close. The prosecution always gets the last word.

____________

Jurors Oath:

“You, as jurors, are the judges of the facts. But in determining what actually happened–that is, in reaching your decision as to the facts–it is your sworn duty to follow all of the rules of law as I explain them to you.

You have no right to disregard or give special attention to any one instruction, or to question the wisdom or correctness of any rule I may state to you. You must not substitute or follow your own notion or opinion as to what the law is or ought to be. It is your duty to apply the law as I explain it to you, regardless of the consequences. However, you should not read into these instructions, or anything else I may have said or done, any suggestion as to what your verdict should be. That is entirely up to you.

It is also your duty to base your verdict solely upon the evidence, without prejudice or sympathy. That was the promise you made and the oath you took.

Comments

comments