Now, we can argue whether corporate property laws are unjust. I believe they are inasmuch as they (i) shield wealthy individuals from any responsibility for their responsibility, (ii) are a form of social control of the majority by a minority, and (iii) undermine democratic governance by giving de facto power to oligarchs. You may disagree with that judgment and use that as a premise of the argument that any protest against such laws - both the street and courtroom varieties - is not justified, but this is an altogether different argument than saying that jury nullification as a form of protest amounts to legalization of common crime.
FYI, I am in principle opposed to the jury nullification idea, as it amounts to subversion of the rule of law. There is no room for it in a country where laws are passed through an unobstructed democratic process. Unfortunately, the US is not such a country. In the US, many laws are passed by oligarchs with the window dressing of a democratic process. For that reason, subversion of the rule of law in the US may not be such a bad idea, if it is used to protest laws that favor oligarchs.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."