In an election, it's a secret ballot. There's no public record of who voted for whom. It's impossible to prove that insiders didn't tamper with the results. Insiders say "We're honest! We swear!" That isn't proof.
Jury pools are supposed to be random. However, insiders can't prove it.
Suppose there is a politically-motivated trial. Suppose there are 1000 or 10,000 prospective jurors that can be counted on to give the "right" verdict. On jury selection day for that trial, only the pre-biased jurors are called. This guarantees a guilty verdict.
A pro-State troll says "They don't do that!" Can you prove it? The "juror drawing" process occurs in private. You can't prove it's done honestly and randomly.
Someone pointed out an error in the way the Constitution is quoted. The Constitution does not say "jury of your peers" anywhere. It merely says "trial by jury". In practice, this means "12 jurors picked by the prosecutor". Jurors that favor the defendant tend to be filtered out by the "jury selection" process.
A true "jury of my peers" would be "12 people who know that all taxation is theft and that government is one huge criminal conspiracy". Unfortunately, less than 0.1% of the people know the truth. Even as a pro se defendant, the judge would probably bar me from explaining my viewpoint to the jury. If the jurors are hopeless pro-State trolls, then no amount of explanation will convince them.
I was surprised by this trial transcript.
Potential juror (JUROR # 4), Larry Lowder, advises the court that he attends church with the US Attorney, P.K. Holmes and has for six or seven years.Allegedly, several jurors were personal acquaintances of the prosecutor. I was shocked. The judge or defense lawyer didn't remove those jurors. Why didn't the defense lawyer strongly object?
Potential juror (JUROR # 7), Gail Chamberlain, advises court that she too attends church with the US Attorney, P.K. Holmes and that her son dined at his home three weeks earlier.
Potential juror (JUROR # 6), Janice Martin, informs the court that she and the US Attorney’s wife were cub leader and assistant cub leader to the US Attorneys’, P.K. Holmes, son within the last six (6) years or so.
Potential juror (JUROR #6), Janice Martin acknowledges that the prosecuting attorney was her son’s soccer coach.
What are the odds that multiple jurors would be personal acquaintances of the prosecutor? That's really unlikely. That made me suspect jury tampering.
Many aspects of the State are conducted in private. Statists say that secrecy is necessary. Secrecy can be used to cover up evil.
With a secret ballot, you can't prove that the election results were honestly counted. With secret "random" juror selection, you can't prove that someone didn't tamper with the jury pool. It is possible that, during a politically-motivated trial, only jurors with the "right" attitude are called.
10 comments:
Most jurors are unproductive people who have nothing better to do.
There is no way I would ever consent to be a juror. A friend of mine told me a near 100% way to be dismissed from jury duty. Simply make this statement " I hate blacks, hispanics, oriental gangs and if one of them is on trial they are guilty from the get go. They are all guilty, they all done the crime."
A little harsh, but it works. Use more colorful language and you will certainly be dismissed.
Productive people should not waste their time on jury duty.
In a way that is a shame.
I know a person whose business almost failed because he was required to serve jury duty.
That too is a shame.
There are two conflicting viewpoints:
1. Why should I give up my salary while serving on jury duty?
2. I should serve as a juror, nullify if appropriate, and keep an innocent person out of jail. (If it wasn't a nullification-relevant trial, I'd try to get excused.)
If I serve as a juror and nullify, it costs me $5k but costs the State $500k+ (the cost of the trial).
I do not know what I would have done if I was called to jury, but I would greatly respect a juror who would nullify.
I always try to get on the jury when I am called.
Here is how part of the scam works.
The judge always asks "Is there anyone here who works full time and whose employer doesn't pay for jury duty?" Some people raise their hands. The judge says "You are all dismissed."
The only jobs I have seen that pay for jury duty are government jobs. So we have them, and the retirees who get social security and believe in powerful government, and the welfare recipients, who are also wards of the state.
You won't find people on the jury who work jobs in private industry because of this.
That said, I am pretty surprised that in that case many of the jurors were close personal friends of the prosecutor. That seems an amazing coincidence.
Problem 1:
Majority rule.
Fix this, and you still have:
Problem 2:
People are too stupid.
Fix this, and you still have:
Problem 3:
Blessing is a curse. There is going to be an offspring. It's going to be too stupid.
Each problem above is a consequence of the problem below.
because of these, there never was , is nor going to be a lasting free society, where membership is granted by birth or location. Trying to create a free country this way is a dead end. I think if there should be an another attempt to create free society, it must be based on membership which is contractual, revocable and never inherited.
FSK thanks very much you gave me a better idea to get out of jury duty. I could tell the court that I am aware of jury nullification. That is much better than spewing hate, but I am not completely sure it would work. (at least I would be telling the truth).
@ Scott Thanks for the information, but what if you are self employed? Can you only opt out if you are receiving a W2 form. Anybody could claim to be self employed. What about a person who has an agorist business?
I would appreciate any information on proven ways to opt out of jury duty.
If I had nothing better to do I would find jury duty an entertaining prospect. Is that why people do it, for entertainment? I never thought about that before. Imagine having the power to decide the fate of another person. Several people have told me that they would like to serve as jurors. I never understood that. If jurors are on a power trip imagine the trip the judge is on. (I guess that is why they hate jury nullification)
The reason you would want to serve as a juror is so you can nullify and keep an innocent person out of jail. I suspect that more than 50% of criminal trials are ones where jury nullification would be appropriate.
I realize that by me trying to get out of jury duty I am denying a potentially innocent person from an unjust trial.
I understand that your mission is to try to educate people and as a side effect have more jury nullification for nonviolent crimes.
The reason I want out of jury duty is selfish. My business would lose money and potentially fail if the trial went on long enough. Should I sacrifice my livelyhood for a 50 % chance to nullify a jury where I do not know the legal rules and I am not in control of the circumstances?
I get your point though.
You don't have to say it. I just figured it out on my own "I have more of a moral duty to serve on a jury than the average person who does not know how corrupt the system is."
-DC
Yeah, I just don't get the guys who want to opt out. Being able to get on a jury and protect the rights of the innocent is a good thing. you can do that on a jury, assuming you can get on.
It is extremely easy to get off the jury. Self employed? Tell them that. They don't want free thinkers on the jury because free thinkers are unpredictable. If the judge or prosecutor don't excuse you, the defense will. They also don't like people who have degrees or lines of work that require logical thinking. Tell them you are a programmer and you'll be let go.
Post a Comment