💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › jurydu.fun captured on 2020-10-31 at 15:06:10.

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

               ANY DAY NOW YOU WILL BE CALLED FOR JURY DUTY

                            By: Godfrey Lehman

As published in HEALTH FREEDOM NEWS, August 1987, pages 20-21, with the request
this be copied and disseminated as widely as possible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Here are some facts you must know, but the judge won't tell you:

    FIRST:   Your  personal service as an honest juror -- true to your  own
             conscience -- is essential to a free country.
    SECOND:  As  a free and Sovereign citizen/juror,  you are superior  in
             rank  and status to anybody in the court room,  including the
             judge in his/her black robe.
    THIRD:   In this capacity you are totally independent of the court, not
             subject  to  direction nor dictation of any kind  (except  for
             decorum, such as being in the court room on time and listening
             to the evidence.)

What this means is that the judge is PROHIBITED by the Constitution from
dictating or instructing you in any way, least of all as to how to apply the
law.

As a Sovereign citizen, you have inherent power and actually the OBLIGATION to
overrule (nullify) any written law that you find objectionable.

Few judges will inform you that this is a natural right of citizenship.  They
will, instead, deceive you -- even attempt to coerce you -- into swearing you
will take the law "as I dictate it to you."

But every judge knows you, as a Sovereign citizen/juror, possess the right
INHERENTLY -- not as a legal grant -- and that it is recognized and guaranteed
by the Constitution of the U.S.A.  and all 50 states.

The U.S.  Supreme Court has many times acknowledged this, starting back in 1794
when our first Chief Justice, John Jay, wrote, "it is presumed that juries are
the best judges of fact; it is...presumed that the courts are the best judges
of the law.  But still both objects are within your (the juror's) decision.
You have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge both law as well as fact
in controversy." (Georgia v Brailsford, 3 Dall 1).

The jury's power to nullify was no new discovery even then.  It has been known
to exist virtually forever, and the pages of history shine with examples of
jurors ensuring the people's rights and liberties by overturning bad law,
although written in the law books.

Yet it is as current as the Twentieth Century.


	
**".  .  .  the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both


law and facts," Oliver Wendell Holmes.  (1920 Horning v DC, 254 US 135.)


	
**The jury possesses "the undisputed power to acquit, even if its verdict is


contrary to the law as given by the judge and contrary to the evidence." (1969
U.S.  v Moylan, 417 F2d 1002.)


	
**The jury has an "UNREVIEWABLE AND IRREVERSIBLE POWER...TO ACQUIT IN


DISREGARD OF THE INSTRUCTION ON THE LAW GIVEN BY THE TRIAL JUDGE." (1972 U.S.
v Dougherty, 473 F2d 1113.)

Judges won't give out this information because if you knew you held more power
than they, they would be stripped of dictatorial authority.  There is no drug
more habit forming than power, and the thirst for it is addictive, insatiable.
The same courts which acknowledge the fact of jury nullification hypocritically
advise concealing it from jurors.  "If they're too stupid to know, keep them
that way" is official court policy.

Four state constitutions specifically declare jury nullification to be a
NATURAL RIGHT OF BIRTH:  Indiana, Maryland, Oregon and Georgia.  And all 51
(constitutions) contain a broader acceptance, over 40 stating with simple
clarity that:  "ALL POLITICAL POWER IS INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE."

"All political power" means precisely that:  The people, acting together as
jurors, possess INHERENTLY ("endowed by their Creator") power to veto any
action of government they do not like.  The Tenth Ammendment to the Federal
Constitution declares the same in different words:  powers not delegated to
government "are reserved to...the people." Supporting statutes in most, if not
all, states clarify this as including jury power to nullify.  Regardless,
lawyers and courts try to control and dominate jury verdicts by preparing false
"instructions" weeks before trial.

You don't have to fear punishment for overriding; the judge knows he bluffs
when he "instructs" or demands you follow his dictates.  He wants you ignorant.
But being educated is no crime.  All he can rightfully do is tell you what the
written law is.  By Constitutional mandate he MUST also inform you that you can
disregard any law in good conscience.

IF YOU DOUBT THIS, ASK HIM.  DEMAND THAT HE CITE THE SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL
AUTHORITY EMPOWERING HIM TO "DICTATE" TO YOU.

He may cite statutes, but these have NO CONSTITUTIONAL support; there- fore
they are not valid in law.

                  YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS

That's right!  When judges and lawyers in the court room ply you with questions
you can simply say "I don't wish to answer for PRIVACY reasons."

When you are called for jury duty--remember this:

Every judge in the world KNOWS that both the Federal and your own state
CONSTITUTIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY ABSOLUTELY PROHIBIT him from compelling you to
reveal anything about your private life, your thoughts, your job, what you
read, your personal associations, your family or anything else not just because
they protect you, but because privacy is AN INHERENT RIGHT endowed "BY OUR
CREATOR" as phrased in the Declaration of Independence.

Judges assume you won't know this since there is no prohibition in ASKING--and
to ask in the forbidding atmosphere of the court room APPEARS to be a legal
demand.  But it is not, and not to inform you that you don't have to respond is
to break faith with you.

The court room inquisition of jurors is called "voir dire" and we are made to
think it is a legitimate attempt to form an "impartial jury."

THAT IS A LIE!

The ONLY purpose is to STACK THE JURY WITH BIAS--to build the DESIRED BIAS into
the jury so the jury can be controlled by the court.

The Supreme Court has often commented upon this, possibly most strongly in
1941:  "Tendencies, no matter how slight, toward the selection of jurors by any
method other than a process which will insure a trial by a representative group
are undermining...weakening the...jury...and should be strongly resisted."
(Glasser V U.S., 315 US 60) because fairness "necessarily contemplates an
impartial jury drawn from a cross section of the community (and) jurors shall
be selected .  .  .  without systematic and intentional exclusion" of any
"stratum of society." (Thiel V So.Pac., 328 US 217, 1946).

The function of "voir dire" is precisely to destroy the "impartial cross
section" which makes the questioning ILLEGAL from the start.

Thus not only are you NOT REQUIRED to answer any questions you SHOULD NOT,
other than to identify who you are, that you are over 18, understand English,
are a citizen and resident of the area.  Unless you have a personal reason for
offering additional information VOLUNTARILY you should say nothing.  If the
judge presses, demand that he reads to you his CONSTITUTIONAL authority for
insisting you yield your INHERENT AND PRECIOUS RIGHT TO PRIVACY!  (He won't do
it because there is none.)

Reprinted from a brochure distributed by THE JUSTICE TIMES.