I have been called for Jury duty!!!

[Citizen]

To:
Gogodawgs
Metalhead
SVG
PALO


Read my jury-obligation statement again carefully. You will see that I was not addressing legitimacy of a jury-obligation, I was addressing the hypocrisy of statists who insist jury duty is a civic duty, an obligation. Fully and properly functioning juries and statists are incompatible. For a statist to bad-mouth anybody for declining to serve on a jury for any reason is hypocrisy of large magnitude. Such statist is essentially saying, "I, as a supporter of large and numerous government powers, insist you serve on a jury to limit some of those powers. It is your obligation to me and everyone else." Emphasis on insist. Juries are about freedom and limiting government. Yet, such a statist is saying he is unwilling for someone to have the freedom to decline to serve, meaning dollars-to-donuts, he'd be willing for government to have the power to coerce someone to serve.

An even stronger and simpler argument is this: if it wasn't for goddam statists, juries would be a lot less necessary. And, it is statists who undermine the powers of jurors. Of all people, statists have the least standing (meaning none) to criticize anybody who declines to serve for any reason.

 

[Citizen]

I am on a grand jury right now and I feel it is my duty to help put the bad guys away and off the streets.

Welcome aboard.

A little additional info for your consideration:

A prosecutor needs no grand jury in order to seize someone and bring him to trial. That is to say a grand jury is in not necessary to seize someone and try him. But, we do have grand juries, so what are they for? Very simple answer--a bulwark against government. There is a subtle but crucial distinction between a duty to remove genuine criminals from society, and preventing the government from removing people who are not criminals for the government's own purposes--justify budgets, add to the prosecutor's resume, a necessary result of a cop looking to increase his arrest statistics for the next promotion review board.

Government properly exists only (if at all) to protect the rights of the people. Everything else--three branches of government, legislative process, judicial process, juries, whatever--exists to prevent government from harming people, to limit government. If a society was not concerned about limiting government, it could just elect an emperor and tell him to get on with it. He wouldn't even need courts, he could just appoint Fourth Assistant Emporers to imprison or execute whoever they think broke the law.

Also, recall that admonition from the Founders that it is better ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.

Here is some more: www.fija.org (Fully Informed Jury Association).

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I am on a grand jury right now and I feel it is my duty to help put the bad guys away and off the streets.

This sits wrong with me.

You seem to be saying that 1) you are actively sitting on a jury and 2) your goal is to "put the bad guys away."

That attitude creates a situation where innocent people end up in prison imho, because of misguided and biased jurists.

 

[Herr Heckler Koch]

Also, recall that admonition from the Founders that it is better ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.

With respect. Blackstone's Formulation from Commentaries on the Laws of England informed the Founding Fathers.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

To:
Gogodawgs
Metalhead
SVG
PALO


Read my jury-obligation statement again carefully. You will see that I was not addressing legitimacy of a jury-obligation, I was addressing the hypocrisy of statists who insist jury duty is a civic duty, an obligation. Fully and properly functioning juries and statists are incompatible. For a statist to bad-mouth anybody for declining to serve on a jury for any reason is hypocrisy of large magnitude. Such statist is essentially saying, "I, as a supporter of large and numerous government powers, insist you serve on a jury to limit some of those powers. It is your obligation to me and everyone else." Emphasis on insist. Juries are about freedom and limiting government. Yet, such a statist is saying he is unwilling for someone to have the freedom to decline to serve, meaning dollars-to-donuts, he'd be willing for government to have the power to coerce someone to serve.

An even stronger and simpler argument is this: if it wasn't for goddam statists, juries would be a lot less necessary. And, it is statists who undermine the powers of jurors. Of all people, statists have the least standing (meaning none) to criticize anybody who declines to serve for any reason.

I agree with you and was just putting in my own two cents. I used to not want to participate in what I felt was a rigged system. I have hence learned the true responsibility of what a jury is Judges instructions to the contrary be damned.

 

[Citizen]

Tell me citizen, as someone on here whom I respect and who generally manages to stay out of the ********, do you personally believe that the citizen in a free society does/ought/should have any duty or obligation to the State?

Trick question, eh? A free society by definition has no duty or obligation to the state. If the society or any of its members have an obligation or duty to the state, then that obligation or duty is necessarily no longer a freedom to act or refrain from acting at will.

But, lets ask it as whether in a free society the citizens have a duty or obligation to one another. This afternoon I would say (meaning I might evolve my thinking even more this evening) that in a free society we cannot really have duties and obligations beyond fulfilling contracts and harming none. I would argue we cannot, dare not! compel or coerce someone into jury duty. I would argue the most we could do is form our own opinions and try to persuade others. Obviously, juries fully and properly functioning serve a constitutional role, and it would behoove people to be fully informed and serve if they can. Certainly, I would appreciate it did a prosecutor ever come after me. But, I'm not convinced that making it into an obligation or duty is anything more than an attempt to guilt-trip someone into aquiescence. Unless well explained he won't be doing it because he understands its importance. Without understanding, he cannot possibly accept responsibility. If he doesn't accept responsibility, all the rest of us verbally beating on him about duty and obligation aren't going to change anything in his mind, and we're back to coercion if only as heavy peer pressure.

You see what I'm getting at?

 

[Citizen]

With respect. Blackstone's Formulation from Commentaries on the Laws of England informed the Founding Fathers.

You know, now that you mention it, I believe you are right. I think I mis-attributed that to Founders.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

I have hence learned the true responsibility of what a jury is Judges instructions to the contrary be damned.

you mean the coordinated effort of judges, lawyers and politicians to hide that truth from participants. It's a willful act to take power away from juries, lies by omission in some cased, or blatant falsehoods in others.

They are scared of the truth, and the power of jury trials.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Welcome aboard.

A little additional info for your consideration:

A prosecutor needs no grand jury in order to seize someone and bring him to trial. That is to say a grand jury is in not necessary to seize someone and try him. But, we do have grand juries, so what are they for? Very simple answer--a bulwark against government. There is a subtle but crucial distinction between a duty to remove genuine criminals from society, and preventing the government from removing people who are not criminals for the government's own purposes--justify budgets, add to the prosecutor's resume, a necessary result of a cop looking to increase his arrest statistics for the next promotion review board.

Government properly exists only (if at all) to protect the rights of the people. Everything else--three branches of government, legislative process, judicial process, juries, whatever--exists to prevent government from harming people, to limit government. If a society was not concerned about limiting government, it could just elect an emperor and tell him to get on with it. He wouldn't even need courts, he could just appoint Fourth Assistant Emporers to imprison or execute whoever they think broke the law.

Also, recall that admonition from the Founders that it is better ten guilty go free than one innocent be convicted.

Here is some more: www.fija.org (Fully Informed Jury Association).

A rare example of the true nature of prosecution instead of the rubber stamp of what a prosecutor wants they usually are, modeled after Hitlers slim lining prosecution Gleichschaltung .
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w235.html

 

[sudden valley gunner]

you mean the coordinated effort of judges, lawyers and politicians to hide that truth from participants. It's a willful act to take power away from juries, lies by omission in some cased, or blatant falsehoods in others.

They are scared of the truth, and the power of jury trials.

Yes they are, I actually got to talk to Justice Sanders last night, he says most judges are now statist. He would never remove someone for knowledge of their true jury obligation.

 

[Citizen]

A rare example of the true nature of prosecution instead of the rubber stamp of what a prosecutor wants they usually are, modeled after Hitlers slim lining prosecutionGleichschaltung .
http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w235.html

Great article!! Thanks!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Great article!! Thanks!

Anytime...after all the great reading material you have provided me glad I can return. I find Griggs articles very interesting.

 

[gogodawgs]

<snip>Of all people, statists have the least standing (meaning none) to criticize anybody who declines to serve for any reason.

Is your definition of statist too broad? Anarchist being the opposite of statist and statist being the government involvement in a facet of society.

 

[PALO]

fwiw, all this wanking about GRAND JURIES (which are of course a very special kind of jury, and not what the person i was referring to was congratulating himself for getting out of "jury duty" was referring to) is kind of ironic considering this is the WASHINGTON forum, and WASHINGTON is amongst the states where grand jury usage is very very very rare

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=10.27.030

when i was a cop in hawaii, i testified over 100 times (100+ cases specifically) before the grand jury

in WA, 15 yrs as a cop, and i have never testified before one. why? because they are very rarely convened in WA.

USUALLY, the courts use "informations" not "indictments" to prefer charges, the former requiring no grand jury

if the person commenting here is on a grand jury in WASHINGTON, that would be interesting. again, while statutorily authorized (as above), they are RARELY used.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Is your definition of statist too broad? Anarchist being the opposite of statist and statist being the government involvement in a facet of society.

Re read his post. He doesn't mention anarchist. {digression- I would rather be associated with anarchy (lack of rule) than statism (central rule).}

It matters not how broad the definition, it is hypocrisy to mandate by force you participate in a system that is supposed to limit or nullify your ability or power to mandate by force .

 

[Citizen]

Is your definition of statist too broad? Anarchist being the opposite of statist and statist being the government involvement in a facet of society.

I'm not sure I understand your question in relation to the extracted quote. Tell me more.

 

[gogodawgs]

I'm not sure I understand your question in relation to the extracted quote. Tell me more.

In your post (#41) you inserted the term 'statist'. I am asking are you including any and all levels that are not anarchists as a statist? If so, then is your usage of the word overly broad (i.e. name calling)?

If someone believes that the state should be involved in any level of the affairs of society then are they a statist?

 

[Citizen]

In your post (#41) you inserted the term 'statist'. I am asking are you including any and all levels that are not anarchists as a statist? If so, then is your usage of the word overly broad (i.e. name calling)?

If someone believes that the state should be involved in any level of the affairs of society then are they a statist?

Oh, I see.

No, not particularly. I'm referring more to that species of human who thinks people need extensive government intervention in their lives, or feel the state is somehow great and wonderful and powerful and showed be respected merely because it is...umm...well...because it should be.

Call 'em "those who have an active desire for a state and see little enough wrong with the one we have."

Just to put down some further borders, under the definition you ask, I would be a statist since I am not anarchist.

 

[gogodawgs]

Oh, I see.

No, not particularly. I'm referring more to that species of human who thinks people need extensive government intervention in their lives, or feel the state is somehow great and wonderful and powerful and showed be respected merely because it is...umm...well...because it should be.

Call 'em "those who have an active desire for a state and see little enough wrong with the one we have."

Just to put down some further borders, under the definition you ask, I would be a statist since I am not anarchist.

That's what I thought. Not my definition, that is a definition from the political science field. Those who believe in a minimalist or limited government (two different fields of study) are also statists, just a different degree.

To compel those to jury duty in a minimalist manner (i.e. civil infraction vs. misdemeanor) because it is a duty in society is a measure of ordered liberty. I thought your broad strokes of 'statism' were overly broad and thus awkward. (In an ideal society, I would hope for no coercion of jury duty, but no society is ideal.)

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In your post (#41) you inserted the term 'statist'. I am asking are you including any and all levels that are not anarchists as a statist? If so, then is your usage of the word overly broad (i.e. name calling)?

If someone believes that the state should be involved in any level of the affairs of society then are they a statist?

Cite.

The state was created to protect individual rights. The definitions I read of statist are those who believe in the power of the state to have coercive control of its people.

Mandating a citizen partake in jury duty is contrary to the idea of a free society and being judged by your peers not people conscripted into service who don't want to be there.

Statist would be ones who believe in the power of the state to have this monopoly on force. It goes hand in hand with accepting positivism as legitimate because law went through a "proper" procedure.

We as citizens have a duty not to let the state have the last say, jury nullification, civil disobedience, free speech, and the true meaning of the right to bear arms. So I can believe in a state's authority to run a court system, and write laws to protect property rights and individual rights, but not be a statist because I believe that the people have the right not to follow unconstitutional laws and to nullify any authority given to the state including coercing people into a system they don't want to be part of.

You might be a statist if.......(funny)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston65.1.html