justice, what are kingdoms but great bands of robbers?" —
The jury system
is one of the few remaining checks on the system available to those
of us who love freedom. We must utilize this tool to the fullest
measure if we ever hope to non-violently fight tyranny. Yes, it
is a hassle but we needn't look far to see all the evils visited
upon us when this righteous check on tyranny and lunacy is neglected.
With freedom comes responsibility. The jury system is the government
coming before you asking for permission. In that sense we are not
"tainting ourselves by participating in the system" as
some would have us believe. Rather it is "The System"
coming before us seeking acquiescence and we need not cater to their
Let's get a
little closer to home. Let's take a good look at our hearts. We
who espouse human responsibility, we who decry envy, we who are
educated and refined, have we by our neglect enabled those who would
OK, so jury
duty doesn't really pay that well, it is grievous and it gives the
righteous freedom lover agita
to no end. Is that reason to neglect it? When those who work real
jobs that require intelligence all seek to get excused from jury
duty so they can go about their normal affairs, the void is filled
by those who might typically watch Jerry Springer…. or Oprah. (Which
is worse?) Who would you want on your jury should the IRS target
you? Murray Rothbard or Boobus Americanus? So we who love freedom,
must overcome our laziness and endeavor to get seated on the jury
because it is we who have studied history, it is we who have studied
the precepts of liberty and it is we who have obtained a righteous
and non-conformed ideal of justice. If it is not our view of justice
that is represented, it will be someone else's view that gets represented.
We should therefore see to it that we persevere through all the
odious crap and overcome all the things they put in place to dissuade
and even the love of the truth often trap unwise freedom lovers.
They know the doctrine of nullification.
They know the history of men such as William
Penn (after whom Pennsylvania is named). They know Blackstone,
they know the Constitution and… they can't wait to let others know
they know it too. Herein is their undoing. They get bounced from
the jury pool, and maybe marked for life, just because they fail
to grasp the true goal of having the magistrate subjected to them.
And that is exactly what it is. The power elites still have to come
before the common man to obtain 1.) an indictment via a Grand Jury,
and 2.) a conviction via a common jury. A righteous soul on a Grand
Jury can shield his fellow man from the rigors, expense and capricious
risk of a criminal trial. Just one person of conscience on a regular
jury can prevent an evil outcome. Sadly, such stand-alone faith
and fortitude are rare ingredients these days. Let's change that.
of a juror:
A single juror
has unlimited and unreviewable power that cannot be reversed…. if
he is wise. Just one juror can hang the jury and prevent a conviction.
And his reasons need not be explained, nor must he even let them
be fully known to a single soul. He can just vote to acquit and
say nothing else. He can keep his reasons entirely private should
he so desire. The juror is a judge of the facts (he didn't pay his
taxes, he had a gun, he protested outside the designated "free
speech zone") and he is also a judge of the laws forbidding
such actions. Mid-nineteenth-century jurors often refused to convict
those who were charged with violating the Fugitive
Slave Act. If just a few jurors refused to convict in tax cases
the whole phoney mess could be defanged. This power is so great
because that way we don't need 51%, we only need one out of twelve
and they are powerless to overcome us.
side note: The juror also has the right to ask questions during
the trial but it is best to refrain exercising in our times lest
he get bounced from the jury by an arbitrary evil "Judge"
the goal is to get seated. Suppose they pass a law that absolutely
forbids the possession of any type of a gun whatsoever. Suppose
all the courts and judges are all stacked and beholden to evil.
(Is this a big supposition?) Suppose Joe Patriot was found with
a gun. Suppose the penalty was death. Suppose you were on the jury
and the defendant openly admitted that he had the gun and the facts
are beyond dispute. The "Judge" instructs the jury as
to what the "current law" is and tells you to apply it
to the facts.
Now off you
go with eleven Oprah/Jerry Springer drones to the deliberation room.
The jury foreman goes through the facts and the law, and then you
all vote either to acquit or to convict. You are the lone hope for
a righteous outcome, the lone hope for justice to prevail. Here
is the point of conscience. Here is the point of real power. You
can simply vote to acquit and give your fellow jurors no reason
at all. Or you could tell them anything they want to hear. Tell
them you think Joe Patriot was framed. Tell them you think he was
pressured or hypnotized into confessing. Tell them you think he
is being drugged by CIA mind control drugs. Whatever you do,
don't wave your nullification flag. You may get tossed from
the jury because the judge arbitrarily accuses you of misconduct
or of being "tainted." The best bet is to act dumb, and
with a glassy-eyed stare, say you just have doubts. You may be the
lone hope to protect Joe Patriot from life in the gulag.
and staying seated is the goal. You are then above the judge, the
prosecutor, and even the written law. They have to come before you
to get a conviction. You can vote however you wish and you need
not account to anyone for it but God. You don't have to explain
yourself, the history of the Second Amendment, the Sixteenth Amendment,
the Magna Carta, English Common Law, Natural Law, William Blackstone,
Samuel Rutherford, or anything. In fact it is better if you don't.
You want to remain under cover so you can get seated again in the
future. This is very important. Why would you want to surrender
In times of
declension such as ours, "Judges" have no honor nor is
any due them. Please strongly consider using any available means
including misdirection, shaded statements, etc. as an effort to
get on the jury. Hide from them the fact that you have ever read
the Constitution. Say you read it in school and leave it at that.
Make statements about how you trust the system, trust the police
etc. If you are specifically asked about nullification, or fully
informed juries, tell them you would listen to what the "Judge"
had to say about it and let them believe what they want. Act like
the typical conformed, publicly schooled, Ritalin-consuming drone
and make no waves. Tell the "Judge" or Prosecutor what
they want to hear in order to get seated. Tell them you love Jerry
Springer and Oprah. Keep mum, you don’t need to show off any knowledge
or instruct the evil judge in the plain meaning of the English language.
He has spent a fortune and devoted many years in an effort to become
as stupid as he is. He is a sad creature that is now fully conformed
and impervious to logic.
The facts are
that the government still must come before the people (juries) in
order to convict. You have unreviewable power once you cast your
vote as a juror. Resist the temptation to give the judge a civics
lesson. Don’t wrangle with evil men. Assume that such a judge,
by virtue of his holding that office, is likely an evil man. He
has toted too much political water to get there. If he were an exception
to this assumption, if he was a just man, he would stand out and
you would know it. He would also not make such an effort to screen
righteous people and independent thinking from the jury. So,
presuming him to be evil, do what you must to get past him without
conscience and cunning:
Now as to "lying"…
and honor… The knock comes on the door…. “Are there any
Jews here” is the question. What is unstated is “Are there any Jews
here that we can take and kill." So you may freely reply in
the same vein: “No there are no Jews here” and also leave unstated
“that you can take and kill” even as they left it unstated.
a spirit behind them. We talk about the essence of something written,
the intention, the gist of something, and the “spirit of the law."
When you say: "No, there are not any Jews here (that you can
take and kill)," you are the only one in the exchange that
is telling the truth.
midwives of Moses, Rahab hiding the spies from the inquisitors in
Jericho, the Magi misdirecting Herod about Christ’s whereabouts
and others were lauded for what they did.
examination, what the judge is asking you is this… “Will you be
my puppet and apply the laws as I see them regardless of the plain
meaning of the Constitution (or higher Natural Law)?” "Will
you become my vassal?" What he is saying is: “Will you join
me in applying the law?” and he leaves unstated “Will you join me
in applying the law unjustly?” You can, with a free conscience reply,
“Yes I will join you in applying the law” and leave out the adverb
“unjustly” even as he left it out.
I have often
wondered how someone's conscience could be bothered if they told
a policeman or a judge a "half-truth" but they are not
bothered by voting to convict their fellow man of some evil law
and subjecting him to draconian punishment for it. If I am going
to err, let it be on the side of my fellow man.
are one of the non-violent ways our republic still affords us to
resist evil. Use it to the full. We may get a proud feeling as we
are giving the judge a righteous civics lesson but that is not the
goal. The goal is to get to a place (the jury) where you are the
and people of conscience are easily bamboozled by cunning evil men
who want to smoke them out and deprive them of the opportunity to
further righteousness/justice. Stay undercover. Be wise as a
serpent and innocent as a dove. Aim to get seated, and to remain
unmarked so you can get seated again. Avoid the traps of laziness,
of pride, and of being an unsophisticated simpleton who gets smoked
out. The juror is above the lawmaker, above the prosecutor, and
above the judge. Who would not seek to embrace such a position of
[send him mail is 49 yrs.
old and works as a kitchen designer in the Hilton Head, SC area.
He has participated in non-violent civil disobedience, he has been
to their jails, he has experienced their crooked courts and he has
never trusted a gov’t official of either political party since.
He has successfully defended himself in court and in 1996 he single-handedly
defeated a court injunction that the US Supreme Court previously