As some of you who have known me since my first Constitution-oriented radio show are aware, I have a longstanding interest in what has been done to undermine and corrupt what was once called “Trial by Jury” in these former Republics.
This week Linda went into the People’s Republic of Boulder “Justice Center” in response to a summons for so-called “jury duty”. (I used lots of quote marks – I know. But I don’t want anyone to confuse what NOW passes for a system of justice with what the Constitution actually specifies.)
Many of you know that “voir dire” has been twisted in the Amerikan post-Republican demonocracy to the point where it really does mean “jury tampering”. When most “judges” now routinely demand that their serfs-in-the-box pledge to be ignorant sheeple and “judge the facts only and the law as I give it to you“ they have utterly perverted the meaning of the constitutional term “Trial by Jury”.
But I was anxious to have an update on the real “state of the state”. Knowing full well that no one who even REMOTELY KNOWS the Truth about the Law will be allowed to actually sit on a real jury — the best most people will be able to do is serve as a witness to those around them of what is being done to them and their “system of justice“. A “jury summons” is a opportunity to speak the truth, if nothing else.
Linda was, of course, sent home. But her report was interesting, because it shows how the crooked system has adjusted to the attempts of good people to tell the truth in spite of “voir dire”.
I have long advised people to quote or paraphrase one of the Founders (Adams, Jefferson, or even John Jay or something about William Penn) to the general effect that a juror has “not only the Right, but the RESPONSIBILITY, to judge BOTH the facts AND the Law according to the Supreme Law of the Land, and their own conscience.”
In times past, entire squads of potential jurors have been dismissed, along with the speaker who made the point, following such a statement of truth. Don’t think for a SECOND that those who saw that happen didn’t have questions, and ultimately learn something very important!
But those who run a crooked system are smart. They adapt. They now WAIT to complete the section of questioning before releasing those who object to the bad oath requirement. That way, anyone who catches on to the “get out of jury duty free” card will find it’s too late for them to play it themselves — and hopefully forget the lesson before it really registers.
More importantly, however, they don’t do that dismissal IMMEDIATELY. They wait, and add a few other folks (think of a wild card, identified in advance and ready to play) in to the mix first, so as to obscure the truth:
anyone who says they know the truth WILL be ejected from the jury pool!
There was at least one more person in that pool with Linda who spoke up with her, after they were all asked the fatal question. She evidently already knew about the issue, but seemed to be waiting for someone else to speak up first, and was emboldened by watching what happened. (A few questions, but no arrest yet. 😉 The judge did pompously throw a heavy law book — evidently on-hand for that very purpose — up on the desk to show the complexity of the task of dealing with modern law…as if the important concepts and prohibitions shouldn’t ALREADY be known to the peons… er, jury candidates. But she held fast…and they were both excused…a bit later.)
My prayer remains that a few of those who watched the whole thing (including a few who asked about “hardship”, but had NOT yet been dismissed) may have been able to see through the subterfuge. Others will learn about it through reports like this. As we “come out of” that system, it may be the best we can do in Caesar’s venue.
