The Myth of Obligatory Jury "Duty"
As governments at every level in the US have steadily multiplied their methods of controlling the public in recent decades, those methods have invariably involved a plethora of fines and penalties — often for arbitrarily charged petty "crimes" — designed to milk the citizen-victims and top off the coffers of the politicians and bureaucrats running the government "service" show.
One aspect of this system involves compelling ever increasing numbers of victims to defend themselves, or plea for a discounted tribute — or sometimes their very freedom itself — in the appropriate jurisdiction's so-called "court of law" (where the defendant is commonly prohibited by the judge from citing or discussing ... the law). A jury trial becomes necessary when the victim doesn't trust a lone judge (on the payroll of the very jurisdiction seeking to enrich itself via "legal" forcible extraction of his property) to decide his case.
A natural consequent has been the conscripting ever more innocent citizens to perform a service for the jurisdiction in the form of jury "duty" — which both lends credibility to the whole affair and often predisposes the jurors against the accused as if s/he were personally responsible for their being so inconvenienced, which can't hurt the chances of an outcome that ultimately adds to the cash flow of the sponsoring jurisdiction.
Folks by and large comply unquestioningly with jury "duty" demands, though they might grumble about it or try to get excused. They're convinced it's their "civic duty" and believe that it somehow has always been this way, when in fact the conscription method — with threats of fines and other nasty punishments for failure to comply — is relatively new, and has never been necessary. But since forcing innocent people to participate lends some legitimacy to the charade, the practice isn't likely to go away in the foreseeable future.
But is it really obligatory? Do they really have the authority to demand that you serve them?
We don't think so.
In fact, over the past 10+ years, we have answered every demand for jury "duty" service by certified mail, politely and cheerfully offering to perform the demanded service, but only after the government entity making the demand first documents the lawful basis for the demanded "service" in the first place.
Involuntary servitude was outlawed in the US via the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, there is no valid law on the books anywhere in the US recognizing anybody — including any government at any level — as having the authority to unilaterally compel anyone to perform involuntary servitude.
Instead, the laws governments use to run their jury "duty" programs simply assume they have that authority without actually saying so. The statutes outline procedures, limitations, fines, etc., but they never actually state where the government in question got the power to compel its subjects to perform jury "duty" service. That's because they have no such power. It was never theirs legally, so they've merely assumed it to be theirs, and the legally ignorant public has unquestioningly gone along with the charade.
The typical summons speaks of a presumed "civic duty" (along with plenty of other patriotic-sounding stuff) and warns of penalties for failure to obey, nudging most targeted servants into compliance, but nowhere does the law actually indicate the source of any authority to command such service.
Many jurisdictions even offer an embarrassingly modest daily "fee" reluctantly skimmed off their bulging coffers, as if a unilateral demand for service at rate of pay below minimum wage and not agreed to by both parties somehow falls outside the realm of involuntary servitude, and is therefore legally justified.
But the bottom line ever remains that no one — not even a government — has the lawful power to compel service of an individual to which s/he has not consented to perform.
When asked for documentation of the lawful basis of their "jury duty" demand, a clerk or "legal officer" typically responds, citing whichever statutes describe the process of jury selection, etc., but never a legal and authoritative basis for the demand of service in the first place. We've found that a polite, clear reiteration of our terms to be the most effective response, pointing out that the offer still stands, but the terms remain unmet. After a bit of back-and-forth correspondence (always sent via certified mail from our end), in every instance the exchange has ended with silence from their end, their demand for service having been quietly dropped.
To be honest, I half expected to be arrested and dragged in front of a judge to face "contempt of court" charges. But that never happened. In every single case, our patient and civil offers to perform the demanded service upon the fulfillment of our simple condition were met first with inadequate answers, and then with silence.
Having thus been selected for jury "duty" numerous times in over a decade, we've never performed such a service during that time or since, neither voluntarily nor under duress.
One aspect of this system involves compelling ever increasing numbers of victims to defend themselves, or plea for a discounted tribute — or sometimes their very freedom itself — in the appropriate jurisdiction's so-called "court of law" (where the defendant is commonly prohibited by the judge from citing or discussing ... the law). A jury trial becomes necessary when the victim doesn't trust a lone judge (on the payroll of the very jurisdiction seeking to enrich itself via "legal" forcible extraction of his property) to decide his case.
A natural consequent has been the conscripting ever more innocent citizens to perform a service for the jurisdiction in the form of jury "duty" — which both lends credibility to the whole affair and often predisposes the jurors against the accused as if s/he were personally responsible for their being so inconvenienced, which can't hurt the chances of an outcome that ultimately adds to the cash flow of the sponsoring jurisdiction.
Folks by and large comply unquestioningly with jury "duty" demands, though they might grumble about it or try to get excused. They're convinced it's their "civic duty" and believe that it somehow has always been this way, when in fact the conscription method — with threats of fines and other nasty punishments for failure to comply — is relatively new, and has never been necessary. But since forcing innocent people to participate lends some legitimacy to the charade, the practice isn't likely to go away in the foreseeable future.
But is it really obligatory? Do they really have the authority to demand that you serve them?
We don't think so.
In fact, over the past 10+ years, we have answered every demand for jury "duty" service by certified mail, politely and cheerfully offering to perform the demanded service, but only after the government entity making the demand first documents the lawful basis for the demanded "service" in the first place.
Involuntary servitude was outlawed in the US via the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. As a result, there is no valid law on the books anywhere in the US recognizing anybody — including any government at any level — as having the authority to unilaterally compel anyone to perform involuntary servitude.
Instead, the laws governments use to run their jury "duty" programs simply assume they have that authority without actually saying so. The statutes outline procedures, limitations, fines, etc., but they never actually state where the government in question got the power to compel its subjects to perform jury "duty" service. That's because they have no such power. It was never theirs legally, so they've merely assumed it to be theirs, and the legally ignorant public has unquestioningly gone along with the charade.
The typical summons speaks of a presumed "civic duty" (along with plenty of other patriotic-sounding stuff) and warns of penalties for failure to obey, nudging most targeted servants into compliance, but nowhere does the law actually indicate the source of any authority to command such service.
Many jurisdictions even offer an embarrassingly modest daily "fee" reluctantly skimmed off their bulging coffers, as if a unilateral demand for service at rate of pay below minimum wage and not agreed to by both parties somehow falls outside the realm of involuntary servitude, and is therefore legally justified.
But the bottom line ever remains that no one — not even a government — has the lawful power to compel service of an individual to which s/he has not consented to perform.
When asked for documentation of the lawful basis of their "jury duty" demand, a clerk or "legal officer" typically responds, citing whichever statutes describe the process of jury selection, etc., but never a legal and authoritative basis for the demand of service in the first place. We've found that a polite, clear reiteration of our terms to be the most effective response, pointing out that the offer still stands, but the terms remain unmet. After a bit of back-and-forth correspondence (always sent via certified mail from our end), in every instance the exchange has ended with silence from their end, their demand for service having been quietly dropped.
To be honest, I half expected to be arrested and dragged in front of a judge to face "contempt of court" charges. But that never happened. In every single case, our patient and civil offers to perform the demanded service upon the fulfillment of our simple condition were met first with inadequate answers, and then with silence.
Having thus been selected for jury "duty" numerous times in over a decade, we've never performed such a service during that time or since, neither voluntarily nor under duress.
posted by Mudrostovich | 12:29 PM
|
0 comments
