When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind is correct. When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated. -- Confucius
Politically correct ideals are garbage: true wisdom comes from decades of deep thought and neutral observation. Only a so-called sociopath could ascertain wisdom from this crazy world in a neutral way. Cool thoughts- uncorrupted by modern politics, social norms, or societal ideals- are required for wisdom. Questioning everything, and going against the grain on all universally accepted norms is the path to true intelligence. The Gods notice this.


Jury Duty: Involuntary Servitude, aka Slavery

Why is jury duty even called "duty"? It was a slave's "duty" to pick cotton for no pay too, but how often do you hear of slave labor being referred to as "duty"?
A duty is a task that you need to do, or more specifically, 'something that someone is expected or required to do by moral or legal obligation'. Moral of course is a matter of opinion. Is it moral to judge someone you do not know? And in some cases even recommend a sentence? Who are you to judge someone else- are you a judge? If not, then what moral/legal right do you have to judge someone else? Matthew 7: JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED ( 1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. )...

Is it legal anyways? Of course it isn't. The government, especially on the state, city, and county levels, makes up shit all the time that is unconstitutional. This is why there is an entire system of appellate courts, state supreme courts, and the US Supreme Court. If everything the cities, counties, and states did was fair and legal, then appeals would be virtually non-existent and US supreme court cases would never be needed. One thing they do that is unconstitutional is order citizens, with threat of jail, to serve against their wills as jurors. This is easily, by any definition, involuntary servitude. Serving against your will: involuntary servitude. US CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 13, SECTION 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

But the states choose to conveniently ignore this pesky little maxim written into the US Constitution. This gross violation of American and Human rights is a convenience for states who fear they will not find enough voluntary jurors to try all of the criminals. Break a law to enforce a law: the government way. They would never dream that there are plenty of citizens out there that would be interested and willing to serve as jurors many times over. And it will never occur to them to pay citizens the equivalent of their normal wage to spend their time on it. If a trial takes one day and a person forced to sit on a jury would have made 10. an hour at their job which they had to take off of, then the state should pay them 80. compensation- at least. But they pay a "stipend", generally a few dollars. This stipend insulates them from the slavery lawsuits- at least in their minds. Paying less than minimum wage to someone who was threatened to provide a service under threat of jail is not slavery? If that is true, then the room and board the plantation owners paid slaves before emancipation also made their practices not slavery!

As if any of this results in justice to start with. Either look up your 'state code' online, or go to a library and head to the reference section. Find your state's law books. There is always a special volume for "the Rules of Evidence". Look through it. The evidence is examined, sorted, watered down, and frequently not admitted. The juries see little of it. How can they make up their minds fairly when they do not know the whole story? It may have been a good idea to start with: to protect the accused from warrantless searches and so on. But it is also used to prevent the defense from revealing key facts. (See my post "Justice Redefined", as well as the OJ post below, for several examples). Why can't all of the evidence be laid out to those judging the accused? The defense attorney could be free to say, "this was obtained by overzealous police without a warrant, so its validity is questionable." The prosecutor could say, "the defense hid this from us, so how honest are they?". I say just let it all out in court. But it is not that way. The juries are frequently told to disregard statements and sometimes even told to leave the room while the lawyers talk to the judge. How can they make a fair and balanced decision when they are not told the whole scenario??

No one cares, as justice is not the idea here. The charade that is the "justice system" is what they are interested in perpetuating, and to hell with the constitution. Violating Amendment 13, practicing slavery, costing people money and time...all in a day's work for the twisted minds of the state employees. While they preach about duties and such, they are sociopathically blocking out their own duties to the higher law of the land- the US Constitution- as well as the morals of an actual free society.

If they are so anxious to judge strangers based upon partial bits of evidence, then they can do it themselves.

I absolutely guarantee that if I am ever forced to "serve" on a jury, whoever is accused, for whatever crime, no matter what the supposed evidence, they WILL be found NOT guilty or there WILL be a hung jury. PERIOD. No one will be convicted of a fucking thing if I am on a jury- no one.

1) inform them you know about your Constitutional Rights as a juror. this includes refusal to convict based upon you feeling the law is unfair, unconstitutional, or improperly applied. they don't want people with legal knowledge or independent thinking to ruin their cases.
2) inform them you can tell if someone is guilty or not by looking at them. act biased and closed minded.
3) if you have any criminal record at all, be sure to inform them of it.

By sheer morbid coincidence, one day after posting this I received a postcard stating that I had been selected for jury duty. I sent back the questionnaire and received another card today saying I had been excused. Hallelujah

(c) james platt .

No comments:

Post a Comment

constructive comments appreciated. name calling and links deleted.