Summoned By The State By Andrew Ward
(2010-11-26 at 15:23:49 )

Summoned By The State By Andrew Ward

Well, They finally got me. For jury duty, that is. The Court summons
came in the mail, threatening force if I did not show my face at the
court house on the declared date. And this letter was not a request: it
was an ugly, mandatory government wrench in my regularly scheduled
programming. Not being the confrontational type I eventually filled out
their outdated form, and began frantically researching one thing, and
one thing alone: how does one escape jury duty?

I talked to friends and family, did some surfing online, and finally
found my escape hatch: premature nullification invocation. You see,
judges and prosecutors cannot stand the fact that a juror has the right
to vote "not guilty" if he believes their law is unjust. Statists loathe
the power of the people to judge their sacred Law and make no effort to
promote such a contemptible concept in the official jurors pamphlets.
Consequently, if you bring up Jury Nullification early, the judge will
more than likely excuse you from the building. After all, they are
looking to convict someone.

So the day finally came. I put on my Mondays best, took the subway to
the court house, and sat inside the cold orientation room with about
sixty of my fellow law-abiding citizens. The "honorable" judge entered,
we were told to rise for Him, and he informed us that we did not have
the right to discuss the case with anyone outside of the court. At this
point I am thinking, "Great. I am surrounded by a bunch of lemmings who
worship this stupid charade; I have got to get out of here!" Eventually,
forty names were randomly called, and much to my chagrin, I was one of
them.

After entering the court room another clerk ritualistically called out
twenty four names to approach the front. Once again, I was one of the
names called. Now I am getting worried. I really do not want to be a
part of this. Eventually we stood, raised our hands, and took an oath
to swear by something or someone; maybe it was Obama. But I am pretty
sure it was not God. I do not think they allow God in a court room
anymore; just "admissible" evidence.

The judge then gave us the shocking case details: the thirty year-old
male defendant is accused of having sexual relations with a fourteen year
-old girl. At that moment the entire courtroom looked at the defendant:
a poor, solemn, Spanish-speaking man sitting by his lawyer and his
translator, both of whom were probably explaining that he had no chance
in hell of being found innocent. We then turned our eyes to the alleged
victims family that was eagerly waiting to see if their tax dollars would
be spent imprisoning this man. The judge then gave the go-ahead for the
tough prosecutor to begin fishing out all trouble-making jurists.

Here the prosecutor proceeded to paint an ugly picture of the defendant
by first questioning the jury. "Does the fact that an abortion took place
offend you? Does the subject matter bother you? Are you offended that we
recorded their phone conversations?" At this point I am blankly staring,
unsure of how to react, or what to do. Then the prosecutor got me on this
one: "Can you put aside the fact that the relationship was consensual to
deliver a proper verdict?" I promptly raised my hand to ask to approach
the bench, where the defense, prosecution, and the tape-recording
transcriber awaited to hear what on earth I had to say.

I told them that the case did not bother me because there was no force
involved, and that there were young girls mature enough to make a
conscious decision about sex. I then asked if the court recognized the
right of a juror to nullify a law that he or she did not agree with.
Obviously, the honorable judge replied, "No!" After a pause he glaringly
asked, "You think it is okay?!" In response I explained that while I do
not endorse the action, it was consensual, so I see no problem with it.
He turned to the lawyers and asked if there was any reason why I should
not be excused. The prosecutor held her head down and said, "No." The
hopeless defense, attempting not to displease the judge, also agreed, and
I hurriedly walked out of hell and into the "free" world.

It was an absolutely beautiful day outside. I enjoyed the warm weather
with my windows rolled down and blasted my happy music with glee, for I
was no longer hassled by the inconvenience of my so-called duty. I was
a free man, unlike that poor defendant. I was also a philosophic hero,
for I stood up to a judge and prosecution by telling them what I thought
of their Almighty Law. And while most were impressed by my conviction,
a critical question came my way with no immediate answer: "So you did
not get to nullify any laws?" I began to wonder: did I do the wrong thing
by exposing my beliefs so soon? Maybe I should have played along, kept
my mouth shut, and stayed on the jury to give that man a chance?

Talking to those closest to me, they claimed it was a no-win situation
and that I should not beat myself up over it. But their words offered no
comfort. The "justice" system had played on my selfishness and disgust of
the discordant process to expunge the only non-drone in the room.

In torment I was kept awake with the realization that I should have
stayed to fight for the defendant. Sure, I was there against my will.
Sure, liars made me swear to tell the truth and the defendant was just a
"depraved" stranger. Sure, I would have upset the law-abiding jury. And
sure, a mistrial would only delay a guilty verdict a few days. No matter
what, the defendant was doomed to be eaten alive by the jaws of law, and
I did not even have the gumption to throw the dead man a life preserver.
Who knows, maybe I could have stopped it; at least bought him a few days
of hope, if anything at all.

As I sank by the weight of my blunder, an angel in my life reminded me
that the power of our movement was in telling the truth, and that lying
to do the "right thing" cannot be necessarily good; furthermore, using
inappropriate means to justify an end is the States modus operandi.

I like to think she is right. As a free people, we are continuously put
in unethical situations by those People who never ask themselves - among
other things - "Who am I, or anyone else, to deliver my government-
ordained judgment on another because I do not agree with their culture
and personal choices?" After all, there could possibly be only one such
Judge, and a sizable number of people do not believe in such a powerful
concept anyway. Perhaps it is for this reason that we are awash in so
many ambiguous and helpless conditions?

Honestly, I do not know what I would do if ever resummoned by His
Majestys Court. At the moment I am leaning toward tossing their orders in
the government-provided recycling bin. Maybe you should too.

October 20, 2010

Andrew Ward opposes the machine because it destroys liberty. He lives
and works in Virginia.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.