One Man's Astute Way to Use the Governments Jury Selection Procedures to Achieve the Equivalent of Judicial Immunity
by:  Brad Barnhill

QUESTION: As a subscriber to your "PersonalOdyssey" newsgroup I am curious to  know if you would challenge a so-called jury summons, and if so, how you would go about challenging it?

ANSWER:  I would personally love to sit on a jury. Think of the "damage" I could do in a drug "crime" or other "victimless" crime case by refusing to convict.

The premise behind common law juries is that the jury is not only the arbiter of the facts of the case, but also of the law. The jury had the power to judge whether the law itself were just or whether the law were justly applied in this particular case.

Present law removes this discretion from the jury. The juries of today have been co-opted to "judge" only the "facts" of a case. Current law says that judges are the arbiter of the law. The judge gives the jury "instruction" as to the "elements" of the "crime" that have to be proven in order to convict. If sufficient credible evidence of the "elements" are placed upon the record, then the jury has no choice, except to convict. The jury can judge only the "credibility" of the witnesses and so of the evidence. That is the extent of the jury's "discretion." Look at the "oath" that binds the juries. A juror has to swear to apply the law as "given" to him/her by the judge and to judge only the credibility of the evidence.

However, this belies the common law.

QUESTION: I am curious to know whether or not the state has the authority or jurisdiction to compel one to appear for jury duty.

ANSWER:  I believe that it does. However, the question in my mind is exactly what "kind" of jury am I being called into? I decide how to participate in this, not them.

QUESTION: The summons form I received via regular mail does not cite any law but, like the Selective Service forms, it says one must appear because "it is the law." Actually, the summons form states, "In addition to any criminal penalty prescribed by law, a person who does not comply with the summons as required by law is subject to a contempt action  punishable by a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $1,000. Texas Gov't Code Sec. 62.0141." I find this curious. Personally, since the summons was sent via regular mail I don't see where I have any legal duty to perform. Your thoughts?

ANSWER:  I don't fool around with such matters lightly. What I have done in the past was to refuse the attempted service of process outside its venue. If they don't serve me properly, at the mailing location that I have specified, then they are attempting to bring me into their venue. Eventually, they send it to the proper mailing location. Only then do I comply.

Long ago, I registered to vote, and because I did not have an SSN, the registration was denied. I appealed that matter into chancery and the court decided against me. When I went to go renew my driver's license, the law had changed, and they required an SSN. Sorry, ain't got no. I appealed this into chancery and was denied again. I decided from this evidence that I was not a person required to make application, because I did not possess one of the attributes of a person so required.

It turns out that jury wheels are drawn from the rolls of registered voters and driver's license records. Because I had neither, I was then not a "person" who would be called to a jury. How do you use this information?

The first time I had to fight a driving without a license charge, I had a couple of questions for the court. The first one was whether the judge was sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States and of the commonwealth of Virginia. Of course I am, was the reply. I then asked if the judge was sworn to uphold the constitution of Virginia from 1852 that was the last constitution amended in accordance with the law, or whether judge was sworn to uphold the current constitution that has descended from the provisional constitution that was imposed under martial law after the War of Northern Aggression. The judge looked at the prosecutor, the prosecutor looked at the judge, the judge looked at the prosecutor, and the prosecutor said, "I move to dismiss these charges."

A month later, I was back in court on similar charges. I asked the same questions. The judge said that he would uphold the 1852 constitution of Virginia. I thanked him and entered a certified copy of one thru judicial notice. I then asked another question: How are jurors selected in this court? They told me that they were selected from the voter registration rolls and from the driver's license records. I gave notice that this very judge had denied both my appeal of denial of application for voter registration, and also my appeal of denial of application for driver's license. I argued that because of this, I was not among the people that would be asked to perform jury duty. I asked how someone like me was going to be afforded a jury of peers. The judge looked at the prosecutor, the prosecutor looked at the judge, the judge looked at the prosecutor and the prosecutor said, "I move to dismiss these charges."

A week later, a jury summons was served by the sheriff, in person.

I filled out their jury questionnaire in my usual manner, by defining the terms that are used on it. They asked if I were a citizen of the United States, and I struck that and wrote Citizen of Virginia and so a Citizen of the United States of America in its original jurisdiction. You know, stuff like that.

I reported for service and was seated for voir dire. One of the first things they do is to place you under oath. Sorry, I said, I cannot take an oath, because that is contrary to my faith, see James, Chapter 5, Matthew, Chapter 5, and II Corinthians, Chapter 1. Further, they wanted me to swear that I would judge only the facts and that I would follow the law as handed down by the judge. I told them that first I must follow the law of my fathers as handed down from our Creator, and that I am vested with the right by that law to judge not only the facts, but whether the law itself was just, and if so, whether the law was being justly applied to the circumstances of this case.

They declared that this statement had "poisoned" the entire jury pool and they had to adjourn trial for a couple of weeks until the next jury pool was seated.

Only Brad can post messages to PersonalOdyssey. Should you wish to post a message, then send it to I will edit out your email address and other identifying information, and post it with my reply.

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: