People in this country have the most romanticized view of what a jury trial is. Oh, they think they know. They’ve been told what they know. But trust me, they don’t know, but you’re about to find out. I am going to show you the wondrous freedom that actually is a jury trial in this country.
People are told a “jury trial” is one of the key things that separates us from those “unfree” countries where the trials are just state run show trials where you have no real chance.
Let’s take the example of a civil trial. Not even a criminal trial. Let’s just say the government is coming after you for some supposed violation of some supposed “law”. For convenience, let’s just say the IRS is claiming you didn’t pay your “fair share”. They sue people every day you know. They allege that you didn’t obey one or more of the countless impossible to sort out regulations that supposedly control what you “owe”. You disagree.
What will actually happen? Well, a government worker for the IRS will institute an investigation. Then a government worker, in the form of a prosecutor will take over the case. Then another government investigator will do more investigation. You of course will have to hire your own lawyer and pay him. And of course you are paying your share of the entire government’s bill to prosecute you as well. Catching a pattern yet?
Let’s just say you managed to avoid a summary judgment filed by the government and you “get to trial”. Now you get to experience the REAL freedom.
Here is the reality. You will be in front of a government paid judge, who can never be fired and who neither you nor any other “citizen” ever got to vote upon. This judge who has a direct conflict of interest will run the trial. Remember he works FOR the entity prosecuting you, which is the US government!
Think about that, the judge is actually on the payroll of one of the parties. Does that sound right? Does that sound like you’re going to get a fair deal? Oh, and the prosecutor is paid by the same party that is paying the judge, and that paid the investigators, oh, and the person who brought the complaint. Is this sounding like a kangaroo court yet? Because I wouldn’t freely agree to this arrangement.
This type of blatant conflict of interest is never allowed. Of course a judge can’t sit on a trial where he is employed, or even related to a party to the case. That is the ultimate conflict. But with the government, that doesn’t count. Ahh the freedom.
But it gets way way worse. In federal court, the judge is basically in charge of questioning the jury if that’s what the judge wants to do. The judge in effect weeds out anyone who won’t follow what the judge believes the law is during this process. WTF? Once a jury panel that has shown they will “follow what the judge’s rulings is found”, then the trial begins.
At trial the judge decides who gets to testify. The judge decides who “qualifies” as an expert. So your guy may not get to testify while the government experts come in without any problem. The judge, allows what types of questions can be asked, what documents the jury will be allowed to see. The judge can limit the number of witnesses. The judge can comment on the evidence in front of the jury. That means that when you or one of your witnesses is testifying, the judge can make it clear to the jury that the judge thinks the testimony is not credible. Yes, the judge. The guy in the robe that everyone is looking to for direction.
Then if you make it through all of that, the judge determines what questions the jury will answer. That’s right, the jury just answers elaborate questions. They don’t decide who should win. They are specifically not supposed to know what the effect of answering the questions is. So they may want you to win and still not answer the questions correctly.
Are you catching on to the freedom yet?
You might be starting to feel that the system is maybe, slightly possibly, a little bit in the government’s favor and kind of rigged against you? But it isn’t over yet. Even if the jury finds in your favor the judge can issue what is called a JNOV. The judge can just overrule the jury and rule against you. EXsqueeze me? Yeah, it’s true. And don’t forget, the judge can also just order a new trial.
Oh but but but Legalman you can always appeal. Yes, yes you can. You can spend thousands of more dollars to try and convince a “fully independent” panel of yet 3 more government workers you’ve never heard of who you won’t have a choice about, and who aren’t elected and can never be fired, that the other government worker on the same payroll is wrong. Gotcha. I forgot all about that right you have. I’m sure that’s going to work out great.
They can also screw you in what is called an “unpublished” opinion. That means it cannot be used as precedent in any future case. Basically just a one off deal. A special, just for you!
So if they do that, what chance is there that the star chamber in Washington called the supreme court would take the case? Try zero. They only take cases that matter. Your unpublished opinion doesn’t “matter” by definition, to anyone but you. Thanks for playing, and don’t forget to drive safely. And remember, the supreme court is nothing but yet another 9 guys and gals ON THE GOVERNMENT PAYROLL. It is beyond farce to think this system in any way represents a fair trial. NOBODY would agree to this.
Do you see the utter absurdity of this? This is the great freedom that we are told to go fight and die to defend and spread. The system is completely and totally corrupted all the way down the line. It is not an accident. It is designed this way. Oh, and if you do manage to “win” does the government have to pay your legal bill? Ah, so sorry, we looked into that, and it’s going to be a no from us. But we really liked your case.
None of this charade of “justice” even includes the fact that there is nothing actually in the constitution that even authorizes the federal government to institute civil suits against its own citizens. Here go look for yourself. It isn’t there. That’s a pretty major “oversight” huh. Surely a power that great, to sue the very citizens you supposedly represent, would have to be clearly spelled out in the document. I mean, they said the government could open post offices and then made it clear they could also operate postal roads. That’s right a separate specific express authority to do both. But i’m sure that we can just “assume” the people wanted to give the endlessly funded federal government the right to pursue the people themselves and drive them into bankruptcy or extort them into “confessing their wrongs” by pleading out the case. That makes a lot of sense.
Let me ask you something. Do you ever hear the supposed “defenders of the constitution” on the right talking about this? No. And you never will. Get it?
Do you now see what a joke a “jury trial” is? I mean it has no purpose, just go ahead and do whatever you want government and save me the trouble of the show. Wait… let me correct that. It does has a very specific and important purpose. It just isn’t what you have been told. The purpose is to TRICK the people into believing they are free from the time they are born.
Honestly, what more do you need than this list to see that you have no chance. Even if you can afford the hundreds of thousands it would cost to defend this stuff, you have no real chance, because even IF you manage to run this laughably Stalinesqe-Show- trial-gauntlet and “win”. The government can simply re-file on a “new claim” and you have to start all over again. How many times do you think you can win?
People, the government is not your friend. Under NO circumstances can a system where a government court hears the cases where the government is involved against its own citizens be considered a “fair trial”. That is exactly the kind of absurdity that we are taught to “laugh at” because it exists in “unfree” countries. And not only do they hear the case, they are in total control of every aspect of your “trial” here in the greatest free-est. But nonetheless the people run around talking about freedom and justice as though it exists in this country. As usual, the people are actively supporting the system that enslaves them and they don’t even see it.
I just hope you laugh the next time the media Wurlitzer shuffles out one of these “ex federal prosecutors” as though they have “served” the public and should be honored and praised. And I hope you take a hard look when these “former federal judges” and “former federal prosecutors” start talking about justice and fairness and what should happen in a case.
The system is a railroad con job, top to bottom. It isn’t even a close call.
Drink in that freedom baby. USA USA USA!
Want to know more? Hear Legalman sound off below.
Legalman lives another day,