Why fight it out in the courts?

[armlaw]

I still work to improve this court system by pushing fully informed juries, but I feel like I'm putting rogue on an ugly pallid corpse's face.  It may be a tragic and unfair revolution that will break this justice system and replace it with a better one. But what choice is there when those entrusted to apply justice are unjust?

Although I can understand people who use the court system is self-defense, it does seem rather silly to try to improve a system that is completely illegitimate and corrupt in the first place.

Please expand on the last assertion of the system being "illegitimate".  I understand how the system has been corrupted and being a "hanging juror" can un-corrupt,  it but why say it is "illegitimate" . How so?

[Francois Tremblay]

Please expand on the last assertion of the system being "illegitimate".  I understand how the system has been corrupted and being a "hanging juror" can un-corrupt,  it but why say it is "illegitimate" . How so?

To be legitimate, an organization must necessarily operate based on the consent of the people involved. If an organization coerces people into using its "services," as well as eliminates any potential competition, then it is a criminal organization, and therefore illegitimate.

The current "justice" system not only FAILS the most basic test of a justice system that we have (the Magna Carta), which in itself makes it a pitiful parody of justice at best, but it is NOT based on the consent of the parties involved- not the juries, and not the accuser or the accused. The rules used by these kangaroo courts are not set by either party or any representative of either party, but by a coercive, all-powerful third party (which includes the judge, other court employees, and ultimately the whole State), which uses said rules to its own advantage in order to hide its own crimes.

[vanguardist]

Please expand on the last assertion of the system being "illegitimate".  I understand how the system has been corrupted and being a "hanging juror" can un-corrupt,  it but why say it is "illegitimate" . How so?

To be legitimate, an organization must necessarily operate based on the consent of the people involved. If an organization coerces people into using its "services," as well as eliminates any potential competition, then it is a criminal organization, and therefore illegitimate.

The current "justice" system not only FAILS the most basic test of a justice system that we have (the Magna Carta), which in itself makes it a pitiful parody of justice at best, but it is NOT based on the consent of the parties involved- not the juries, and not the accuser or the accused. The rules used by these kangaroo courts are not set by either party or any representative of either party, but by a coercive, all-powerful third party (which includes the judge, other court employees, and ultimately the whole State), which uses said rules to its own advantage in order to hide its own crimes.

I agree. What passes for justice is the following:

A commits a crime against B. The legal system them punishes A by fining him or putting him in jail. B, who will probably never receive restitution for the crimes by A, is now forced to pay for the punishment against the criminal, the police and judicial system (whether he used it or not) and the cost of A's incarceration. How in the world is this just?

[armlaw]

Please expand on the last assertion of the system being "illegitimate".  I understand how the system has been corrupted and being a "hanging juror" can un-corrupt,  it but why say it is "illegitimate" . How so?

To be legitimate, an organization must necessarily operate based on the consent of the people involved. If an organization coerces people into using its "services," as well as eliminates any potential competition, then it is a criminal organization, and therefore illegitimate.

The current "justice" system not only FAILS the most basic test of a justice system that we have (the Magna Carta), which in itself makes it a pitiful parody of justice at best, but it is NOT based on the consent of the parties involved- not the juries, and not the accuser or the accused. The rules used by these kangaroo courts are not set by either party or any representative of either party, but by a coercive, all-powerful third party (which includes the judge, other court employees, and ultimately the whole State), which uses said rules to its own advantage in order to hide its own crimes.

I agree. What passes for justice is the following:

A commits a crime against B. The legal system them punishes A by fining him or putting him in jail. B, who will probably never receive restitution for the crimes by A, is now forced to pay for the punishment against the criminal, the police and judicial system (whether he used it or not) and the cost of A's incarceration. How in the world is this just?

It appears to be an expansion on the"corruption" aspect, with which I agree, however I still need further evidence of how this can be "illegitimate"? Do we have a contradiction in terms?

[Francois Tremblay]

I already explained why the "justice" system is illegitimate. Read my post again.

[armlaw]

I already explained why the "justice" system is illegitimate. Read my post again.

You needed to testify at the public hearings that were held on the several occasions over the past several years when I sponsored efforts to nullify Article 73-a, Part II of the New Hampshire constitution. The last sentence was NOT on the voters guide nor on the ballot and was some how, inserted after the vote. So yes, the current system in this state is illegitimate as the judiciary has no delegated power to legislate but does with 73-a on the books. However that does not make the jury system "illegitimate" if one chooses to use it.   

[Dave Ridley]

i look forward to the day when an attorney steps forward and expresses an interest in helping us defend ourselves.

[dalebert]

Although I can understand people who use the court system is self-defense, it does seem rather silly to try to improve a system that is completely illegitimate and corrupt in the first place.

+1

[Francois Tremblay]

However that does not make the jury system "illegitimate" if one chooses to use it.

The jury system currently used is coercive and is nothing but an extension of the laws, therefore it is also illegitimate.

[armlaw]

However that does not make the jury system "illegitimate" if one chooses to use it.

The jury system currently used is coercive and is nothing but an extension of the laws, therefore it is also illegitimate.

Your use of the word "coercion" which most would understand to mean, compulsion; constraint; compelling by force or arms or threat, etc does not extend any laws. The informed jury can not be coerced; Only uninformed and that is where you, and everyone reading this, should inform their peers of the obligation and duty to humanity to hang the jury and acquit when the statutes you refer to are wrong or if the so-called judge commits the crime of jury tampering by cleverly "giving jury instructions".

[Francois Tremblay]

I think you missed the point here. The point is that juries are formed by coercion. You do not CHOOSE to be a jury: you are obligated to present yourself or you get fined.

[KBCraig]

I think you missed the point here. The point is that juries are formed by coercion. You do not CHOOSE to be a jury: you are obligated to present yourself or you get fined.

However you make it onto the jury, you're then free to CHOOSE how you vote, for whatever reasons you CHOOSE.

Liberty activists should welcome the chance to serve on juries.

[Francois Tremblay]

Why would I relish the prospect of being coerced to present myself and answer questions for an illegitimate, coercive court, and then be forced to watch the proceedings with 11 uninformed idiots, only to be dragged into a debate about on to apply the State's illegitimate laws with said idiots- all of this without proper compensation?

Besides, any liberty activist who ends up on a jury is a liar, since honest answers to their questions would preclude any of us from serving on any jury, let alone acting as you really should.

[J’raxis 270145]

Why would I relish the prospect of being coerced to present myself and answer questions for an illegitimate, coercive court, and then be forced to watch the proceedings with 11 uninformed idiots, only to be dragged into a debate about on to apply the State's illegitimate laws with said idiots- all of this without proper compensation?

I look at this from a strategic standpoint—you're right, it is coercion, but it's giving you an opportunity to strike back at their system. In the long run, all coercion needs to be abolished, but since we're far from that yet, make the best of it when they do coerce you into doing something.

[armlaw]

I think you missed the point here. The point is that juries are formed by coercion. You do not CHOOSE to be a jury: you are obligated to present yourself or you get fined.

Perhaps Article III of the New Hampshire Bill of Rights says it best;

"Society, its Organization and Purposes. When men enter into a state of society,they surrender up some of their rights to that society, in order to ensure the protection of others; and, without such an equivalent, the surrender is void."
Please apply this to your assertion and coercion evaporates.