Thanks for your sharing and scientific approach. I love it when time will tell. My guess is that they will write you a letter telling you that you have to appear.

I have coached several people through this action. You tell the truth. Do not swear to be a resident unless you are one. Do you "reside" where your domicile is located?




Is it your abode or your residence?

So do not swear to anything that is false. "The peculiar uses of this word are to be noticed." Take note of Daniel WEBSTER; he was a pretty smart cracker.

That is not all though. This is just a matter of swearing. Affirming instead of swearing is just the same thing but you would be depending on the judge's oath of office, that he has sworn. You defer the authority in his sworn oath to punish you for perjury anyway, just that you do not like to use God's name that way; to swear.

If you do not like the idea that you might get into trouble refuse to swear or affirm.

"As I understand it, if I swear or affirm then you might be able to punish me for perjury."

The judge will likely let you go.

On the form you have provided us, the fact that you have received it in the mail at your residential address is a pretty firm indication that you have plead the resident scam either with the electorate or with a driver license. It is a residential driver license bearing your confession that you are a resident. So with all that said, the judge will likely dismiss you rather than risk your patriot antics will call for a retrial.

It may not work that way at all though. If you start talking jury nullification the judge may demand you be on the panel but be looking for the opportunity to hold you for a few hours and bag lunch on contempt. If you know about jury nullification, be very serious about this right and the law. Save it for deliberation and do not share it with the other jurors. If you spot a flaw in the law or how it is being applied though, call the judge on it quietly and in secret. Tell the bailiff you need to speak to the judge alone.

The judge may be upset after all his admonitions about you are to remain ignorant and he is trying the law alone from the bench. But if you believe that the jury panel has that right, then like I say, be serious and ernest about your application of jury nullification. If you decide you are going to disrupt a trial with it, then you might find yourself in a concrete box for 28 days. No process, no hearings - contempt of court.

Myself, I checked the statutes before reporting and found that I was only obligated to show up. I was not obligated to give any information. You are only bound to the statutes listed on the Notice. It looks like you will have to show us the back for me to look that up for you.

I gave them no more information than they already had on the initial Sign-in Form. They complained but I just said it was private. They sent me into the courtroom and then passed out an additional questionaire, same thing. The defense attorney had an At Bar discussion but you could hear across the silent courtroom, Mr. Van Pelt will not fill out the questionaire. The judge asked her, Do you want me to ask him about that?

She declined and I was selected for a three-day assault trial. I was selected to be the Foreman and we acquitted the fellow for lack of evidence; reasonable doubt. Some interesting things evolved around common law and jury nullification though. There was a former cop on the panel who disclosed to me about jury nullification - I had not heard about it. But mainly that the initial judge was pulled and a retired judge from out of the district was put in for the trial. The trial judge never said anything about him being the sole authority of the law. Whereas the initial judge was of that form during jury selection.

I think my presence and performance actually converted the courtroom trial to a common law rendition of justice.