This is the most convoluted bunch of nonsense I've read all day. Lying as self-defense, in a courtroom? HAH!
I explained the reasoning. It amounts to if you railroad me I owe you no respect. In this case if a judge abuses a defendant by seating a biased jury the judge deserve no respect and lying may constitute the best self-defense against the judges initiation of force.
You're not impartial if you think the law is unconstitutional.
Who decides what is impartial? A Bible?...The Koran?...The Constitution?
Amendment VI of the Bill Of Rights uses the impartial jury wording to mean that juries will not be compelled to side with the STATE. For more than one-hundred years judges routinely upheld the Sixth Amendment as it was meant. Since 1893 judges have regarded that wording with contempt and have foisted biased jurries on defendants since.
Your intention is to agree with the STATE and judges and invert 180-degrees the 'impartial jury' wording to mean that it is wrong for a citizen/juror to side with the defendant instead of the law.
What will you invert next? That "the people" wording of Amendment II of the Bill Of Rights means the people as a whole/collective or just a STATE militia may keep and bear arms. And that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to an individual ...And does not mean individuals right to keep and bare arms may not be infringed but rather, that the States "right" or militia rights or or the people-collective rights cannot be infringed but the individual's right can be infringed.
On the contrary, it is your intention to agree with the defendant and to invert the "impartial jury" wording to mean that a juror MUST side with the defendant instead of the law.