Getting picked for jury duty -> I thought it was based on voter registration?
Some Guy
selected for preliminary screening for jury duty. This involves
answering some basic yes/no questions.
According to that letter, they were selected from a list of municiple
propery tax records - NOT from a voter registration list.
I was always under the impression that potential jurists were selected
from lists of voter registrations (either provincial or federal
elections).
Does anyone know more about this?
Do different court systems (provincial, federal) select jurists based on
different lists?
johnn
I know no more about this than you do, so I Googled it for you.
See http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/geninfo.asp
(The process by which juries are selected is described in the Juries Act. The lists of names are
taken from the most recent enumeration lists that we obtain from the Municipal Property Assessment
Corporation. Names are selected randomly for each county or district and the questionnaires for jury
service are mailed based on that criterion.)
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/jury-duty.htm
(Your name gets chosen for jury duty at random from the voters� list. Your participation is a legal
obligation. )
_________________________
John
_________________________
"God is dead"
-- Nietzsche (1844-1900)
"Nietzsche is dead"
-- God
Some Guy
> > I was always under the impression that potential jurists were
> > selected from lists of voter registrations (either provincial
> > or federal elections).
>
> I know no more about this than you do, so I Googled it for you.
That's nice. Can I ask how many search terms or search attempts were
necessary in order to come up with your link?
> See
>http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/jury/geninfo.asp
>
> The process by which juries are selected is described in the
> Juries Act.
Ok, what is being described there is provincial. They go on to say:
"the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation selects persons
for each district who have indicated by the returns
(enumeration form) that they are over 18 years of age and
are Canadian citizens."
What is this "return" or "enumeration form" that MPAC supposedly send
out or receives from property owners?
Makes me wonder how I can create a holding entity and transfer the title
to my house to the entity and effectively shield me from this jury
selection process.
I'm assuming that in Canada, we have both a provincial and federal court
system, and that some crimes or offences are prosecuted at the federal
level and others at the provincial level.
> http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/jury-duty.htm
>
> Your name gets chosen for jury duty at random from the
> voters� list. Your participation is a legal obligation.
Ok, so this seems to indicate that presumably registering to vote in a
federal election is what gets you on a federal jury list. If so, then
registering (and voting) in a provincial or municipal election does not
put you on any list for jury selection.
So I guess that people that live in rental appartments or who otherwise
do not own land are never selected for Ontario provincial jury duty?
If I'm right so far, then what types of jury court trials are conducted
at the provincial level, versus the federal level?
For example, would a murder trial be conducted by a provincial court, or
federal court?
Tony
niggers are guilty without a trial and all white people are innocent. Chinks
and jews and the like flip a coin with guilty on one side and innocent on
the other.
Some Guy wrote:
--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG
Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city
Nay, Art thou decideth playeth ye simpleton games. *Some* of us know proper
manners
Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs,
Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!
El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar
Master Juba was a black man imitating a white man imitating a black man
Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions beyond
the realm of understandability
Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday
Canuck57
> Makes me wonder how I can create a holding entity and transfer the title
> to my house to the entity and effectively shield me from this jury
> selection process.
I have been on the roles for 27 years, never been called.
If what you want to do is welch on your civic duty, just state if they
are white, they must be innocent. If they are black, they must be
guilty. And if they are mexican, deport them. State it like an
opinion. Just botch the questions.
Everyone is entitled to one.
Me, I am kind of hoping to get called someday, would be a cool
experience. But will admit, if it went on for more than 3-4 weeks I
might chirp to the holdouts to get their ass a cracking.... If you can't
prosecute or defend inside a week each, there is likely a BS stall, wear
them down...
Maybe get lucky and draw Anachore or Peffers as the defendant, LMAO.
Tony
day eat about 5 large cans of beans and fart all day long on the bench and
swivel your arse so it makes a big sound each time when you fart. Unless they
start passing out clothespins for the other 11 jury member's noses well that's
the end of jury duty.
Canuck57 wrote:
--
chuckcar
The first time I got selected for jury duty was almost immediately after I
got my SIN card. It was before I was voting age.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
Tony
delusional!!
chuckcar wrote:
--
johnn
>That's nice. Can I ask how many search terms or search attempts were
>necessary in order to come up with your link?
Certainly:
One for "jury duty Ontario" and
one for "jury duty Canada".
Simple, No?
DevilsPGD
claimed to have wrote:
They also use vehicle registration databases.
Some Guy
> They also use vehicle registration databases.
The methods that the Ontario provincial and federal court systems use to
select potential jurors have already been posted (did you not read
them?).
The Ontario method did not mention the use of driver's license lists.
It mentioned the use of property tax roles courtesy of MPAC, and this
agrees with the forms received recently by two people I know.
I've been reading some information about what sort of cases are tried in
provincial court - and it seems that most provincial trials are carried
out in front of a judge - no jury.
It would seem that the trials that you really don't want to be a jurist
for are performed by the federal court system (murder, etc) and it seems
that your registration to vote in a federal election is what puts you at
risk to be a juror for those trials. I pitty the people that will be
selected to sit on the jury for the upcoming trial for the abduction and
murder of that Woodstock girl.
I think it's possible to have your name removed from the voting list at
the polling station at the time you vote. Clearly, that's a good thing
to do - assuming you vote in the first place, which is really not worth
doing when the consequence is potential jury duty.
Ank
>
> Just recently, two people I know got a letter in the mail. They were
> selected for preliminary screening for jury duty. This involves
> answering some basic yes/no questions.
If other than yes/no show up, reply with
<BENDER>Kill all humans</BENDER>
to get out of there. ;-)
F'up2 poster.
--
Ank
Doug Mitton
I went through this about a year ago. I had several reservations
about the whole thing:
- There is a threat implied in the notification, and we are supposed
to be the innocent ones.
- My employer doesn't re-imburse for lost employment, and there is no
lattitude allowed for this
As a side note you have to be careful with the "snide" comments
(ethnic/racial) to attempt to get out of jury duty, you can quite
easily be charged with contempt.
I was immediately chosen after submitting the preliminary
questionaire. I was able to get myself excused by submitting a letter
to the court citing "employer hardship".
I would probably be very interesting to participate in this, but it
seems to be very unfair in the requirements. We don't all have
government jobs where you can still be paid if you don't go to work.
As usual, this is simply my opinion.
--
-------------------------------------------------
http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
SPAM Reduction: Remove ".invalid" from my domain.
-------------------------------------------------
Some Guy
> I went through this about a year ago. I had several reservations
> about the whole thing:
Do you know from which list you were selected? Was it the municipal
property tax roles, or was it a federal election list? Do you know
which court system you were dealing with? Was it provincial or federal?
> - There is a threat implied in the notification, and we are
> supposed to be the innocent ones.
The threat is that you will be penalized if you don't fill out the form
truthfully and send it back. If you want to have a jury that is
unbiased (from a selection point of view) you can't have it composed of
only people that have self-selected themselves because they want to be
on a jury. Remember, at some point *you* might find have to defend
yourself in court, and you will want an unbiased jury.
> - My employer doesn't re-imburse for lost employment, and there
> is no lattitude allowed for this
The regulations (or laws) state that employers are not liable or
required to pay your salary during the time you are participating on a
jury. Note that if you have the ability to negotiate your own
employment contract, you might want to have it say that your employer
*will* compensate you if you are chosen for jury duty. Perhaps some
public-sector / union contracts contemplate this.
> As a side note you have to be careful with the "snide"
> comments (ethnic/racial) to attempt to get out of jury
> duty, you can quite easily be charged with contempt.
This is true. Perhaps there are web-sites or other on-line resources
that contain useful tips as to how to act, respond, etc, during the
interview selection process that will get you out of jury duty without
crossing the line.
Madonna
> Me, I am kind of hoping to get called someday, would be a cool
> experience. But will admit, if it went on for more than 3-4 weeks I
> might chirp to the holdouts to get their ass a cracking.... If you can't
> prosecute or defend inside a week each, there is likely a BS stall, wear
> them down...
How 'bout a long one with TV crews whose last argument is:
"If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
> Maybe get lucky and draw Anachore or Peffers as the defendant, LMAO.
Who?
Canuck57
> Canuck57 wrote:
>> Me, I am kind of hoping to get called someday, would be a cool
>> experience. But will admit, if it went on for more than 3-4 weeks I
>> might chirp to the holdouts to get their ass a cracking.... If you
>> can't prosecute or defend inside a week each, there is likely a BS
>> stall, wear them down...
>
> How 'bout a long one with TV crews whose last argument is:
> "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit".
I would certainly acquit if there wasn't the evidence. But I would
convict if the evidence was there.
My guess is that in most (but perhaps not all) cases the accused is
guilty as hell. The question is does the evidence support it or are the
cops looking for a quick fix?
>> Maybe get lucky and draw Anachore or Peffers as the defendant, LMAO.
>
> Who?
Two idiots that post too much.
Doug Mitton
>Doug Mitton wrote:
>
>> I went through this about a year ago. I had several reservations
>> about the whole thing:
>
>Do you know from which list you were selected? Was it the municipal
>property tax roles, or was it a federal election list? Do you know
>which court system you were dealing with? Was it provincial or federal?
I don't know which list BUT it was for provincial.
>> - There is a threat implied in the notification, and we are
>> supposed to be the innocent ones.
>
>The threat is that you will be penalized if you don't fill out the form
>truthfully and send it back. If you want to have a jury that is
>unbiased (from a selection point of view) you can't have it composed of
>only people that have self-selected themselves because they want to be
>on a jury. Remember, at some point *you* might find have to defend
>yourself in court, and you will want an unbiased jury.
Still unfair in my opinion.
I don't have ideas on how to make it better but financial hardship
should definetly be one, or at least pay the (missed) salary of the
person. I know for a fact none of the court officers work for free,
why should the jury.
DevilsPGD
<doug_...@hotmail.com.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>Some Guy <So...@Guy.com> wrote:
>
>>Doug Mitton wrote:
>>
>>> I went through this about a year ago. I had several reservations
>>> about the whole thing:
>>
>>Do you know from which list you were selected? Was it the municipal
>>property tax roles, or was it a federal election list? Do you know
>>which court system you were dealing with? Was it provincial or federal?
>
>I don't know which list BUT it was for provincial.
Alberta courts use the motor vehicle registration as one source, I don't
know about other sources.
>>> - There is a threat implied in the notification, and we are
>>> supposed to be the innocent ones.
>>
>>The threat is that you will be penalized if you don't fill out the form
>>truthfully and send it back. If you want to have a jury that is
>>unbiased (from a selection point of view) you can't have it composed of
>>only people that have self-selected themselves because they want to be
>>on a jury. Remember, at some point *you* might find have to defend
>>yourself in court, and you will want an unbiased jury.
>
>Still unfair in my opinion.
>I don't have ideas on how to make it better but financial hardship
>should definetly be one, or at least pay the (missed) salary of the
>person. I know for a fact none of the court officers work for free,
>why should the jury.
I have a couple objections to the whole process, but financial hardship
is my biggest complaint.
While the court system is already expensive enough to operate, I'd
rather not have jurors spending their time thinking about how they won't
be able to afford that vacation they're planning because I didn't have
an alibi. They're already biased against me because I'm suspicious
enough to have made it to a trial, that's good enough for me.
I think I'd rather make employers pay salary and issue tax credits, I'd
expect less fraud this way (and hopefully less overhead, although that
could go either way), with some upper caps in compensation, something in
the range of limiting compensation to the equivalent of $75K/year based
on the hourly/daily rate. Reasonable transportation costs not exceeding
actual transportation costs should get factored in, if you live
somewhere without public transit access you shouldn't be stuck paying
for cab fares.
As a tax payer, I'm willing to absorb my share of these costs equally
rather then only targeting those who couldn't come up with a reason to
be excused.
Warren Oates
Doug Mitton <doug_...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Still unfair in my opinion.
> I don't have ideas on how to make it better but financial hardship
> should definetly be one, or at least pay the (missed) salary of the
> person. I know for a fact none of the court officers work for free,
> why should the jury.
Well, you know what they say: trial by jury sucks because the
defendant's guilt or innocence is being decided by 12 people who were
too stupid to get out of jury duty.
--
Suddenly he realized that he was alone
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
-- Chester Himes
Doug Mitton
Good ideas. Wouldn't it be great if the whole situation changed and
people were trying to get on jury duty since it wouldn't cost them
anything to do "the right thing".
I'm not certain if all that is being sacrificed is that "vacation".
In our new economy there are a significant number of people holding
down multiple part-time jobs just to make ends meet. In my experience
many of these are the prime "jury fodder" of those approaching
retirement age, and many are realizing they won't be able to afford
it.
I know that if I don't go to work, my company doesn't get paid, we are
in violation of a contract labour agreement and "I" don't get paid. I
have heard an unofficial motto of the court system ... "we don't care
about your story". Its a shame is all.
(This thread has taken some interesting twists.)
Doug Mitton
>In article <q0ood5lik9kmg21n7...@4ax.com>,
> Doug Mitton <doug_...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Still unfair in my opinion.
>> I don't have ideas on how to make it better but financial hardship
>> should definetly be one, or at least pay the (missed) salary of the
>> person. I know for a fact none of the court officers work for free,
>> why should the jury.
>
>Well, you know what they say: trial by jury sucks because the
>defendant's guilt or innocence is being decided by 12 people who were
>too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Another unofficial "motto" for the court system ... and just as
unsettling as my previously posted one.