Jury Duty
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
Even after converting to the famous One Day One Trial
law there are rumors that the Los Angeles County compulsory
jury duty system alone summons ten thousand potential jurrors each
day to distant courthouses that are not near where they live and
only 35 per cent of those people get to serve on a case.
The other 65 per cent just drive very far to court to wait
all day to get rejected and then drive the long drive back home.
Thats about 3.5 million jury candidates per year with only
one million actually on cases.
A primary characteristic of the compulsory California Jury
Duty system is that people are NOT ALLOWED to serve at a court
near where they live. The Jury Summons Computers in Los Angeles
County are carefully programmed to make sure that every jury
summons is to a DISTANT COURTHOUSE that is not close to where
each jurror lives.
All driving, including driving to jury selection has an accident
risk associated with it. The statistic of 2.5 million people making
a trip to jury selection each year at a distant courthouse only to
be rejected implys that there are a substantial number of car
accidents each year possibly some of which kill children and
increase YOUR auto insurance rates!
I believe that if Californias voters or State Legislature voted
to convert all courts in California to an All Volunteer Jury
System there would be a reduction in the number of car accidents
caused by people on the way to or from Jury selection.
First, in an all volunteer Jury System a much higher percentage
of people who are able to fill out the paperwork and pass the
written Jury ASVAB test are qualified to sere on cases so only
1.2 million applicants would be allowed to drive to jury selection
each year instead of the current 3.5 million.
A second way the number of accidents could be reduced is to allow
volunteers to serve on jurys at courthouses closer to where they live
than the compulsory jury duty mandatory extreme distance clause allows.
Keep in mind that converting to an all volunteer jury system in
California will reduce the number of car accidents by reducing
the number of people who show up to court and also reduce the
distance driven by putting most jurrors at courts that are closer
to where they live. This reduction in the number of jury duty
related auto accidents will save childerens lives and reduce
YOUR future auto insurance rates.
Eric Matteson (A VOTER) ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
Blue Cat
<ericmatteson...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115839243.3...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear California Voters:
> Even after converting to the famous One Day One Trial
> law there are rumors that the Los Angeles County compulsory
> jury duty system alone summons ten thousand potential jurrors each
> day to distant courthouses that are not near where they live and
> only 35 per cent of those people get to serve on a case.
> The other 65 per cent just drive very far to court to wait
> all day to get rejected and then drive the long drive back home.
This law is stupid. I can easily find where I'm going in unfamiliar places.
Other people, like my wife, would get lost and panic. Can someone be
prosecuted for comtempt of court for getting lost?
  *** Unknown@ten.net    *** Mr. Unknown
"Blue Cat" <blue...@go.com> wrote in message
news:rhIge.23652$RG2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
If it's over 50 miles you can have it waived.
Or, just call the court clerk and tell them you are a felon.
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
Wives can be fined $1500.00 for failure to find the distant courthouse.
Guess who really has to earn the money to pay the fine within the
marriage ??
I also rechecked the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and even
though
it provides accused people the PRIVELIGE of a jury trial there is
nothing
that prevents a voluntary jury and there is nothing that says jurrors
have to be randomly selected.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
As far as I know the number 12 is not required. If too few people
volunteer
for jury duty for 12 jurrors per trial six or three might be enough to
pass constitutional muster.
Pretty please lobby the State Legislature or put a proposition on your
ballots to convert to an all volunteer Jury system.
In California they always require you to travel to a distant
courthouse
and do every thing they can to make compulsory jury duty as difficult
and
unpleasant as possible.
Eric Matteson ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
noahelm...@hotmail.com
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
miles to a distant courthouse instead of a courthouse only two miles
away slavery and involuntary servitude. Even with the one day one trial
system it can be severe slavery if a traffic accident occurrs to or
from jury selection.
http://www.spectacle.org/0600/lizard.html
Defendants should waive the jury and ask the judge alone to decide
their case. Plea bargains should add the option of pleaing not
guilty but no jury instead of only pleaing guilty.
The current court system needs too many jurrors and soon California
voters will rebel against the compulsory jury summons system and
vote for a voluntary jury system.
Eric Matteson
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
Martin Holterman
Just a question from a foreigner: Do you get paid for jury duty? And if
so, is it a reasonable sum? As far as I know most countries that have
jury duty pay the jurors, but it isn't always a reasonable sum.
(The French system is actually quite good. There, jurors serve for a
month, during which time they get paid by their employer. Do it once,
you never have to do it again.)
Martin Holterman
Jafo
>Just a question from a foreigner: Do you get paid for jury duty?
>And if so, is it a reasonable sum?
$15/day in L.A. County. BFD, eh?
--
Jafo
DCI
Plus mileage.
DCI
lawdog
wrote:
Guys, it aint that difficult to get your service transferred to a
closer court.
Blue Cat
"Martin Holterman" <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:d638to$ios$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...
> Just a question from a foreigner: Do you get paid for jury duty? And if
> so, is it a reasonable sum? As far as I know most countries that have
> jury duty pay the jurors, but it isn't always a reasonable sum.
> (The French system is actually quite good. There, jurors serve for a
> month, during which time they get paid by their employer. Do it once,
> you never have to do it again.)
>
If you are called to jury duty, your employer pays you. If you are
umemployed or retired, the county pays you $15 per day. If the judge says
that you can leave without formally dismissing you, you won't be paid. No
mileage or bus fare is given, but courthouse parking is free.
I was called once for jury duty in Florida in 1997, for one day (I am
retired). Since I have yet to be called again, I assume that they were upset
that they had to pay me.
sgdunn
jury nullification, as was the in the United States until the 1830's, there
would be a greater appreciation of the role of the jury system in our system
of government, and people would view jury duty as less of a burden and more
of an opportunity to have democratic political power. (*Jury Nullification:
The Evolution of a Doctrine* provides a pretty detailed history.
http://www.fija.org gives a dumbed down explanation with a few errors, but
it doesn't cost anything to visit the site.)
Of course, state legislatures aren't going to change jury instructions
back to the way they were when the Bill of Rights was written, as that might
make a powerful check on their own power more effective.
> >
> > This law is stupid. I can easily find where I'm going in unfamiliar
> places.
> > Other people, like my wife, would get lost and panic. Can someone be
> > prosecuted for comtempt of court for getting lost?
> Absolutley, Under Los Angeles County Compulsory Jury Duty System
> Wives can be fined $1500.00 for failure to find the distant courthouse.
> Guess who really has to earn the money to pay the fine within the
> marriage ??
> I also rechecked the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and even
> though
> it provides accused people the PRIVELIGE of a jury trial there is
> nothing
> that prevents a voluntary jury and there is nothing that says jurrors
> have to be randomly selected.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
> As far as I know the number 12 is not required.
A jury by definition has to have 12 people. Unfortunately, the Supreme
Court isn't too concerned about what the words in the Constitution actually
mean, and it ruled that a noncapital jury in a state court can have as few
as 6 people, allowing judges and lawyers to manipulate the outcome more
efficiently and reducing ordinary citizens' opportunity to participate in
government. Needless to say, a lot more than just 12 people still make it to
voir dire when it's only 6 people on that jury.
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
Cornell
University website listed the jury right within the Bill of Rights as
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
After rereading that sixth amendment I found out it DOES HAVE
by an impartial jury of the state and DISTRICT wherein
the
crime shall have been committed,
..
When a criminal committs a crime in Downtown Los Angeles and the trial
is
in the Downtown Los Angeles Courthouse at 210 Spring Street WHERE DO
THE
JURRORS COME FROM ??
With the compulsory jury duty system in California the downtown Los
Angeles
Courthouse jurrors come from DIFFERENT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS that
have
different representatives from the downtown L.A. district. They might
be
coming from Santa Monica or the harbor area or North Hollywood or
Burbank.
Californias compulsory jury duty law with its summoning of jurrors to
distant courthouses IN OTHER CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS not only violates
the
obvious thirteenth ammendment but also violates the very same sixth
ammendment that jury duty advocates claim to support.
The ONLY WAY to fix the jury problems is to vote for an All Volunteer
Jury System in California and wherever freedom loving people vote.
In an All volunteer jury system jurrors can volunteer to serve near
where
they live or work to comply with the sixth ammendments within same
congressional district clause. Volunteers will probably be better
educated and more likely to understand the implied right of jury
nullification
to protest against an unjust law or protest against the specific
application of a law outside its good intent.
Jury nullification can also be used to protest against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Only volunteer jurrors will be smart enough to know about jury
nullification. In an all volunteer jury smart voters can volunteer for
serving on a jury. In the compulsory jury duty system many smart voters
figure out how to get excused because the compulsory jury duty system
is designed to make jury duty difficult and unpleasent.
Eric Matteson ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
weas...@aol.com
varying interest groups lobbying to get their members to volunteer,
thereby stacking the juries in their favor. When GE was being sued,
all GE employees would be ordered to volunteer and given full pay while
on jury duty; when the suit was over, GE employees would be ordered to
take their names off the rolls, etc.
If anything, jury selection should be made more random, by removing
many of the challenges for cause and all of the peremptory challenges.
Further, jury summonses should be enforced in some way that would not
be too punitive, but would be insistent, such as giving no-shows the
option of either coming next time or paying a fine. This would make
jury service more random and representative than it is at present.
Of course, Eric, you must see that you are arguing against yourself:
first you say that smart people would VOLUNTEER for jury service if
they could, but that they are ducking out of it now. Obviously, those
who choose to duck out would be the last to volunteer.
Clay S. Conrad
Chair, American Jury Institute
weas...@aol.com
Moreover, the number of jurors is fixed by statute in every
jurisdiction in the US. Generally it is 12 for felonies and Six for
misdemeanors, but in Utah it is 8; in Florida it is 6 except for
capital crimes (12). In Louisiana and Oregon the juries need not be
unanimous. Juries are not required by the US Constitution in any crime
with a maximum sentence of less than one year (generally,
misdemeanors.) This is the Petty Offense Doctrine, which is subject to
some constitutional criticism.
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
weas...@aol.com wrote:
> An all volunteer jury system would be a disaster. There would be
> varying interest groups lobbying to get their members to volunteer,
> thereby stacking the juries in their favor. When GE was being sued,
> all GE employees would be ordered to volunteer and given full pay
while
> on jury duty; when the suit was over, GE employees would be ordered
to
> take their names off the rolls, etc.
have their tax returns checked including W-2s to verify that they will
not be assigned to any case involving their own employer or any
subcontractor or supercontractor of their current employer. IRS
computers would be checked during each volunteer jurors background
check and cases with conflicts of interests would not be allowed in
my all volunteer jury system.
>
> If anything, jury selection should be made more random, by removing
> many of the challenges for cause and all of the peremptory
challenges.
> Further, jury summonses should be enforced in some way that would not
> be too punitive, but would be insistent, such as giving no-shows the
> option of either coming next time or paying a fine. This would make
> jury service more random and representative than it is at present.
Los Angeles County who has no car and no way to get to a distant
courthouse that is not on a bus route ??
In Los Angeles county the compulsory version of the jury selection has
jurror candidates summoned to distant courthouses and nobody is
summonned to a courthouse near where they live!
>
> Of course, Eric, you must see that you are arguing against yourself:
> first you say that smart people would VOLUNTEER for jury service if
> they could, but that they are ducking out of it now. Obviously,
those
> who choose to duck out would be the last to volunteer.
>
> Clay S. Conrad
> Chair, American Jury Institute
of jurrors get rejected during selection at L.A. county.
The worst type of rejection is when a lawyer on either side rejects
a jurror because they are too smart or too well educated to be fooled
by a lawyers tricks and deception. My version of an All volunteer jury
would make it more difficult for lawyers to reject jurrors because
they are too smart to be manipulated by lawyers tricks.
Eric Matteson ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
weas...@aol.com wrote:
> An all volunteer jury system would be a disaster. There would be
> varying interest groups lobbying to get their members to volunteer,
> thereby stacking the juries in their favor. When GE was being sued,
> all GE employees would be ordered to volunteer and given full pay
while
> on jury duty; when the suit was over, GE employees would be ordered
to
> take their names off the rolls, etc.
have their tax returns checked including W-2s to verify that they will
not be assigned to any case involving their own employer or any
subcontractor or supercontractor of their current employer. IRS
computers would be checked during each volunteer jurors background
check and cases with conflicts of interests would not be allowed in
my all volunteer jury system.
>
> many of the challenges for cause and all of the peremptory
challenges.
> Further, jury summonses should be enforced in some way that would not
> be too punitive, but would be insistent, such as giving no-shows the
> option of either coming next time or paying a fine. This would make
> jury service more random and representative than it is at present.
Los Angeles County who has no car and no way to get to a distant
courthouse that is not on a bus route ??
In Los Angeles county the compulsory version of the jury selection has
jurror candidates summoned to distant courthouses and nobody is
summonned to a courthouse near where they live!
>
> first you say that smart people would VOLUNTEER for jury service if
> they could, but that they are ducking out of it now. Obviously,
those
> who choose to duck out would be the last to volunteer.
>
> Clay S. Conrad
> Chair, American Jury Institute
weas...@aol.com
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In the All volunteer Jury System I have proposed each jurror would
> have their tax returns checked including W-2s to verify that they will
> not be assigned to any case involving their own employer or any
> subcontractor or supercontractor of their current employer. IRS
> computers would be checked during each volunteer jurors background
> check and cases with conflicts of interests would not be allowed in
> my all volunteer jury system.
This is meaningless. MADD isn't an employer of many people - but
groups like MADD would be doing everything they could do to get their
people onto DWI juries. And it would go on from there. Jury selection
would be a battle between special interest groups who tried to get
their people onto juries, not a selection from a random group of the
general public.
> > If anything, jury selection should be made more random, by removing
> > many of the challenges for cause and all of the peremptory
> challenges.
> Is the current fine of $1500.00 too punitive for a poor person in
> Los Angeles County who has no car and no way to get to a distant
> courthouse that is not on a bus route ??
> In Los Angeles county the compulsory version of the jury selection has
> jurror candidates summoned to distant courthouses and nobody is
> summonned to a courthouse near where they live!
If $1500 is too much, then they can always show up. And the problems
of summoning people to the wrong courts certainly has no connection to
having volunteer jurors. That is like saying that Mazda Miatas are
dangerous cars, and they are usually read, so we will ban the color red
from being used on cars.
> One of the problems with the compulsory system is that 65 per cent
> of jurrors get rejected during selection at L.A. county.
No reason to believe volunteer jurors wouldn't be rejected even more
often, as they'd probably be volunteering to further some agenda
anyway.
> The worst type of rejection is when a lawyer on either side rejects
> a jurror because they are too smart or too well educated to be fooled
> by a lawyers tricks and deception.
A myth. Those who think they are rejected for being "too smart or too
well educated" are usually rejected for other reasons - such as being
too opinionated or too close-minded.
>My version of an All volunteer jury
> would make it more difficult for lawyers to reject jurrors because
> they are too smart to be manipulated by lawyers tricks.
That is not the reason lawyers reject jurors, and the numbers of
peremptories can be reduced without having to resort to volunteer -
i.e., stacked - jury pools.
Clay S. Conrad
Chair, American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association
weas...@aol.com
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In the All volunteer Jury System I have proposed each jurror would
> have their tax returns checked including W-2s to verify that they will
> not be assigned to any case involving their own employer or any
> subcontractor or supercontractor of their current employer. IRS
> computers would be checked during each volunteer jurors background
> check and cases with conflicts of interests would not be allowed in
> my all volunteer jury system.
This is meaningless. MADD isn't an employer of many people - but
groups like MADD would be doing everything they could do to get their
people onto DWI juries. And it would go on from there. Jury selection
would be a battle between special interest groups who tried to get
their people onto juries, not a selection from a random group of the
general public.
> > If anything, jury selection should be made more random, by removing
> > many of the challenges for cause and all of the peremptory
> challenges.
> Is the current fine of $1500.00 too punitive for a poor person in
> Los Angeles County who has no car and no way to get to a distant
> courthouse that is not on a bus route ??
> In Los Angeles county the compulsory version of the jury selection has
> jurror candidates summoned to distant courthouses and nobody is
> summonned to a courthouse near where they live!
If $1500 is too much, then they can always show up. And the problems
of summoning people to the wrong courts certainly has no connection to
having volunteer jurors. That is like saying that Mazda Miatas are
dangerous cars, and they are usually read, so we will ban the color red
from being used on cars.
> One of the problems with the compulsory system is that 65 per cent
> of jurrors get rejected during selection at L.A. county.
No reason to believe volunteer jurors wouldn't be rejected even more
often, as they'd probably be volunteering to further some agenda
anyway.
> The worst type of rejection is when a lawyer on either side rejects
> a jurror because they are too smart or too well educated to be fooled
> by a lawyers tricks and deception.
A myth. Those who think they are rejected for being "too smart or too
well educated" are usually rejected for other reasons - such as being
too opinionated or too close-minded.
>My version of an All volunteer jury
> would make it more difficult for lawyers to reject jurrors because
> they are too smart to be manipulated by lawyers tricks.
That is not the reason lawyers reject jurors, and the numbers of
peremptories can be reduced without having to resort to volunteer -
i.e., stacked - jury pools.
Clay S. Conrad
Chair, American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association
weas...@aol.com
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In the All volunteer Jury System I have proposed each jurror would
> have their tax returns checked including W-2s to verify that they will
> not be assigned to any case involving their own employer or any
> subcontractor or supercontractor of their current employer. IRS
> computers would be checked during each volunteer jurors background
> check and cases with conflicts of interests would not be allowed in
> my all volunteer jury system.
This is meaningless. MADD isn't an employer of many people - but
groups like MADD would be doing everything they could do to get their
people onto DWI juries. And it would go on from there. Jury selection
would be a battle between special interest groups who tried to get
their people onto juries, not a selection from a random group of the
general public.
> > If anything, jury selection should be made more random, by removing
> > many of the challenges for cause and all of the peremptory
> challenges.
> Is the current fine of $1500.00 too punitive for a poor person in
> Los Angeles County who has no car and no way to get to a distant
> courthouse that is not on a bus route ??
> In Los Angeles county the compulsory version of the jury selection has
> jurror candidates summoned to distant courthouses and nobody is
> summonned to a courthouse near where they live!
If $1500 is too much, then they can always show up. And the problems
of summoning people to the wrong courts certainly has no connection to
having volunteer jurors. That is like saying that Mazda Miatas are
dangerous cars, and they are usually read, so we will ban the color red
from being used on cars.
> One of the problems with the compulsory system is that 65 per cent
> of jurrors get rejected during selection at L.A. county.
No reason to believe volunteer jurors wouldn't be rejected even more
often, as they'd probably be volunteering to further some agenda
anyway.
> The worst type of rejection is when a lawyer on either side rejects
> a jurror because they are too smart or too well educated to be fooled
> by a lawyers tricks and deception.
A myth. Those who think they are rejected for being "too smart or too
well educated" are usually rejected for other reasons - such as being
too opinionated or too close-minded.
>My version of an All volunteer jury
> would make it more difficult for lawyers to reject jurrors because
> they are too smart to be manipulated by lawyers tricks.
That is not the reason lawyers reject jurors, and the numbers of
peremptories can be reduced without having to resort to volunteer -
i.e., stacked - jury pools.
Clay S. Conrad
Chair, American Jury Institute/Fully Informed Jury Association
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
that a totally unregulated all volunteer jury system has been accused
of possibly creating. Even draftee jurrors are members of special
interest groups.
Most of those who were summonned to mandatory jury duty have
already requested to be excused EXCEPT those draftees who are
members of special interest groups.
The change to one day one trial in California makes it
more difficult to gget excused and rich people who have
better things to do than judge the poor are having to waste
their valuble time requesting to be excused more often such
as once eeach year instead of once each ten years.
Many powerful and influential people are getting very annoyed
at having to work to excuse themselves from jury duty so much
more often. There is even a hidden group planning on possibly
ammending the U.S. constitution to abolish jury trials or
make it so hard to get a jury for a case that almost nobody
will be summonned any more.
In order to support the PRESENT constitution I am
requesting a change to an ALL VOLUNTEER U.S. JURY SYSTEM
in all courts.
The ALL VOLUNTEER jury system could have each volunteer
volunteer for a list of courts and a starting week.
Trial assignments could be randomized for each volunteer if
ADDITIONAL SUPPORTERS of the proposed all volunteer jury
system could support such a modified ALL VOLUNTEER jury
system for all courts that use juries.
I beleive that an all volunteer jury system could be adjusted
to work even better than the present request to be excused
if you are not a member of a special interest group version.
Eric Matteson ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
weas...@aol.com
containing a cross section of the community than a volunteer system.
Moreover, you don't - and can't - address the problems with a volunteer
system. If anything, I'd prefer a system that required employers to
continue full pay while their employees served on a jury - with the
juror pay going to the employer to help him cut his losses.
This would make it easier for a broader cross-section to attend jury
duty. Because it is that broad cross section that is necessary to
avoid the stacked juries that would inevitably result from a volunteer
system. Those who worked for gov't or large corporations would be free
to volunteer, as would retirees and the unemployed. The rest of the
country would not be able to for financial or career reasons.
Not exactly a fair cross section.
Let's face it - a volunteer jury is not a jury, it is a focus group.
There's a big difference. A volunteer system would never pass
constitutional muster, so it is a dead letter.
weas...@aol.com
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
The one day one trial system in California makes it more difficult
to get excused from jury selection.
At least three TV shows have been adversly affected by a jury
summons summonning their writer.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Becker
Dr. Becker had to spend several days in Jury Selection. He could
not get excused because of a crackdown on excuses. The Jury pool
watched soap operas on the TV in the jury selection waiting room.
Dr. Becker read a book. During interviews for several cases Dr.
Becker was rejected when they found out that he was able to read.
Even if this is an exageration, the TV show meant that smart
people with a good education are not assigned to actual cases
because the lawyers for both sides want dull jurrors that they
can easily manipulate within the present compulsory jury duty.
..
While jury duty remains compulsory could there be a written
mail in test that smart people or well educated people could
pass to get excused from jury selection because those people
would be unlikely to be chosen for a case anyway ??
..
Six of Dr. Beckers patients died while Dr. Becker wasted a
couple of days in jury selection.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Malcolm In the middle
Malcolms parents, Hal and Lois Langdon, did not go to college.
Lois got a jury summons. Hal went down there with her and
tried to get her out of jury duty because of 3 childeren to
take care of. Not only did Lois not get out she was assigned
to a long case and Hal was assigned to a different case.
With one day one trial in California, both parents can be
assigned to jury duty without being excused because jury duty
is compulsory.
The three childeren Malcolm, Dewey, and Reese all got lost
IN A SEWER because they had no parental supervision with
both parents away on juries!!
Lois screwed up her case during deliberations. She confused the
current defendent with Francis in military school. She was disqualified
and replaced with an alternate. The compulsory jury duty system
sweeps in unqualified people to judge cases and should be replaced
with an all volunteer jury system where educated volunteers pass
a written jury ASVAB test before serving!
--------------------------------------------------------------
7th Heaven
Lucy Camden got a jury summons. She was very upset. She was
busy in community college. She could not get out of it. The
court would not excuse her from Jury selection.
Lucy showed up at court for jury selection.
The defendent, Jimmy Moon, was being accused with sending a threatening
letter to all six of Glenoaks abortion clinics.
...........................................................
(Evidence exhibit)
Dear Abortion clinic:
The Supreme court Roe Vs Wade decision creates the abortion
privelige within the first two trimesters only. Any abortion
clinic that is suspected of committing abortions after the end
of the second trimester WILL BE BLOCKADED. The Church of
Renewed Faith of Glenoak will soon begin the abortion clinic
blockades!!!!!!!
If your abortion clinic already only does abortions during the
first two trimesters please post a sign
Abortions during first
two trimesters only.
none later. no exceptions!!
No referals to places
that do abortions
after second trimester!!
so we will not accidently blockade any abortion clinics that
already comply with the first two trimesters only rule approved by
the Church of Renewed Faith of Glenoak.
(End Evidence exhibit)
.................................................................
Jimmy Moon was arrested at an abortion clinic blockade.
Jimmy Moon is a minister in training (MIT) at the Church
of Renewed Faith in Glenoak Califorina.
Lucy Camden said that she recognized Jimmy Moon as her boyfriend.
Lucy Camden did not get assigned to the trial but the one day
of jury selection caused her to miss a test at community college.
She failed that course.
Jimmy Moon was aquitted by other jurrors. He was arrested so soon
the prosecution could not prove he would have continued the blockade
after the Glenoak police department would have asked him to leave
the abortion clinic entrance.
The defense pointed out that the threatening letter was only about
a traditional Church protest of abortion and was far less severe
than the other 50 threatining letters each week that each abortion
clinic in Glenoak had recieved.
In California the one day one trial jury system has postponements
that are always shorter than a semester at community college. A
jury summons at the beginning of the semester is not postponable
to after the end of the semester.
Converting to an All Volunteer jury system would remove the problem
of community college students failing exams and failing courses
because of Jury selection.
Even a one day jury selection can cause a community college
student to fail a course by being on the day of a test.
click on the link below for more Lucy Camden Jury info.
..
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.tv.7th-heaven/msg/22dcff2cc273b727?dmode=source&hl=en
..
Did YOU ever get a jury summons that you did not like ??
If so, please vote to support converting to an All Volunteer
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
weas...@aol.com wrote:
> The compulsory jury system is not flawless, but it is far better at
> containing a cross section of the community than a volunteer system.
> Moreover, you don't - and can't - address the problems with a volunteer
> system. If anything, I'd prefer a system that required employers to
> continue full pay while their employees served on a jury - with the
> juror pay going to the employer to help him cut his losses.
>
> This would make it easier for a broader cross-section to attend jury
> duty. Because it is that broad cross section that is necessary to
> avoid the stacked juries that would inevitably result from a volunteer
> system. Those who worked for gov't or large corporations would be free
> to volunteer, as would retirees and the unemployed. The rest of the
> country would not be able to for financial or career reasons.
>
> Not exactly a fair cross section.
In the current compulsory jury duty system everybody who
owns a business or is self employed does not even have
an employer to pay them for jury duty.
Even most employees are not paid for jury duty. As far as
I know, the only employers who pay employees for jury duty are
schools and post offices and other government jobs.
The people who get paid by their employers now for compulsory
jury duty are the same people that you would not want volunteering
for jury duty. Government workers who might be biased in favor
of the prosecution.
>
> Let's face it - a volunteer jury is not a jury, it is a focus group.
> There's a big difference. A volunteer system would never pass
> constitutional muster, so it is a dead letter.
If you do not want to convert to an all volunteer jury system
would you rather allow some hollywood TV producers and scriptwriters
who hate jury duty lobby congress to ammend the constitution
to abolish juries altogether and each defendent tried by
3 judges ???
In Washington D.C. there is an internet article about
hating jury duty. The 4th or 5th reply by Show Production
is offering a constitutional ammendment that will abolish
jury trials and replace jury trials with 3 to 7 judges
voting whether to convict. 5 or 6 out of 7 judges can
vote to conict a defendent if and when this proposed
constitutional ammendment passes.
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/93286
Eric Matteson
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
weas...@aol.com wrote:
> The compulsory jury system is not flawless, but it is far better at
> containing a cross section of the community than a volunteer system.
> Moreover, you don't - and can't - address the problems with a volunteer
> system. If anything, I'd prefer a system that required employers to
> continue full pay while their employees served on a jury - with the
> juror pay going to the employer to help him cut his losses.
Would you also vote to raise taxes to provide decent childcare
even if the childeren are disabled or have special needs ??
http://www.familyfriendlyjuryduty.org/HallOfShame/HallOfShameCA_files/page0003.htm
You would even have to vote to raise YOUR OWN taxes and not just
someone elses taxes!!
Caring for normal childeren is expensive already. When disabled
or special needs children need childcare while both parents are
away on juries it will be even more expensive for taxpayers.
If you excuse mothers with babies then high income self employed
people are going to want to vote for an all volunteer jury
system in all courts in the United States. If you excuse anyone
almost everybody else will also want to be excused from jury duty.
Can you see that some voters are opposed to the current compulsory
jury duty system for reasons that they believe are good reasons ??
>
> This would make it easier for a broader cross-section to attend jury
> duty. Because it is that broad cross section that is necessary to
> avoid the stacked juries that would inevitably result from a volunteer
> system. Those who worked for gov't or large corporations would be free
> to volunteer, as would retirees and the unemployed. The rest of the
> country would not be able to for financial or career reasons.
>
> Not exactly a fair cross section.
>
> Let's face it - a volunteer jury is not a jury, it is a focus group.
> There's a big difference. A volunteer system would never pass
> constitutional muster, so it is a dead letter.
Would it be better to ammend the constitution to convict someone
with a crime with votes from 6 out of 7 judges instead of
just having an all volunteer jury system ??
Somebody has already proposed ammending the U.S. constitution
to abolish juries at the link then 4 articles down
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/93286
in case an alternative to all volunteer juries is needed.
Eric Matteson
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
unfair involuntary servitude. Experts on the Internet have decided
that there is no reason that jury duty could not be voluntary
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/JUN95/FISCAL.HTM
Eric Matteson
qlangley
duty could possibly be challenged under the 13th amendment, but
volunteer juries do concern me too. As Clay rightly argues, volunteers
may have their own agenda. This was an issue in ancient Athens, where
juries were all volunteer. This was a necessity in Athens, as juries
were usually a minimum of 500 people. This did have one advantage. It
made bribery impractical.
We should not confuse Eric's two points. Challenges do indeed lead to
stacked juries, and I am not at all sure that Clay is right that people
are not challenged for being too educated. Where there is likely to be
disputed forensic evidence, one of the parties may well have an
interest in ensuring there is no-one with scientific or statistical
training on the jury. It could make it much harder to erect
smokescreens.
Reducing the number of challenges, as we have done in the UK, is
probably the least worst option, and thereby giving people genuinely
random juries. It isn't perfect, but I honestly feel it is better than
any alternative.
Quentin Langley
Check out my website and blog: www.quentinlangley.net
ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
13th ammendment was postponed until after 1808 to get the slave
states to vote to ratify the U.S. Constitution.
Eventually, the 13th amendment that seeks to abolish involuntary
servitude (slavery) was ratified.
To actually IMPLEMENT the 13th ammendment it is neccessarry
for voters in the 50 states to convert all 50 states to voluntary
jury systems to comply with the 13th ammendment.
Below is a link to a Jury episode of 7th-Heaven TV show
where Lucy was summonned to jury duty at a bad time for her
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.tv.7th-heaven/browse_frm/thread/27926a5a816ac922/22dcff2cc273b727#22dcff2cc273b727
Another problem with the U.S. compulsory jury duty system is that most
jurrors are poor people who lack the ability to get the paperwork
done to get excused from jury duty. In california it is getting harder
for poor and middle class people to get excused and poor jurrors
who do not even want to be there are not afraid of being fired from
the jury and may take a chance and accept a bribe.
If the states in the United States changed to an all volunteer
jury system where volunteer jurors were proud to serve their
country bribery would be a lot harder. Thanks for bringing up
the bribery question.
Are there any smart people out there who could not quite get
excused initially but ended up wasting one day in jury selection
and were rejected because of being too smart and want to reply
to this message with your story ??
..
Eric Matteson ericmatteson...@hotmail.com
Curly Surmudgeon
> In Re: Jury Duty on 12 Jun 2005 08:29:45 -0700, by qlangley, we
> read:
> I believe so.
>
> Random means a random selection from within the jurisdiction of a
> court.
>
> The concept of random juries exists to preclude volunteers or
> stacked juries. But government prefers to draw from select lists
> and stack juries because it improves the government's rate of
> conviction. Convictions ensure job security and makes politicians
> look good.
>
> Another problem in the American system is that of "peers."
> Assuming you have read our 5th amendment, in the US the unspoken
> issue is the definition of peers. Generally a peer is one of
> similar socio-economic background as that of the defendant.
>
> If juries were truly random and truly of peers, some problems in
> the system would diasappear.
Yet another problem are jury instructions which violate the defendants
right for the jury to decide the law, not just the case. Lately the
judiciary have become very aggressive in misinforming juries as to their
power and rights. A jury can even nullify a law should they choose but
judges dismiss any juror who admints knowledge of this fact or disagrees.
-- Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com/documents/bush_lies.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manny Davis
> Yet another problem are jury instructions which violate the defendants
> right for the jury to decide the law, not just the case. Lately the
> judiciary have become very aggressive in misinforming juries as to
> their power and rights. A jury can even nullify a law should they
> choose but judges dismiss any juror who admints knowledge of this fact
> or disagrees.
That problem is easy to work around. Simply keep your mouth
shut regarding the real reasons for your vote.
Curly Surmudgeon
That works as far as being selected but not once in the jury chambers.
Once there you then have to convince 11 people that your understanding of
the Constitution is greater than the Judges.
Even if you pass that hurdle and rule the law unconstitutional for
example, the judge will declare a mistrial.
Manny Davis
news:11brsdn...@corp.supernews.com:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 23:57:50 +0000, Manny Davis wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon <cu...@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yet another problem are jury instructions which violate the
>>> defendants right for the jury to decide the law, not just the case.
>>> Lately the judiciary have become very aggressive in misinforming
>>> juries as to their power and rights. A jury can even nullify a law
>>> should they choose but judges dismiss any juror who admints
>>> knowledge of this fact or disagrees.
>>
>> That problem is easy to work around. Simply keep your mouth
>> shut regarding the real reasons for your vote.
>
> That works as far as being selected but not once in the jury chambers.
It works to hang the jury.
Curly Surmudgeon
Or the judge. <grin>