Is jury duty "involuntary servitude" and thus unconstitutional??
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
And yet the govt FORCES you to serve on a jury!!!.
DarkProtoman
Unless, of course, you do what we all do and use fast talking to get
out...
Karen
And sometimes the govt enforces the draft, too.
Karen
Finis MacGuiness
Since throwing the summons away and keeping your mouth shut about it,
is a 100% effective cure for this problem, the servitude can hardly be
considered "involuntary".
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
message news:13f2lqb...@corp.supernews.com...
Actually all they can do is force you to show up for the jury duty pool.
I had to go to the district court just last week for the jury pool. There
were a total of 25 people called and they needed an 8 person jury. I was
questioned in the first and only group to be called up but I was not chosen
for the jury.
I would have been extremely surprised if I had been chosen since I am a
chemical engineer. I have never known any engineer, and I know hundreds of
engineers, that ever got called up to actually serve on the jury.
johns
Constitutional right not to vote.
johns
Joe S.
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:13f2lqb...@corp.supernews.com...
If you receive a jury summons, and if you can't get out of it, you're too
damn dumb to be on the jury in the first place.
No one is forced to serve on a jury.
Now, go wash your face and hands -- Mommy has dinner on the table.
reinhardt
The whole point of asking citizens to serve on a jury is to give the
prospective juror(s) the sense that the 3rd branch is not as corrupt
as the other two.
It works.
The reason there are 3 branches of government is because two branches
are not enough.. to cover-up enterprise corruption.
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
news:t9o2f3tpuq71kf6md...@4ax.com...
That's not how it happens here. We had to show up in the jury pool room
by 8:30 AM and the court didn't start until 10:00 AM. They told us the
reason we had to be there 90 minutes before court opened was that if a
person who was summoned didn't show, that gave the sheriff time to go get
them and bring them in.
GeekBoy
"Rita Refugee" <Rita oneword Ref...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:zFdIi.112103$pu2....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Yea they say that, but I throw mine away. Nobody ever came looking for me.
There is a thing in the US called "due process"
Just sending a letter in the mail telling you to appear is hardly due
process.
>
GeekBoy
"johns" <john...@moscow.com> wrote in message
news:1190224966.0...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> No. Jury duty is punishment for voting. It is your
> Constitutional right not to vote.
>
> johns
Most states have eliminated that.
>
GeekBoy
"Karen" <kso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1190222255.4...@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
And name one person who has been proscecuted for avoiding it.
> Karen
>
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> 'no'. I am excused at the next recess.
You try that and you'll find yourself in a lot of trouble. Courts do not
tolerate frivolous excuses to avoid jury duty.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
>>
>
>
> And name one person who has been proscecuted for avoiding it.
I can't give any names, but it does happen. I remember reading about a
case of jury avoidance just a couple months back.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
>>
>>
>
> Yea they say that, but I throw mine away. Nobody ever came looking for me.
> There is a thing in the US called "due process"
> Just sending a letter in the mail telling you to appear is hardly due
> process.
I've done that in the past and then a week later i get another summons.
GeekBoy
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:13f2vss...@corp.supernews.com...
And its just as worthless and will remain so until the court actually takes
action and does proper due process.
Sending a law enforement officer out to hand you the process after it has
been signed by a judge would a good start.
GeekBoy
And probably wont go anywhere
Have a refernce for the case?
NadCixelsyd
Deadrat
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
In Illinois, failure to obey a jury summons for no good cause is grounds
for contempt. No prosecution would be required.
>> Karen
Angry Dave
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:13f2lqb...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Amendment 13 says:
>
> > "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
> > crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
> > the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
>
> > And yet the govt FORCES you to serve on a jury!!!.
>
> If you receive a jury summons, and if you can't get out of it, you're too
> damn dumb to be on the jury in the first place.
True ... sadly enough. I used to say that I hope I never find myself
in a position where my life is in the hands of 12 people too stupid to
get out of jury duty. Upon reflection though.... with a decent lawyer,
maybe I do.
The other half of that coin, however, is that lawyers usually will not
select you for a jury if you have half a brain, or any opinion on
anything, or use logic, or can think for yourself. So we are back to
12 stupid people.
David Johnston
No, you moron. It isn't unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled
back in World War I that even the military draft isn't slavery.
GeekBoy
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:1CfIi.4976$Sd4....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
To be found in contempt, one has to be under the jurisdiction of a court.
Someone who never stepped foot in a court room cannot be found in "contempt"
>
>>> Karen
GeekBoy
"David Johnston" <da...@block.net> wrote in message
news:t583f3d6se5p3g8hb...@4ax.com...
Cites on those cases?
Deadrat
news:46f1acbf$0$16506$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
It doesn't (and I didn't) say *found* in contempt. It's *grounds* for
contempt. The judge could send the bailiff for you, haul your ass into
court (where you'd better believe you'll be in the court's jurisdiction)
and ask you for your good cause for not complying with the jury summons.
Have a good answer ready.
I don't know if it actually happens, but that's the law.
>>
>>>> Karen
>
David Johnston
Arver v. United States, defined the military draft as something
different from slavery in 1918.
J.E.B. v. Alabama fairly recently, gave a ruling based on the
interpretation that the 6th amendment mandated a representative
sampling of the population in the area. And of course the sampling
won't be representative if it consists only of people with a
particular interest in trials.
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
Expressing your true feelings isn't frivolous. One of the questions I
was asked when called for jury duty last week was if I would be able, at the
end of the trial if chosen, to accept the judges explanation of the law and
then base our verdict on her explanation. I could have honestly spoken up
and expressed my opinion that once the case goes to the jury, the jury is
free to accept or reject the judges explanation, but I didn't because I was
curious to see how the process worked for as long as possible.
I am firmly of the belief that if the jury disagrees with the law
itself, they can acquit even if they believe that the defendant was guilty
as defined by the law.
Larry
"GeekBoy" <ge...@boy.com> wrote:
Do you really think this is the case?
Larry
What if you believe the defendant was technically innocent under the
letter of the law, but did something so heinous that he should be
convicted anyway?
GeekBoy
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-8FA27A.21...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
Nope. I know it to be.
GeekBoy
Sure.. Sending a letter is no due process.
Groovy
GeekBoy
Thanks. I will read up on them.
Larry
"GeekBoy" <ge...@boy.com> wrote:
I know of people tried (and sentenced) in absentia. They'd say
otherwise, if you visit them in prison (since they've subsequently been
found and immediately been sent to prison)
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
If the government isn't prosecuting them for the correct crime, then too
bad for the government.
Did you ever see the movie, "The Star Chamber" with Hal Holbrook and
Michael Douglas? Although I disliked the ending, the idea of something like
that existing for the situations you describe would not be completely
unfavorable to me.
reinhardt
wrote:
> "Finis MacGuiness" <f...@666aol.com> wrote in message
the state-media is threatening the observers in Atlanta with the jury
duty or punishment thing
the state media says taxes must be paid as well or punishment will
follow
who does one believe?
reinhardt
> back in World War I that even the military draft isn't slavery.
think about the above statement for a while
Mitchell Holman
news:1190256833.8...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
State media?
David Johnston
And what?
jo...@phred.org
says...
> Since throwing the summons away and keeping your mouth shut about it,
> is a 100% effective cure for this problem, the servitude can hardly be
> considered "involuntary".
One of my insurance clients moved to Washington State from New York.
New York apparently didn't get the word -- when she didn't show up for
jury duty more than a year after moving out of the state, the first she
heard of it was when they tracked her down with notice of extradition
proceedings.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
muzic...@yahoo.com
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Amendment 13 says:
>
> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
>
> And yet the govt FORCES you to serve on a jury!!!.
I believe there's also something in there about being tried before a
jury of your peers. The fact that I believe most of my "peers" to
have the brains of an autistic orangutan and I shudder at the prospect
of my life being in their hands aside, how else would you propose they
do it?
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
The court has also ruled there is a constitutional right to abortion and
that vote recounts are unconstitutional. Anyway the issue here is jury
duty. Address that, you hatefilled repulsive loon.
Deadrat
$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
And who says it is? The bailiff won't march you to jail. He'll march
you in front of the judge. And then march you to jail.
> Groovy
Groovy?
*us*
>... I am a
>chemical engineer ...
Well, you have a meth lab in your trailer, anyway.
mm
MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Amendment 13 says:
>
>"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
>crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
>within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
>
>And yet the govt FORCES you to serve on a jury!!!.
And what about forcing chidren in school to do -- I forget what they
call it -- community service?
I don't think sitting in school and learning, or not, or doing
homework was considered involuntary servitude by the writers of the
13th Amendment, but I don't know how one can get past forcing children
to do work in place of what would have been one of the classes before
work was introduced.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
lora...@cs.com
<xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Amendment 13 says:
>
> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
>
> And yet the govt FORCES you to serve on a jury!!!.
Ummm.. the nation is in debt, the economy is falling down around your
ears, nukes are being loaded onboard B-52s, an endless horde of
unknowns is crossing the US border on a daily basis, US government
legislators seem to be under attack by flocks of demonic soul-stealing
entities..
There's island nations that are being covered by rising water, 1/3 of
all species on this planet are under threat of extinction, 21st
century society is still hooked on cartelled dinosaur jice, your
baby's gnawing on communist chinese poisoned toys...
And you obsess about demonstrating civic responsibilty once a year?
David Johnston
MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:07:19 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
>> MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Amendment 13 says:
>>>
>>> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
>>> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
>>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
>>>
>>> And yet the govt FORCES you to serve on a jury!!!.
>>
>> No, you moron. It isn't unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled
>> back in World War I that even the military draft isn't slavery.
>
>The court has also ruled there is a constitutional right to abortion
So?
and
>that vote recounts are unconstitutional.
No, it didn't.
Anyway the issue here is jury
>duty.
Which is covered by the 6th amendment, twit. The right to a jury
trial means that it can not be dependant on the willingness of people
to volunteer.
GeekBoy
Maybe in other countries, or AFTER they have apeared ing court, but
otherwise that won't happen.
GeekBoy
If there is no arrest warrant, then that baliff will certainly have a
serious problem
Deadrat
news:46f2a212$0$17134$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
And who do you think issues the arrest warrant? Do you suppose it's the
judge who thinks you're in contempt?
<snip>
>>>>>>>> Karen
mm
>On Sep 19, 1:07 pm, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Amendment 13 says:
>>
>> "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for
>> crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist
>> within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
>>
>> And yet the govt FORCES you to serve on a jury!!!.
>
>
>I believe there's also something in there about being tried before a
>jury of your peers. The fact that I believe most of my "peers" to
>have the brains of an autistic orangutan
Check out www.itao.org the Instutute for the Treatment of Autism in
Orangutans. There has been a lot of progress made on that. It uses a
mixture of public and private funding. Like Gaulladet college,
control has finally been turned over to the orangutans themselves, and
this has had the side effect of opening up a lot of other funding
avenues, from wealthy orangutans. Specifically, the orangutan who
starred in the Smokey and the Bear movies, and the one who had a
continuing role on the soap opera Passions, have each contributed 10's
of millions of dollars.
>and I shudder at the prospect
>of my life being in their hands aside, how else would you propose they
>do it?
AIUI, when different parts of the Constitution conflict, the more
recent one takes precedence. So the 13th should overrule all that
precedes it. :)
GeekBoy
And warrants are issued for allegelly a crime that has been committed, with
witnesses and / or evidence to back those claims up.
Little hard to do either of those with just a letter out that says "come to
court."
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>>>> Karen
>
Deadrat
news:46f306fa$0$18928$4c36...@roadrunner.com:
Do I have to type slower? Is that it? If not, tell me what I need to do
to make this clear to you.
The jury summons is a demand that your show up at the court house.
That's all it is. Nobody is saying it's anything else. If you choose to
ignore the jury summons, I'm guessing that probably nothing will happen.
On the other hand, the clerk could report your absence to the presiding
judge who could send the bailiff to pick you up on a charge of contempt.
If your state requires an arrest warrant for civil contempt, I'm sure
that's no hill for a climber. You will be brought before the judge. If
you have good cause to present explaining your absence, and the judge
believes you, you're off the hook. Otherwise you could go to jail.
Does that do it for you? Is it clear that a jury summons isn't a go-
directly-to-jail card?
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Karen
>>
>
>
Larry
"GeekBoy" <ge...@boy.com> wrote:
Nope, here in the United States. After they've been TOLD to appear in
court, but not always after they've done so.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
But if they paid a decent salary they'd get plenty of jurors. Pay out
say, $150 a day and the govt wouldn't have to force anyone to be on a
jury and the issue would vanish. THINK
Larry
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David Johnston wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:47:29 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers are
> > MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Anyway the issue here is jury
> >> duty.
> >
> > Which is covered by the 6th amendment, twit. The right to a jury
> > trial means that it can not be dependant on the willingness of people
> > to volunteer.
>
> But if they paid a decent salary they'd get plenty of jurors. Pay out
> say, $150 a day and the govt wouldn't have to force anyone to be on a
> jury and the issue would vanish. THINK
Where do you think this $150 per day would come from? Do you want your
taxes raised to cover it?
Kent W¡lls
You're correct in that the problem would very likely go away.
However, it raises another. Just how would you suggest the $150.00 a
day get paid? Do you know of a few hundred million dollars hidden
away somewhere to cover the cost?
--
Kent
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
tjab
Think how much money we could save if we made prosecutors work for free.
Larry
wrote:
"Made" it happen? Who would do the job?
*us*
>Where do you think this $150 per day would come from? Do you want your
>taxes raised to cover it?
If we as taxpayers weren't being robbed to enrich
energy and war profiteers, we could afford that
and even more appropriate civic functions, such
as actual vote counting.
Prospective jurors should all know about the history
and implications of jury nullification.
*us*
> You're correct in that the problem would very likely go away.
>However, it raises another. Just how would you suggest the $150.00 a
>day get paid? Do you know of a few hundred million dollars hidden
>away somewhere to cover the cost?
That much was dissipated to the profiteers' illegal invasion,
probably in the time it took you to read the post and then
type out your followup.
As American bridges collapse ...
tjab
Well, you, of course. Unless you'd prefer to be jailed for contempt.
Kent W¡lls
(tjab) wrote:
This has got to be one of the stupidest, if not THE stupidest
comments you've ever made.
--
Kent
Ethernet (n): Something used to catch the etherbunny.
Larry
wrote:
Better me than you, but I could quit whenever I wanted to.
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
message news:13fedh8...@corp.supernews.com...
$150 a day is chump change. As a retiree, I am making the equivalent of
$62 an hour if I was working a 40 hour week.
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
news:fd7eec$n...@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
Think how cheap healthcare would be if we made all medical workers work
for free.
tjab
I'm beginning to think Larry's advocacy for unpaid (to all intents and
purposes) jury duty is a tad socialistic.
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
Your response has me confused. Unless you are seeing responses that are
not coming through on my newsreader, I don't see Larry advocating for that
at all.
Kent Wills
<Rita oneword Ref...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Where do you think this $150 per day would come from? Do you want your
>>>taxes raised to cover it?
>>
>> Think how much money we could save if we made prosecutors work for free.
>
> Think how cheap healthcare would be if we made all medical workers work
>for free.
Maybe *everything* should be free. :)
--
Kent
Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
Kent Wills
<Rita oneword Ref...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>>>>
>>>> Think how much money we could save if we made prosecutors work for free.
>>>
>>> Think how cheap healthcare would be if we made all medical workers
>>> work
>>>for free.
>>
>> I'm beginning to think Larry's advocacy for unpaid (to all intents and
>> purposes) jury duty is a tad socialistic.
>
> Your response has me confused. Unless you are seeing responses that are
>not coming through on my newsreader, I don't see Larry advocating for that
>at all.
>
The more you read of tjab's posts, the more you'll notice he
makes stuff up as he goes along.
--
Kent
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.
Kent Wills
<Rita oneword Ref...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>> But if they paid a decent salary they'd get plenty of jurors. Pay out
>> say, $150 a day and the govt wouldn't have to force anyone to be on a jury
>> and the issue would vanish. THINK
>
> $150 a day is chump change.
How do you propose to raise the money to pay every juror
$150.00 a day?
>As a retiree, I am making the equivalent of
>$62 an hour if I was working a 40 hour week.
Suddenly I want to retire early :)
--
Kent
Nott was shot and Shott was not.
In this case, it's better to be Shott than Nott.
RHR
Ref...@gmail.com> wrote:
It isn't the money, it is what you do on the job. A juror in a
European trial has something more interesting to do than decide who
has a better lawyer. In France, for example, the jury is always
present during the trial. Nothing is considered too sacred for their
ears. The lawyers have to hand in their cases, in writing, ahead of
time and the three judges investigate the claims made by both sides by
calling and doing the main questioning of witnesses. The jurors,
lawyers, defendant, family of the victim, are allowed one question at
a time, in round robin fashion.
RHR
oneword Refugee@gmail.com Rita Refugee
news:co5jf3lltl4en9qum...@4ax.com...
> As I understand it, on Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:36:36 -0500, "Rita Refugee"
> <Rita oneword Ref...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> But if they paid a decent salary they'd get plenty of jurors. Pay out
>>> say, $150 a day and the govt wouldn't have to force anyone to be on a
>>> jury
>>> and the issue would vanish. THINK
>>
>> $150 a day is chump change.
>
> How do you propose to raise the money to pay every juror
> $150.00 a day?
I wasn't. I was just telling S&DDaM that $150 a day isn't as much as he
seemed t be suggesting when he indicated that for that amount people would
be volunteering for jury duty.
Larry
wrote:
I have never, ever advocated unpaid jury service.
Larry
I didn't. Tjab (frequently) lies. He doesn't like me.
tjab
By "to all intents and purposes," I mean, say, anything below the
minimum wage.
Larry
wrote:
Should we pay people to vote, too? And for the time they spend filling
out their tax returns? Heck, lets pay people just for the time they
spend following the law, why not? Free money!
Bill Shroyer
simply state that you do not want to serve and that if selected to
serve, you will refuse to render a verdict? Or can they put you in
jail for something like that?
*us*
Just ask them lengthy, detailed questions about jury nullification.
Deadrat
news:jfulf3t133tov3na4...@4ax.com:
Can you say "contempt of court"? The judge can.
Bill Shroyer
I didn't know if that would qualify as being in contempt of court or
not. Is the court considered "in session" while jurors are being
interviewed?
Either way, I can't fathom that it would be too difficult to eliminate
one's self from the jury pool if one is creative with their answers.
:-)
Deadrat
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:44:57 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill Shroyer <BillS...@Pittsburgh.com> wrote in
>> news:jfulf3t133tov3na4...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > With jury duty when they are questioning the jurors, can you not
>> > simply state that you do not want to serve and that if selected to
>> > serve, you will refuse to render a verdict? Or can they put you in
>> > jail for something like that?
>>
>> Can you say "contempt of court"? The judge can.
>
> I didn't know if that would qualify as being in contempt of court or
> not.
You're speculating about what would happen if you refuse to perform the
duties of a juror when you're called upon to do so. And you don't think
that would qualify as contempt. Really?
> Is the court considered "in session" while jurors are being interviewed?
Take a guess. Hint: it's called voir dire.
> Either way, I can't fathom that it would be too difficult to eliminate
> one's self from the jury pool if one is creative with their answers.
>:-)
But you can't even get a possessive pronoun to agree with its antecedent.
Just think how much trouble you'd have with a judge.
tjab
Voting is optional, thus voluntary.
Income tax is covered in the Constitution.
Bill Shroyer
> Bill Shroyer <BillS...@Pittsburgh.com> wrote in
> news:gucmf3hh964ddk85n...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:44:57 GMT, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Shroyer <BillS...@Pittsburgh.com> wrote in
> >> news:jfulf3t133tov3na4...@4ax.com:
> >>
> >> > With jury duty when they are questioning the jurors, can you not
> >> > simply state that you do not want to serve and that if selected to
> >> > serve, you will refuse to render a verdict? Or can they put you in
> >> > jail for something like that?
> >>
> >> Can you say "contempt of court"? The judge can.
> >
> > I didn't know if that would qualify as being in contempt of court or
> > not.
>
> You're speculating about what would happen if you refuse to perform the
> duties of a juror when you're called upon to do so. And you don't think
> that would qualify as contempt. Really?
I believe the words I used, as you can see, were, "I didn't know..." I
wasn't 100% sure. :-)
> > Is the court considered "in session" while jurors are being interviewed?
>
> Take a guess. Hint: it's called voir dire.
Never heard of it before now, but thanks for letting me know. :-)
>
> > Either way, I can't fathom that it would be too difficult to eliminate
> > one's self from the jury pool if one is creative with their answers.
> >:-)
>
> But you can't even get a possessive pronoun to agree with its antecedent.
> Just think how much trouble you'd have with a judge.
Twatever, prick. :-)
Deadrat
And you mean that in only the most flattering way, I'm sure.
Emoticons are no substitute for logical argument or for research.
You don't have to know legal terms of art to suspect that judges are
empowered to make participants in their courts follow procedure. Armed
with that suspicion, you might have used Google to seach for the pharse
"jury selection." 163,000 of the results contain the words "voir dire."
And then you wouldn't have embarrassed yourself. I don't use emoticons,
but perhaps you could suggest an appropriate one to employ here.
Larry
wrote:
So is the right to having jurors at your trial. Wanna try again?
tjab
I also have the right to have a lawyer represent me. Does that mean
the court can send you a letter telling you that you have to represent
me for free?
David Johnston
>>> Income tax is covered in the Constitution.
>>
>>So is the right to having jurors at your trial. Wanna try again?
>
>I also have the right to have a lawyer represent me. Does that mean
>the court can send you a letter telling you that you have to represent
>me for free?
No, he has a right to minimally competent legal representation. And
yes, judges can and have forced lawyers to take pro bono cases when
there was no public defenders office to take up the slack for an
indigent defendant.
Larry
wrote:
Actually, yes. Not me as a prosecutor, but most private attorneys.
It's in the bar rules and regulations of most states that attorneys may
be called upon to do pro bono work representing indigent parties in
various kinds of litigation.
Wanna try again?
Larry
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
Tjab again speaks on a topic he knows nothing about.
tjab
In those states it is a condition of joining the bar, which is a
voluntary act.
I suspect it is pretty rare these days. I don't think it happens
at all in NYC, for example.
Larry
wrote:
Well, that shows how little you know. It happens with regularity.
tjab
About the NYC court system? I'll cop to that.
> It happens with regularity.
Lawyers made to work for free? NYC doesn't have a public defender's office?
That does surprise me. Documentation? What is the selection process?
Nevertheless, if it is a condition of joining the bar, joining the bar
is a voluntary act, thus it is not involuntary servitude.
Larry
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As was fortold by the sage, on Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:34:35 -0400, Larry
> <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> >Actually, yes. Not me as a prosecutor, but most private attorneys.
> >> >It's in the bar rules and regulations of most states that attorneys may
> >> >be called upon to do pro bono work representing indigent parties in
> >> >various kinds of litigation.
> >>
> >> In those states it is a condition of joining the bar, which is a
> >> voluntary act.
> >>
> >> I suspect it is pretty rare these days. I don't think it happens
> >> at all in NYC, for example.
> >
> >Well, that shows how little you know. It happens with regularity.
>
> Isn't there a department, for want of a better word, of public
> defenders that would make requiring a private attorney to work as a PD
> unnecessary? Or is it that the demand so outweighs the supply that it
> has become necessary to require private attorneys to act as PDs?
There are several such agencies, with The Legal Aid Society being the
biggest in NYC. But there are plenty of cases they cannot or do not
handle - for example, it would be a conflict for them to represent more
than one defendant in the same case (without a waiver), defendants in
cases where they've previously represented the victim or a witness (in
another criminal case, or even in a civil matter), or defendants in
different but related cases (for example, someone arrested for being in
possession of drugs as well as the person arrested for selling the
drugs).
Larry
wrote:
Then don't make posts in which you claim to know how it works.
>
> > It happens with regularity.
>
> Lawyers made to work for free? NYC doesn't have a public defender's office?
Actually, it doesn't have an "office." It does, however, have several
contracts with various agencies, the LEgal Aid Society being the
biggest, to take on this task.
> That does surprise me. Documentation? What is the selection process?
Look at my response to Kent's post for the "documentation." It should
be quite apparent to anyone who knows anything about the law that the
same public defender agency/office/whatever you want to call it cannot
possibly represent all of the indigent defendants.
> Nevertheless, if it is a condition of joining the bar, joining the bar
> is a voluntary act, thus it is not involuntary servitude.
Neither is jury duty, but you can't move past that point.
Larry
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
I guess you can't get past this, tjab. Not surprising.
tjab
You are arguing that serving on a jury is voluntary?
Larry
wrote:
Try to keep up with YOUR OWN arguments, tjab. You claimed it was
"involuntary servitude." It isn't.
tjab
So you are arguing that it is neither voluntary nor involuntary?