[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

‘Weak little manÂ’: Mark Hamill blasted online after mocking Donald TrumpÂ’s bandaged ear MSNBC host melts down over Biden being asked about his rhetoric, shouts real threat is 'right-wing' extremism Local counter-sniper team was inside building where Trump shooter climbed on the roof and opened fire: sources Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service "BlackRock's Next Plans Will SHOCK THE WORLD" - Whitney Webb's LATEST LARRY FINK EXPOSE "The Trump Shooter Didn't Act Alone" Sniper Dallas Alexander Reveals | Do Not Let the Show They're Putting Up at the White House Break Your Heart - It's a Tactic" "This Is The Final Straw": Musk Announces SpaceX Moving From CA To Texas After Newsom Passes Anti-Parent Gender Law This Is Why I Regret Voting For Joe Biden In 2020: Latina Business Owner Many Substances Used For Food Processing Are Never Listed On Ingredient Labels Palestinians raped and tortured in Israeli detention, says prisoners group Israel strikes five schools in week of massacres "Ordered My First MAGA Hat": Closet Trump Supporters Are Coming Out Of Woodwork After Failed Assassination Attempt WHY? USSS Director Che@tle Admits To Replacing Trumps Permanent Detail With Temporary Agents For Butler Rally Allstate seeks 34% rate hike for California homeowners; State Farm threatens to exit without price increases. 15 Signs American Families Are Flat Broke Why the Replace Biden campaign likely came to an end on Saturday: they no longer believe it even matters Eviction filings surge up to 46% in Sunbelt cities Rubio Exposes Democrat Welfare Scheme Taxpayers Can't Believe This Is Going On ‘Sloping roof’ used by assassin was too dangerous for our agents, says Secret Service chief Sen. Menendez [Dimmycrat] found guilty on all counts in corruption trial He's Baaack! ‘TONE IS CHANGING’: O’Leary says Trump’s VP pick could trigger shift among biz leaders Biden Finally Gives RFK Jr. Secret Service Protection Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle Focused on Hiring Women, Boosting Diversity Russian Army Takes Out Another Ukrainian Train Loaded With Military Equipment Army anti-terror briefing lists pro-life Christians as 'TERRORISTS' Escobar: The Yemen-Russia Riddle Three Time Deported Illegal Alien Charged in Arson Fire, Killed Mother and Two Children Sleeping In Home

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: I JUST WON THE LOTTERY!!!!
Source: none
URL Source: http://none
Published: Jul 17, 2009
Author: X-15
Post Date: 2009-07-17 15:55:55 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 643
Comments: 56

Today I received a juror qualification questionnaire for the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth)!!!

One of the advisories:

"If you do not submit the fully completed questionnaire within ten days, you may be summoned to report, at your expense, to complete the questionnaire at this office. If you fail to appear you may be fined $1,000, imprisoned not more than three days, ordered to perform community service, or any combination thereof."

FedGov really phuked up when they sent that to me, 'cause I'm going to show up and hopefully let off some poor sap who got squeezed by FedGov!!!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.

#1. To: X-15 (#0)

Go baby!!!!!

Wear your best suit and answer the questions the way they want. Get on that panel. When the case goes to deliberation, dead lock the sucker. I don't give a rip what h/she did, dead lock it. There *has* to be reasonable doubt if you look hard enough. Rather than duck these opportunities, lets do the right thing.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2009-07-17   16:10:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Rather than duck these opportunities, lets do the right thing.

My dream is to get on a trial where somebody is exercising their Second Amendment rights against one of the numerous unconstitutional laws that violate the SA.

X-15  posted on  2009-07-17   16:26:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

My dream is to get on a trial where somebody is exercising their Second Amendment rights against one of the numerous unconstitutional laws that violate the SA.

That, or an IRS case. You would have a ball with either.

Lod  posted on  2009-07-17   16:29:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That, or an IRS case. You would have a ball with either.

It has always been one of my dreams to serve as a juror on a tax case. I could either educate the rest of the jurors and turn the innocent loose or, if they refused to be educated, I could still hang 'em. Of course a good gun case would be ok too.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-07-17   16:43:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It has always been one of my dreams to serve as a juror on a tax case. I could either educate the rest of the jurors and turn the innocent loose or, if they refused to be educated, I could still hang 'em. Of course a good gun case would be ok too.

I, too, have that lovely dream.

abraxas  posted on  2009-07-17   16:47:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I got to hang a jury once. And that was on a speeding ticket.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-07-17   16:49:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I got to hang a jury once. And that was on a speeding ticket.

Are you trying to make with green with envy, James?

Were the other jurors all red faced and angry? Or were you able to bring a few around to your point of view?

abraxas  posted on  2009-07-17   17:00:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The other jurors were none too happy with me. Told me they had better things to do. I told them I could be doing other things too but if they had really important things they needed to look after they should have considered that when they were asked if there was any reason why they couldn't serve. And that I could sit there saying not guilty as long as they sat there and said guilty. I asked them if there was any one among them who never had "violated the speed limit(s)" and there wasn't one. I freely admitted that I had too and no doubt would again, but that I would not condemn someone else for doing something I did on a more or less regular basis, at least not when they had not harmed anyone. I told them that if the guy had had an accident and hurt or killed someone else or damaged the property of other people I would be the first one to vote guilty but since the state had not produced a body or injured party I had to conclude that no crime was committed and would vote accordingly. I don't know that I made any friends but I wasn't there trying to win a popularity contest.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-07-17   17:16:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You Da MAN!

Good show!

Axenolith  posted on  2009-07-17   22:46:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You Da MAN!

Good show!

Thank you. I wish the judges were required to tell the jurors one thing and one thing only--that they had the right to judge not only the facts in the case but whether, in their opinion, the law in question is just and reasonable. And that if they didn't believe it was they had the right and the duty to "just say no." Not that any of them will ever willingly do that but it is one of my dreams.

What I have never understood is why it is always presumed that everyone knows "the law" when they are charged with violating one (or more) of what must be hundreds of thousands of "laws" on the books but is automatically assumed to be ignorant of the law when chosen to serve on a jury. Seems the government likes to have it both ways depending on what they perceive to be in the interests of the government and their revenues, etc.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-07-18   10:25:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Thank you. I wish the judges were required to tell the jurors one thing and one thing only--that they had the right to judge not only the facts in the case but whether, in their opinion, the law in question is just and reasonable. And that if they didn't believe it was they had the right and the duty to "just say no." Not that any of them will ever willingly do that but it is one of my dreams.

Wouldn't that be legislating from the bench. Isn't that what we hate about the Supreme Court? Be careful what you wish for...

farmfriend  posted on  2009-07-18   10:39:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Wouldn't that be legislating from the bench.

No, it would not. It would merely be informing the jurors of another right they possess, the right to nullify unjust laws. Ever read Georgia v. Brailsford?

At the time the Constitution was written, the definition of the term "jury" referred to a group of citizens empowered to judge both the law and the evidence in the case before it. Then, in the February term of 1794, the Supreme Court conducted a jury trial in the case of the State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1). The instructions to the jury in the first jury trial before the Supreme Court of the United States illustrate the true power of the jury. Chief Justice John Jay said: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision." (emphasis added) "...you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy".

"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

"For more than six hundred years-- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215--there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law." --Lysander Spooner, The Right of Juries

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence. -- 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, US v Moylan, 1969

Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told that it must accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they can decide only the facts of the case. -- Lord Denham, O'Connell v Rex (1884)

The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. -- Justice Holmes, Homing v District of Columbia, 138 (1920)

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams

Excerpts taken from What lawyers & judges won't tell you about juries

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-07-18   12:03:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#41. To: James Deffenbach (#40)

It would merely be informing the jurors of another right they possess, the right to nullify unjust laws.

Well now that is a different matter. I misunderstood what you were advocating I guess.

farmfriend  posted on  2009-07-18 12:05:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]