Called for Jury Duty..

Citizen · Aug 13, 2011

DCR said:
SNIP Not being willing to live by the laws your elected representatives have enacted is sedition and treason - how you feel about yourselves now?

Oh! Some lawyer you must be. Sedition and treason have definitions. Neither fit being unwilling to live by the laws of elected representatives. Oh, noes! Anyone who ever wanted to repeal a law is a traitor! And a seditionist, to boot! Hang them! Hang them!

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaahaaa!!

FIJA Freak

Citizen · Aug 13, 2011

DCR said:
SNIP You clearly don't understand trial dynamics - good attorneys ask the jury during voir dire (before the trial, for the FIJA freaks) whether they can and will abide by the instructions that will be given by the judge. The FIJA freaks that don't like jury instructions haven't read thoroughly what I wrote or have a warped, misguided and simplistic, sophistic understanding of history and jurisprudence. Go back to school, fools!

Oh? Then, if jurors don't have the power to judge the law, why are trial attorneys so concerned about it? Thank you for confessing its existence and legal attempts to quash it.

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa!

FIJA Freak

By the way, what is all this naked, high-octane hostility? You seem to be working pretty hard to discredit jury nullification, showing far more hostility than needed for a mere scholarly refutation of a right. Is there something you're not telling us? Something you'd rather we didn't know about?

Citizen · Aug 13, 2011

DCR said:
SNIP Quoting dicta out of context is not refutation of what I've asserted.

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa!!

That's right, its our job to show your assertions are wrong, rather than you provide cites showing the jury power to judge the law was legislated out of existence.

As to your nasty little discussion about needing a soft cushion and Preparation H, you must have missed the little problem out west earlier this year when jury nullification set in before the jury was even empanelled. The prosecution, during voir dire, couldn't find enough jurors from the pool who were not against the law. The prosecution gave up. This was not a case of a few jurors on a jury. This was the prosecution being unable to find twelve from the entire jury pool.

FIJA Freak

Citizen · Aug 13, 2011

DCR said:
SNIP If the moderators of this board want to keep it even remotely credible for the users, they would be well-served to block such users, or make the background of such posts bright yellow so everyone can know it was written by a whacko.

What? Are you running for a judgeship somewhere?

Remotely creditable? Oh, my.

Lotsa unnecessary heat in your recent posts. Exaggeration. Hyper-hyperbole. Marking posts to identify cranks (says a lot about your belief in the ability of your fellow man to identify ideas you don't like). I don't think we're the whackos. But, I'll wear the label for a bit.

FIJA Freaking Whacko

Bwahahahahahahahaahahaaa!!

We-the-People · Aug 14, 2011

Ummmmmmm

Can anyone (like maybe you DCR) cite the law that inflicts ANY penalty upon a juror who walks into deliberations and, disregarding the FACTS and the LAW that point to the the abolute guilt of the accused (we will assume these FACTS and GUILT for the benefit of discussion) votes with his conscious (or whatever other reason) to AQUIT?

I didn't think so.

As a Juror our DUTY is to listen and view the evidence presented and do WHATS RIGHT and that may not always be what the law, the judge, public opinion, or the raskly lawyers say.

Been there, DONE THAT (public opinion) and stood my ground....along with 7 other jurors who were absolutely floored that 3 jurors voted against the defendant (in a civil trial) because "he has insurance and it won't hurt him, those poor people lost everything". The small town was pissed about the verdict but WE DID THE RIGHT THING in convincing two of those 3 jurors that that wasn't the right reason.

Now that was a matter of going against public opinion but it's the same thing when it's going against an unjust law or screwed up jury instruction.

And jury instructions are NOT everything the defense and the prosecution wants put in them. Judges routinely deny any instructions that explain the TRUE duties of a juror.

signed

FIJA Freak #2

VW_Factor · Aug 14, 2011

Simply to me, to follow "the directions given from a lawyer" as you well know, they are a bit biased (judges are as well). I am sure people are simply not going to follow the lawyers directions in order to come to a conclusion that the lawyer (or judge) wants.

That is simply ridiculous.

Beyond that, even without the information given. Put on a jury, I would NOT make any decisions I felt were wrong, regardless of directions. I don't see how anyone would be able to live with themselves doing otherwise.

gogodawgs · Aug 14, 2011

DCR said:
Want to get into a d*ck measuring contest? I'll pit my three degrees (yes, one in law), federal and several state bar memberships, and 21 years of practice against any and all of you. You won't win - even if you are OC'ing!

Quoting dicta out of context is not refutation of what I've asserted.

Not being willing to live by the laws your elected representatives have enacted is sedition and treason - how you feel about yourselves now? Stop voting for the idiots you keep electing if you don't like the laws - vote the other party for sh*ts & giggles - you might end up more free!

You clearly don't understand trial dynamics - good attorneys ask the jury during voir dire (before the trial, for the FIJA freaks) whether they can and will abide by the instructions that will be given by the judge. The FIJA freaks that don't like jury instructions haven't read thoroughly what I wrote or have a warped, misguided and simplistic, sophistic understanding of history and jurisprudence. Go back to school, fools!

Finally, quoting federalist papers - written pre-constitution, and claiming they were written a hundred years later doesn't enhance your credibility, bub.

Too many T-holes frequent this board - FIJA freaks, neocon wannabe-constitutionalist "scholars," and the idiots who think they are "freemen" who don't need to pay taxes, register their cars, obtain driver's licenses, purchase liability insurance, misquote sections of the UCC and court decisions, believe that the government is a corporation so they can use the UCC to evade laws duly enacted by the people, think that fringe on a flag deprives a state court of jurisdiction to stuff their freemen attitudes down their throats and force them to abide by the laws everyone else in the world does, that the use of capital letters in a criminal or civil summons renders the whole pleading invalid because of their nonsensical idea that it invokes the UCC, etc., etc., etc.

If the moderators of this board want to keep it even remotely credible for the users, they would be well-served to block such users, or make the background of such posts bright yellow so everyone can know it was written by a whacko.

Good day - and should I ever meet you in court, bring a soft cushion and preparation H - you'll need it, if not from me, from the judge, or the Bubbas you'll be spending time with for contempt of court for bringing in FIJA or other whacko theories.

Quoted for Truth.

You DCR are a fraud.

Jury nullification is a check and balance in our system of government.

My degree is in Constitutional Law.

And I am NOT a FIJA freak.

Ironbar · Aug 14, 2011

VW_Factor said:
Why is it bad to ask questions? Does it offend you, or are you worried others might be offended?

Gee I don't know, because it's been discussed to death on this forum that guns aren't allowed in court buildings, and that as a gun-toting person in the State of Oregon you should have already known that, and that you're a little on the 'noid side for not wanting to be without your precious sidearm for the short amount of time it will take for the attorney's to decide they don't want you on their jury.

As for taking offense- WTF? Would you like turkey bacon on top your haircut ma'am?

VW_Factor · Aug 14, 2011

Ironbar said:
Gee I don't know, because it's been discussed to death on this forum that guns aren't allowed in court buildings *snip*

I am/was perfectly aware that weapons are not allowed into the court buildings. Which is what brought up the question about asking if the courthouse might be equipped to handle checked in weapons.

Otherwise, I wouldn't really want to speculate, but I would be willing to guess that you personally have never had any of your vehicles broken into. Myself, after being victimized a few times, I will do my best to never leave anything of value in my vehicles. I would hate to think about a weapon I own in the hands of criminals doing lord knows what, just because I decided that day it would be prudent to leave it locked in my vehicle. Perhaps you are the type of person that thinks things like this won't happen to them. Which is all well and fine, but I personally am not one of those people. It has happened, and it may just happen again.

Besides the topic of courthouses equipped to handle such things (they do exist, however not the Marion County Courthouse). You seem to really be upset that others might want to ask about it. Is there any particular reason for the attitude, or do you always handle yourself in such a manner?

Freedom First · Aug 14, 2011

Who was it that said, "The law is an ass."? I work with lots of lawyers and it seems to sometimes apply there too.

Maybe that's why all jurors are issued brains to think for themselves and lawyers get offended when the jury thinks for themselves...

I wouldn't ever trust my Freedom solely to a lawyer since most of the folks who have sold this nation out have been or are lawyers. With piles of degrees... I am sure in a dark alley, Jared Loughner wouldn't give a rip about your papers decorating the wall of your office. Thus I carry a firearm, not a lawyer.

BTW, no cites, no truth.

ManInBlack · Aug 14, 2011

DCR said:
Want to get into a d*ck measuring contest? I'll pit my three degrees (yes, one in law), federal and several state bar memberships, and 21 years of practice against any and all of you. You won't win - even if you are OC'ing!

You're still just a butthurt name-caller. Grow up or shut up; the adults are trying to have an intelligent conversation here.

MKEgal · Aug 14, 2011

DCR said:
Not being willing to live by the laws your elected representatives have enacted is sedition and treason

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/
sedition is: incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.

treason is:
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

So elected reps. voting for unconstitutional laws would be sedition (since it would incite discontent & rebellion), as well as definitions 2 & 3 of treason.

Citizens ignoring bad laws don't seem to fit any of those definitions.

good attorneys ask the jury during voir dire... whether they can and will abide by the instructions that will be given by the judge.

How can I know ahead of time? If what the judge says doesn't go against the law, then yes, I would. But if s/he thinks s/he can tell a jury that we don't have the powers we do have, or that we're supposed to ignore or go against a law or right, then no, I won't listen.

So should I lie and say yes, so I can get on a jury & do justice,
or should I be honest & answer as I did above & get tossed out of the jury pool?

BTW, is a "FIJA freak" anything like an "OC freak", other than that they're both citizens who understand & exercise their rights?

evade laws duly enacted by the people

Wait, wait... up to there you said laws were enacted by elected representatives.
Now you say they're enacted by we the people.

make the background of such posts bright yellow so everyone can know it was written by a whacko.

Careful... you seem close to getting colored yourself.

Ironbar said:
you're a little on the 'noid side for not wanting to be without your precious sidearm for the short amount of time it will take for the attorney's [sic] to decide they don't want you on their jury.

Aside from potentially having it stolen from the car,
how about being attacked in the parking lot (or between the courthouse & wherever your transport is),
or stopping at the store or a restaurant on the way to/from?

I know for a fact all of those things have happened:
things being stolen from cars,
people being attacked in parking lots & between the bus station & courthouse,
people being attacked in a store (or its parking lot),
people being attacked in a restaurant (or its parking lot).

It's not paranoid at all to realize that criminals don't limit where they "work",
& want to protect ourselves... because police can't.

Ironbar · Aug 14, 2011

VW_Factor said:
You seem to really be upset that others might want to ask about it. Is there any particular reason for the attitude, or do you always handle yourself in such a manner?

You seem to be making a very poor attempt at baiting someone on an Internet forum. Is there any particular reason for this, or do you always handle yourself in such a manner?

Teddybearfrmhell · Aug 14, 2011

this truly is the most asinine thread hijack i have seen on any forum

Citizen · Aug 14, 2011

Teddybearfrmhell said:
this truly is the most asinine thread hijack i have seen on any forum

It violates ninja code to use words like asinine. Double penalty for spelling them correctly.

Teddybearfrmhell · Aug 14, 2011

Citizen said:
It violates ninja code to use words like asinine. Double penalty for spelling them correctly.

only non ninjas quote the ninja code, real ninjas just do whatever they want.

Citizen · Aug 14, 2011

Teddybearfrmhell said:
only non ninjas quote the ninja code, real ninjas just do whatever they want.

VW_Factor · Aug 15, 2011

/chuckle

Citizen · Aug 16, 2011

Oh, my, oh my, oh my. It turns out Thomas Jefferson was a FIJA freak. Look what I stumbled upon, fellas (emphasis by Citizen):

...It is left therefore to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any biass whatever in any cause, to take upon themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges, and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty. Letter to Arnoux. 1789.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendVIIs13.html

FIJA Freak

Freedom First · Aug 16, 2011

DCR?

::crickets::

Anything brilliant to add to the discussion?

::crickets::

Jeeze.

Called for Jury Duty..

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member