Jury Duty

[Hank Hemp]

I've been called twice. Second time told them the story of my back and now I don't have to go back.
The first time was great tho. Armed robbery. Shazzama. It was great, this black guy was robbing 2 other black guys. Just after the one who just cashed his check and copped so reefer while this other boy was with him. They get to the one's first floor appt. and the one, with a pistol forces, his way in. As he comes in the pistol falls apart. Really? The buck puts the gun back together and then continues on with the robbery and gets away. He's arrested later and everybody agrees it's him. Day of the trial only one witness there, the poor working boy who got robbed the one with the appt. who bought the weed, just a poor old working boy. He's the only witness and says he's sure that's him but not 100% sure. I was looking at the punk on trial and he just grinned in to big clothes and jailhouse haircut. Of course we let him walk. Me and this boy who was on the jury too were standing out front of the courtroom wondering why our time and money was wasted, we saw the prosecuting attorney, cops and some shirts. So we waved the down to us and we asked Why? The youngest shirt said that we had just turned loose one of the most violent persisted felons he had ever tried. I asked again why we had been there? He said the boy who was robbed changed his story from 100%. Hell he was thinking that's what he said or meant anyway, he was nervous at the least. The other boy didn't show he was wanted on a bond. Lame case. You could tell they really wanted this punk. Sorry we couldn't help.

 

[bentom187]

I went to one jury duty ,wrote nullification on the back of the questionnaire we were handed out, needless to say I was not picked to be on the jury. It was a murder case, not sure of the background though.
I spent the rest of the day harassing security and sheriffs with questions,its pretty amazing that one guy didn't realize when they (police) hunt people down its under the presumption of guilt and not indictment of a grand jury.

Twelve jurors' votes are required for an indictment.

Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

of course the president keeps on insisting there is always a emergency concerning the public since the civil war,like war on wealth...I mean poverty, drug's, obesity, terror,roads ect.... so good bye 5th amendment.Not to mention war against the states was treason, so lincoln kind of killed the whole constitution and replaced it.

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I almost cant wait to corner a, lawyer judge administrator, with this and other blatant fraud's the next time I go, but I don't think I will be hearing from them again.

Im sure there are people here after reviewing this will think of 1 or 2 ways in which to disqualify judges or perhaps the whole legal system if you are really observant .

"Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court"
And "Disqualification Of Judges, State and Federal"

1. Who is an "officer of the court"?

A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

2. What is "fraud on the court"?

Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

3. What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding?

"Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.
It is also clear and well-settled Illinois law that any attempt to commit "fraud upon the court" vitiates the entire proceeding. The People of the State of Illinois v. Fred E. Sterling, 357 Ill. 354; 192 N.E. 229 (1934) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters applies to judgments as well as to contracts and other transactions."); Allen F. Moore v. Stanley F. Sievers, 336 Ill. 316; 168 N.E. 259 (1929) ("The maxim that fraud vitiates every transaction into which it enters ..."); In re Village of Willowbrook, 37 Ill.App.2d 393 (1962) ("It is axiomatic that fraud vitiates everything."); Dunham v. Dunham, 57 Ill.App. 475 (1894), affirmed 162 Ill. 589 (1896); Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 338 Ill.App. 79, 86 N.E.2d 875, 883-4 (1949); Thomas Stasel v. The American Home Security Corporation, 362 Ill. 350; 199 N.E. 798 (1935).
Under Illinois and Federal law, when any officer of the court has committed "fraud upon the court", the orders and judgment of that court are void, of no legal force or effect.

4. What causes the "Disqualification of Judges?"

Federal law requires the automatic disqualification of a Federal judge under certain circumstances.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "Disqualification is required if an objective observer would entertain reasonable questions about the judge's impartiality. If a judge's attitude or state of mind leads a detached observer to conclude that a fair and impartial hearing is unlikely, the judge must be disqualified." [Emphasis added]. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1162 (1994).
Courts have repeatedly held that positive proof of the partiality of a judge is not a requirement, only the appearance of partiality. Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 108 S.Ct. 2194 (1988) (what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance); United States v. Balistrieri, 779 F.2d 1191 (7th Cir. 1985) (Section 455(a) "is directed against the appearance of partiality, whether or not the judge is actually biased.") ("Section 455(a) of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §455(a), is not intended to protect litigants from actual bias in their judge but rather to promote public confidence in the impartiality of the judicial process.").
That Court also stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989). In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."
The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954). A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding, does not give the appearance of justice.
"Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
Further, the judge has a legal duty to disqualify himself even if there is no motion asking for his disqualification. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals further stated that "We think that this language [455(a)] imposes a duty on the judge to act sua sponte, even if no motion or affidavit is filed." Balistrieri, at 1202.
Judges do not have discretion not to disqualify themselves. By law, they are bound to follow the law. Should a judge not disqualify himself as required by law, then the judge has given another example of his "appearance of partiality" which, possibly, further disqualifies the judge. Should another judge not accept the disqualification of the judge, then the second judge has evidenced an "appearance of partiality" and has possibly disqualified himself/herself. None of the orders issued by any judge who has been disqualified by law would appear to be valid. It would appear that they are void as a matter of law, and are of no legal force or effect.
Should a judge not disqualify himself, then the judge is violation of the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. United States v. Sciuto, 521 F.2d 842, 845 (7th Cir. 1996) ("The right to a tribunal free from bias or prejudice is based, not on section 144, but on the Due Process Clause.").
Should a judge issue any order after he has been disqualified by law, and if the party has been denied of any of his / her property, then the judge may have been engaged in the Federal Crime of "interference with interstate commerce". The judge has acted in the judge's personal capacity and not in the judge's judicial capacity. It has been said that this judge, acting in this manner, has no more lawful authority than someone's next-door neighbor (provided that he is not a judge). However some judges may not follow the law.
If you were a non-represented litigant, and should the court not follow the law as to non-represented litigants, then the judge has expressed an "appearance of partiality" and, under the law, it would seem that he/she has disqualified him/herself.
However, since not all judges keep up to date in the law, and since not all judges follow the law, it is possible that a judge may not know the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court and the other courts on this subject. Notice that it states "disqualification is required" and that a judge "must be disqualified" under certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court has also held that if a judge wars against the Constitution, or if he acts without jurisdiction, he has engaged in treason to the Constitution. If a judge acts after he has been automatically disqualified by law, then he is acting without jurisdiction, and that suggest that he is then engaging in criminal acts of treason, and may be engaged in extortion and the interference with interstate commerce.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference with interstate commerce are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.

I have no oath or fiduciary responsibility to the CQV corporate trust,they can send all the proceeds to me the rightfull owner of the inheritance and living breathing beneficiary.

If a Trust can't drive a car then why are you suing my Trust
[YOUTUBEIF]UjtaAMbvGU4[/YOUTUBEIF]

continued (horrible audio)
Judge I appointed you Judge as my damn Trustee so act like it
[YOUTUBEIF]PpjBRUYl3ek[/YOUTUBEIF]


CQV Cestui Que Vie Trust -- Appointing the Judge Trustee in New
[YOUTUBEIF]gQ0Y_jjlCTQ[/YOUTUBEIF]


Cestui Que Vie Act 1666

1666 CHAPTER 11 18 and 19 Cha 2
IV. If the supposed dead Man prove to be alive, then the Title is revested. Action for mean Profits with Interest

 

[yortbogey]

I've been called for duty next week...... fricking/fracking/frucking/fuckerz ....

my notice only said no weapons, or food... including knitting needles....

I'm going to roll in w/ full blown stroller...diaper bag... and one year old daughter carrying her own backpack of toys and snacks...I am her daily sitter while mom works....

hope they send me and her home....if not, i wonder how they will fell about me checking post on icmag.....

next week is our weather will not break the freezing level , w/ single digit temps @ night...

my luck it will be a multi week murder trial....

 

[gaiusmarius]

dude you might be able to safe a grower with the jury annulment procedure if you feel the man is inocent of any wrong doing you can say not guilty even if he was guilty of growing for example. or lets say a father kills someone who hurt his kids, the jurry can say not guilty if they disagree that he should be punished. pls read up on jury annulment and use the power that is given. it's a power much more powerful then even the ballot box. because it makes you the ultimate judge as juror in a case. the judge can do nothing what so ever about it if you decide not to agree with his guilty guidance.

 

[supermanlives]

I have thrown away several letters . I know I would just get disqualified anyhow so I don't waste my time. if I thought there was a chance in hell I would make the cut I would go.

 

[Tudo]

Hypothetically speaking I was sentenced to 8 years, 5 in correctional, consecutive 3 in state prison for 1500lbs in one of the enlightened northern states which is now legal medicinally 30 years later.

Despite the prison sentence I was always under the impression that the charges ( at that time ) were high misdemeanor and not a felony. When I was called for jury duty years ago I called the clerk of the court and we had a lengthy discussion about this and she told me the mere fact I used the term high misdemeanor she would go ahead and have me on the jury. Apparently it's such an old case there's no way to verify??

Can you imagine the fun we would have had if I actually served and a pot case came up ?

 

[LazLo]

I hold the record for jury summons!!! 9 times in 23 years!!! Never served but did get out of work each time.

Had a hissy fit the last time. Got to speak with a county commissioner and got off the merry go round forever.

Never even heard of another person being called more than 3 times in their life!!!!!

My county has larger population than some states so there is NO reason for me to have been summoned so often. Voter lists AND drivers licenses are used for jury summons.

 

[Stoner4Life]

I've been called for duty next week...... fricking/fracking/frucking/fuckerz ....

my notice only said no weapons, or food... including knitting needles....

I'm going to roll in w/ full blown stroller...diaper bag... and one year old daughter carrying her own backpack of toys and snacks...I am her daily sitter while mom works....

hope they send me and her home....if not, i wonder how they will fell about me checking post on icmag.....

next week is our weather will not break the freezing level , w/ single digit temps @ night...

my luck it will be a multi week murder trial....

complain of chronic back pain as to why you can't sit on a jury, when they're (both sides) questioning potential jurors fidget uncomfortably in your seat & look distracted, you will be dismissed.......


EDIT:
Washington state right???

How 'bout this if ya got a set of nuts. Ask the DA or ADA if your use of medicinal marijuana is OK.

And don't neglect any opportunity to inquire about jury nullification.

The DA will personally see to it that you're NEVER called up again.

 

[supermanlives]

you can toss it in trash/actually burn it and pretend ya never got it. they aint got time to round ya up. I tossed a few, no one ever came by to bust me either same addy 19+ years here in cali. they cant prove you got it unless you sign for it yourself. mine never were signed for just in mailbox. my friend got out of serving by saying he was racist and he banged plenty races of babes in reality and wasn't racist at all lol

 

[Holdin']

I've been called for duty next week...... fricking/fracking/frucking/fuckerz ....

my notice only said no weapons, or food... including knitting needles....

I'm going to roll in w/ full blown stroller...diaper bag... and one year old daughter carrying her own backpack of toys and snacks...I am her daily sitter while mom works....

hope they send me and her home....if not, i wonder how they will fell about me checking post on icmag.....

next week is our weather will not break the freezing level , w/ single digit temps @ night...

my luck it will be a multi week murder trial....

Lol, good luck!

Getting fuggin' cold in my neck of the woods in WA as well! We've been getting the damned wind, too. Can feel it in your bones...

 

[gaiusmarius]

it's a shame so many would want to get out of jury duty, basically you should be trying to get chosen not trying to get out of it. it might be Von in front of you or someone else that you can save from injustice. or just think if its you going to court and the only people with half way open eyes and a decent amount of empathy, all get out of jury duty and only the vindictive pricks get in. what kind of justice will you get then?

they do pay you for your trouble after all. but more importantly the more juries that are hung when the gov brings unjust cases, the less likely they are to keep bringing those types of cases to a court.

as far as i was reading, the common man jury is slowly being replaced with a type of professional jury in federal cases. these juries are used for many cases and they have a 97% conviction rate compared to private citizen juries. so yeah they are well on the way to taking the jury nullification power away. one excuse for these professional juries is that it's hard to find people willing to do jury duty.

 

[Budweiser13]

Man the county I am in they are assholes you cannot just tell them you have a medical issue without providing a doctors release. And if it is an issue of transportation they will give you bus passes so you make it to court it is a pain in the ass. If you throw away the jury summons and do not respond they send you warning notices telling you that you can be fined for not serving jury service... So what do I do just throw them away... Have not been fined yet...

 

[Budweiser13]

it's a shame so many would want to get out of jury duty, basically you should be trying to get chosen not trying to get out of it. it might be Von in front of you or someone else that you can save from injustice. or just think if its you going to court and the only people with half way open eyes and a decent amount of empathy, all get out of jury duty and only the vindictive pricks get in. what kind of justice will you get then?

they do pay you for your trouble after all. but more importantly the more juries that are hung when the gov brings unjust cases, the less likely they are to keep bringing those types of cases to a court.

as far as i was reading, the common man jury is slowly being replaced with a type of professional jury in federal cases. these juries are used for many cases and they have a 97% conviction rate compared to private citizen juries. so yeah they are well on the way to taking the jury nullification power away. one excuse for these professional juries is that it's hard to find people willing to do jury duty.

You know what gaiusmarius I would'nt mind serving if the pay was a little better I cannot afford to serve a trial for $15 dollars a week it barely puts gas in my car to get down to the court. And my employer only pays for like 2 days of me serving I agree with you on what you are saying but i just cannot afford lost time at work...

 

[wantaknow]

just tell them your favorite show on tv is the good wife ,you will be a shoe in

 

[wantaknow]

the selection system they use on potential canidates ,sux,it is way bias ,

 

[supermanlives]

that's why I don't bother. my friend as a younger guy was an assistant da. we had a talk once about it and he said if he was picking jurors I would get cut first LOL I sort of look shady criminal type to some bigtime. somebody ended up shooting his ass. he didn't die but he quit his job quick lol

 

[bentom187]

One day late. How many of you would show up to smoke the evidence ?

-Happy Repeal Day Thanks to Jury Nullification!

Repeal Day marks the anniversary of the 5 December 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution repealing alcohol prohibition. After fewer than thirteen years, the cultural and political climate in the U.S. forced an end to the federal criminalization of numerous victimless alcohol offenses.

How did the people convey the message to the government that they were not willing to be complicit in the legalized abuse of peaceful people? In part, through jury nullification! By some estimates, jurors routinely nullified as many as 60% of alcohol violations tried before them. Defendants demands to exercise their rights to trial by jury resulted in courts so clogged with cases that many weren’t tried for more than a year after the alleged violations. Prosecutors turned increasingly to extremely lenient plea bargains, not at all on par with typical offers made in drug prohibition cases today, to persuade defendants to forego jury trials. But those who insisted on trials frequently won Not Guilty verdicts.

I have been scouring newspaper archives for examples of such cases, and I wanted to share with you the following snippet of a Prohibition-era article from The New York Times:

In 1928, jurors were hauled in before a judge to explain their curious verdict in which they found defendant George Beven Not Guilty of an alcohol violation. They had been left alone in the deliberation room with about a pint of liquor as evidence. From The New York Times:

Sworn to tell the truth, the eight jurors took the stand and gave their stories as to what happened in the jury room during the three hours it took to determine the case of Beven, who was acquitted of violation of the State Prohibition act.

The jurors all admitted drinking the pint of liquor which was the prosecution’s chief exhibit against Beven. All denied it was consumed without an honorable motive. They stated it was sampled to determine whether it was of alcoholic content and actually constituted a violation of the liquor law.

I love this jury! They took their duty so seriously that first they sampled the liquor to ensure that a violation had occurred. Then, upon discovering that there was no evidence on which to base a conviction, they dutifully acquitted. These jurors showed exactly the amount of respect for the law that it was due—and that was NO RESPECT AT ALL. Throughout Prohibition, prosecutions were often treated as laughing matters as they ought to have been treated. Prosecutors were frequently embarrassed by their failure to win jurors’ Guilty votes, even when it was obvious that the law had been broken. In short, it was an exercise in humiliation for government officials, and an exercise that would not continue indefinitely. As jurors, through jury nullification, rendered alcohol violations impractical to prosecute, their vetoes sent a strong message that contributed to the eventual repeal of Prohibition, not thirteen years after it was enacted.

Happy Repeal Day 2013!

 

[supermanlives]

that wouldn't work as well with weed. they might get curious why the jurors were requesting so much munchies . we need pizza, chips, chocolate chip cookies and cola asap lol

 

[bentom187]

I could imagine the fun already,I definitely would not hesitate to order out even if I had to pay for it myself . while I was waiting with the rest of the jury pool when I went, they actually encouraged us to hit up the great bar/restaurant across the street.