Jury Duty in T minus 45 minutes.

[Camp Bassfish]

It's a beautiful day and there's so many other things I could be doing. Subtle suggestions to be dismissed w/o being added to anymore watch lists?

[gunDriller]

just make it clear that you clearly question authority.

i was called for a case in suburban San Diego.

the prosecutor was about 100 pounds overweight.

i may have said something like, "so the defendant self-medicated using meth. you self-medicate using food. what's the difference ?"


good time to do a web search for the judge's name or that of either of the 2 attorneys.

[madfranks]

Ask if you can talk about jury nullification. I bet you'll be dismissed then.

[Camp Bassfish]

Ask if you can talk about jury nullification. I bet you'll be dismissed then.

Trying to conjure up the balls to do that. Lol. I was looking for a nice confederate flag dress shirt for the occasion, but to no avail. Hurry up and wait..... Apparently judges don't work before 10.

[Jewboo]

Got my Summons and questionaire last week and marked it "Law-Enforcement Officer in family". Defense should yank me from the pool fast.

[Camp Bassfish]

Got my Summons and questionaire last week and marked it "Law-Enforcement Officer in family". Defense should yank me from the pool fast. So far they've taken 3 of 21. About 40 of us left. This is not good. I haven't been questioned yet. CO's in the family may get me out.

[ximmy]

So far they've taken 3 of 21. About 40 of us left. This is not good. I haven't been questioned yet. CO's in the family may get me out.

Tell them you do not trust the court system. The court favors the state and not the individual. A money making business. Payed off judges and counselors. They go after people with jobs and money and let the petty criminals with no money go free.

[Jewboo]

So far they've taken 3 of 21. About 40 of us left.



My reporting number is 533.


:D

[Cebu_4_2]

You only get chosen for jury duty if you registered to vote.

[midnight rambler]

You only get chosen for jury duty if you registered to vote.

And in doing so swear under the pains and penalties of perjury that one is a "U.S. citizen."

[ximmy]

You only get chosen for jury duty if you registered to vote.

In Cali, also state driver license and or homeowner

[brosil]

What? I'm sorry, I missed that. Could you repeat that a little louder?

[Camp Bassfish]

Juror #4 on a weapons charge. Didn't mention nullification, didn't get to mention much other than I take issue with the Safe Act. Neither side seemed to give a shit. Other than basic questions. Residence, family, occupation etc, they asked nothing. My effing jaw dropped when they called me out. I thought I was done. Whatever...... Maybe I can talk gold and silver to some sheep.

[palani]

Juror #4 on a weapons charge. Didn't mention nullification, didn't get to mention much other than I take issue with the Safe Act. Neither side seemed to give a shit. Other than basic questions. Residence, family, occupation etc, they asked nothing. My effing jaw dropped when they called me out. I thought I was done. Whatever...... Maybe I can talk gold and silver to some sheep.

Just tell 'em you posted that on the internet and watch mistrial called.

[crimethink]

You only get chosen for jury duty if you registered to vote.

California pulls from both the DMV database (Driver Licenses and ID cards) and Registrars of Voters databases.

[crimethink]

Juror #4 on a weapons charge. Didn't mention nullification, didn't get to mention much other than I take issue with the Safe Act. Neither side seemed to give a shit. Other than basic questions. Residence, family, occupation etc, they asked nothing. My effing jaw dropped when they called me out. I thought I was done. Whatever...... Maybe I can talk gold and silver to some sheep.

What sort of "weapons charge"? I'd make it clear that you support the Second Amendment as written. Judge can still purge you off.

[madfranks]

What sort of "weapons charge"? I'd make it clear that you support the Second Amendment as written. Judge can still purge you off.

Yes, and don't be afraid to be put on a list. You're a member here; you're already on one.

[crimethink]

Yes, and don't be afraid to be put on a list. You're a member here; you're already on one.

I imagine all Americans are on "the list," and one "earns" their way off, by serving "them." Or not.

[Publico]

Just don't tell them about your bug-out plans, bov, bol or your stash of bullion.

[Jewboo]

Just don't tell them about your bug-out plans, bov, bol or your stash of bullion.

Oh. And don't open carry or even try and bring you fingernail clipper in the Court House...lol.

[Jewboo]

California pulls from both the DMV database (Driver Licenses and ID cards) and Registrars of Voters databases.

Ditto Idaho.

[mick silver]

fall a sleep

[Camp Bassfish]

Looks like it should be over tomorrow, I'll post an update then.

[Camp Bassfish]

Oh. And don't open carry or even try and bring you fingernail clipper in the Court House...lol.

My freaking shoes set the thing off every damn time. Now they just wave me through. That's secure.....

[Dogman]

Hang them all, and let God sort them out!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum Runner

[Ponce]

When living in CA I was called in and told the guy at the door taking names....."If the trial is about a cop he is guilty right now".....I was never called back again.

V

[BrewTech]

I would just say...

"If there was no non-defensive force, fraud, or coercion involved, then the defendant is NOT GUILTY.

98% of cases they will kick you out, and it doesn't require lying.

If somebody did commit an offense involving one of these three, wouldn't you want to be involved to make sure justice is served?

Hell, maybe the defendant is a bankster!

[crimethink]

I would just say...

"If there was no non-defensive force, fraud, or coercion involved, then the defendant is NOT GUILTY.

98% of cases they will kick you out, and it doesn't require lying.


If the Prosecutor is a government employee, the judge is a government employee, and the "Defense" attorney is an "officer of the court" (de facto government employee), isn't that called "conflict of interest"?

[BrewTech]

If the Prosecutor is a government employee, the judge is a government employee, and the "Defense" attorney is an "officer of the court" (de facto government employee), isn't that called "conflict of interest"?

Not in BizzaroWorld.

https://collapseofindustrialcivilization.files.wordpress.c om/2015/02/bizarrocode.jpg

[Camp Bassfish]

To the best of my ability this was the case:

Police receive a “be on the lookout for” a Nissan w/possible rear window damage involved in earlier altercation.

Subject #1 – 22 y/o male Subject #2 25 y/o male Subject #3 22 y/o female.

All three subjects ride for approx. 20 minutes in a gray Honda 2 door. #2 driving, #3 in passengers seat, #1 in rear passengers seat.

Subjects arrive at Nissan and park about 15 yards from it on the opposite side of the street. Leave the vehicle and collect around the Nissan which has a broken drivers side rear window. LEO drives by and observes Nissan w/rear window damage and begins to make a U-turn. At the same time subject #1 and #3 begin walking to the Honda and each open a door of the Honda #1 on the driver’s side, #3 on the passenger’s side. LEO testifies that each subject was “crouched” in the car for no more than 10-15 seconds. LEO requests that they both return to talk to him. Subject #1 walks away from LEO and enters a bakery, subject #3 returns to the Nissan carrying 2 plastic bags to continue cleaning up broken glass.

LEO asks subject #2, whom never left the Nissan, if he can search his Honda. Subject #2 agrees. LEO walks to the Honda’s passenger side door and opens it. There he sees in plain view, a .22 revolver with 2/3’rds of the butt sticking from under the seat. Prosecution presents a photo of the revolver as it was found. .22 is loaded with 3 rounds. All three rounds are tested for fingerprints and swabs of DNA are also taken. There are no prints on any of the rounds or revolver, and they never sent the DNA swabs to the lab for testing.

Subject #2 is given full immunity for grand jury testimony, no mention of subject #1 beyond walking away.

Subject #3 is charged with criminal possession of a weapon 2nd degree (possessing a loaded handgun with the intent to do harm to another) and also in the 4th degree (possession of an operable firearm)

Premise of the charge is that subject #3 knowingly possessed a loaded handgun, and had *dominion and control over that handgun with the intent to harm another unlawfully. * one need not actually be HOLDING the handgun to be in dominion and control just within the reach to use or dispose of it. and once you are convinced that a person knowingly possessed a loaded handgun, you can infer that they intended to do harm to another.

Verdict(s) ??

Edit to add: Subject #3 was wearing pajama pants and a tanktop.

[crimethink]

Not Guilty due to unconstitutionality of statutes ("shall not be infringed").

Also, the concept of "Precrime" is abhorrent in a (supposedly) free society.

[BrewTech]

Not Guilty due to unconstitutionality of statutes ("shall not be infringed").

Also, the concept of "Precrime" is abhorrent in a (supposedly) free society.


Use of non-defensive force? None

Coercion? None

Fraud? None

[Camp Bassfish]

Also, the concept of "Precrime" is abhorrent in a (supposedly) free society.

That part rocked me...... as well as another individual being allowed to consent to a LEO searching an area under your "dominion and control"

[Camp Bassfish]

Oh, and for the record...... not guilty on both counts. Not because we believed she was innocent, but because they failed to make their case. I sure she'll see the inside of a court again with different results, but we couldn't lock her up with those facts.

Would love to have seen the grand jury that indicted her to begin with. Waste of time and $$

[crimethink]

Oh, and for the record...... not guilty on both counts. Not because we believed she was innocent, but because they failed to make their case. I sure she'll see the inside of a court again with different results, but we couldn't lock her up with those facts.

Would love to have seen the grand jury that indicted her to begin with. Waste of time and $$

Good job! You did your duty, which is far more than can be said about most Americans.