The Juror Obstruction And The Advocacy Groups Syndromes:
Each Is A Plague On Justice
Not everyone has the time to keep up with what is going on around us, daily. That fact has become an advantageous issue in the just ice system. The advantage is being benenfited by the unjust. When a jury panel is selected they are required, first, to answer a series of questions. The questions are designed to insure that they will be serving justice if selected, not just to determine whcih ones to select. Each jury member selected is sworn to uphold the law.
What a syndrome that has bestowed upon justice in most recent years. When a court holds a trial through to it's conclusion, that doesn't necessarily mean it is over yet, otherwise justice could not be adequately served. For example, often, post trial evidence is discoverd that reopens a case. But then too, often laws are written not allowing certain matters to be used to reopen and reprosecute a case.
What happened in the O. J. Simpson case, in Los Angeles, California? O. J. was aquitted in a case that most seem to feel misrepresented justice. What I don't understand is why the case was not brought back before the court of justice? In post trial comments in front of television cameras one of the menbers of the jury panel in that cas spoke telling the world that it did not matter to him what the evidence said, he would have voted for an equittal, no matter what. Folks, that is confessed obstruction of justice. It happens all the time, in these "latter days." The cause of this being so prevailing in justice today is like a direct inference to benefit those who have determined themselves to be the "latter day saints" of our times, those that obviously consider themselves invincible to endure the perils of their inipuitites, and could care less, regardless. When that juror spoke to the world, on public television of his deception regarding the outcome of that trial, that should have been an alert for members of the justice system to jump, and immediatley take aciton to bring that juror before the court on charges and to bring that trial back to court to be retried. I personally never heard any further mention of that jurors comments being broadcast. I, myself, sent out emails to the news media and to message boards, that was ignored.
And we have yet another plague on our just ice system. The development of what is called, "advocacy groups." These are groups of "citiznes" that are devleoped for the purpose of meeting with groups of potential jurors and discuss with them such as case scenarios, in effort to "help" them make "appropriate" determinations. What this development has evolved into is obstructon of justice. People all across this nation are now unable to benefit from true justice because of the enfleunce these groups have bestowed upon jurors' decision making process. These groups were developed by such as Insurance Companies that want, determinedly to weasel out of their obligations to pay benefits to intiended recipients. And they are allowed to meet with jury panels and speak with them in effrrt to essentially brainwash them to make decisions in the favor of, rather than justice, the insurance companies, or the ones with the biggest poketbook. The advocacy groups' directions is to induce enfluence and pursuasion. What was wrong with just directing the jurors to follow the letter of the law? Was that not resulting in the right conclusions for the big companies, because it rendered justice? Apparently that is the case. Because, unjustice has been the results of the development of these groups, as evidenced in the books of records.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
If this juror did indeed make these comments to the press concerning her/his pre-judgement of the case I agree with you that the matter should have been investigated. To be honest I do not know the law concerning this. I would guess if found to be true there would be some legal ramifications for this person. I am also not sure whether a mistrial can be declared after the fact. But, at the least if the findings were that this person had pre-judged the decision the District Attorney's office should have appealed it so an appeals judge could determine if the findings of the lower court should be nullified and the case send back to the lower court for retrial. I agree with you that this is a miscarriage of justice. I don't care if the defendent in the case was white, black, pink, orange or blue, it makes no difference.
On "Jury Advocacy Groups", I have to admit an ignorance about them. I have been out of the loop for a while. I do know of groups that compile statistics and data about various groups of people and help attorneys choose jurys. Is this what you are refering to? I think these groups put the "little guy" at a disadvantage especially in tort cases against mega-businesses. I don't think there is much that can be done to reverse this trend though. To my knowledge these groups do not break any laws unless they access jury selection lists before they are supposed to be made available and use them to determine which people the attorneys should try to get onto the jury. That is illegal. Also IMHO it is invasion of privacy.
An attorney explained to me some about the advocacy groups, but not that much. he didn't seem to want to reveal too much. Typically. But he did mention that they have expanded their use and directives in such as big businesses like insurance companies to have them to seek out and meet with "potential" jurors to essentially induce a mind set into their way of thinking concerning certain identified types of cases. An example would be, such as mine was, an auto accident case. The mind set the groups tend to induce is that pre existing injuries should be just cause to alienate one trying to collect damages. It's as if they stay on the borderline, and even step over the borderline of the law with the usage of these groups. I was in two accidents 3 years apart. both accidents cuased me to suffer from nearly the same conditon, with a slight difference. Regadless, I suffered chronic pain and other suffering, and losses, and tentively, permanent conditions of the same. However, no lawyer wanted to even handle my second case. I was not at fault in either. I settled out of court on the first case, but I had to push my lawyer, raise cain, and make demands to do that. But I got the full maximum of the opposoing parties insurnace coverage, + some to boot, although not much. My attorney frequently mentioned about these advocacy groups. So did the countless lawyers that turned down handling the second case. Justice seems to be on a rapidly sinking boat.
I firmly believe that the American general public should stand up and give the American government constituents the war they have been begging for for too long now. Regardless, their day of reckoning is coming up. It seems the general public, for the most part, is too weak minded, but their creator isn't. I believe Times bottle is about to bust a move on them, now. I feel it in my bones.
The laws "disallowing" this are already in place and have been since 1791. That was the main intention of the constitution. The single most unconstitutional "Advocacy group" is the BAR associations. They have taken illegal control over our court systems and in order to practice you have to be a member of this elitist group. A code, statute, policy or ordinance is not a law in and of itself and they are supposed to serve one purpose and that is to protect your rights guaranteed by the law which consists solely of the constitution of the US and that of your state.
The Judicial Oath, for all Federal Judges and Justices:
"I, _______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
In addition, each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office. Section 8 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, as amended in 1990:
"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Anyone who has sat in any court within the US has seen this is nothing more lip service case after case. It is also a crime.
There is another rule or code that is supposed to prevent this yet as most others it is ignored. I don't recall it's citing number at the moment but it is called "The appearance or Affirmation of oath" and is intended to assist in the removal and prosecution of not only tyrant judges but any other govt employee or elected official including those who receive funds from the federal govt. (your money) under most 501(c)(3)'s who provide "services" as ordered by any court.
Not too many prejudicing cases in our courts today will try the constitutionality of these "rules" as the amount of cases being paid for by soc. sec. are astronomical and you don't challenge one of your own (BAR). Unfortunately "we the people" anxiously wait for the opinions of the Supreme Court even though it is usually a personal opinion and not a legal opinion. "Case law" is not law and even the SC. back in 1953 or 8 stated that trying to use it as such was a systematic violation of the rights of the parties who's case is before the court.
A perfect example of another advocacy group gone awry would be the "women's rights" groups. This was brought about because a class of citizens were systematically denied their basic rights and protections under the law and instead of demanding those responsible be held accountable they insisted they needed "special rights" and because congress saw this as another way to tap into the unconstitutional executive order of FDR called soc. sec. they made it look like those who were responsible for the violation of their rights were instead their heros and saviors. Now not only does it strip men and children of their basic rights but does very well at stripping women of their basic rights too.
A Writ Quo Warranto used to be a tool where anyone could question the constitutionality of any "laws" being enacted or enforced within the the US in addition to questioning how an opinion of any court has been applied to the facts of a particular case and can be found to be constitutional. These days they are all but a waste of time as unless you are a member of an advocacy group looking to justify a one sided ruling you will never get an answer. The answer is supposed to be in writing citing the articles of constitution and any rules that support their protection. Any rules found to violate the constitution for either party are supposed to be abrogated. As should be evident to anyone the words we use today have no definitions and are defined according to whatever will best serve the self interests of those promoting their cause.
There is a Gather member who advocates such opinionated and unconstitutional activities. They are looking to enact a "new law" and are completely unaware of USC Tilte 42 which contains the rules intended to protect those who are supposedly those they are advocating for.
If you read what they are saying about their own personal situation the very first paragraph of their "new law" directly applies to them and therefor the "law" should be exercised on them first as they are openly admitting throughout that they are the very people they are trying to protect this other group from. How ironic and sadly too typical.
This person says "This pisses me off too because I have all of these people sit there and tell me how I should solve my problems their way yet they cannot deal with their own situations and believes that these very same people that "pisses them off" should dictate how you deal with yours. They are also asking these very people for their opinion on how to solve their problems in the first place. Based upon the rest of their writings there can be no doubt it is your money funding these activities. This person has indicated that, according to the rules of law that already exist, that the "laws" have been totally disregarded as they should not have been able to do what they are doing. They continually tout their mental disorders and ongoing anger but because everyone loves a "hero"-..
To post any opposing view point on their site or discussions would be futile because "they have chosen to approve the comments before they appear"
What happened in the OJ case? The jury was presented with too much evidence that regardless of how much they wanted to convict on the basis of said evidence it could not meet the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" because the police and investigators committed too many deliberate crimes in it's collection and processing. What I would have like to have seen is that each time someone had been identified in committing the crimes that made the evidence fail they should have been taken into custody and arrested.
Sadly whenever a defendant reasonably appears or is indeed guilty and were caught red handed they are afforded undo leeway in the courts and because "law enforcement" fails to do the simple task that they were given often times failing to follow the rules or respect the rights of the defendant giving them the opportunity to walk free and the police have no worries or concerns of reprimand.
Police have become nothing more that armed revenue for many of these advocacy groups.
"They didin't have a problem making the laws that said it was a violation to revolt against their corruption, thier golden rod ruling, though."
The supreme beings have said:
"The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land, any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void of law"
"Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law".
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed"