I know most of you here are inclined to say how important it is to
serve jury duty, and how it is "wrong" to avoid it. But for the sake
of this argument let's just agree to accept that I have a GOOD reason
not to go, but the court - from what I have heard - will not accept my
reason as good enough. So I would just rather avoid the whole issue.
Please don't moralize, I've read a number of past posts on usenet
about this subject and frankly the moral imperatives don't sway me.
I'm not looking for a fight here, I just want some facts about getting
a summons in with junk mail.

I live in Los Angeles, and I got a summons to appear for jury duty in
the regular mail; not certified or in any way proven to have arrived
at my mail box. It could easily have gotten mixed in with some junk
mail and thrown away; in fact I WISH that had happened, then I could
HONESTLY say it did, and I would not be here asking this.

My question is:
Although this "Summons" came to my box, how can they prove it? And how
could they FINE me $1500 if they cannot prove I got it? Yes, I
understand they sent it to MY address; but could it not have gotten
mis-delivered? Could it not have gotten mixed in with junk mail and
thrown away by mistake? It seems to me no judge in his right mind
would fine someone $1500 for not receiving a piece of mail that can't
be proven was ever delivered! Even in the Fascist State of California!
Shouldn't it be sent certified or registered?

And here's the real question: do they keep track of who they send
these things to? One thread I read says they don't. So if you don't
call when you get the "summons", how do they follow up?

One thread I read said they send a policeman to your door to make sure
you are summoned? Here in L.A. with crack being sold on the streets,
murders in the hood, rapists on the loose, etc. - they're going to
send a cop to MY house to tell me I have to serve JURY DUTY!???! If
so, this city is stupider than even I thought!

And if I DO have to go for consideration of duty, I will notify them
that I believe in jury nullification and will not be chosen to serve,
in any case.
******
"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible
power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given
by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:59:54 GMT, DanKaye <dankaye@nowhere.info>
wrote:
And here's the real question: do they keep track of who they sendthese things to? One thread I read says they don't. So if you don'tcall when you get the "summons", how do they follow up?

I've been tossing them away for years and keeping my mouth shut about
it. Never had a problem. I've never even seen a newspaper article
about somebody who got busted for doing so.

Pontius Poop wrote: On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:59:54 GMT, DanKaye <dankaye@nowhere.info> wrote: And here's the real question: do they keep track of who they send these things to? One thread I read says they don't. So if you don't call when you get the "summons", how do they follow up? I've been tossing them away for years and keeping my mouth shut about it. Never had a problem. I've never even seen a newspaper article about somebody who got busted for doing so.

So it must never happen then, eh?

"DanKaye" <dankaye@nowhere.info> wrote in message
news:q5iuj0h6nb8tv5q4rr80vtghsq1brq7pek@4ax.com... I know most of you here are inclined to say how important it is to serve jury duty, and how it is "wrong" to avoid it. But for the sake of this argument let's just agree to accept that I have a GOOD
reason not to go, but the court - from what I have heard - will not accept
my reason as good enough. So I would just rather avoid the whole issue. Please don't moralize, I've read a number of past posts on usenet about this subject and frankly the moral imperatives don't sway me. I'm not looking for a fight here, I just want some facts about
getting a summons in with junk mail. I live in Los Angeles, and I got a summons to appear for jury duty
in the regular mail; not certified or in any way proven to have arrived at my mail box. It could easily have gotten mixed in with some junk mail and thrown away; in fact I WISH that had happened, then I could HONESTLY say it did, and I would not be here asking this. My question is: Although this "Summons" came to my box, how can they prove it?

They don't have to prove it. If it came to that, you would have to
prove you didn't get it. The reason is an evidence presumption (in
the California Evidence Code). The proof of mailing of a thing, by
regular U.S. Mail, creates a rebuttable presumption that it was
received. Proof of mailing would be the testimony of the clerk who
mailed it. Rebuttal is your burden. If you fail to carry the burden
of rebuttal, the presumption stands.
And how could they FINE me $1500 if they cannot prove I got it? Yes, I understand they sent it to MY address; but could it not have gotten mis-delivered? Could it not have gotten mixed in with junk mail and thrown away by mistake?

Sure. Prove it.
It seems to me no judge in his right mind would fine someone $1500 for not receiving a piece of mail that
can't be proven was ever delivered! Even in the Fascist State of
California!

It's very easy. All they do on the first offense is offer you the
chance to avoid the fine by serving on jury duty. Simple, and not
harsh.
Shouldn't it be sent certified or registered?

Mail is sent certified if there is a burden of proof on the sender.
That's not necessary when there is a presumption of receipt in the
Evidence Code.
And here's the real question: do they keep track of who they send these things to? One thread I read says they don't. So if you don't call when you get the "summons", how do they follow up?

In the olden days it was true that nobody kept track. Computerization
changed that. Keeping track is automatic now.
One thread I read said they send a policeman to your door to make
sure you are summoned?

The cop is not there to make sure you are summoned. The cop is there
to execute a warrant for your arrest. That happens when they need an
example (or a few hundred) and some publicity, to deter other law
breakers.
Here in L.A. with crack being sold on the streets, murders in the hood, rapists on the loose, etc. - they're going to send a cop to MY house to tell me I have to serve JURY DUTY!???! If so, this city is stupider than even I thought!

It's amazing that people reach the conclusion that a serious crime
situation should amount to a free pass to commit minor crimes.
And if I DO have to go for consideration of duty, I will notify them that I believe in jury nullification and will not be chosen to
serve, in any case.

Nobody cares. Your obligation in Los Angeles County is to show up for
"One Day or One Trial." For most people that means hang around until
after lunch on the first day and then go home, with that year's
obligation completed. For those selected for trial, the majority are
stuck for a one-day trial. If you get out of serving on a jury, you
can call that a win, and nobody else will care. They did their job,
you did your job, and everybody knows that you will all do the same
thing next year. It's kind of like not getting a traffic ticket. Not
much of a victory, because there is always tomorrow.

McGyver

On 2004-09-08, DanKaye <dankaye@nowhere.info> wrote: I know most of you here are inclined to say how important it is to serve jury duty, and how it is "wrong" to avoid it. But for the sake of this argument let's just agree to accept that I have a GOOD reason not to go, but the court - from what I have heard - will not accept my reason as good enough. So I would just rather avoid the whole issue. Please don't moralize, I've read a number of past posts on usenet about this subject and frankly the moral imperatives don't sway me. I'm not looking for a fight here, I just want some facts about getting a summons in with junk mail. I live in Los Angeles, and I got a summons to appear for jury duty in the regular mail; not certified or in any way proven to have arrived at my mail box. It could easily have gotten mixed in with some junk mail and thrown away; in fact I WISH that had happened, then I could HONESTLY say it did, and I would not be here asking this. My question is: Although this "Summons" came to my box, how can they prove it? And how could they FINE me $1500 if they cannot prove I got it? Yes, I understand they sent it to MY address; but could it not have gotten mis-delivered? Could it not have gotten mixed in with junk mail and thrown away by mistake? It seems to me no judge in his right mind would fine someone $1500 for not receiving a piece of mail that can't be proven was ever delivered! Even in the Fascist State of California! Shouldn't it be sent certified or registered?

A fascist State doesn't have a jury, they only have a firing squads.
Look if you don't want to serve go in there ranting about how fascist
the courts are for having jury duty and they will promptly place you
in jury kook column and send you home.
You could always go to a Psych and have yourself declared mentally
incompetent to serve on a jury or handle your own affairs to get out
of duty.
I know that living in a Democracy is a terrible burden, I hear in
North Korea that don't have any stinking jury duty so you might want
to immigrate there.


Good Luck.

On 8 Sep 2004 20:40:08 GMT, Polk <POLK_2004x@yahoo.com> wrote:
I hear inNorth Korea that don't have any stinking jury duty so you might wantto immigrate there.

Neither does Holland, Finland, Israel, Chile, Italy or Germany.
Probably, they are a better bet.

DanKaye wrote:
I know most of you here are inclined to say how important it is to serve jury duty, and how it is "wrong" to avoid it. But for the sake of this argument let's just agree to accept that I have a GOOD reason not to go, but the court - from what I have heard - will not accept my reason as good enough. So I would just rather avoid the whole issue. Please don't moralize, I've read a number of past posts on usenet about this subject and frankly the moral imperatives don't sway me. I'm not looking for a fight here, I just want some facts about getting a summons in with junk mail.
I live in Los Angeles, and I got a summons to appear for jury duty in the regular mail; not certified or in any way proven to have arrived at my mail box. It could easily have gotten mixed in with some junk mail and thrown away; in fact I WISH that had happened, then I could HONESTLY say it did, and I would not be here asking this.
My question is: Although this "Summons" came to my box, how can they prove it? And how could they FINE me $1500 if they cannot prove I got it? Yes, I understand they sent it to MY address; but could it not have gotten mis-delivered? Could it not have gotten mixed in with junk mail and thrown away by mistake? It seems to me no judge in his right mind would fine someone $1500 for not receiving a piece of mail that can't be proven was ever delivered! Even in the Fascist State of California! Shouldn't it be sent certified or registered?
And here's the real question: do they keep track of who they send these things to? One thread I read says they don't. So if you don't call when you get the "summons", how do they follow up?
One thread I read said they send a policeman to your door to make sure you are summoned? Here in L.A. with crack being sold on the streets, murders in the hood, rapists on the loose, etc. - they're going to send a cop to MY house to tell me I have to serve JURY DUTY!???! If so, this city is stupider than even I thought!

I used to blow these things off when I used to live at the south end of
Torrance. It was always for the Compton Courthouse, where invariably the
defendant would be someone named "Raheem" something-or-other, and charged
with violation of California Health & Safety Code section 11352 (sale of a
controlled & dangerous substance). One look at me (a white cracker engineer
from Palos Verdes), and his defence lawyer would have immediately asked to
have me tossed during jury selection. So why bother?

Nothing ever happened to me for blowing them off. I was told that, if I was
ever pulled over in Los Angeles county, they could have me hauled off to the
courthouse and force me to sit on a jury right on the spot. Then I heard, a
few years ago, they toughened the law, so they could charge you with contempt
of court if you blow it off. (I haven't checked it out, so I don't know if
that's true.)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

McGyver,

While I'm not in agreement with Mr. Kaye I'm confused about this
rebuttal. Other than swearing that he did not receive the summons what
rebuttal would Cal. expect. How does one prove that something did not arrive
in the mail? I'm presuming here that Mr. Kaye is a liar and will lie under
oath.

Dave M.

DanKaye <dankaye@nowhere.info> wrote in message news:<q5iuj0h6nb8tv5q4rr80vtghsq1brq7pek@4ax.com>... I know most of you here are inclined to say how important it is to serve jury duty, and how it is "wrong" to avoid it. But for the sake of this argument let's just agree to accept that I have a GOOD reason not to go, but the court - from what I have heard - will not accept my reason as good enough. So I would just rather avoid the whole issue.... I live in Los Angeles, and I got a summons to appear for jury duty in the regular mail...

The court doesn't need to prove that you received it. A jury summons
is properly served when it's mailed by first-class mail. All the court
needs to do is prove it was mailed; they've got that on record
already. And they know where you live, because they have DMV records
and the like to go by. And you know they know where you live, because
you got the summons.

Some judges in Los Angeles do not take kindly to people ignoring jury
summonses and have been known to send out contempt citations with
$1,500 fines. If you are unlucky enough to draw one of these judges,
you will be out the time and money it takes to clear up the citation,
which will be much worse than if you had served.

You place your bet and you take your chances. Blowing-off-jury-duty
roulette is not a game I like the odds on. Your view may be different.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

"David Martel" <marte005@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c7O%c.12583$Wv5.3759@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net... McGyver, While I'm not in agreement with Mr. Kaye I'm confused about
this rebuttal. Other than swearing that he did not receive the
summons what rebuttal would Cal. expect. How does one prove that something
did not arrive in the mail? I'm presuming here that Mr. Kaye is a liar and will
lie under oath.

If we are talking about jury duty, and a first offense, any
testimony that he didn't receive the summons will be good enough.
He will be let off the hook and sent to jury duty even though
nobody believes he didn't get the summons.

But for a second offense, or for general purposes, when the
presumption of receipt must be rebutted, there must be enough
evidence to convince a judge that the summons was not received.
That will be a difficult burden because of the reliability of
regular mail service in this country. Testimony of the defendant
is evidence, but won't be enough unless it shows some reason for
non-receipt other than simply that the postal service didn't
deliver it. I can't tell you how much evidence is enough. I'm
guessing that it would be enough to present a police report
showing that all mail boxes in the apartment complex were broken
into the day after mailing. Or proof that there was a fire in the
house. Testimony that the defendant changed apartments and forgot
to have the mail forwarded and forget to leave a forwarding
address with the landlord, might be enough. Naturally, there
could be conclusive evidence, such as a passport showing that
defendant was in Norway for that entire year. All I can be sure
of is that the defendant must have some plausable reason for
non-receipt other than simply that the postal service didn't
deliver it.

McGyver

Theodore A. Kaldis wrote: DanKaye wrote: I know most of you here are inclined to say how important it is to serve jury duty, and how it is "wrong" to avoid it. But for the sake of this argument let's just agree to accept that I have a GOOD reason not to go, but the court - from what I have heard - will not accept my reason as good enough. So I would just rather avoid the whole issue. Please don't moralize, I've read a number of past posts on usenet about this subject and frankly the moral imperatives don't sway me. I'm not looking for a fight here, I just want some facts about getting a summons in with junk mail. I live in Los Angeles, and I got a summons to appear for jury duty in the regular mail; not certified or in any way proven to have arrived at my mail box. It could easily have gotten mixed in with some junk mail and thrown away; in fact I WISH that had happened, then I could HONESTLY say it did, and I would not be here asking this. My question is: Although this "Summons" came to my box, how can they prove it? And how could they FINE me $1500 if they cannot prove I got it? Yes, I understand they sent it to MY address; but could it not have gotten mis-delivered? Could it not have gotten mixed in with junk mail and thrown away by mistake? It seems to me no judge in his right mind would fine someone $1500 for not receiving a piece of mail that can't be proven was ever delivered! Even in the Fascist State of California! Shouldn't it be sent certified or registered? And here's the real question: do they keep track of who they send these things to? One thread I read says they don't. So if you don't call when you get the "summons", how do they follow up? One thread I read said they send a policeman to your door to make sure you are summoned? Here in L.A. with crack being sold on the streets, murders in the hood, rapists on the loose, etc. - they're going to send a cop to MY house to tell me I have to serve JURY DUTY!???! If so, this city is stupider than even I thought! I used to blow these things off when I used to live at the south end of Torrance. It was always for the Compton Courthouse, where invariably the defendant would be someone named "Raheem" something-or-other, and charged with violation of California Health & Safety Code section 11352 (sale of a controlled & dangerous substance). One look at me (a white cracker engineer from Palos Verdes), and his defence lawyer would have immediately asked to have me tossed during jury selection. So why bother? Nothing ever happened to me for blowing them off. I was told that, if I was ever pulled over in Los Angeles county, they could have me hauled off to the courthouse and force me to sit on a jury right on the spot. Then I heard, a few years ago, they toughened the law, so they could charge you with contempt of court if you blow it off. (I haven't checked it out, so I don't know if that's true.)

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 04:00:30 -0700, "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote:
"David Martel" <marte005@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:c7O%c.12583$Wv5.3759@newsread3.news.at l.earthlink.net... McGyver, While I'm not in agreement with Mr. Kaye I'm confused aboutthis rebuttal. Other than swearing that he did not receive thesummons what rebuttal would Cal. expect. How does one prove that somethingdid not arrive in the mail? I'm presuming here that Mr. Kaye is a liar and willlie under oath.If we are talking about jury duty, and a first offense, anytestimony that he didn't receive the summons will be good enough.He will be let off the hook and sent to jury duty even thoughnobody believes he didn't get the summons.But for a second offense, or for general purposes, when thepresumption of receipt must be rebutted, there must be enoughevidence to convince a judge that the summons was not received.That will be a difficult burden because of the reliability ofregular mail service in this country. Testimony of the defendantis evidence, but won't be enough unless it shows some reason fornon-receipt other than simply that the postal service didn'tdeliver it. I can't tell you how much evidence is enough. I'mguessing that it would be enough to present a police reportshowing that all mail boxes in the apartment complex were brokeninto the day after mailing. Or proof that there was a fire in thehouse. Testimony that the defendant changed apartments and forgotto have the mail forwarded and forget to leave a forwardingaddress with the landlord, might be enough. Naturally, therecould be conclusive evidence, such as a passport showing thatdefendant was in Norway for that entire year. All I can be sureof is that the defendant must have some plausable reason fornon-receipt other than simply that the postal service didn'tdeliver it.
Testimony that I have not received bills from several creditors and
have not received packages that were sent to me at this address, over
the past year... People writing testimony that they sent me something
that did not arrive, that went back to them and they had to send it
again...?

On 8 Sep 2004 20:40:08 GMT, Polk <POLK_2004x@yahoo.com> wrote:

A fascist State doesn't have a jury, they only have a firing squads.

Look up the definition of fascism in the dictionary. You are wrong.
Look if you don't want to serve go in there ranting about how fascistthe courts are for having jury duty and they will promptly place youin jury kook column and send you home.
I plan to.
You could always go to a Psych and have yourself declared mentallyincompetent to serve on a jury or handle your own affairs to get outof duty. I know that living in a Democracy is a terrible burden, I hear inNorth Korea that don't have any stinking jury duty so you might wantto immigrate there.
I can name 10 countries that have a better quality of life, less
government, and more freedom, and I plan to move to one of them soon.
You people are so invested in this idea of the "American dream" you
don't realize it has long past and has been moving towards "American
Nightmare" for a long long time. The next 4 years will move much
quicker in that direction if Kerry is re-elected.

On 8 Sep 2004 19:03:18 -0700, cj.green@worldnet.att.net (Christopher
Green) wrote:
The court doesn't need to prove that you received it. A jury summonsis properly served when it's mailed by first-class mail. All the courtneeds to do is prove it was mailed;
How can they do that? Someone SAYS It was mailed?? Yeah, and I say it
wasn't! Or at least that I did not receive it!
they've got that on recordalready. And they know where you live, because they have DMV recordsand the like to go by. And you know they know where you live, becauseyou got the summons.
How do they know I got it? How do they know it wasn't lost in the
mail? or someone else got it and threw it away?
Some judges in Los Angeles do not take kindly to people ignoring jurysummonses and have been known to send out contempt citations with$1,500 fines.
Show me an article that proves this please. Even if there were such an
article it would likely be a 1-in-10000 case, just to try to drum up
some media for the idea that this fascist practice is actually
occuring. I could see it if maybe they could prove they had sent you 3
of them and you didn't respond to any of the 3... but not ONE...

If you are unlucky enough to draw one of these judges,you will be out the time and money it takes to clear up the citation,which will be much worse than if you had served.You place your bet and you take your chances. Blowing-off-jury-dutyroulette is not a game I like the odds on. Your view may be different.

To me, the most important issue here isn't really about serving jury
duty or not; it's about the principle of the government being
allegedly able to fine you $1500 for not responding to a letter when
there is no way in hell they can PROVE you ever received it. This is
fascism, not democracy. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would have thought
we were returning to the injustice of the British Empire if he were
alive at this time and place. This is just plain WRONG, and I can't
believe you people can't see it that way.

Thanks to all for taking the time to reply. We may disagree but I hope
we can agree to disagree.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 03:10:02 GMT, DanKaye <dankaye@nowhere.info>
wrote:
On 8 Sep 2004 19:03:18 -0700, cj.green@worldnet.att.net (ChristopherGreen) wrote:The court doesn't need to prove that you received it. A jury summonsis properly served when it's mailed by first-class mail. All the courtneeds to do is prove it was mailed;How can they do that? Someone SAYS It was mailed?? Yeah, and I say itwasn't! Or at least that I did not receive it!

If it's their word against yours, guess who wins.
they've got that on recordalready. And they know where you live, because they have DMV recordsand the like to go by. And you know they know where you live, becauseyou got the summons.How do they know I got it? How do they know it wasn't lost in themail? or someone else got it and threw it away?

Point isn't that they know it was delivered. Point is, you got it.
Because you got it, you know they know where to find you.
Some judges in Los Angeles do not take kindly to people ignoring jurysummonses and have been known to send out contempt citations with$1,500 fines.Show me an article that proves this please. Even if there were such anarticle it would likely be a 1-in-10000 case, just to try to drum upsome media for the idea that this fascist practice is actuallyoccuring. I could see it if maybe they could prove they had sent you 3of them and you didn't respond to any of the 3... but not ONE...

It's prevalent in Los Angeles County, where it has been the practice
to fine shirkers since at least 2001. Several tens of thousands are
cited and fined every year. Fines are collected by a collection
agency. Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2002 (apparently).

In Long Beach, Judge James Wright issued 225 citations last week alone
for failure to respond. Eight showed up and got off with a warning;
the other 217 were fined $250 each. Los Angeles County has fined
shirkers $940,000 in the first six months of 2004 alone. Daily Breeze,
Sept. 9, 2004.

There has been a recommendation, which so far as I know has not been
acted upon, to suspend the driver's license of anyone failing to
report for jury duty:
http://:www.mcgeorge.edu/government_law_and_policy/publications/ccglp_pubs_blue_ribbon_commission_on_jury_system_i mprovement.pdf

The current fine is up to $250 for a first offense, $750 for a second,
$1,500 for a third. If you like those chances, take the risk.
If you are unlucky enough to draw one of these judges,you will be out the time and money it takes to clear up the citation,which will be much worse than if you had served.You place your bet and you take your chances. Blowing-off-jury-dutyroulette is not a game I like the odds on. Your view may be different.To me, the most important issue here isn't really about serving juryduty or not; it's about the principle of the government beingallegedly able to fine you $1500 for not responding to a letter whenthere is no way in hell they can PROVE you ever received it. This isfascism, not democracy. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson would have thoughtwe were returning to the injustice of the British Empire if he werealive at this time and place. This is just plain WRONG, and I can'tbelieve you people can't see it that way.

They can prove it to the satisfaction of any court in California. If
you don't find that acceptable, write your assemblyman and ask for the
law on serving jury summons to be changed.
Thanks to all for taking the time to reply. We may disagree but I hopewe can agree to disagree.

--
Chris Green

There was no "criminal behviour" here, Danny Boy. It wasn't against the law
to fail to show up for jury duty back then. (Even now, it's only "contempt
of court".)
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

DanKaye wrote:
Christopher Green wrote:
The court doesn't need to prove that you received it. A jury summons is properly served when it's mailed by first-class mail. All the court needs to do is prove it was mailed;
How can they do that? Someone SAYS It was mailed?? Yeah, and I say it wasn't! Or at least that I did not receive it!

Don't you understand, it's all a GAME?!? They have it set up so that all
they have to do is say they sent it, and in the eyes of the court it was sent
AND YOU GOT IT unless you can prove OTHERWISE!

"What? You say you didn't get it? Okay, we'll take your word for it. But
now you know that you have been called up for jury duty, and just show up on
the third of next Tuesday, and we'll forget about that nasty $1500 fine. And
please be sure to show up, or else we WILL collect that fine."

And if you try the same stunt a second time, they're not likely to be so
forgiving.

Of course, it's impossible to prove a negative. But in order to make the
point, you are going to have to challenge them on it. Which means tha you
are going to have to be charged in court with violating the statue, and then
you will have to provide expert witnesses (university professor and the like)
saying that it is a universally accepted philosophical principle that you
cannot prove a negative. And such witnesses don't come cheap. And moreover,
if you testify under oath that you did not get it when in fact you did, you
will be committing PERJURY, which is a CRIME. It's much cheaper and easier
just to go sit for a day of jury duty.

Now do you understand how the game is played?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

While I do think people should do jury duty when called, I would not
want someone serving as a juror on a trial of mine who didn't want to
be there, this badly, or if they were sitting there thinking about how
their job or business was falling apart in their absence, or how their
invalid live-in mother was lying on the bathroom floor unable to get
up. I have served as a juror myself, never regretted serving, and
actually hope to get called again sometime.

There are people who should not serve, or who cannot serve, and those
people will likely be sent home during jury selection, so if all else
fails just show up, that's most of your requirement right there. You
have a good chance, whether you want it or not, of being eliminated by
the judge or attorneys, or just never selected at all, the first day.
Many more are called than actually chosen.

Now, this one's kind in a semi-kidding vein: If all else fails, do a
search on google.com for "jury nullification." Print something about
it and take it with you. This is a controversial subject that might
make a judge or the attorneys on the case nervous about having you as
a juror. Carry it prominently while awaiting selection. ;)

Go...you might change your mind, and actually be glad you served.


DanKaye <dankaye@nowhere.info> wrote in message news:<q5iuj0h6nb8tv5q4rr80vtghsq1brq7pek@4ax.com>... I know most of you here are inclined to say how important it is to serve jury duty, and how it is "wrong" to avoid it. But for the sake of this argument let's just agree to accept that I have a GOOD reason not to go, but the court - from what I have heard - will not accept my reason as good enough. So I would just rather avoid the whole issue. Please don't moralize, I've read a number of past posts on usenet about this subject and frankly the moral imperatives don't sway me. I'm not looking for a fight here, I just want some facts about getting a summons in with junk mail. I live in Los Angeles, and I got a summons to appear for jury duty in the regular mail; not certified or in any way proven to have arrived at my mail box. It could easily have gotten mixed in with some junk mail and thrown away; in fact I WISH that had happened, then I could HONESTLY say it did, and I would not be here asking this. My question is: Although this "Summons" came to my box, how can they prove it? And how could they FINE me $1500 if they cannot prove I got it? Yes, I understand they sent it to MY address; but could it not have gotten mis-delivered? Could it not have gotten mixed in with junk mail and thrown away by mistake? It seems to me no judge in his right mind would fine someone $1500 for not receiving a piece of mail that can't be proven was ever delivered! Even in the Fascist State of California! Shouldn't it be sent certified or registered? And here's the real question: do they keep track of who they send these things to? One thread I read says they don't. So if you don't call when you get the "summons", how do they follow up? One thread I read said they send a policeman to your door to make sure you are summoned? Here in L.A. with crack being sold on the streets, murders in the hood, rapists on the loose, etc. - they're going to send a cop to MY house to tell me I have to serve JURY DUTY!???! If so, this city is stupider than even I thought! And if I DO have to go for consideration of duty, I will notify them that I believe in jury nullification and will not be chosen to serve, in any case. ****** "As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an " unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge.... (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972))

Maybe he will be chosen to sit on a jury trial over a guy who tried to
ignore his jury summons.

>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
There was no "criminal behviour" here, Danny Boy. It wasn't against the law
to fail to show up for jury duty back then. (Even now, it's only "contempt of
court".)

Its only NOW a contempt of court ??

Consider (from Black's)

"Contempt of court: Any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or
obstruct court in administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen
its authority or its dignity. Committed by a person who does any act in willful
contravention of its authority or dignity, or tending to impede or frustrate
the administration of justice, or by one who, being under the court's authority
as a party to a proceeding therein, willfully disobeys its lawful orders or
fails to comply with an undertaking which he has given""

------
have a GREAT day !!!!
Solar

frippletoot@hotmail.com (Frippletoot) wrote in message news:<66386b8d.0409100917.a43ea6f@posting.google.com>... Maybe he will be chosen to sit on a jury trial over a guy who tried to ignore his jury summons.

If it were possible, it would be poetic justice of a sort. But blowing
off a jury summons is contempt of court, and all the due process he'll
get is to answer to an order to show cause before the judge who cited
him.

--
Not a lawyer,

Chris Green

SolarChase wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote
There was no "criminal behviour" here, Danny Boy. It wasn't against the law to fail to show up for jury duty back then. (Even now, it's only "contempt of court".)
Its only NOW a contempt of court ??
Consider (from Black's)
"Contempt of court: Any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct court in administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity. Committed by a person who does any act in willful contravention of its authority or dignity, or tending to impede or frustrate the administration of justice, or by one who, being under the court's authority as a party to a proceeding therein, willfully disobeys its lawful orders or fails to comply with an undertaking which he has given"

Yeah, yeah. "Contempt of Court" is basically pissing off the judge. And the
penalty is generally in proportion to how irascible a particular judge
happens to be. It's never a good idea to piss off a judge, but it is sheer
idiocy to piss a judge off with the same action twice -- particularly if he's
given you a break the first time around.

BTW, there was a case in New Jersey some years back where the judge had a bad
cup of coffee from the courthouse coffee machine. So he called in the food
service provider into his courtroom and threatened him with "contempt of
court" if he ever served coffee that bad again. Really shook the guy up. So
the county commissioners (or whatever politicians were in charge) heard about
it, and called the judge in on the carpet. Made him admit that he had
overstepped his authority and apologise to the coffee guy. Story made the
papers, too. They called him the "Exigente Judge".
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

"S. O. Damocles" wrote:
[a load of bollocks]

It would be a wise move on your part, Danny Boy, to keep your mouth shut.
But, you're not a wise man then, are you?
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net

SolarChase wrote: Theodore A. Kaldis wrote There was no "criminal behviour" here, Danny Boy. It wasn't against the law to fail to show up for jury duty back then. (Even now, it's only "contempt of court".) Its only NOW a contempt of court ?? Consider (from Black's) "Contempt of court: Any act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct court in administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or its dignity. Committed by a person who does any act in willful contravention of its authority or dignity, or tending to impede or frustrate the administration of justice, or by one who, being under the court's authority as a party to a proceeding therein, willfully disobeys its lawful orders or fails to comply with an undertaking which he has given"" ------ have a GREAT day !!!!


Did you find an empty tube of KY Jelly by that dictionary?
Have it dusted for prints.
Solar

S. O. Damocles wrote:

Did you find an empty tube of KY Jelly

Pox vomitus - scum of the usenet.

Go ahead and take the last word, I'm not going to continue this. I
just want to say that it is my belief that the government should not
have the right to force people to do jury duty. THAT is what is wrong
with it. I don't go downtown for my own purposes, why should I go
there for the government? and not even be paid well for my time and
effort? And I have other personal reasons as well, yet they do not fit
into what the government allows as excuses.

There are MANY legitimate reasons why a person should not have to do
jury duty, not the least of which is that he just plain does not want
to, or does not have the time. What about those of us who work nights
and have to wake up early after working til midnight, or 2 am or 4am?
What about single parents of young children? What about people caring
for elders? What about the old or slightly handicapped? What about
people who have 2 jobs or are using all their spare energy on a
project to get ahead in life? What about people whose backs hurt when
they sit for long periods?

There are many and varying degrees of reasons why people don't want to
go, and it is my view that if someone does not want to do jury duty
because they see it as a hardship, then they should not have to. The
government should not force this upon people. The land of the free? I
don't see it! Many countries have more freedom! [And yes, I AM moving
to one of them, when I can!]

My point is there are many reasons why doing jury duty is a hardship
for many people, and the government makes no exceptions for those
people. That is what is wrong with it.