Originally posted by Mabus
The sources listed are trustworthy to any of you off the bat?!

compared to what, your sources?

What makes you think those stories are true? What make you think those stories arent a cover up themself to make it look like famous ppl serve actual jury duty on a case?

So what makes you think those famous ppl were put on the case by those quotes by ppl who didnt leave any jury group number (at least) or court room number or their individual jury number?

Those stories do seem to only tell of the waiting room part only. But there is a problem...


"7.May 1st,
2008
10:07 pm Matthew Broderick was in my jury pool. When they called his name, I thought, “Wow, there are two Matthew Broderick’s?”…I was happy to see him there and to learn that celebrities were not excused from this civil duty.

— Posted by Melissa"

^^Civil duty doesnt mean he had got put on a case as a juror. For all you know all civil duty is is just having shown up. So detail is missing. I mean, why is there no juror who says they served on a jury with the famous, instead of a few stories talking about seeing someone famous there or seeing someone famous give a name and occupation?

"9.May 2nd,
2008
8:01 am I was part of a venire including Dan Rather. He was selected for the jury, I was not. It was rather amusing to watch as they asked him his name and what his occupation was.

— Posted by K T "

^^In what part would you say this person saw the famous person give their name and occupation if he (the witness of the famous person) wasnt selected to give name and occupation? That tells you right there the supposed witness didnt get to see into anything if he wasnt even selected unless he was asked his name and occupation in the waiting room (which again, doesnt mean all the jury group ppl called into a courtroom are selected to actually serve the hardcore part). Thus it's a lie.

Plus, why is it so convienant that we get no person who served the hardcore part with a famous person? The waiting room parts and jury parts where the jury group makes it into the main courtroom where certain will get selected only is B.S. since none of them in any of those story actually sat on a case as a juror with a famous person.

Anyway, it's a cover up. Those ppl we dont know. That's a fact. They could be working for the government to type in a lie that of course was left not to be backed up with jury related numbers.

Why isnt there a judge who says yeah they noticed they had a famous person in the jury box?

No one can defeat the topful pit.

The only two I quoted are the ones that make it "seem" the famous persons were famous during the time. All them other quotes dont even come near almost "seeming" worthy or true.

Plus, the hours they all are posted on that site are suspect. Along with the dates that just happen to be right after each other May 1st, May 2nd. What's the odds of them ppl saying their life story the same day or the second day following? So if you buy it, then you are just ugh or maybe apart of the cover up for all we know.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Mabus]

Mabus u get ur info from the satanic bible,and ur actuly fighting about sources.
I love you my brother and jesus loves you too,we forgive you,come to the light.we have cookies and milk.

yeah ok there buddy.

You beleive what you want. I proved you wrong, you can't accept it, so we'll just agree to disagree.

ya, but can you show me in the Anti-Christ bible where it says Madonna admits to serving jury duty? No?

Originally posted by Mabus
I'll just ask you two questions and see if I aint the only one who noticed...

1. Have any of you in your rational and awake life time (yeah, where it counts) ever learned after a court hearing/trial that someone famous served jury duty?

2. If you never learned of this to your knowledge, then what does that say about the judical system on the claimed random jury selection ASPECT that's supposed to be in place here in the U.S.

According to something I came across in the Anti-Christ bible it is apparent to me that "the" court period (at least here that I can attest to if that's the correct word) is a standing corruption. This I think I exposed (not coincidentally on 8-8-08) is consistant in revealing what makes it corrupt.

Do buy the bible then do the math... Ask famous stars, not when they werent famous, if they had to serve a jury duty since having been famous. I'm talking top stars on a national or globe level of fame. Plus, ask 'em if jury service from a summons, if they ever even got one while famous, was called off. Big stars in the movie related world and athlete related world (maybe even news media related world) can all be considered super stars of the famous. No where in the rules for who makes a jury does it state a no famous person or no super star person rule. So ask yourself what is actually in place if the so-called random select isnt what it actually and honestly is.

I bet you not a single super star will tell you that they served on jury duty since being a star. That alone tells you the court is technically corruption.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Mabus]

Yeah the interesting including the fact I never hear about people at the TOP getting vaccinations...

Originally posted by Mabus
I'll just ask you two questions and see if I aint the only one who noticed...

1. Have any of you in your rational and awake life time (yeah, where it counts) ever learned after a court hearing/trial that someone famous served jury duty?

2. If you never learned of this to your knowledge, then what does that say about the judical system on the claimed random jury selection ASPECT that's supposed to be in place here in the U.S.

According to something I came across in the Anti-Christ bible it is apparent to me that "the" court period (at least here that I can attest to if that's the correct word) is a standing corruption. This I think I exposed (not coincidentally on 8-8-08) is consistant in revealing what makes it corrupt.

Do buy the bible then do the math... Ask famous stars, not when they werent famous, if they had to serve a jury duty since having been famous. I'm talking top stars on a national or globe level of fame. Plus, ask 'em if jury service from a summons, if they ever even got one while famous, was called off. Big stars in the movie related world and athlete related world (maybe even news media related world) can all be considered super stars of the famous. No where in the rules for who makes a jury does it state a no famous person or no super star person rule. So ask yourself what is actually in place if the so-called random select isnt what it actually and honestly is.

I bet you not a single super star will tell you that they served on jury duty since being a star. That alone tells you the court is technically corruption.

[edit on 8-8-2008 by Mabus]

yup your right...but lawyers and police officers rarely serve. i was in a jury pool for a murder trial in 2007 and there must have been at least 15 people in those positions and all of them were dismissed. "the famous" cause undue distraction and possible undue persuasive power in an otherwise serious, and deliberative venue. this actually avoids your stated corruption of the court.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by jimmyx]

Originally posted by jimmyx
yup your right...but lawyers and police officers rarely serve. i was in a jury pool for a murder trial in 2007 and there must have been at least 15 people in those positions and all of them were dismissed. "the famous" cause undue distraction and possible undue persuasive power in an otherwise serious, and deliberative venue. this actually avoids your stated corruption of the court.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by jimmyx]

Again, there is no "no famous person jury rule". So if any famous person is rejected because of them being famous, then that is corruption based on the rules. I didnt make the rules, the law did. Plus, what about a really gorgeous woman? You think they cause distraction so they should be rejected?

Certain of you ppl are truely for corruption in the courts. Says alot about you. It's the same as sexism and racism--any discrimination period outside the jury server rules.

I want you it concern to tell me you're for discrimination without dancing around it if you're for it in the jury selection in any way, shape, or form. And if you do say you're for it, then you are stating you're corrupt yourself. PPl who avoid being frankly honest are cowards I wouldnt want in any high postions.

You corrupt ppl are like the kinds that if worked for an airline and seen a very ugly woman wearing a short skirt you'd let them board while trying to hardly look at them. But when you see a very attractive woman with a short skirt, then there is a problem to where you'd see to it they dont board without putting something else on. Haha. What? You dont want someone lucky to be their seat mate? Or you feel they think they 'all that' though they didnt say that to where you have a personal issue of some kind based on your poor judgment taken out of someone innocent just because you had it bad with attractive women you met in life before?

Either way you corrupt kinds deserved to be sued or beaten on spot. Let me catch some stanger whose attractive get a hard time by someone corrupt in my presense... I wont confront them, I'd sucker punch em and keep moving, and yell, "Was that a personal issue just like the personal issue you having with the pretty one?" Someone got to do something against the corrupt. I aint that guy that would let someone hi jack a plane that I'm on like the rest of you busters who'd stay in your seats as the cowardly who wouldnt do what you should do.

Should Life! What?! Should Life! Only the worthy do what they should in life.