Notice an actual cover up exposed 8/8/08

Mabus, before trying to promote yourself as being wise while turning the hearts of others, please learn proper grammar and spelling.

I'm not trying to be a jerk and I am not trying to troll, but I think that discussions like these are important. In order to not make so much of a fool of yourself and to promote your point better, saying and typing it better will have more of the impact you're looking for.

First off this is a ridiculous thread. Second, who cares what celebs and super stars do. Third, didn't like. Oprah or someone serve like 4 years ago? And fourth, if you didn't want to serve duty all you have to say is that you are familiar with the case and you'll be excused. Celebs and stars are only that because you care so much about what they do. They are nothing without everyone. Who cares. Though you are wrong.
That and you aren't supposed to know the jurors anyways. Its kinda like anonymous, you are refered to as juror number 1, 2 3....

I'm not sure I can follow the last few posts by the O.P....he seems to have wandered from his own topic (famous / celebrity jurors and whether their scarcity is a sign of corruption) onto a mini-rant about ugly women, short skirts, and airplanes. I'll just do a quick mental backspace and go back to the original topic.

I'm not sure how familiar the OP is with the jury selection process, but it isn't entirely random. The pool of prospective jurors is picked at random, but the actual juries are seated after a sometimes heated disputation between lawyers for both parties in a case. This, in itself, should explain a lot of the scarcity the OP sees as some sort of conspiracy. The number of prospective jurors is a tiny fraction of the total population, chosen at random from said population. The number of famous people in a given population (outside of certain, fairly limited geographic areas) is also a tiny fraction of the population. The odds of those two tiny subsets of the population having common members are fairly long ones.

In those already rare situations where a celebrity is picked as a prospective juror, he or she has to survive the jury selection process. I can think of a couple of reasons for a lawyer to cut a celebrity from a jury that have nothing to do with 'jury tampering' or 'corruption', but with simple practicality:

1) The presence of a celebrity juror is going to bring more media attention to a case. That's not always frowned on, but most courts don't like hosting a circus.

2) The celebrity might exert undue influence over other jurors. If it's intentional, that might be jury tampering...but it doesn't have to be intentional. To pick an example, Oprah Winfrey doesn't have to tell people "vote this way"...she just has to express an opinion (which would be part of her job as a juror), and a surprising number of people will follow it.

The other way to look at this proposition is to point out that there are a lot of people, most of them not famous at all, who have never served on a jury. My paternal grandfather lived past 80, and my maternal grandmother past 90, and neither of them was even picked as a prospective. My father never had to serve, and I've had to serve one time in 45 years. This was (with the exception of my pick) in a rural county where the pool of prospective jurors is much smaller than, say, Phoenix AZ / Maricopa County. Does the fact that my family is distinctly lacking in jurors make us celebrities? Or does it simply mean that the odds of any one person (famous or not) being tapped to serve are fairly long?

If knowing is seeing, then the juror box would be behind a mirror. You cant reject someone just because you seen them before on T.V. What's the difference bewteen seeing them before on T.V. and seeing them when you look over right before you? Answer that.

You dont personally know someone just because you seen them ACTING or REPORTING NEWS or SHOOTING BALL.

And this aint about being right or wrong, it's about being correct. It still stands there is corruption if ppl get discriminated against just because of assumption that they would influence to the point it bypasses the other jurors making their on decision. I dont know about you, but I sure as hell wouldnt want any assuming type in a postion up top since assuming reveals that you are delusional. Delusional or not it's still discrimination if anyone in a court processes is rejected just because they are very very famous or very very beautiful.

Familar with the case wont work when there is no detail in how you became familar. I'm sure it would be important it's known how you became familiar. By News or etc. Or else, many would avoid being a juror on a case by the magic words that could be a lie. Anyway, why would you try to avoid serving jury duty when you can make a difference? Do I smell the cowardly cooking?

If you paid attention this is a care about the court itself and the discrimination against the stars. Somebody got to care when busters wont or else the world goes to B.S. by you corrupted ones who allow it like you prefer it.

If you saw a famous person having car trouble in the middle of a desert, I have a feeling you wouldnt help them after you saw who it was. You'd prolly think "Well they can help themself since they are rich" with your 'who cares they are celeb attitude' without knowing the circumstances fully or their situation standing.

I think schools should require the students watch that movie "Standing Tall" with the Rock in it. So they see how they SHOULD act against all odds.

Sure you can edit when reading if you cant comprehend a post based on grammar and spelling deemed poor in your view.

If you are wise you would do that for yourself alone.

Did they not teach you to correct sntences in english class? If they did, then why is it you wont apply? That's why I wont do as you say especial since I'm not being paid to. If you lazy, then pay someone editor off to correct grammar and spelling.

See-through type like yourself aint pulling anything with the wise.

If Jesus came and misspelled a word I'm sure you'd dismiss him as not being Jesus and be accounted not worthy for paradise since Jesus states he comes as a thief. Thieves are unexpected in how they take. Could take you away from life through a simple misspell you could have edited your damn self. Jesus is on the wise tip, not that foolish tip certain are on into their grave dates.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

the OP is clearly insane and or simply trolling - but i have a strategy to shut the fool up - but it would be easier and faster if

my proposal is simple - find a case where the juruy that included a celeb voted guilty by unaminus verdict only to have the defendants barrister file an appeal on the grounds that the celeb must have voted ` guilty ` there fore the other jurors MAY have been influenced to vote the same way

does that make sense - if there is an appeal partition - the OP cannot rationaly deny it

it sounds simple - but i would not know where to start - but surely some of our american ATS members are are oknow someone in the legal proffession that has the skills and access to subscription only services [ westlaw etc ] that would make locating my hypothetical case [ if it exist ] easy

whereas i would be wandering about googling with no real idea howto propperly do it

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer

---

Havent you head of a gag order?

The media can be kept out by order by any judge. So aint no way a star should be rejected because of that fact right there alone. There is no excuse! If there is discrimination in the court's jury selection process (all aspects), then there is corruption allowed which means the court is corrupt.

I'm not even quite sure what you are really trying to say in that last post, but I will say this- your point is slowly losing validity because of your over-the-top standoff-ish attitude.

Liar. How is it deemed stand off-ish it you didnt see the points I made clear? You cant have it both ways. If you didnt get what I said, then neither can you state me as being stand off-ish.

See-through you are. Dont even stay in this thread if you cant handle your personal problem you have with other ppl.

Matter of fact, I'm putting you on ignore. Any copy cats like you will be put on ignore too.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

mabus :

your argument is fatally flawed

excluding celebrities - if it indeed occurs

would not be a ` corrupt ` move IMHO but a just one

because it would remove the incentive for other jurors to ape the celebrities vote , ie :

OMG ,UMA THRMAN THINKSHE IS GUILTY - HE MUST BE GUILTY

or

DAMM IT SLY STALONE THINKS HE IS INNOCENT , HE MUST BE INNOCENT

dont think those senarios are plausible ? then why celebrity endorsements of products

why do certain accessories become suddenly popular after a celeb is seen sporting them

do you think ` air jordans ` are the best QUALITY shoe on the market ?

why do you think thoussands of peope took to wearing the stoper from grolsh larger bottles on thier shoes in the late 80s ?

get a grip FFS

reply to post by ignorant_ape

---

Were you taught by your parents to look at stars as role models and that you should do everything they do?

When you get adult it's clear that judges dont play that crap or else every star on trail would have been found not guilty even if they did the crime based on evidence just because the judge kept that role model thing in mind to where the judge would declare not guilty just because the star said they are not.

reply to post by Mabus

---

I can appreciate your enthusiasm, but you seem to misunderstand the jury selection process.
Many celebrities are notified at random for jury duty, but are subsequently disqualified during the selection process as ineligible to serve.
1. Some are disqualified as not representative as a valid peer.
2. Some are disqualified as being deemed far too ego-centric.
3. Some are disqualified for having the “I’m too special” syndrome resulting from being a celebrity.
4. Some are disqualified because they subscribe to an unrealistic expectation of the judicial system.
5. Some are disqualified by stating they think the jury experience will help their career.
And list can go on, but you should get the point. Celebrities are not and cannot be an unbiased juror in any jury trial case, it isn’t that you are seeing corruption in the form of “the celebrities are getting away with something”, you are seeing that the judicial system, with all of its inherent faults, actually has a working component in the form of jury selection.

Think about it, was does average Joe lunchbox have in common with Sean Penn or Alex Baldwin? Do you really think they can have the same shared concepts of reality and life in general? No they can’t, which is why they would never be admissible in court as a juror.

If you ever do find yourself as a defendant in a jury trial, feel free to understand your impending doom should you look over to the jury and see a celebrity in that box for it means the jury was not properly selected and you are about to be railroaded by a stacked jury with a pre-existing verdict.

I hope this helps you to understand.

I wondered this question back about 20 years ago, and it was simple ... the court will dismiss distractions.. and celebs are distractions.... you will also be excused if you know of official wrong doing... was a tow truck driver, ambulance, police sitting official. etc... so there is no big mystery here... just the way it is... plus, celebs can get off by saying they are scheduled for a production or something.

reply to post by Mabus

---

ROFLMAO

you are putting him on ignore because you cannot deal with his attitude

LOL

simply priceless

you are a true ostritch

Celebrity: "Your honor, I ask to be excused from jury duty because my celebrity would bring undue attention to the proceedings that would cause a distraction and possibly taint the rest of the jury pool."

Judge: Granted.

reply to post by BornPatriot

---

absolutly correct

a mate of mine ` ducked ` jury servive 5 years ago when he presented the court with evidence that he was due to fly to the UAE to take up a pst paying 3.5 times his UK salary - PLUS tax tree bonuses

his appeal lasted < 2 minuites and he was excused

reply to post by Mabus

---

I think your theory just got shot down!

reply to post by eaganthorn

---

And just who is the deemer? Where did you get that from? Jurors themselves?

Plus, I never seen jurors given reasons why they were dismissed before put on a case. Aint no one gonna say to you or state on a form for you: "You're too special because you're famous."

I havent heard a single star say that was said to them.

I've heard of reasons why jurors are on a particular case being based on certain things like because of the location.

reply to post by ignorant_ape

---

You sure didnt answer my question. Do I smell more cowardliness? Instead you side track. Are you continuing to go off the side in my thread? If so, dont post again or I will put you on ignore for being for someone I put on ignore. I go against all odds. Test me if you dare.

reply to post by spookjr

---

It turned into actual and not a theory. How? Based on if you buy the stories in the sources of others in here. Corruption is in their source and in the stories if you buy into them. If you dont buy their sources, then you do see the cover up. Either way I got either revealed as actual.