Notice an actual cover up exposed 8/8/08, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 10:31 AM by Brother Stormhammer
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?



reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 10:56 AM by Mabus
Originally posted by Myendica
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....


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.


reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:04 AM by Mabus
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.


reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:26 AM by Mabus
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 posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:38 AM by eaganthorn
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.


reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:49 AM by ignorant_ape
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


reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:54 AM by ignorant_ape
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 posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:57 AM by Mabus
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 posted on 9-8-2008 @ 12:01 PM by Mabus
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 posted on 9-8-2008 @ 12:03 PM by Mabus
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.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 17 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 13 days ago with 122 member flags
STOP....Take a STEP BACK....and look at the BIG PICTURE!!
  Posted 19 days ago with 115 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 18 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 16 days ago with 85 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous hacks CIA
  Breaking Alternative News, Posted 14 hours ago, 109 replies
Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 10 hours ago, 91 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 8 hours ago, 61 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 12 hours ago, 49 replies