Notice an actual cover up exposed 8/8/08

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

compared to what, your sources?

reply to post by Mabus


Your kidding right... you do realize that one of thise sources is People Magazine...

reply to post by elevatedone


Not so fast... It was TMZ reporter who told People. If People states it that it's TMZ, then what does that tell you? But if People didnt confirm the story on their on with own reporter, then it's as good as null and void to us who are wise to read between the lines for the details there and details missing and details of how details were obtained.

reply to post by Mabus


Does it really matter?

You said they never serve jury duty and I cleary showed that they do.

reply to post by scientist


It was just proven that there is corruption by the story under the J-lo story in that link if it's true. So if you buy those sources, then you buy that story too which proves my source (the anti-Christ bible) is true about the court %100 being corruption. Dont hear what you want to want only if you buy the link sources in the detail they provide. If you buy it, then you can not not buy what the Anti-Christ bible says about the court's corruption.

I have a feeling you'd dismiss the anti-Christ bible without giving it chance or even wont confirm it's truth even if you read it with your own eyes.

reply to post by elevatedone



What makes a good source is how they came across the details confirmingly.

Was it word of a popperazzi or word from the famous person themself? Were there any witnesses outside the reporters who can says that the famous person was right there with them on the jury for a case? Why is it those key ppl are missing? I have not read anyone else's statement that would add to what makes a good confirming true story. All you provided was word from celeb gossip reports where one got lucky enough to give a story to People (who didnt confirm the story on their own like a good professional mag would do--They were only professional in stating it was TMZ who gave the story which is as good as saying you are despert for a story which is not a good look for People).

Originally posted by elevatedone
reply to post by Mabus

 

Does it really matter?

apparently, not.

Were there any witnesses outside the reporters who can says that the famous person was right there with them on the jury for a case? Why is it those key ppl are missing?

Ummm Ok ....

1.May 1st,
2008
5:21 pm Isabella Rosselini was in my jury pool. Neither of us were selected for a jury, though…

— Posted by Melissa

2.May 1st,
2008
5:25 pm Actually a few years ago I did serve on a jury with Jerry Seinfeld. He and my brother were childhood friends so we had a great time reminiscing about the old neighborhood (Massapequa). By the way one day a few of us went with him to Chinatown for lunch. And no, we did not have to wait long for a table!!

— Posted by Barry

4.May 1st,
2008
8:35 pm Bill Clinton has also been called in NY for jury duty. Every state and city should enact Chief Judge Kaye’s changes so that the jury pool is truly democratic everywhere…

— Posted by Seth

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

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

Source

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.

reply to post by devareous


Anti-Christ bible quote:

Matt -24
-24Against *here* I will command fall (or: a sire) still true Anti-Christs, divide still true programmers, divide I will command shew small (or: insignificant) signs divide uppers; out so less *this*, if it were possible, they I will command deceive the very reject.

^^The uppers would be super stars. And signs made to seem insignificant, when compared to decietful celeb gossip reports and tales from the unbackupable, is what this thread is. Us who are true Anti-Christs were commaned to fall in the eyes of those who are blinded by everything they read which they mistakenly think is true. Those who buy the B.S. tales and celeb gossip know who they are. To them I fall as if I fail before them based on what they "believe" in to what they read into.

Thus the Anti-Christ Bible is raw, real, faithful, and true which you have just witnessed by a small quote from it. The very reject are the stars in a corrupt court that by law isnt supposed to reject anyone just because they are a super star. There is more, but I feel no need to quote to those who will stay blind to hear only what they want.

The thought small signs "divide" uppers because it's on-going. That's why there is no "ed" on divide. So act like you can discern or find yourself not on your toes for wherein Jesus comes as a thief to steal something away from the hypocrites, corrupt, and wicked. What would that be? Everlasting life in paradise!

The anti-Christ bible is for a great purpose. It doesnt damn anyone who should accept it's truths.

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?

it took about 15 seconds on google to find a blog that lists the following celebrity jurors:

uma thurman, regis philbin, herny kissinger, tom wolfe, ivana trump, kathleen turner, harvey keitel and calvin klein. in fact the article (cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...)mentions that the list of celebrity jurors in nyc alone is far longer than that.

i consulted lex-nex and confirmed that each juror i listed did, in fact, serve on a jury.

so yeah. not really an issue and not really too tough to research.

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 Slothrop
it took about 15 seconds on google to find a blog that lists the following celebrity jurors:

uma thurman, regis philbin, herny kissinger, tom wolfe, ivana trump, kathleen turner, harvey keitel and calvin klein. in fact the article (cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...)mentions that the list of celebrity jurors in nyc alone is far longer than that.

i consulted lex-nex and confirmed that each juror i listed did, in fact, serve on a jury.

so yeah. not really an issue and not really too tough to research.

Reveal the kind of confirming in detail. Better not just be word. If you cant, then this thread stands as against all odds.

They've been disproved already. And without a way for us wise ppl to confirm by offical court record or the star themself, it's like reading nothing but a cover up.

Who's next to try placeing a word with not evident confirmations? Ugh at all that would try until they are put in their graves.

And anyone who doesnt read between the lines is see-through.

How many of you can read a mag by me that says, "Yeah I didnt call each juror, but called Slothrop and confrimed the list did serve"

^^Get the F out of here with that so so so see-through kind of BS. Like how did lex-nex confirm? Ha! How many liars want to continue other's lies in life? Yeah, those kinds exist for now. You wont see CNN or Fox act like TMZ or other celeb gossip untrustworthy reporters. So show something from CNN or Fox news with an interview of the star themself. Until then, keep trying with the obvious B.S. and see just how many will follow you actually and honestly that arent like alseep sheep.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Mabus]

Steve Carrell served on a jury.
Reported on TMZ
video of him leaving the court building

Is he famous? Does that count? Or is TMZ not a reliable source?

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.