Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Doug's Herich Story on Jury Duty

Expand Messages
  • dave
    Doug s Herich Story on Jury Duty A short story explaining the easiest way to get out of having to serve as a juror in your own state, in any US court. I play
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Doug's Herich Story on Jury Duty



      A short story explaining the easiest way to get out of having to "serve" as
      a juror in your own state, in any US court.

      I play water polo with a club team and last week while we were in the locker
      room getting ready to jump in the pool, a fellow teammate was complaining
      that he was going to miss the next practice because he was chosen to serve
      on a jury for an upcoming trial. He was only being paid $15 per day versus
      the $250 per day his normal earnings yielded so he was not a happy camper.
      I told him that I know an easy way to get out of jury duty every single time
      and of course, everyone in the locker room wanted to know, including one of
      my attorney friends that happened to be there as well. So I continued,
      "first thing you need to do is to look up online for your own state's
      requirements to be a qualified juror. In California, the very first
      requirement is to be "A domiciliary of the State of California." Then you
      must understand what that means.so I asked them all if they knew. Well no
      one spoke up including the attorney, but they were all listening. I said,
      "a domiciliary of the State of California is an individual that resides in
      the State of California." So then I asked, do you reside in the state of
      California? He said I think so but then he did not know how to prove it to
      himself. So I explained to him that first one must know WHERE the State of
      California (SOC) is located. Now most people believe that the SOC is a
      geographic region, right? Well, it's not and upon close inspection of the
      Organic Laws of the USA and the State of California Constitution, one
      arrives at the correct answer. I gave them a hint; I told them in Article
      III Section I of the California Constitution is the following sentence: "The
      State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America,
      and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land." The
      "land" being referred to is federal territory so the State of California is
      the land owned by and under the exclusive legislated jurisdiction of the
      United States of America. (And does not include land not owned by the USA,
      which is probably where most readers live.) So now I asked, "do any of you
      have a permanent residence on or in federal territory i.e. a state park or
      military base?" Of course every single one of them said they have never
      resided on federal land because no one is allowed to be domiciled on federal
      land, except for a park ranger or two, and they are federal employees that
      are required to reside there for employment purposes only.

      So then, the question of the juror dilemma is easily answered by
      disqualifying oneself from jury duty based on facts of law. (Therefore you
      do not qualify and are in fact legally bared) You can't possibly be a
      domiciliary of the State of California or a citizen of the United States
      because you do not reside in either one of those places. The Articles of
      Confederation, November 15, 1777 provide the necessary alternative to being
      a U.S. citizen:

      Article IV. "The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and
      intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free
      inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from
      Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free
      citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free
      ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all
      the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties,
      impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively,
      provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the
      removal of property imported into any state, to any other state of which the
      Owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or
      restriction shall be laid by any state, on the property of the united
      states, or either of them.

      I almost forgot to mention that my water polo buddy showed up Friday for
      practice because he had successfully disqualified himself from jury duty.
      Bingo! Thanks for reading.

      Moral of this story: Knowing the truth about yourself is very important.
      Doug Herich (Close friend of Paul John Hansen, meet vi
      www.EDRIVERA.COM)
    • mike s
      The esiest way out of jury duty is what I have done 5 times already. I return there letter stating that all korts are fraud non constitutional and so are the
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 18, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        The esiest way out of jury duty is what I have done 5 times already. I return there letter stating that all korts are fraud non constitutional and so are the judges and I refuse to take part in any fraud by any kangaroo kort system not within the CONSTITUTION. I go on to say all judges are frauds and treasonous bastards. Everytime I get a letter stating I have been relieved from jury duty. Now I wait a couple more years and do it again. I showed my friend my last reply to the korts and he freaked out. I had him mail it off and 11 day's later I showed him the 4x6 post card stating I have been releaved for jury duty. WORKS EVERYTIME

        Residency means you have a presence with a purpose. When you complete that purpose, you will return to your domicile. An example is a doctor's residency in a hospital. The doctor is there to complete his purpose, and when he is finished he leaves.A domicil needs no purpose. It is not necessary to justify your presence at your domicile. It is your permanent home
        For jurisdictional purposes, namely the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution (Art. I, Sec 8, Clause 3), your claim of residency of a state is used to subject you to regulation under the interstate commerce clause.



        BOUVIER's LAW DICTIONARY
        Sixth Edition (1856)
        RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.
        2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.
        3. In some cases the law requires that the residence of an officer shall be in the district in which he is required to exercise his functions. Fixing his residence elsewhere without an intention of returning, would violate such law. Vide the cases cited under the article Domicil; Place of residence.
        RESIDENT, international law. A minister, according to diplomatic language, of a third order, less in dignity than an ambassador, or an envoy. This term formerly related only to the continuance of the minister's stay, but now it is confined to ministers of this class.
        2. The resident does not represent the prince's person in his dignity, but only his affairs. His representation is in reality of the same nature as that of the envoy; hence he is often termed, as well as the envoy, a minister of the second order, thus distinguishing only two classes of public ministers, the former consisting of ambassadors who are invested with the representative character in preeminence, the latter comprising all other ministers, who do not possess that exalted character. This is the most necessary distinction, and indeed the only essential one. Vattel liv. 4, c. 6, 73.
        RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.



        Bouvier's Law Dictionary
        14th edition, Vol. II, page 470
        Resident. One who has his residence in a place.Residence indicates permanency of occupation, as distinct from lodging, or boarding, or temporary occupation, but does not include so much as domicil [sic], which requires an intention continued with residence. 19 Mc. 293; 2 Kent, Comm. 10th ed. 576.



        Blacks Law Dictionary
        4th Ed., Page 1176
        As "domicile" and "residence" are usually in the same place, they are frequently used as if they had the same meaning, but they are not indentical terms, for a person may have two places of residence, as in the city and country, but only one domicile. Residence means living in a particular locality, but domicile means living in that locality with intent to make it a fixed and permanent home. Residence simply required bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place, while domicile requires bodily presence in that place and also an intention to make it one's domicile. Fuller v. Hofferbert, C./A.Ohio, 204 F.2d 592, 597. [see also In re Riley's Will, 266 N.Y.S. 209, 148 Misc. 588.]"Residence" is not synonyumous with "domicile," though the two terms are closely related; a person may have only one legal domicile at one time, but he may have more than one residence. Fielding v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, L.App., 331 So.2d 186, 188.
        In certain contexts the courts consider "residence" and "domicile" to be synonymous (e.g. divorce action, Cooper v. Cooper, 269 Cal.App.2d 6, 74 Cal. Rptr. 439, 441); while in others the two terms are distinguished (e.g. venue, Fromkin v. Loehmann's Hewlett, Inc., 16 Misc.2d 117, 184 N.Y.S.2d 63, 65).

      • Michael
        ... ... I revoked my voter registration, a source for calling persons to jury duty.
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 18, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "dave" <dwissel@...> wrote:
          \

          > A short story explaining the easiest way to get
          > out of having to "serve" as a juror in your own state...


          I revoked my voter registration, a source for
          calling "persons" to jury duty.
        • Clare Reading
          I would want informed people on my jury! Please don t shirk your responsibility and abandon a possible defendant like me! ~ C.
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 18, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            I would want informed people on my jury!
            Please don't shirk your responsibility and abandon a possible defendant like
            me!
            ~ C.
          • Coalbunny
            In the past 30 years I have had a number of jury summons. First time, I went and asked to be released as I was in the process of building my house. Judge
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 18, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              In the past 30 years I have had a number of jury summons. First time, I
              went and asked to be released as I was in the process of building my
              house. Judge said no, and because of the distance between my
              home-to-be, I had to stay at one of my family membersÂ’ homes instead.
              When I was finally released from duty I went back and found over $20,000
              in damage; equipment gone or destroyed; building supplies stolen or
              destroyed. And the sheriff's dept. wouldn't even respond and take a
              report. After that the same court tried getting me to show for jury
              duty. Except each time I was living out of state- California, Oregon or
              Utah. Each time the Clerk would tell me to show or a warrant would be
              issued. So I tell her my address, and she'll repeat herself. Then I
              told her the name and telephone number of the sheriff in the county I
              was living and told her that if she has a problem she can always call
              him to verify. Well that still didn't work, even though I'm honest and
              was telling the truth. Then the next one I got, I figured I'd play
              their game. I was living in Oregon, and called the woman and told her
              I just ain't gonna come and she ain't never gonna be man enough to do
              anything about it! Ohhhhh! That mad her mad as a hornet! So I told
              her how her coward sheriff ain't man enough to do anything about it. So
              the county sheriff sent a deputy to my old address and found someone
              else living there- my grandparents (who I told in advance of this
              charade). And my grandfather told me they'll tell him they don't know
              me! (I'm giggling at this point)

              Next thing I know the county sheriff calls me and asks me where I live
              so he can arrest me. So I told him. 120 miles away.... in UTAH! I told
              him if he doesn't believe me he can always call the sheriff. Which he
              did, and I never heard back. I found out about his call to the county
              sheriff where I lived from a buddy of mine that was a deputy there.
              This is all very interesting, to say the least.

              The last time I was called for jury duty I went, and I was all "snazzied
              up". I even woke up early (I"m retired, so I sleep as long as I want,
              when I want). And I'll be damned, they cancelled it. Damn them. I
              woke up early for them!
              c
            • MadDogMarine
              I agree. We are all potential defendants living under this criminal enterprise known as our government. Moderator/Bear: The last jury trial I had, they asked
              Message 6 of 10 , Jun 19, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I agree. We are all potential defendants living under this criminal
                enterprise known as our government.

                Moderator/Bear: The last jury trial I had, they asked everyone whether they had spent any time studying or dealing with law and made sure they dealt with that, addressing each juror individually. One of the last trials here in Colorado involving jury nullification, People v. Kriho, "http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10829654873968084071&q=%22Laura+Kriho%22&hl=en&as_sdt=4,6" a woman who did not answer voir dire candidly was charged with contempt. Kriho addresses and links to a bunch of federal cases on the issue of nullification and lack of candor by a juror too. What that amounts to is a waste of time for informed people to sit through voir dire knowing that there is zero chance they will end up on the jury without utilizing some form of deception and risking contempt as well. I had one trial where they wasted no time disqualifying a potential juror because he came right out and said he would nullify the law if he didn't think it was fair. If you, as an informed juror, manage to get on the jury and hang it, they would have no problem at all doing the trial over again and being more careful about jury selection the next time.

                On Sat, 18 Jun 2011 22:41:30 -0700, "Clare Reading" <oim4jr1@...>
                wrote:
                > I would want informed people on my jury!
                > Please don't shirk your responsibility and abandon a possible defendant
                > like
                > me!
                > ~ C.
              • dave
                Amazing court case bear moderator gave. Just look at the elitist attitude of the judge: Would all of you agree to follow my instructions on the law even if
                Message 7 of 10 , Jun 19, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Amazing court case bear moderator gave. Just look at the elitist attitude of the judge:



                  "Would all of you agree to follow my instructions on the law even if you don't agree with them or you don't think that they are what the law is or should be?"

                  ....

                  "What I need from you is a commitment that you will follow my instructions even if you don't agree with them. And you all agree to do that? Follow the instructions on the law? My job is to tell you what the law is, and will you all agree to follow my instructions? Will you all agree? Anyone saying no?"
                • FJ
                  I agree. That is what I have told everyone. And some go and it is a learning experience. They can also educate other jurors
                  Message 8 of 10 , Jun 19, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I agree. That is what I have told everyone. And some go and it is a
                    learning experience. They can also educate other jurors

                    On 6/18/2011 11:41 PM, Clare Reading wrote:
                    > I would want informed people on my jury!
                    > Please don't shirk your responsibility and abandon a possible defendant like
                    > me!
                    > ~ C.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • dave
                    What exists for jury duty consists in keeping a cancerous growth alive by the acclamation of the people called a jury..to the people s detriment. That is the
                    Message 9 of 10 , Jun 19, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment

                      What exists for “jury duty” consists in keeping a cancerous growth alive by the acclamation of the people called a jury….to the people’s detriment. That is the definition of stupidity. Present day juries are the antithesis of what a jury of supposed to be—a judge of the laws as such law is for people, a jury of peers, and the power holder in the court. You will find every aspect of this kept hidden from present day juries and in its place is offered the opposite. Disgustingly they pawn this off as “for the people” and ironically sell it on fear of loss of freedom.

                       

                      You’ve been handed limited choice and told it is freedom. By not showing you alternative, you are left with their choice. They’ve deprived you of the near number one cause for fighting for the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 –the right of a free people to the unwritten law that is common with men.

                       

                      In its place they’ve handed you the cheesey substitute called written law. Written law is “good enough for government work” because government needs written laws to keep it in check. They’ve “turned the tables” and taken the law intended for them and used it on you. All their courts are creations of written law—every one. You will NOT obtain justice in one of these courts—it is an impossibility because the wrong law will be applied to you.

                       

                    • BeatIRS@aol.com
                      I did, and I went a step further and told the government agent (ah! Judge) that, to be a protector of the people, a juror must determine the law and if it is
                      Message 10 of 10 , Jun 19, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I did, and I went a step further and told the government agent (ah! Judge) that, to be
                        a protector of the people, a juror must determine the law and if it is constitutional.
                         
                        Fred
                         
                         
                        In a message dated 6/19/2011 12:42:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dwissel@... writes:
                         

                        Amazing court case bear moderator gave. Just look at the elitist attitude of the judge:

                        "Would all of you agree to follow my instructions on the law even if you don't agree with them or you don't think that they are what the law is or should be?"

                        ....

                        "What I need from you is a commitment that you will follow my instructions even if you don't agree with them. And you all agree to do that? Follow the instructions on the law? My job is to tell you what the law is, and will you all agree to follow my instructions? Will you all agree? Anyone saying no?"

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.