CALLING ALL JURORS

After a few years of suffering it, judges gradually realize that there is a great, ugly flaw in their judging system. This reeking defect has haunted and harassed both judges and prosecutors for over 1400 years. They've made great progress in taming this blemish upon the smooth, polished surface of law, yet they still haven't been able to banish or vanquish this weakness, as they have easily done with the people they accuse of crime. But they keep trying: every few years a rich, arrogant judge with too much idle time on his hands will jot down some angry notes of inspiration. When he has a drawer full of these, he'll tender them and his idea to a publishing company. The publisher will politely suggest that the judge's ideas are perhaps "ahead of their time" and that he should put them away for the present. The judge, however, being a judge, takes this advice as an insult and instead tries to vend his thesis to other publishing houses. They all politely decline his manuscript. (By this time the judge has been convinced that no publisher will buy random notes, so he has assembled them into a rudimentary "book", typed by his assistants and closely resembling in style his rambling, verbose, pendantic and snide courtroom opinions.)

No publisher will buy it, but judge Almighty KNOWS his ideas are the very thing to fix the lawyers' system he so greatly admires. Because the judge is paid so richly to wear black robes, act pompously and smack his little hammer, he has far more money than brains: he curses the stupidity of publishing houses and grudgingly pays a jobber to make a thousand copies of his book. These he tries to sell, but winds up giving many of them to friends, kin and associates. Underlings are forced to skim through the crap so as to feign having read and enjoyed it for the sake of keeping their lucrative, low-work jobs aiding the judge. Associates and kin place their copies on a shelf to rot. After a few years of tripping over the huge remaining pile in his ample garage, judge Almighty finally gives up on this particular facet of his mission to improve the judicial system: he pays a discount bookseller to pick them up and sell what he can for whatever he can get, on consignment. Almost none sell for any price. The discount broker tells the judge to remove his stock within 90 days. Ninety days passes without action. The judge's years of courtroom insights are ground into mulch and fed back to the plants.

Without even looking for such a trend, I've found 13 instances of this scenario playing out within the past 50 years. All these judges had some good insights, and every one of them had the same big, "good" idea as their central tenet: drastically limit or actually curtail entirely the power jurors have over judges.

It drives some judges quietly mad when, exceedingly rarely, jurors refuse to parrot exactly what the judge/prosecutor team demands of them. It chaps their hides so royally each time this happens that Judge/DA teams regularly sneak over to their legislative kin and beg for laws to take away the jurors' power. Legislative lawcrats have helped their judicial lawcrat brothers on this problem when they could. They caused six jurors to be removed from every civil lawsuit on the legal theory that six cats CAN be more easily herded than twelve. For the most part, however, the legislative lawcrats have decided not to get black eyes helping judge/DAs solve their rogure juror problem.

Judge/DAs have had to employ their own sets of sleazy tricks to herd jurors, en masse, down this conviction chute. (See: Juror Groupies, elsewhere in my writings.) The primary tactic the judge uses is simple deceit. Prior to every criminal trial the judge simply lies directly into the faces of each juror, conniving them to believe that THE LAW forces them to convict when the judge/DA. team meets certain nebulous, verbal "tests" and "standards" that feign objectivity as they are obviously nothing but subjective to any logical, thinking mind. (See: hearsay, probable cause, reasonable doubt, etc in Black's law dictionary.) He does this throughout juror selection and beyond in many subtle guises, but his main thrusts are done after his prosecutor's second "final" argument. The judge gets the last "final" argument as he rends his "instructions" to the jurors. His Almighty tries, with his "instructions", to put the jurors into the straitjacket of law. Over the decades judge/DAs have learned to act like merchants, offering a wide variety of conviction options when their case is weak or based upon frauds that may unravel before the year time limit on appeals and "newly uncovered evidence" is passed. (If the cops and lawcrats can keep their frauds concealed for a solid year, appeals judges can legally wave the checkered flag and refuse to address the merits of newly uncovered evidence by claiming that the target failed to show "due diligence" in being thwarted by the cops and lawcrats from exposing these frauds "sooner".) By offering plenty of choices, such as murder-one, second degree this, so many "counts" of that, the death penalty, life without parole (death by confinement), life, five-to-life, etc, the lawcrats increase their conviction rates, same as merchants lower their prices when selling products in ghettos or third world countries. Some juror's minds can only be law-fogged to a certain degree, and plenty of conviction options make it easier for the eleven other jurors to wear them down to a "lesser" guilty vote so everyone can go home. Judges cannot accept non-unanimous jury-votes as convictions (yet). But since they are all apparently mostly for conviction rather than acquittal, it is in their best political interest to use their overweening power to help beat down minority dissent by forcing jurors back into "further deliberations". Judges and lawcrats take advantage of targets who are ignorant of this fact, and, knowing the vote is eleven to one for conviction, play on their target's gullibility by suggesting he accept, unknown, the majority vote. Lawcrats are all very tricky in offering their targets plenty of ways to waive their rights and thus cut their own throats: this "go for the majority" hung jury trick is only one of the more widely known ones. Every offer the judge/DA/PD team makes has a very high probability of being a bullet in the target's head. (See:Plea "Bargains": Don't Fall For Them, elsewhere in my writings.)

But the crux of the matter is that the greatest unexploited weakness in the lawcrat's oak is the jurors themselves. Most people have no idea that lawcrats want to rid themselves of jurors. Fewer still have the vaguest idea why. My many readers know that the jurors are the only real quality control that the lawcrats suffer, but it goes much further than this.

You won't see this fact revealed in any of the hundreds of Hollywood cop-u-dramas, but a potentially huge lawcrat problem with jurors is that they can always CHANGE THEIR VOTE!

Yes! The sleazy, sneaky, arrogant lords of law have not yet found a way to put a time limit on a juror changing his mind! They've never had to before, so they have not yet needed to run to their legislative brethren and damand this law. But they will soon! There is a tsunami of innocent yet convicted persons who are not ready to die in prison just because lawcrats have roadblocked newly-uncovered evidence with their time-limit laws, procedural bars and vast repertoire of technicality snookery. We are at last so numerous that we can't be overlooked and denied much longer. The thousands of us reported in newspapers and broadcasts have made the lawcrats very nervous. They thought they'd "fixed" their innocents-convicted problem by enacting bogus DNA laws that throw money at themselves for "improvements". That trick only lasted for about two years. The "new" wore off, and the innocents kept getting convicted, then UN-convicted. The lawcrats have noticed the public being harder to convince with the usual courtroom antics of swearing, hear-say and fingerpointing. They've been exposed to too many hundreds of "mistakes" in a row and subliminally know something is very rotten in cop-and-lawyerland. They fear for their own children becoming a decades-too-long "mistake". They begin to become freethinking individuals who realize that when "mistakes" become too prevalent, they can be termed "deliberate" and thus FRAUD. Jurors are recycled enough today to make logical deductions about a process that is less solemn and sacred, and more pompous and theatrical, the more times you see it acted out. Jurors have been forbidden to ask questions, and now they have begun to have the gall to ask WHY this is forbidden. Jurors are begining to notice that the witnesses are all well-rehearsed and that actual, physical evidence that should have been presented is missing, and instead, all that is presented is excuses why it isn't there. Jurors have publicly questioned this lack of real evidence and shown their demands for actual evidence in several trials by acquitting persons that the judge/ DA team thought were already good as slammed. These unexpected “not guilty!” shout-downs of conviction-confident judge/DAs have reached such a common proportion that the lawcrats have had to create ludicrous, bogus, yet simplemindedly plausible excuses for "jurors gone wild". ''They say, "It's the 'CSI Effect"' (See: "CSI Reality" in the 8-06 issue of Scientific American where they get a forensic scientist to vend this smoggy, mis-direction to the middleclass.) The public is watching these far-out, science fiction-type cop-shows and demanding that our cops be Star Trek versions of Sherlock Holmes!" Funny as it may be to freethinking persons suffering lawfraud to see the lawcrats' secondary propaganda machine suddenly whip around and accidentally bite them on their asses, this has almost nothing to do with their problem. When the smoke fogs the mirror and the draft up our legs ceases, there will remain two unconcealable facts: (1) The lawyers' system is still broken and pumping out innocent convictions at a minimum rate of over seven percent (See: Bibliography, "Lawswindled for Life!" elsewhere in my writings) and (2) The science of brain-scanning lie detection is a commercial success and will be freeing innocents and exposing lawcriminals by the horde soon. The only roadblock to this technology is the lawcrats' ability to out-talk scientists and defame statistical analysis. Fortunately for us, lawcrat vapor can't stand long against hard, proven scientific fact.

How do we push this technological advancement along? The legal department of one of these firms has told me that the usual way is to get the facts in front of a witness. (See: FMRI Lie detection = Innocent's lucky Day!) Show him or her what the cops and lawcrats concealed from him and the jurors. He will put this with his memories of the cryptic legal shenanigans he was subjected to during the many rehearsals of his testimony. He will add two and two and, when it becomes plain that he was subtly steered, manipulated, coached and rehearsed to parrot a set of "facts" known to be untrue by the lawcrats who taught him how to testify, he will change his mind. (See: Innocent's Guide to Avoiding False Convictions)

This type of uncovering and displaying the no-longer-concealed facts will work even better on jurors. Jurors do not have such close, friendly ties with the lawcrooks as do witnesses. Witnesses usually choose to stick with their lie because they fear that their victim won't understand that the cops, DA and aides tricked them. Witnesses will not believe you when you tell them that the laws of 49 states absolutely forbid their victims from suing them for lying, knowingly or unknowingly, under oath, in court, during any proceeding. Worse, witnesses will actually run away from you rather than view your proof. Witnesses fear that the cops, DAs and judges will target them for harassment and accusations of crime if they reassess their conclusions on the basis of newly-unconcealed evidence. They saw how easily they were manipulated and realize that any other witness could be just as easily manipulated to swear crime onto them.

Jurors have less to fear from the cops and lawcrats. Jurors are not so heavily programed witnesses. Jurors are farther from the case than witnesses and thus are not as easily seduced by badged, robed and silk-suited con-men. Best, jurors have no stake in maintaining a lie out of hubris or pride. When jurors are tricked, it is often a point of pride and self esteem for them to correct the situation. No one enjoys being fooled, and jurors like being made the fool less than witnesses, since it was their sacred task not to be fooled.

Thus I suggest to every innocent-convicted that you take your proof to the jurors who were defrauded of their right to see ALL the facts and evidence and to make a CORRECT decision that doesn't leave, for example, some killer running loose to be thus encouraged to kill again.

For myself, I use this time to try and track down the jurors in my case, particularly the Black one, who is no doubt more skeptical of the lawyers' system, having been gouged by it more often than have Caucasians. Their names are: Charles Boydston Boyd; Don R. Frgin (this is the court clerk's own spelling); Geraldine D. Marple; Robert 0. Colerick; Julia R. Stockton; Dixie R. Pharris; Earl C. Harrison; James S. Bakc; Frances Day Cervantes; Virginia Marcelle Mousley; Peggy J. Woods and Ann R. Code.

I promise $50 to anyone who finds one of these individuals and convinces him or her to scrutinize my netsite and accept a letter from me. I am certain that my proof is so strong that any juror can evaluate it and decide to tell the judge, Tome Beasley/Tim Harris, "You let this man undergo FMRI Lie Detection at his own expense, or I'll change my verdict:"

This is a very small thing to ask, especially when one weighs it against the lawcrats usual excuses for dodging a ruling on the merits of a case. (See the legal terms "Res Judicata", "procedural bar", "collateral estoppel", "presumption of (the judge/DA's) correctness" and many more examples of cheap, legal hogwash and fact-duckery that I can't remember immediately without the reference sources I no longer have.) Upon meeting such an upstanding and forthright citizen doing his civic duty, the judge, will first bridle at the audacity of someone with courage enough to try to question his unchecked authority. Then His Almighty will scoff, saying, "You can't do that! I won't allow it: Such a thing is preposterous on its face!" When our courageous juror insists, and tries to put the deposition and petition in his hand, the judge will resort to legal flimflammery by quoting case law (which judges make up as they go along) as if it were statute law. No statute law (yet) presumes to force a juror from changing his mind when additional evidence is uncovered. When this becomes a problem, his "Honor" will race to the legislature and try to get them to put a one-year time limit on jurors reassessing their verdicts, the same, exact way they've chopped off citizens' rights to Habeas Corpus, Appeal and others since Clinton made it popular with his accelerated death penalty act of 1996, and their prisoner litigation limit act of about the same period.

Lastly, the judge may make not-so-veiled threats as to the future fortunes of the brave juror. Hopefully the juror will be able to prevail against the lawcrats' attempts at intimidation by protecting himself with witnesses at all times when speaking to too-powerful persons, and by realizing that the judges' and other lawcrats' lucrative govt jobs and fat pensions are not worth losing over one case of their predecessor's corruption.

This is a way innocent persons can get free from fraudulent convictions created out of media lies, courtroom perjury, police/prosecutor evidence-theft, eyewitness-tampering and judge/DA/PD trickery. I advise all of my 300,000-plus fellow innocent convicteds to use this strategy too, before our fine lawcrats obtain the wherewithal to outlaw it.

Sincerely, James Bauhaus