The Wonderful Blog Which You ve Never Seen

March 8-9, 2004

The case: Plaintiff sues Defendant for negligence in that her 11 year old son shot neighbor plaintiff’s 10 year old daughter with a BB gun. The BB lodged in the girl’s neck. This happened three years ago and the decision was made not to remove the BB, that leaving it there would be harmless.

The Jury: 8 people; three men five women.

Men:

Me-72 years old, former school teacher, liberal democrat.

Laughing fireman, age about 25-makes a joke about everything, always laughing.

Ex-military, reading a Christian bestseller for his church group, age 70’s-pompous and smirking, self-righteous, wants to bring back corporal punishment.

Women:

Artist, in her 20’s, bright, gender not clear, tattoos burned off arms. Conservative, punitive.

Foreperson by assumption- said she was 22 - very overweight math teacher-to-be, takes over, pushes others around, acts coy, talks incessantly.

Well-to-do, married, in her 70’s, very conservative, intelligent.

PE coach and nurse - in her 60’s, tough, coarse, conservative

Married woman, sensible, caring, in her 50’s, conservative.

The suit charged negligence. I felt that was not true. The mother had taught her son to be careful; the gun was kept in her room until she felt she could trust him, that he was not to use it without her being present. Someone else got the gun from the house, an older boy, and the son picked it up, called to the girl who was playing on the fence between the yards and said he was going to shoot, thinking it was empty. The girl turned, the boy shot, the BB hit.

Doctors agree that BB need not be removed and no future problems should arise.

The other 7 jurors were willing to listen to my argument, then ignored it, did not discuss, did not ponder. They had decided she was negligent, even though each one of them recounted a story or two about their own indiscretions as youngsters, and none was willing to say that their mothers were negligent; it’s just the sort of thing that can happen to kids.

The group felt that there was no reason to award a large amount. We (I had been marginalized since I was not a signer, but I was able to participate) calculated the medical bills and added on $10,000 for pain and suffering and possible future surgery; even though three doctors said there would never be any need for it.

We all thought that the attorneys for the plaintiff were obnoxious, ill-prepared and sarcastic. The judge seemed uncomfortable.

When the clerk read the verdict, she had to ask the judge to verify for her that the figure was correct, seemed to find it unbelievably low.

No emotion was registered by anyone in the court, no smile no frown.

Only one of the jurors who signed the verdict was willing to stay and answer questions. She was the caring married woman and she gave a good summary to the lawyers and litigants. I stayed also and told my point of view.

This was the second jury I served on. The first one was an armed robbery case. The verdict was guilty, and I concurred, but the process was hurried and careless. I had to get them to go over the evidence again so we could have a reasonable discussion. Some jurors expressed thanks that we spent more time on it.

It is not fair or reasonable for me to draw any vast conclusion from these two experiences, but it certainly makes me wonder about the jury system.

Post Script: The day after I prepared this article for eZineArticles I received a notice that I have been called up for jury duty, again.

Jack Wilson is a writer and artist from Los Angeles and Phoenix.

http://www.geocities.com/galimatio/jackwilson.html

Tags: b b gun, court, courts, juror, jury, Justice, law, lawyer, mother, panel, plaintiff, prosecutor, system, trialb b gun, court, courts, juror, jury, Justice, law, lawyer, mother, panel, plaintiff, prosecutor, system, trial

Share This

No Comments »

The rush to file bankruptcy ahead of the new bankruptcy law over. Now what? Did you miss the boat if you didn’t file bankruptcy before the new law went into effect?

Absolutely not. Although the new bankruptcy law has made it much more difficult to file bankruptcy, most attorneys are finding out that the new bankruptcy law is manageable and filings are on the rise.

One of the most confusing parts of the new bankruptcy law is the bankruptcy means test.

In an effort to stop bankruptcy abuse, Congress decided to implement a step to the bankruptcy process called the “bankruptcy means test”.The new bankruptcy law requires a test to be performed by every debtor prior to filing bankruptcy. The actual test is alot like doing your taxes. The means test revolves around the median state income for the state in which the debtor will file bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy means test is used to determine what type of bankruptcy a debtor can file. The bankruptcy means test is an attempt to make chapter 7 available to only those debtors who absolutely need to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy. Most people trying to file bankruptcy want to try to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy which can wipe out most debt quickly; a chapter 7 case is usually completed in about 90 to 120 days with no required repayment plan. The other type of consumer debtor bankruptcy is a chapter 13 bankruptcy which requires a debtor to make repayments to the bankruptcy court over the course of 3 to 5 years.

The means test is designed to weed out those people who don’t really need to file a chapter 7 in the hopes that more people will have to file a chapter 13 bankruptcy and pay all, or a portion, of their debt back to their creditors through a court ordered repayment plan. Remember, the new bankruptcy law was funded by creditors so it only seems logical that the law would encourage the repayment form of bankruptcy.

The actual means test can be quite simple if a debtor is below their median state income. If a debtor is below the median income for their state, the debtor can file a chapter 7 bankruptcy. Debtors who exceed the median income may still be able to file a chapter 7 bankruptcy but they must complete several additional steps in the test that are far more complicated. If a debtor fails the means test, the debtor is not prohibited from filing. However, a debtor who fails the test cannot file a chapter 7.

To find your median state income and learn more about the new bankruptcy law, visit bankruptcyhelponline.org.

Jameson Joyce is a legal writer for legalhelponline.org and Direct Lex, the global legal resource solution.

Tags: bankruptcy, bankruptcy means test, chapter 7, lawbankruptcy, bankruptcy means test, chapter 7, law

Share This

No Comments »

We are a nation of law, not men. This is the mantra of the people who make law, day after day, century after century. Can we ever tire of hearing we must behave a certain way because it’s the law? Not only is it the law, ignorance of it is no excuse. Since no American home can contain it all in paper volumes, ignorance of the law is a natural fact of life, excuse or not. That which we have and can’t possibly know is never enough because lawmaking and enforcement are lucrative growth industries to benefit a few at the expense of many.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people can only exist on the local level and then only until a “superior” government of the people, by the rich, for the rich, supplants it. It is not ignorance of the law that enslaves us, it is our ignorance of its origins that does so. The rich exploiters of humanity write the laws we live by and have their professional servants transcribe them into the proper jargon. Jargon that makes them difficult or impossible to understand until after one has been charged with a violation that demands professional defense. How convenient for the ever expanding law profession. There appears to be a huge conflict of interest in allowing lawyers to write any laws. They and politicians are the lap dogs of the powerful. Legal guns.

Statute law which is given much more weight than diivine law, traditional common law and natural law; is mostly created by people who profit by controlling the behaviors of their ignorant and busy servants. These rich and powerful people define and control the education of their subjects. An education to convince us all we are accidental beings living lives of accidental circumstance, of no particular value. No master is responsible for anything that happens in global events but servants are responsible for their own compliant behavior. When a servant rebels, the servant is processed through the masters’ just us system and locked in a cage. We call this freedom and justice because our masters tell us it is freedom and justice, from the time we enter their youth indoctrination centers.

Guaranteed a jury of your peers, the definition of peer is any ignorant person who will follow the instructions of some judge. One who knows nothing about the suppression of evidence and criminal behaviors occurring daily in the masters’ courts. The few who discover this fraud become even more angry and rebellious so their punishment becomes a most useful example to others who might not be compliant enough to make life easy for the masters’ administrators. We give the rebels a label to distinguish them from the compliant. We call them criminals. A criminal is any person who violates any rule. This makes life very simple for the masters and their servants. It makes life intolerable for the non compliant rebels who become full of anger and resentment to the point of violence againt their natural enemies, the compliant servants. The victims of violence rhetorically ask, why me? Then they demand the arrest, conviction and punishment of the rebel. The rebel is later released to injure more servants who will demand more punishment. It is such a clever money scheme that not one in a hundred ever sees it as it is.

Terrorist is the name we give to rebels who see the servants of the rich as the enemies within their reach. Rebels attack and destroy them to create fear and reluctance among survivors. We call their victims innocent because they do not receieve show trials of “justice” for their crimes of serving the masters in rebel courts. Until the rebels decided they would rather die before they would be servants of the rich, the masters did not concern their selves. Now the masters have a serious problem because fear prevents servants from working and tithing the rich. However, when you rule the world, labor problems and economic slowdowns work out over time as people starve and kill each other. All is well that ends well. We can observe this process every day in Iraq.

The difference between the servants and the rebels is that servants lock rebels in cages and rebels simply kill servants. Servants are caring. Rebels are barbaric. In truth the rebels are simply too poor to afford the cages and prisoner support servants can afford. Rebels can recruit servants to become rebels but servants cannot recruit rebels to become servants except on rare occassions. While millions of Americans are now locked in cages or were formerly locked in cages, most never wanted to serve the rich in any direct way. Those who have been released and have tried to go straight, a euphamism for serving the rich, have found it extremely difficult to do so. In any event, they have scores to settle with the servants and have much in common with those we call terrorists. As isolated as they are when in cages, they have to admire the rebellion of those called terrorists and that one person can cause destruction far beyond what we might expect of any one person. Our prisons are domestic recruitment pools for terror.

Not far behind prisoners, will be Native, African and Hispanic Americans who have scores to settle with the rich and their obedient servants. The refusal of the masters to compensate these people for the life and property taken from them and their ancestors by the masters over hundreds of years, make natural rebels of them all. Add to them the members of the radical left and right and we have many miilions to carry on the work begun in Oklahoma City. As you wonder about your allegiance to the masters and look around for danger and warning, start thinking like a rebel, just in case. It is not the the goal of the rebels to destroy entire cities, yet. Rather, it is the goal to bankrupt the servants until they too rebel against the masters. Once you start thinking how much money you can cost the enemy, you can become far more creative than any member of Al Qaeda. Even if you have no intention of joining the rebellion, you will be safer and better able to survive the domestic war that began years before Oklahoma City.

The plans to impose martial law in America will work as well as they would in Afghanistan and Iraq. The servants of the rich will become loyal to local warlords. Donald Rumsfeld’s light, fast armies will be far too few to fight globally and domestically. When government returns to conscription to build up their forces, recruits will be slaughtered as they stand in the lines. Millions will leave the U.S. to survive, watch what is happening and form fifth columns to fight with the rebels and against the servants of money, wherever they find them. War again becomes simple to understand. The rich against the poor. The weapons favor the rich. The numbers and strategy favor the poor. Place your bets. Make your plans. The lawless are coming to power. The law won’t save anyone. The old value system and its supporters have to go.

Ed Howes sought and found. Knocked and entered. Now he sees things differently. To see more of what he sees, please visit http://www.justanotherview.com — or do an author search right here at Ezine Articles.

Tags: law, origins, people, politicianslaw, origins, people, politicians

Share This

No Comments »