Woman sentenced to indefinite jury duty after making racist remarks on a questionnaire

Daily Mail UK ^ | April 6, 2011

[apoliticalone]

I agree 100%. Their role (SPLC,ADL)is more about instilling fear for self gain and eliminating our 1st and 2nd Amendments. It is about them, not about the USA.

I could support the ACLU if their mission was neither political nor ideological, and instead unambiguously about defending our liberties and Bill of Rights, but it is not and it is not balanced. They would never defend the 2nd Amendment.

[Ditto]

I did read the article, both in a Brit paper as posted here, and in a NY paper.

I ask again, how is she being punished? Try answering instead of dodging. She's getting paid $40 a day to show up, sit on her ass and read a book or pull wings off of flies or whatever her pass time is. The citizens who are doing their duty and showing up every day to hear the case are also getting paid $40 a day and supporting the United States Constitution's requirement for trial by jury.

Did you support the draft dodgers back during Vietnam too?

Try thinking rather than emoting. Freedom ain't free.

[Ditto]

Maybe they don’t care how people answer that except for statistical purposes for manpower allocation, which translates to more public union jobs. Just because they ask the question doesn’t mean they’re offering protection.

Are you really foolish enough to think they ask about the Mafia on every jury questionnaire? Have you ever served on a jury? Asking something like that is not anywhere near the norm. It shows a specific concern.

This is a very high profile trial and it is a Capital case. The Feds are asking for the death penalty! It does not get any more serious than that.

[ratsreek]

Try to follow the flow of the conversation. Read what you wrote in response to what I said, which I then replied to.

Anyway, you’ve made a total ass of yourself on this thread, so goodbye.

[ratsreek]

To date, you are the most abject moron I have encountered on FR.

Truly, you are just another moron making a mountain out of a molehill.

There was nothing wrong with the woman’s answers. The judge is the problem. She will be released PDQ.

It’s good that you have no power at all.

Toodles.

[Revolting cat!]

A dumbass vindictive judge once sentenced me to an "indefinite jury duty" for having the nerve to use a doctor's appointment that took me 6 months to set up (with an HMO specialist) as an excuse, and dismissing me finally 2 hrs before this appt, which I wasn't going to miss anyway come hell or high water. Oh, boy what a drama queen he was, when he called me, both attorneys, and the defendant, who was just some street thug, to his chambers to discuss the matter in detail. A very unpleasant experience, which prejudiced me forever against some mindless dittohead's so called "civic duty".

In the same courthouse, some 10 years later, a more reasonable judge dismissed people with similar excuses.

[rabidralph]

Naggers.

[Ditto]

If she had said "whites, Jews and Italians", she would be getting blasted and most would be agreeing with you.

You are right right about that. If you look at my born-on-date here at FreeRepublic, you will see that I have been around since the beginning. This argument would not have happened ten or so years ago here. Most, other than the few crazy libertarians hanging around back then, would have agreed with the judge and disapproved of this woman's attitude whatever her motivations.

Frankly, popularity brings some folks who are not really interested in what this site was founded to support -- The United States Constitution. They apply situational ethics based on their own prejudices.

We all carry some prejudice of one sort or the other. But when it comes to justice and the duties of citizenship, a good citizen files those away and does his duty.

That I am catching all this flack kind of tells me I am over the target on many of the pretend constitutionalists posting here. They are not genuine and they really don't give a damn about the Constitution.

Kind of a sad realization, but a fact none the less.

[Ditto]

No answers, just more attacks.

Thanks for a fact-free post.

No just go away.

[Rebelbase]

The answers that got me removed from the jury pool were: Divorce, ugly custody fight, dishonest lawyers, winning lawyer was head of civic organization that endorsed the ruling judge’s political campaign.

[ratsreek]

Those ARE facts.

[guitarplayer1953]

I was dismissed from JD years ago when they asked how would I respond to someone taking the 5th and I said they must be hiding something. They have never called me up for duty since then.

[Ditto]

So if she said she hated whites, Republicans and people from the South, and the judge ripped her and sent her back to sit in the jury pool to cool her heals, you would still have a problem with that?

[ratsreek]

That would never happen. If someone stated on any government form that they don’t like whites, Republicans or southerners, their name would be put up for Citizen of the Year.

To be perfectly honest, though, if that happened and theperson was made to go sit in the corner indefinitely the way this woman was, I’d still say it was totally wrong. The only difference would be that I’d be secretly delighted that a lefty was getting shat on for their thoughts and ideas the way conservatives are ALL the time. It would be a first, that’s for sure.

[Don W]

I find it rather revealing that every time I have been called for jury duty and my hair is long (below my belt long) I am summarily dismissed on sight, without a single question (by either defense or crown attorney). However, when summoned with my hair cut to a “respectable” length, I’ve been held until the jury box and alternates positions were filled.

I mentioned this the last time I was called, and haven’t been called again. I wonder why that could be?

So, in my experience, all I need to do to evade jury duty is keep my hair long. Pity, I just cut it off and sent it away again, so I’m “in the pool” so to speak for the next 18-20 months until it hits my collar again.