Simon Suspects Democratic Jurors Tainted Fraud Verdict

California Journal ^ | September 13, 2002 | David Lesher

[Coop]

What I don't understand is why Simon does not either take out a one page ad in Major CA papers or put an ad on TV explaining what happened and then move on.

Why should Simon bother? He's been vindicated, and it's getting plenty of headlines. And Davis spent $16 mil on attack ads and got almost nothing for them. Simon's still at his heels in the polls, taken before this reversal.

[ffrancone]

Good catch. The headline makes Simon look flakey. His actual answer was completely professional.

[WOSG]

The other, a 22 yo female college student was outraged! She got SEVEN PARAGRAPHS!

Reading the other story, it seems that this woman was the Democrat "mole" who influenced the jury. no wonder she is outraged, her handiwork is undone!

[Free the USA]

Index Bump

[WOSG]

This is incorrect. In fact a competitor wanted to charge 4.5 million for the same service and the drug dealer(plaintiff) was appraised of the cost and given opportunity to opt out of the deal if he didn't like it.

Liberallarry is living up to his name ... more distortions from Liberals on this.

[CharacterCounts]

No wonder the Left despises the legal system.

The Left uses the legal system to obtain corrupt laws they couldn't get politically. They hate the legal system like I hate my paycheck.

[WOSG]

And he said they identified one juror who was active in Democratic politics and had strong feelings about the court case. "In many ways, she apparently drove the conversation,"he said. "How big a part of [the verdict] it is, I don't know." Morrissey did not reveal the identity of the juror and he said the lawyers did not interview her. But during the juryselection process, he said she described herself as a "politically active" college graduate student. He said she had experience on ballot measure campaigns and she assisted a college professor working on the recent Democratic reapportionment process.

How many female college students were there on this jury ... so this same woman was the one who the Sac Bee gave all the colmun space for??

And she just happened to know the review judge was a Wilson appointee?

[tubebender]

It's old and it's getting annoying.

When your friends tell you your ads are getting stale is a signal to continue running them as the ads are making an impression. "Guerrilla Marketing" by Jay Levinson.

[liberallarry]

The judge found that newspaper articles were available to Simon - at the time the deal was made - which would have revealed Hildelang's past. You say you have evidence to the contrary. Post it.

The judge found that Simon's gullability merited protection while Hildelang's didn't. What kind of law is that?

The article at the head of this thread claims bias on the part of a Democratic juror. So what? You have the right to a trial by your peers - not by your Republican peers, not by your sympathetic peers, not by friendly peers. You have the right to influence the selection of jurors by means of challanges.

You also have the right of review by higher courts. While necessary, there's no denying the possibility of bias at this level as well. I haven't done a Google on Chalfant yet but I will.

[WOSG]

The paper always gets it wrong. if you want to dig for facts, you gotta read the actual ruling.

[hoosierskypilot]

Don't waste money on that socialist, amateurish rag. The story is front page at www.sacbee.com.

[gaspar]

The Chronicle had the Simon story below the fold on Friday. So what else is new? They had a photo of Bush at the UN with Kofi above the fold and Bush below. The Chron is so obvious in its prejudices it is actually humorous.

[Hildy]

It doesn't matter that it's a "negative" impression. Sorry, not all publicicy it "good" publicity.

[liberallarry]

This is incorrect. In fact a competitor wanted to charge 4.5 million for the same service and the drug dealer(plaintiff) was appraised of the cost and given opportunity to opt out of the deal if he didn't like it

The judge is represented (in the Times) article as saying that Simon "concealed" his plan to charge 1.5 million. Is the article incorrect? Is the judge incorrect? Was the judge unaware of the 4.5 million competitor's plan?

[snopercod]

One wonders why Simon's lawyers didn't boot this juror during jury selection. Did they not know she was a RAT activist?

[liberallarry]

See post #34.

And try replying with facts instead of insults. I'm going by what I read in the L.A. Times. I said in my original post that I'm dependent on the accuracy of the story. I'm still waiting for refutation.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

The judge found that Simon's gullability merited protection while Hildelang's didn't.

So the judge ordered Hildelang to pay Simon? I missed that part.

[liberallarry]

The Left uses the legal system to obtain corrupt laws they couldn't get politically

True.

Everyone manipulates the system as much as they can in an attempt to gain advantage. The beauty of our system of checks and balances is that it recognizes this human failing and does a pretty good job of dispensing justice anyway.

But it's a pretty good job. Not a perfect job. I used provocative rhetoric to counter what I thought was provocative rhetoric - the claim that the original verdict should be discounted because of possible political motivated.

[Coop]

You say you have evidence to the contrary. Post it.

I said no such thing.

No need to get snippy about it. [click]

[Coop]

The judge found that Simon's gullability merited protection while Hildelang's didn't. What kind of law is that?

Sounds to me like the judge found that Hildelang's fraud was not worthy of a monetary award. Hey, since you're so concerned about fraud in our government, how about doing a few Google searches on that one fella - what'shisname? Gray Davis!