The judge in ex-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s fraud trial revealed Friday he has received threats over the case and now travels with U.S. Marshals, as he turned back a media request to release juror information.
U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III, in rejecting the motion, argued that he's confident the jurors would be threatened as well if their information were to be made public.
“I can tell you there have been [threats]. ... I don't feel right if I release their names,” he said, adding that because of threats against him, “The Marshals go where I go.”
August 17, 2018
Judge in Manafort trial says he's been threatened over case
By Alex Pappas, Jake Gibson
The jurors hearing Paul Manafort’s case reaffirms my long-held belief that juries should be done away with. There is one overriding reason to eliminate juries. Take this one to the bank. Judges and lawyers decide every case before the trial begins —— everything that is done in a courtroom is Kabuki theater performed for jurors and for public consumption.
All of the legal bullshit lawyers have been spreading around for hundreds of years cannot sell the myth that juries are sacrosanct. If it was left to me I would do away with the jury system and let government judges decide every case. They do it anyway. In short: Do away with juries and Americans will finally see that the administration of law is rotten to the core with or without juries because the entire judicial system has been turned upside down.
Parenthetically, a juror is not supposed to vote his conscience, while our recent self-appointed spiritual leader did everything based on his conscience.
Swearing the presidential oath of office —— the only oath required by the Constitution —— was Obama’s first lie as president. He ignored laws although his oath of office demanded the opposite. He wrote unlawful EOs, and ordered his bureaucrats to write and enforce regulations that deny everybody else a day in court. EPA regulations levy fines, dictate the use of private property, and confiscates private property. Everything Obama —— who campaigned as a spiritual leader —— did was based on his conscience.
NOTE: Imagine what would happen if EPA regulation had to face an uncontrolled jury. In short: Absolute control over the administration of the law generates income for the second oldest profession. Lawyers losing any part of control is a threat to incomes throughout the legal profession. (Prostitution is the oldest profession. A cynic might say that lawyers were the first pimps.)
Nothing is going to eliminate the monumental flaws in our jury system. Too many lawyers make too much money to expect all of those lawyers in Congress to change anything. I am more interested in erasing the concept of judges having the authority to tell law-abiding citizens how they must behave irrespective of the occasional victory for the good guys.
This gag order in 2015 denied jurors the same choice Obama claimed for himself:
The brochure Wood was handing out, which comes from the Fully Informed Jury Association, from Montana, explains, “Judges only rarely ‘fully inform’ jurors of their rights, especially their right to judge the law itself and vote on the verdict according to conscience. In fact, judges regularly assist the prosecution by dismissing prospective jurors who will admit knowing about this right – beginning with anyone who also admits having qualms with the law.”
“Conscience” used to be the crux of the jury system:
The brochure informs readers: “You may, and should, vote your conscience; You cannot be forced to obey a ‘juror’s oath’; You have the right to ‘hang’ the jury with your vote if you cannot agree with other jurors.”
It quotes John Adams saying about jurors, “It is not only his right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.”
It continues, “Americans colonists regularly depended on juries to thwart bad law sent over from England. The British then restricted trial by jury and other rights which juries had helped secure. Result? The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.”
It explains in 1972, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found a jury has an “unreviewable and irreversible power … to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge. The pages of history shine upon instances of the jury’s exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge; for example, acquittals under the fugitive slave law.”
Dismissal sought for case that 'criminalizes' speech
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/21/2015 @ 8:28 pm
After a zillion novels, movies, and TV shows telling the public a jury is sacred ‘conscience’ has come to mean jurors must never, never, tell the government what it cannot do, while government lawyers and judges always tell the American people what they must do.
Incidentally, every lawyer is a government employee even if he never sets a foot in a courtroom. Lawyers are the law. To be more precise, after lawyers become judges they somehow acquire the authority to tell LAW-ABIDING Americans how to behave, and they do it without benefit of legislation. The way the Constitution itself is violated with impunity by all of those lawyers in Congress, on the Supreme Court, and on every level of government, the law has become nothing more than law for lawyers.
There is one jury situation that nobody talks about.
I long-suspected that the government puts at least one double-agent on the jury in important cases. Such a person would need the institutional skills necessary to dominate a small group until the other jurors vote the government’s way. A hung jury is the government’s fallback strategy.
Also, a government plant can notify the judge which hard-nosed juror has to be replaced under one pretext or another.
Parenthetically, labor union officials were skilled at dominating recalcitrant members attending a union meeting. Union officials, who worked for management, kept talking until they wore everybody down. In the early years labor union officials controlled meetings by manipulating Robert’s Rules of Order, while judges manipulate jurors with rules made by lawyers. Basically, judges and lawyers are the officials, while jurors are the malleable rank & file.