Jury Duty; It's A Service

Just this week, I completed my first actual jury service, as an alternate juror for a civil suit. While I have been summoned annually, I have never been entered into a jury, until this year. I found the experience to be highly educational and really felt good about being part of a small group of people, assigned the task of sorting out problems between two parties.

For years, whenever I mentioned receiving a summons, friends, coworkers and colleagues would say, "can't you get out of it?" I have frequently thought this a rather cavalier attitude toward a minor role that is meant to help our judicial system and our fellow citizens. Yes, I know that the summons can come at inconvenient times in one's life, but surely not every occasion is inconvenient, is it? It seems as if avoidance is the regular attitude toward this very necessary public service. And, yes, it is a public service--the public serves!

I have to say that I found the entire process very interesting. The judge and her attendant, clerk and court reporter were extremely efficient. The judge, in particular, was engaging and strove to give the pool of jurors the information they needed, in order to do their job with confidence, in as clear and engaging a manner as possible. My experience turned around the notions one has had from watching crime/courtroom drama, over the years. The most vivid actor, based on this, my single experience, is the judge, not the attorneys. The judge must command the courtroom, certainly, but also exhibit interest and care, with regard to jurors, counsel and witnesses.

I sat in the assigned courtroom for four days of voir dire, as one after another juror was dismissed. Mine was the last name called. After questioning, I was not kicked loose, but retained to be one of two alternates for this case. It was sometimes appalling, hearing the responses some people had to questions of counsel. Some of the answers seemed truly calculated toward a goal of "getting off the jury."

I have to say, I believe in public service. I believe that we are here in such vast numbers to help each other. I know that jury service can be a hardship for some working people, but the one thing I can say is that jury service is very interesting. It is in no way a waste of time. Being out of work, right now, I actually went into jury cattle call hoping that I would end up in a courtroom.

The only complaint I could possibly register about my experience is that it took so long to get through the security check line at the single entrance. In these days of downsizing and budget crises, there is great demand for security, but no one wants to pay people to do it! The Superior Court building that I was assigned to had multiple entrances, but everyone had to go through one set of doors, regardless of whether you were going for traffic tickets, jury assignment or litigation.

The case to which I was assigned was convoluted, having to do with a small business (internet café) in breach of an undisclosed exclusive use agreement another business (fast food sandwich shop) had with the landlord of the mixed use business park, of which each building had a separate zone definition. It did not help that the city where the business was located did not have designations for restaurants of any kind, categorizing them all as "retail sales".

Essential questions in this case were of these varieties: What constitutes a "sandwich"; What constitutes a "restaurant"; What, if any, are the differences between a "restaurant" and a "fast food restaurant" and a "café"; Are landlords obligated to disclose zoning issues and exclusive use agreements to businesses planning to lease their space; If the city does not demand that a new business request a special use permit when plans are submitted that clearly show a use not compatible with the defined zone for the space, can the city later come back and shut down the business for failing to conform to the zoning ordinances; should a plaintiff receive damages for lost profits or even emotional trauma?

I have the impression that many of the people who automatically want to "get out of jury duty" have a basic distrust of the process. Some people may not believe that jurors unversed in the law should be allowed to make decisions about awarding damages.

I can report that the jurors in this case were from a varied demographic. The questions they (and I asked) of some witnesses were really excellent. (Did you know that you, as a jury member, might have the opportunity to ask questions of a witness?) The judge was really excellent, guiding the jury through the legal points, guiding witnesses, fielding objections and motions and sidebars of counsel. There were some really exciting moments, during testimony. We had a hostile witness or two. We had extra counsel, showing up to support a witness, trying to make an objection. We had attorneys telling us that a sandwich is sometimes not a sandwich, a café is not really a restaurant (especially if the zoning says it can't be), a kitchen is not a place where food would necessarily be prepared. We were presented interesting "red herrings" by both sides. We jurors were could not talk about the case amongst ourselves until deliberations, and we did not, even though there themes hanging in the air during breaks. You could look into the eyes of fellow jurors and know that they were thinking exactly what you were thinking about what had happened in the courtroom just before the break.

Finally, after all of the testimony had been given, the jury was given preliminary instructions from the judge, heard final statements of the attorneys, then the alternates were cut loose (unless someone had a heart attack or an auto accident), before the judge issued final instructions to the jury. At that point, I left. My fellow alternate and I felt confident that the twelve jurors would come to a reasonable verdict. We did not know if we would ever know the outcome. (sigh) I figured out in my mind what I felt was a reasonable outcome.

Several days later, I was surprised to receive a call from the clerk at the courthouse! She thanked me for my service and reported to me what the verdict was, and that there had been damages awarded, and what they were. "You are free for another year, and thanks again," I could hear her smiling as she said it. The decision had not been cut and dried... they struggled. The judge had to send them back twice because there were not enough people agreeing with some of the decisions.

I had read the other jurors correctly; their decision was very close to the one I would have made, and there were reasonable damages awarded, in the way that I would have. I believe that justice was done in that case, and that a jury of twelve average people were able to be impartial, fair and honest to both plaintiff and defense.

The system does work, if you let it work, and if you, when you are called, add yourself to the mix by serving. If you should ever be in a situation where you find yourself in a courtroom, I recommend the following: have faith in yourself, have faith in your attorneys, have faith in the process, have faith in the judge, and most of all, have faith in your fellow citizens who have been called to serve you in the due process system.

Business As Usual: When Public Goes Private, Non-Profit Becomes For-Profit

We are living in a world that should be getting smaller in all the good ways (e.g., labor-saving devices that will allow people more free time, improvements in public health delivery, less pollution, organic food, longevity ensuring pharmaceuticals, access to all that is needed, work that is suitable and sustaining, the list is endless) as a result of something called progress. Things are supposed to be getting better for everyone.

[I hesitate to begin this next paragraph with the bubble-bursting word instead, but there it is, and there is nothing for it.]

Instead, what is really happening, and this becomes clearer as the days go by, is that human mentality seems to get smaller and more isolationist and mean. To match that, the hubris of the entitled is becoming daily more brazen and daring in its agenda of owning as much of the world as possible before it all falls apart.

In the 1990s, there was a lot of talk in the United States about the Global Village and hope that there would be a renaissance of cultures that would make us all be friends. After September 11^th 2001, however, we have heard very little about that, while much about the necessity of defense spending, about decentralization of government, lowering of taxes and the impossibility of maintaining any public programs, ostensibly because they are too expensive.

Let me unpackage some of this for us.

The “necessity” of defense spending means that most of our tax dollars are being spent on weapons of mass destruction, whose sole purpose is to intimidate, kill and destroy. The United States has had, for more than 50 years, a stockpile of weapons and artillery that could destroy the planet more than a hundred times over, and so it is hard to believe that anyone could need more of the stuff, much less the very latest in death and destruction technology. And yet, the generals want more, and so do the private defense contractors, who rake in billions of dollars by manufacturing death. The budget for upkeep of existing nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal alone has been reckoned enough to provide every person on the planet with food, safe drinking water and shelter, annually. Think about it.

Decentralization of government means that the bureaucracy is being transferred from the public to the private sector. This move is touted as a cost savings to government, but this cannot not possibly prove true in financial analysis. It may save the government money, but it doesn’t save you or me anything! The money still comes from our pockets. When we move from public to private, we move from a non-profit situation to a for-profit situation. Our rights then have a retail cost. If we cannot meet that for-profit cost in the marketplace, then we are out in the cold. Alarmist, you say? Well, if the Governor of the State of Arizona can take people off waitlists for organ transplants because their economic condition will not allow them to pay for the procedure, and if firefighters in Tennessee can standby and watch someone’s home burn to the ground because the member of the public that owns that dwelling allegedly did not pay some very small local fee, then what do we have, here? Think about it.

Voters are asked to vote for candidates based on candidates’ promises of “no new taxes”. This happens first, of course, at the federal level. Responsibility for the public welfare is then removed from the federal level to the state level, where voters are asked to vote for candidates based on the candidates’ promises of “no new taxes”. Responsibility for the public welfare is then removed from the state level to the local level, where voters are asked to vote for candidates based on the candidates’ promises of “no new taxes”. But, then, of course, local officials, once in office, say, “shucks, darn it! We have to raise taxes so that we can uphold the public welfare and basic infrastructure!” And the only way the local yokels have to do this is by having the community vote to mandate a parcel tax premium over the regular property tax. Moreover, the people and businesses with the most money do not contribute according to what they have. The burden falls on the average tax payer, trying to make it in a wavering economy. Think about it.

“Citizen’s Initiatives” are placed on local and state level ballots by big businesses and special interest groups funded by big business, not just your everyday citizen, to get voters to mandate what is good for big business: guaranteed jobs and tax payer money to pay for these jobs. The average person cannot manipulate the system in this way to get a job. What is an example of such a program? Well, the voters of the State of California mandated R&D for stem cell research. Instead of funding public schools (public education is mandated by the State, you know), the State of California is funding stem cell research with taxpayer dollars. To date, this program has sucked in billions in public funds, but has been a complete bust as a business enterprise—while, of course, a few people have been making a lot of money. Meanwhile, who does this publicly mandated program benefit? This public program does not benefit the average Californian as much as it benefits Big Business Pharma Industry. This public program has not created a whole lot of jobs, because it is a highly scientific specialty. Look up the articles on the internet. Think about it.

Such maneuvers have become commonplace, to the extent that I wonder how the average person can possibly be surprised by them. But we are.

I assert that we are being sold into a kind of slavery, and we don’t even realize it.

This is unthinkable, but I want you to think on it.

When your local police and fire departments become privatized, who will be in charge of them? Will your local government have oversight? If you have not paid your local taxes, will the firefighters park across the street from your burning house and watch you and your home go up in flames, while carefully monitoring that it does not spread next door, where they did pay the local tax? Think about it.

Since when did government have to turn a profit to be successful? What happened to By the People, for the People? Think about it.

Since when did big business know better how to run government agencies, hospitals, schools and prisons? Did you know that Dick Cheney owns prisons? Look up the articles on the internet. Think about it.

This is, Dear Reader, all food for thought. I do not have answers. Obviously, more examples could be brought into this discussion; space here is limited. But I can say this: if our government and business leaders had not been gambling and losing with public tax funds and your pension and everyone’s real estate, and if our government agencies hadn’t bonded us all into indebtedness on the basis of future tax earnings that would often (particularly in the case of redevelopment, but probably elsewhere, also) not be realized until 40 years into the future, the world would not be experiencing the dreadful financial collapse that now imperils the lives of so many.

This has not been progress, People. This has been, and continues to be, business as usual. Moreover, it has been and continues to be robbery. Think about it.