Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The prosecutor is an official spokesperson for the State. The juror is not. The information has been released, so why the need to sue to remove a gag order? If it was a legitimate need I could understand, but this wreaks of someone trying to make a quick dollar. If the juror is suing in order to profit, I think that is dead wrong.
I read the the ACLU Lawsuit ..... I think it was posted in the thread.
It certainly could be about "Money", but it sounded more Political/Ideological to me.
The Jane Doe (we know this is a woman juror) wants to be able to talk about the case, who the witnesses were AND what they said and how everyone voted.
She wants to paint Targets on the Backs of both the Witnesses and the Jurors.
I doubt she will be given the opportunity to do this ..... we already know that the "peaceful protestors" are Vengeful and that the Names/Addresses of both Witnesses and Jurors would be widely spread on Social Media for Revenge and Retribution.
That's exactly why the State of Missouri protects both Witnesses and Jurors.
Jane Does disagrees with our Grand Jury System, but she wants immunity from Prosecution for breaking the OATH she took when she agreed to become a Grand Juror.
I read the the ACLU Lawsuit ..... I think it was posted in the thread.
It certainly could be about "Money", but it sounded more Political/Ideological to me.
The Jane Doe (we know this is a woman juror) wants to be able to talk about the case, who the witnesses were AND what they said and how everyone voted.
She wants to paint Targets on the Backs of both the Witnesses and the Jurors.
I doubt she will be given the opportunity to do this ..... we already know that the "peaceful protestors" are Vengeful and that the Names/Addresses of both Witnesses and Jurors would be widely spread on Social Media for Revenge and Retribution.
That's exactly why the State of Missouri protects both Witnesses and Jurors.
Jane Does disagrees with our Grand Jury System, but she wants immunity from Prosecution for breaking the OATH she took when she agreed to become a Grand Juror.
Dangerous Times we live in.
No chance that the prosecutor has misrepresented the facts to the public? That never happens?
The Jane Doe (we know this is a woman juror) wants to be able to talk about the case, who the witnesses were AND what they said and how everyone voted.
I read it right after it was posted. She wants immunity from all discussions - that opens it up to discloser of both Jurors and Witnesses.
I tend to think these people that want to do away with our Grand Jury System because THEY don't like the decision of the Grand Jury are just NUTTERS. I don't think they will win this one.
I read it right after it was posted. She wants immunity from all discussions - that opens it up to discloser of both Jurors and Witnesses.
I tend to think these people that want to do away with our Grand Jury System because THEY don't like the decision of the Grand Jury are just NUTTERS. I don't think they will win this one.
A prosecutor could have intentionally thrown a case. I'd say that points to a much bigger issue.
Thanks......I see no requests for any sort of monetary settlement, only for the right to speak up in the same manner as the "defendant" has.
They believe that the "defendant" has misrepresented what happened and they want to be able to present their views. Why shouldn't they be able to?
Well gosh, maybe if the jury deliberated for months and had reams of evidence to review, they might have seen through the 'defendants' misrepresented testimony! Oops they did take more than an hour to come to a decision and had more vidence than you could shake a stick at.
If a Grand Juror believed that fraud was committed by the prosecutor, the GJ would be going to the state and swearing out a complaint against the prosecutor.
What information we have says no such thing is in play. Rather, the GJ doesn't like the outcome and therefore wants to make a stink in the media. So, the very first thing we can rule out is prosecutorial misconduct. So, the focus of what the GJ is doing is in trying to get rid of the vow of secrecy.
Since this is not suing the state for money (on what basis? The GJ has not been harmed), but for the ability to try people in the court of public opinion... Or to profit from book deals, tv show appearances, etc.
In neither case do I see any compelling reason to release the GJ from the oath taken.
After a no bill is delivered, or after a case is over, any "gag orders" need to be lifted immediately. There is no sane rationale for keeping a lid on things, our justice system is supposed to be transparent. How can we know justice is being done when we don't even know what "justice" is doing?
If a Grand Juror believed that fraud was committed by the prosecutor, the GJ would be going to the state and swearing out a complaint against the prosecutor.
What information we have says no such thing is in play. Rather, the GJ doesn't like the outcome and therefore wants to make a stink in the media. So, the very first thing we can rule out is prosecutorial misconduct. So, the focus of what the GJ is doing is in trying to get rid of the vow of secrecy.
Since this is not suing the state for money (on what basis? The GJ has not been harmed), but for the ability to try people in the court of public opinion... Or to profit from book deals, tv show appearances, etc.
In neither case do I see any compelling reason to release the GJ from the oath taken.
It's not the Grand Jury that is doing this ..... it is ONE person on the Grand Jury that wants immunity from the OATH she took to "tell all" ...... "tell all" could include the names of the Witnesses and the names of the Jurors. The name of the Game is either MONEY or VENGEANCE.
If those names of Jurors and Witnesses become public - they WILL have Targets on their backs.
We already know the Chants of the 'peaceful' protestors.
Who do we Want?
How do we Want them?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
