Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Presidential Candidate(s) Thomas Steyer(s), and Jury Duty

Thomas Steyer(s) sure do pay lots of political campaign contribution money. At least one of them ran for president in the 2020 campaign. According to many reports, U.S. presidential candidate Thomas Steyer showed up for jury duty in late August, 2019. At the Tom Steyer Twitter page, this August 26, 2019 tweet

https://twitter.com/TomSteyer/status/1166127085745668096

stated that he " . . . had jury duty." Well, I believe that as a campaign issue, the Steyer campaign would have logically published many reports, pictures, vids, and tweets about his jury duty service. This material would spotlight
  • Steyer's jury duty paperwork
  • Steyer's arrival in the jury duty parking lot
  • Steyer walking through the metal detectors
  • Steyer waiting in the jury duty ready room
  • tons of Steyer selfies with other jurors
  • Steyer waiting in the hallway outside a courtroom
  • Steyer in the cafeteria
  • potential post-jury duty Steyer interviews
and so on. Other jurors would have taken and published tons of selfies with him. Donald Trump, for example, got a lot of publicity about his own jury duty service. So did Senator Ted Cruz. However, I never found similar material for Presidential Candidate Steyer. He would have scored endless hours of free publicity for his presidential campaign if he physically showed up for jury duty. Even if Presidential Candidate Steyer stayed on call and never physically showed up at the courtroom building, he would logically tweet about this at least once a day while he waited, and he would have published many pix of his jury duty paperwork. In this way, he still would have squeezed tons of free publicity out of it. If Steyer has campaign consultants, at least one of them should have ordered him to do all this, and as it happened. He has billions of dollars, and he must pay them lots of money to think of these things. I trust what Mr. Steyer stated about his jury duty service. I also want to verify it. I doubt that Mr. Steyer(s) would ever tell a lie about his / their jury duty service . . .

California Judiciaries Publicly Defined Jury Duty As A Job; Now They Don't Want To Talk About It

I wrote a June 21st, 2019 Fox and Hounds Daily article demanding jury duty reform: the pay and the mileage rates must increase immediately. The article had a link (URL) to the California Judiciary jury duty web page. As of June 16, 2019, that CA Judiciary web page itself embedded a YouTube vid clearly defining jury duty as a job. We'll learn more about this vid shortly. This means that the California Judiciary - including California Supreme Court Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye - defines jury duty as a job. California government legislature employees, led by registered lawyer license owner Lorena Gonzalez, defined jurors as employees when they formally invented AB 5. Additionally, the basic IRS definition of a job alone covers jury duty. Therefore, as employees, CA jurors must receive highest-prevailing minimum wage, for all hours they work as jurors.
Compare today’s version of the CA Judiciary jury duty web page with the June 16th, 2019 version of that exact same web page. The California Judiciary web page included the YouTube vid, at least through June 16, 2019. The jury duty YouTube vid completely vanished from the page, sometime between June 17, 2019 and July 30, 2019. It turns out that the vid itself

also disappeared from YouTube, for some unknown reason. However, this vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fa7qiIP1pg
completely and perfectly clones the now missing YouTube vid. The vid content clearly and completely defines jury duty as a job. The CA Judiciary publicly defined jury duty as a job, because it placed the vid in its jury duty web page - certainly through June 16, 2019. Even better - soon after the Fox and Hounds article went live, the California Judiciary linked that article in its official Newslinks page. Some time later, however, the CA Judiciary mysteriously deleted the article from the official CA Judiciary Newslinks page.
By the way, Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye has personal knowledge of jury duty. She even said it’s a privilege. With a straight face.

The Los Angeles County Judiciary also loved embedding the jury duty vid in its jury duty web page, until it mysteriously changed its judiciary mind. Compare today’s version of the Los Angeles County jury duty web page, with the March 16, 2019 version of that web page. Somehow, this jury duty vid


that defined jury duty as a job clearly disappeared from that web page. This second jury duty vid itself mysteriously disappeared from YouTube itself in a similar way. However, this vid


again completely and perfectly clones the second, equally vanished YouTube jury duty vid. All three of these vids




had and / or have the same content. Note that Los Angeles County Chief Judge Daniel Buckley himself co-starred in all three of these vids. Based on their vid starring roles, both Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye and Judge Buckley need to answer questions about jury duty. In separate YouTube vids, they both freely spoke about jury duty. Therefore, they have complete freedom, and responsibility, to answer these questions.

All California Judiciary and Los Angeles County Judiciary employees involved in the CA / Los Angeles County Judiciary web page edits described above need to explain

who decided to edit these specific government web pages

when these decisions happened

the reasons for the edits

the exact dates of the edits

and

who approved the edits

immediately. If at least one government employee had any involvement in the disappearances of at least one of the now-missing YouTube vids described above, all information about the disappearances must become public. Immediately. The fact that these judiciaries embedded this vid content in their jury duty web pages proves that they defined and declared jury duty as a job. As statements, their declarations still express their opinions and beliefs on this issue. Those opinions and beliefs will change only when those judiciaries publicly announce those changes. Of course, these changes would raise many new questions. Until then, they only removed their declarations from public visibility.

Starting in late 2017, jury duty law became a serious, important area of law. Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel independently defined jury duty as a job, in a YouTube vid still freely available. This means that the U.S. Federal government defines jury duty as a job. Through a staffer, Judge Fogel stated that he just doesn’t want to say anything else about jury duty.

American jurors might want to somehow . . . preserve the relevant L.A. County jury duty vid, because its content seems to randomly, and mysteriously, disappear from YouTube. They might want to preserve the vid co-starring Judge Fogel, and the vid starring Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye, as well, before their content disappears in a similar way. These preservations must happen in strictly legal ways, of course . . .

'Celebrity' Paperwork From The Los Angeles County Jury Duty System Went Up For Auction

As I figured out jury duty law for both Common Sense - Third Millennium and the I, Juror blog, I explained what happened when I called jury duty systems in Los Angeles County and San Francisco City / County. I wanted information from the Los Angeles County jury duty system about how Barbra Streisand handles jury duty. I also wanted information from the San Francisco City / County jury duty system about how Thomas Steyer handles jury duty. Each time, my perm government employees told me that they are not allowed to give me the information. That gets interesting, because I just made a discovery about official California jury duty system secrecy, reported here first.
Heritage Auctions specializes in high-end, valuable collectibles, and they opened for business decades ago. They handle high-end fine art, antiques, coins, collectibles, etc. They also handle autographs and entertainment industry memorabilia. On May 28, 2003, Heritage Auctions hosted the
Odyssey Autographs & Memorabilia Auction June 2003 Session One #1064. This auction featured hundreds of entertainment-focused lots. Lot 468 through lot 508 of this auction featured apparently genuine Los Angeles County jury duty system documents, sent directly to the Los Angeles County jury duty system, by celebrities who lived in Los Angeles County when they sent in those documents. The paperwork dates range from July 19, 1962 to February 14, 1986. I do not have a Heritage Auctions account, so I could not see detailed images of the lots. See a summary of information about this auction at this spreadsheet. That summary spreadsheet includes the names of the people who sent in the paperwork. All of the people seem to be entertainment industry celebrities, with some home connection to Los Angeles County.
We can guess that all of the people named in these documents sent those documents directly to Los Angeles County government mailing addresses, through the U.S. Post Office. With some exceptions, as seen in the paperwork images and lot descriptions, those people most likely sent the documents to the Los Angeles County jury duty system. It becomes doubtful that they sent this paperwork to the National Enquirer, for example, or TMZ, or Harvey Levin. Therefore, one or more employees in Los Angeles County government - and probably working in the Los Angeles County jury duty system - somehow physically removed the documents from government possession. A government investigation that would explain the story behind all this has not yet happened.
The very existence of these auction lots, in my opinion, looks like total corruption. If these lots involve illegal acts, it becomes fair to ask if other types of corrupt, illegal acts happen inside California jury duty hiring systems. It becomes logical to demand top-to-bottom audits of these systems, first focusing on their document and information handling standards and practices. If information and documents leaked out of at least one California jury duty system - in this case, the Los Angeles County jury duty system - as a definite violation of trust and probable violation of law, it becomes easy to wonder how these California jury duty systems handle the information of everyone eligible for jury duty. However, those audits must go further. For example, in an earlier article, I investigated a mysterious September 9, 2006 political campaign money contribution involving Barb(A)ra Streisand. According to the Federal Election Commission, she paid political campaign contribution money from the mysterious
Barbara Streisand

c/o Boulevard Management
21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925
Pomona, CA 91767-7888


address. Research shows that this address does not exist at this time, and most likely did not exist on September 9, 2006. If the Los Angeles County jury duty system thinks that Barbara Streisand lives and lived at this address, every time they sent and send her jury duty paperwork, it would bounce because the U.S. Postal Service would never find it. The L.A. County jury duty system would have a major bureaucratic hassle to get the paperwork to her, at best. They might well never succeed, and as a result, Streisand would never show up for jury duty at all. An audit will first determine exactly where the Los Angeles County jury duty system thinks she lives, and then establish her complete jury duty summons history and relevant jury duty service history. If anything about Barb(A)ra Streisand jury duty history information seems questionable, further investigation will resolve those questions. Of course, the audit will not stop with her. Many people in Los Angeles County, San Francisco City / County, Marin County, Contra Costa County, etc., pay massive amounts of political campaign contribution money. Their complete jury duty summons history, combined with their relevant jury duty history information, must become public. On the other hand, if the auctioned jury duty documents leaked as part of official government law and policy, those leaks instantly become precedent for open, unrestricted access into California jury duty hiring system operations.

Because of the jury duty system information leaks, the Barb(a)ra Streisand Pomona address issue, and overall jury duty system secrecy, people in California who obey jury duty government laws - as American citizens - can have zero confidence in jury duty system integrity at this time. This zero confidence extends to all Americans outside of California, who themselves obey jury duty government laws where they live. Those citizens have a stake in California jury duty system operations, through the direct and indirect flows of their federal tax money to those California government jury duty systems specifically, and California state / county / city / etc. governments generally. Their wealth and treasure keeps California government systems alive.

The document leaks started in the early 1960's - more than half a century ago. They automatically raise major questions, listed below the line. Only California jury duty system hiring audits will answer these questions, and other questions about California jury duty system operations. If internal government employees road-block those audits, then nonviolent, large-scale, long-lasting jury duty strikes become justified and inevitable.
______________
Questions about the Heritage Auctions Los Angeles County jury duty hiring system document auction:
1. Who consigned these documents to Heritage Auctions? Heritage Auctions most likely has contact information about the consignor(s), even after seventeen years.

2. Did Heritage Auctions have an opinion about the legality of these lots? If so, what opinion did they have?
3. If the consignor(s) received the documents from someone else

a. when did this transfer or transfers happen?
b. how much, if anything did he / she / they pay to receive them?
c. do the consignor(s) have other related documents, not yet publicly available?
d. who supplied them?
e. if the pre-consignor source received the documents from someone else, questions a - d above apply to every step in the transfer chain, back to the original party or parties that removed the documents from government possession

4. If the consignor(s) always had possession of the documents at time of removal from government possession
a. when did he / she / they remove the documents?
b. did he / she / they remove the documents with the permission of other government employees?
c. did he / she / they try to sell the documents, in any way, in any other (attempted) transactions? If yes, we need to see metadata about those (attempted) transactions
d. do the consignor(s) have other related documents, not yet publicly available?
5. Do California jury duty systems have document management systems in place to prevent jury duty paperwork leaks?

6. Do California jury duty systems undergo document management system audits?
a. if yes, what do the results show?
7. What does Los Angeles County Jury Services Director Darrell Mahood know about these leaks?

Friday, February 22, 2019

Questions About Certain Barb(a)ra Streisand Political Campaign Contribution Money (PCCM) Payments, Part One

As part of my research for Common Sense - Third Millennium and the I, Juror blog, I focused on the political campaign contribution money (PCCM) history of Barb(a)ra Streisand. I built this spreadsheet file to show what I found. With a Google account, download the spreadsheet here. The file includes four tabs that cover the federal and California state PCCM activity of Streisand, and four similar tabs for Thomas Steyer. For Steyer, all information in this spreadsheet tab came from this old version of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website. This newer FEC website replaced that older version, but the information stayed the same. I noticed aspects of this PCCM information that seemed, in my personal opinion . . . "unusual". This article will explore those "unusual" aspects of specific PCCM payments made by Streisand, and will raise relevant questions about those payments. The information for both parts of this article originally came from this spreadsheet file, and I transferred the relevant information from that file to this second spreadsheet file to summarize it. I did not change the information as I transferred it from file to file, and for the tabs in the second file, I added row number, payment mailing address, and notes columns

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) website states that "Barbara Streisand" paid PCCM to the campaign of Connecticut House of Representatives candidate Joseph Courtney. That campaign received the payment on September 9, 2006. Streisand made this payment from a Pomona, California address. Based on information from the FEC website, and the California state political campaign contribution websites here (this website is no longer active; this new website version replaced it), Streisand made only one PCCM payment from Pomona. At first, I did not think much about all this. However, I never really forgot about it and I recently took a closer look. Some research for this article shows that past this one payment, no clear connection between Streisand and Pomona exists. Then, I went back to the summary spreadsheet. On that spreadsheet tab, column K has links to the actual payment images as hosted by the FEC website. For the Pomona PCCM payment, I scrolled over to column K. From that cell, I opened
this image

1. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940431288

QR code for https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940431288 

and sure enough, item B showed the payment information and the Pomona address. Then, back at the spreadsheet, I moved down one row, and in column K, I opened this image


2. https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940922555

QR code for https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?26940922555
for that payment. In image 2, item A showed a second Streisand payment, also received on September 9, 2006, this time paid to Connecticut U.S. Senator Chris Murphy. I saw something really weird about these payments.

Item A from image 2, and Item B from image 1, both clearly show that these political campaigns received these separate PCCM payments on the same day: September 9, 2006. The items show the name and address payment information

Item A (image 2):

     Barbra Streisand
     C/O Boulevard Management
     21650 Oxnard St.
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367


Item B (image 1):

     Barbara Streisand
     c/o Boulevard Management
     21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925
     Pomona, CA 91767-7888


for the payments. For some unknown reason, the first names differ by one letter. However, the address information for the payments has huge differences. Bing Maps and Google Maps both independently show that the Item A (image two) address exists. When I typed the Item B (image one) address for Barbara Streisand in the Bing Maps upper left textbox, it returned

We couldn’t find any matches for:


21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925 Pomona, CA 91767-7888


Check the spelling or add more details such as the city or country.
and for that address, Google Maps returned
Partial matches
21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925 Pomona, CA 91767-7888
"21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925" "CA"

21650 W Oxnard St #1925

Woodland Hills, CA 91367
"Pomona, CA 91767"

Pomona, CA 91767

and these both mean that these mapping tools did not find the Pomona address. Neither tool could find the address even when I removed Suite 1925. Then, I used SmartyStreets for a reverse lookup based on the Item B Zip Code
91767-7888
value. For a ZIP Code lookup type and ZIP Code "91767-7888," SmartyStreets returned a map that did not show a street named "Oxnard."

This research verified that an "Oxnard Street" in Pomona, CA does not exist and did not exist in since late February, 2019. This street very likely never existed, but I decided to do some research to make sure. I found a Thomas Guide from 1990



Los Angeles County / Orange County Thomas Guide - 1990 Edition
and in the L.A. County index, I looked at page 278


1990 Thomas Guide, page 278 - looking for Oxnard Street, Pomona, CA
and page 279



1990 Thomas Guide, page 279 - looking for Oxnard Street, Pomona, CA
to find Oxnard Street. The CITY column for each Oxnard Street record shows "LA", which means "Los Angeles". Woodland Hills lands inside Los Angeles City territory, so the city looks correct for these Oxnard Street records. Then, I looked for a proven Pomona, CA address in the Thomas Guide index, to verify the findings. Starting at the bottom left of this image


1990 Thomas Guide, page 299 - an actual, Pomona, CA record at the lower left
I found two records for Temple Avenue in Pomona. Cal Poly Pomona has a verified mailing address location of


     Cal Poly Pomona
     3801 West Temple Avenue
     Pomona, California 91768

and page 299 of the 1990 Thomas Guide shows that a Pomona, CA address has a CITY column code of "POM". So, all of this information, starting with the 1990 Thomas Guide, proves that Oxnard Street in Pomona, CA never existed in 1990. Pomona, CA most likely never built a temporary Oxnard Street, inside its territory, for the one-day September 9, 2006 personal use of Barbara Streisand. All the evidence shows that the address

      21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 1925
      Pomona, CA 91767-7888

that Barbara Streisand used for this September 9, 2006 political campaign contribution money payment, as described above, almost certainly never once existed. The Los Angeles County Assessor Portal verifies that this address never existed. The September 9, 2006 Barbra Streisand / Barbara Streisand payment information described here does not involve a simple typo. It involves major differences and logically, at least one impartial stakeholder, including the Federal Election Commission, should have raised red flags and asked questions about it. The campaign of House member Joe Courtney of Connecticut received the payment, and Rep. Courtney should have asked questions about it himself.

Taken together, all these facts look really improper - at best. It makes no logical sense that someone would pay two separate political campaign contributions, with

  • two different names
  • two source locations
  • almost identical street addresses
  • completely different cities and zip codes

and so close in time. These payments must have happened within a few days of each other because different political campaigns received them on the same day. This means that the person who wrote the paperwork for them probably knew to use consistent street address, city, and zip code information for those payments. At this time, I definitely don't understand why this "combined" paperwork would show an address that does not exist. These payments raise many questions. In no specific order:

1. If Barbra Streisand made both of these payments - within a few days of each other at most - why did she use two different names for them? If someone else filled out all the paperwork for these payments, did Barbra Streisand and / or Barbara Streisand approve the use of those different names?

2. If Barbra Streisand made both of these payments - within a few days of each other at most - why does one payment show an address that three websites can't find? Did Barbra Streisand and / or Barbara Streisand approve the use of this address information?

3. If one payment has incorrect address information, does that payment also have incorrect payment amount information?

4. Does and / or did the FEC approve the Barbra Streisand political campaign contribution payment with the apparently inconsistent information? If yes, why? If no, why not? Did the FEC ever investigate this issue?

5. Extending question 4, if the FEC investigated, they need to release the results of the investigation. If they did not investigate, why not? The IRS investigates and punishes incorrect tax return information wrongdoing from taxpayers, so based on Amendment 14, Equal Protection Clause, United States Constitution, the FEC must do the same with political campaign contribution money payments.

6. What do Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) know about these payments, and when did they know it?

7. If at least one of these payments involves illegal behavior, and Representative Courtney and / or Senator Murphy did not know about it, how do they plan to handle the situation, once they become aware of it?

8. Does other Barb(a)ra Streisand government paperwork (for example and including, but not limited to, IRS, SEC, California FTB, L.A. County Assessor's Office, etc.) show information that raises questions in a similar way? If yes, then law enforcement agencies must openly, publicly, and fully investigate the situation(s), and prosecute any detected illegal behavior, to the fullest extent of federal, state, and local law.

9. At least one piece of government paperwork shows that Barbara Streisand used a non-existent Pomona, CA mailing address (see above). "Barbara Streisand" is one letter away from "Barbra Streisand." If the Los Angeles County (LAC) jury duty system also shows that she / they use that Pomona, CA address, then she / they will never receive any jury duty paperwork sent to that address, because the address does not exist. The L.A. County jury duty system would have a major bureaucratic hassle to get the paperwork to her / them, at best. If this happened with her / their jury duty paperwork, I demand to know

  • under what circumstances did the LAC jury duty system receive that address information?
  • what steps / procedures transported that information to the LAC jury duty system?
  • when did the LAC jury duty system receive that information?
  • which LAC jury duty system employee(s) placed this information into the LAC jury duty system?
  • did the LAC jury duty system ever audit the information for accuracy?
  • if yes, what did it find?
  • if no, why not?
  • did the LAC jury duty system send jury duty paperwork to that address? If yes, when did it send that paperwork? If yes, what name(s) did it use to address the paperwork? If yes, then what happened?
immediately.

18 U.S.C. § 1001 states

" . . . whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully . . . makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both . . ."

Barbara Streisand clearly did this behavior three (3) times. FEC paperwork is a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch(es) of the Government of the United States. The September 9, 2006 payments shown above alone clearly involve false writing, known to contain materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. Therefore, Barb(a)ra Streisand needs to get prosecuted in a federal court, and based on the evidence shown in this article, she needs to get fined and imprisoned if convicted. Otherwise, when I get answers to the above questions, I will publish a new article with those answers.

Questions About Certain Streisand / Steyer Political Campaign Contribution Money (PCCM) Payments, Part Two

Part One of this article described certain political campaign contribution money (PCCM) payments made by Barbra Streisand. Then, it asked questions about those payments. This second part will describe a sample of PCCM payments made by Thomas Steyer, and ask questions about those payments. This spreadsheet tab shows those Steyer payments, summarizing a row sample from this I, Juror spreadsheet tab. With a Google account, download the spreadsheet file here. All the information about these payments originally came from this old version of the Federal Election Commission website. This newer version has since replaced that older version..

This spreadsheet tab shows PCCM payments made by gentlemen named "Thomas Fahr Steyer," "Thomas F. Steyer," and "Thomas F Steyer." The Federal Election Commission website shows receipt dates for those payments between August 29, 2016 and August 31, 2016.

  • "Thomas Fahr Steyer" made one PCCM payment, received on August 29, 2016 by the Raul Ruiz Congressional campaign.
  • "Thomas F. Steyer" made 63 PCCM payments, received on August 29, 2016 by organizations and candidates all around the U.S.
  • "Thomas F Steyer" made one PCCM payment, received on August 30, 2016 by the Democratic Party of Santa Cruz County. (Scroll to row 136 if necessary)
  • "Thomas F. Steyer" made one PCCM payment, received on August 31, 2016 by the Jerry McNerny Congressional campaign. (Scroll to row 138 if necessary)

Certain aspects of the Steyer payments shown in this spreadsheet tab stood out. First, contributor "Thomas Fahr Steyer" made one PCCM payment - number 1 (one) in the spreadsheet tab, received on August 29, 2016 - from the
1438 Webster St Ste 100
Oakland CA 94612-3229
address. Then, contributor "Thomas F. Steyer" made sixty-three contributions, all received on August 29, 2016, from the
3 Lagoon Dr Ste 400
Redwood City CA 94065-5157
and
3 Lagoon Dr Ste 400
Redwood City CA 94065-1565
addresses. Similar to the Barbra Streisand PCCM payments of September 9, 2006 described in Part One, Steyer paid PCCM money, from mailing addresses that have unexplained differences, on the same day. The spreadsheet tab shows those payments, numbered 2 (two) through 64 (sixty-four). We'll explore these payments shortly. Contributor "Thomas F Steyer" made one PCCM payment - number 65 (sixty-five), and received on August 30, 2016 - from the
111 Sutter St
San Francisco, CA 94104
address. Finally, contributor "Thomas F. Steyer" made a PCCM payment - number 66 (sixty-six) on the spreadsheet tab, from the
3030 Pacific Ave
San Francisco CA 94115-1014
address, and received on August 31, 2016.

This list

            
PAYMENT AMOUNT    COUNT
$   878.92      6
$   878.95    13
$   878.96      9
$ 6850.55      7
$ 7207.95      7
$ 7535.59      7

summarizes the Steyer PCCM payments received on August 29, 2016. The sixty-four (64) Steyer PCCM payments, received on August 29, 2016, as shown in that 
list, raise many questions.

1. Why did people named Thomas Steyer use so many addresses for the PCCM payments received starting on August 29, 2016 through August 31, 2016?

"Thomas Fahr Steyer" issued a PCCM payment received on August 29, 2016, from an Oakland, CA address
"Thomas F. Steyer" issued 63 PCCM payments, 61 from the exact same Redwood City address, two from another Redwood City address that differs from the first group address only in the second zip code digit group, and all 63 received on August 30, 2016
"Thomas F Steyer" issued a PCCM payment, received on August 30, 2016, from a San Francisco, CA address
"Thomas F. Steyer" issued a PCCM payment, received on August 31, 2016, from a different San Francisco, CA address
2. The distance between the Oakland and Redwood City addresses exceeds thirty miles. The distance between the Redwood City and San Francisco Sutter Street addresses exceeds twenty-two miles. For the third and fourth PCCM payments described in the above list, the San Francisco addresses have a distance of about 2.8 miles between them. Why did people named Thomas Steyer travel between so many different addresses, and so fast, to make so many PCCM payments?

3. As an example, "Thomas F. Steyer" has paid $11 million for one PCCM payment, received less than two months after his PCCM payments received on August 29, 2016. Compared to that massive payment, why did he make 63 comparatively small PCCM payments, and all on one day, as described in the list of question 1) above? Why did Steyer make so many PCCM payments for the same small amounts? Why did Steyer choose these "non-round" numbers for these payments in the way he did?

4. These images

show that "Thomas F. Steyer" made four PCCM payments, each for $878.96, and each received on August 29, 2016. They also show that Kathryn Ann Taylor made four PCCM payments, each for $878.96, and each received on October 12, 2016. The Kathryn Ann Taylor PCCM payments happened from an address inside the same building where "Thomas F Steyer" made one PCCM payment received on August 30, 2016. So . . . for all of these payments, why would Taylor and Steyer choose the same "unusual" amount, and so many times?
_________
______________________
_________

Work to answer these questions proceeds because these questions directly relate to American government operations. Because these questions arose as part of research into and investigations about American jury duty law, I, Juror will report the results of its investigations into these questions.

Saturday, March 24, 2018

American Jury Duty Has Major Zero-Day Flaws

In America, the United States Constitution guarantees that everyone with a civil law or criminal law dispute has the right to a trial by jury. For this to work, American citizens have to serve as jurors. Most Americans likely don’t want to deal with jury duty, but eventually, they understand the situation - I have to do this because I would want a jury trial option for myself - and they proceed. American jurors might not realize that the United States Constitution guarantees jurors the right to minimum wage and fair mileage in return for their service. Existing jury duty pay and mileage levels have become zero-day flaws in the American justice system, and government employees must fix those flaws immediately.

In 2017, the Los Angeles County Juror Services Office sent me a jury duty summons. It sure wasn't my idea - and I had no choice. I did exactly what they told me. Just as the paperwork told me, I first called the Los Angeles County Superior Court (LACSC) phone number to register. Later on, I watched an online jury duty training vid. Then, I took a jury duty test to qualify as a juror. I read all the jury duty paperwork, and I learned that starting day two, I would receive $15.00 a day - taxable - as my jury duty salary. That sure looked wrong. Based on what I learned from the the jury duty paperwork and the training vid, I saw jury duty as a job, even at that early stage. As a job, jury duty entitled me to minimum wage for ALL hours that I worked as a juror. This would cover day one, and the personal time I used for the required jury duty training and test. I also learned that Los Angeles County would pay me seventeen cents a mile - taxable - for my jury duty commuting expenses, also starting on day two. That mileage price also looked wrong. Gasoline in the Los Angeles area costs much more than $3.00 a gallon. Seventeen cents a mile would never cover my fuel expenses, wear and tear on my car, or wear and tear on me.

After a little more research, I learned that California jurors last got a raise sometime around the turn of the century, through a California government law. California jury duty pay and mileage amounts did not rise with federal / state minimum wage level increases or inflation. The basic IRS definition of a job clearly covers jury duty. It still amazes me that a federal judge defined jury duty as a job, to explain what he demands from jurors, but somehow, he stayed silent about how jurors therefore earn minimum wage as jury duty employees. Los Angeles County government obviously agrees with him, because they embedded this vid at the official Los Angeles County government jury duty website. California government alone has increased minimum wage rates many times since 1999, but those increases don’t cover jury duty. California has increased direct and indirect gas taxes many times, including a new twelve cent per gallon gas tax this past November. I'd sure like to know why California legislators never increased the jury duty mileage payment to compensate for those increased taxes. However, as a California taxpayer, I pay all California legislators a $104,000 annual taxable salary. I gave them plenty of raises since the year 2000. I pay each of them a $183 daily per diem, and they made sure they pay zero tax on that per diem. I also pay each of them 53 cents a mile for their own commuting expenses - also tax-free. When they call it "per diem" "travel expense" money, maybe they think it sounds better when they pay zero tax on it. Based on these facts, California legislators can't wait to invent government laws that pay tax-free minimum wage for all hours that Californian jury duty temp job employees work as jurors. Those legislators can't wait to invent laws that pay California jurors 53 cents a mile - tax-free - for every honestly-counted mile every California jury duty employee drives between home and the official jury duty parking lots. Those legislators will just need a little motivation to get going.

Soon enough, LACSC told me to get to the L.A. County Airport courthouse on May 24, 2017 at 9:30 AM PST. I did exactly that, and except for the lunch hour, I spent my whole time there in the jury duty ready room. I never landed in a trial, and the jury duty staff released me at about 3:30 PM PST. When I got home, I read the U.S. Constitution because I remembered that it would guarantee my rights, even as a juror. I just needed to find the exact amendment. Yup - Amendment 13, Involuntary Servitude Clause, U.S. Constitution covered me. After all, my full-time jury duty employers, at least one major federal judge, Los Angeles County government, and myself all agree that jury duty is a job. I never applied for that job. I received no pay and no mileage compensation at all for that job. As a non-lawyer American, my cynicism about jury duty grew and I researched all these issues. To learn more about how eligible Americans deal with jury duty, I investigated the jury duty history of both Thomas Steyer and Barbra Streisand. I ended up with many questions and no answers about them because I hit massive government secrecy walls. I taught myself jury duty law, and when I wrote and published Common Sense - Third Millennium, I became the best jury duty law expert in the United States of America.

If I paid political campaign contribution money, I believe that government employees would reform jury duty pay and mileage, and would de-taxify jury duty, if I explained - with my payment - those exact demands. I have never touched political campaign contribution money, and I never will. I now see jury duty service as a political campaign contribution. This makes perfect sense, because government employees have something I want - jury duty reform. Eventually, I will once again have something government employees want - jury duty employment. If government employees, including legislators, don’t reform jury duty, then during my next jury duty voir dire temp job interview, I will have to explain the situation to the hiring judge. If that judge does not build and / or arrange to build a pay and mileage jury duty employee compensation package that must obviously happen, I will resign to that judge. I will do this to protect my Constitutional rights and economic survival. I have the right to do this. My resignation will help motivate government employees to reform jury duty. This means that jury duty will begin to formally operate just like political campaign contribution money. Ideally, full-time government employees will reform jury duty before any of this happens.

Earlier, this piece explained that existing jury duty laws have become major zero-day flaws in the American justice system. That looks like quite a claim, but it has total accuracy. The existing structure of American jury duty obviously violates the Constitutional rights of jurors. Anyone who lost an American jury duty business model trial can very easily say


. . . None of my peers would serve on a jury for these mileage and pay rates. That proves that I never got a fair trial!

and then demand a mistrial to throw away the verdict. Full-time government employees have a really easy way to fix this. They only need to pay highest prevailing minimum wage and highest possible mileage rates to jurors, for all hours worked and all miles driven, with zero tax and zero tax paperwork. In California, the legislator mileage rate of tax-free 53 cents a mile - the latest rate - becomes the required jury duty mileage rate. Government employees must also pay back jury duty wages and mileage. Government employees must also audit all jury duty hiring systems, focusing on the jury duty summons history information, and relevant jury duty service history information, of those people. The auditors must release those audit results, without restriction - immediately. This information will help show whether or not jury duty service operates in a fair way. Lastly, I expect prosecution and punishment for everyone - both inside and outside of government - involved in any sort of jury duty service corruption. Government employees will not successfully hire me for a jury duty temp job until they choose to make these fair, reasonable jury duty reforms, to fix the zero-day flaws of jury duty. In addition, government employees will have an increasingly hard time hiring other Americans as jury duty temp employees. If they drag their feet, it will become impossible soon enough. Americans have every incentive, and plenty of Constitutional rights, to resign from and avoid the present structure of American jury duty. That will destroy the American jury duty trial business model.

It might look like I want the jury duty trial system to completely implode. No way. Since we opened for business in 1789, American civilization has relied on citizen jury duty. I would never volunteer for jury duty, but I would accept my role and responsibility as a juror, and I would do more than my best work in that role. In return, I have expectations of my own. I expect government to see me as a valued partner, working in a job that I did not apply to get. I expect government - as my jury duty employer - to pay me highest possible minimum wage and fair mileage compensation, with zero tax and zero tax paperwork. I expect full jury duty history information disclosure for everyone who ever touched political campaign contribution money. Government, lawyers, and law schools all should have known better. They should have noticed and fixed these problems years ago. They certainly all had - and have - the means, motive, and opportunity to do this, and I expect them to do it. If they decide that they don’t feel like it, they can expect nonviolent jury duty strikes, in California and across the nation. My government employees, the lawyer industry, and the law school industry all completely and exclusively own these problems. Working together, they can easily solve these problems. The choice to do so is theirs alone.