American Judges and Judiciaries Define Jury Duty As A Job - We Need To Back Up The Proof

A n earlier post here at I, Juror (California Judiciaries Publicly Defined Jury Duty As A Job. Now They Don't Want To Talk About It . . .) showed that judges in the

• American Federal
• California State
• Los Angeles County

judiciaries directly and / or indirectly defined jury duty as a job. That post also showed that those judiciaries themselves directly and / or indirectly defined jury duty as a job. The post had a lot of URLs to the webpages that prove all this, but those URL's might go bad sooner or later. This post will supply URL's that backup these resources. Hopefully, these backups will work for a long, long time.

This YouTube vid clearly defines jury duty as a job. Los Angeles County Judge Daniel Buckley co-starred in that vid. For a long time, anyone could freely see that vid, but well before January 29, 2021, that vid mysteriously went private. This Wayback Machine resource shows that the LA Court YouTube channel owns and operates that vid, so the admins of that channel can likely explain the whole history of the vid, and just exactly how it went private. Fortunately, we can find the equivalent content of that mysterious vid here at the Wayback Machine. Fast forward to 1:24 for the pull quote. Sooner or later, a forensic investigation will show who ordered the privacy setting for this vid at YouTube, and why. Taxpayers and jurors have the right to know that story, because we employ everyone at the Los Angeles County Judiciary, including Judge Buckley.

Definitely as of March 13, 2016, through at least March 15, 2019, the Los Angeles County Judiciary jury duty web page directly embedded the Judge Buckley vid. This judiciary might well have embedded that vid, or its equivalent content, much earlier. As of March 19, 2019, the vid vanished from that web page and stayed vanished. That vid embed lasted many years, and it proved that the Los Angeles County Judiciary agreed, declared, and defined that jury duty is a job. Since that judiciary never rolled back that declaration, it still defines jury duty as a job. One day, a forensic investigation will show who ordered this March 19, 2019 jury duty web page edit, and why. Taxpayers and jurors have the right to see the information, because we employ everyone at the Los Angeles County Judiciary, including Judge Buckley.

Definitely as of June 28, 2015, and certainly through July 6, 2019, the California state-level judiciary embedded the equivalent Judge Buckley YouTube vid content at its official jury duty web page. This judiciary might well have embedded that vid, or its equivalent content, even earlier. That vid embed proved that the California Judiciary agreed and defined that jury duty is a job. California Supreme Court Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye just loves jury duty (here and here). Historically, that California Judiciary jury duty web page clearly showed that Justice Cantil-Sakauye agreed and defined that jury duty is a job, because it placed her picture, and a quote from her, really close to the vid embed. As of July 30, 2019, that judiciary removed the vid from its jury duty web page. Justice Cantil-Sakauye might have endorsed that removal. However, because of the embed of the Judge Buckley vid at the CA Judiciary jury duty web page, the CA judiciary formally agrees, declares, and defines that jury duty is a job until it says otherwise. One day, a forensic investigation will show who ordered the edit, and why. Taxpayers and jurors have the right to see the information, because we employ everyone at the California Judiciary, including Justice Cantil-Sakauye.

The United States Federal Judiciary operates the United States Courts YouTube channel. That channel hosts this vid, where Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel clearly defined jury duty as a job, as of November 22, 2013. The vid has not disappeared as of January 29, 2021 in any way, and at the Wayback Machine, we can find its content here as a backup. This vid proves that the United States Federal Judiciary agreed and defined that jury duty is a job.

We clearly see above that

• Federal Judge Jeremy Fogel
• California Supreme Court Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye
• Los Angeles County Judge Daniel Buckley

each and all directly and / or indirectly defined jury duty as a job. Additionally, the reporting above shows that the

• United States Federal Judiciary
• California Judiciary
• Los Angeles County Judiciary

each and all directly and / or indirectly defined jury duty as a job. Countless Americans remember the jury duty voir dire warmup speeches, where lawyers and judges formally described jury duty as a job. I clearly remember it. These six major stakeholders alone must then logically support everything those definitions require

• the highest prevailing minimum wage, for all hours of jury duty employment, with zero tax and zero tax paperwork - instead of $15.00 per day, taxable and starting day TWO (last increase: July 1, 2000)


• the California government legislature employee mileage rate for jurors, covering all miles honestly counted, for travel between home and the official jury duty parking lot, with zero tax and zero tax paperwork - instead of 17 cents a mile, taxable and starting day TWO (last increase: July 1, 2000)

and additionally, those stakeholders will support top-to-bottom California jury duty system hiring fairness audits. These audits will verify whether or not Americans who pay "massive" amounts of political campaign contribution money (PCCM) handle jury duty the same way that Americans who pay zero PCCM handle jury duty. If even one of the listed stakeholders opposes any of these government policy products, that stakeholder needs to immediately explain why. Taxpayers and jurors have the right to see the information, because we employ all of the judges listed above, and we employ everyone who works in the judiciaries listed above.
____________________

While we're at it, we should also carefully note certain mysterious PCCM payments of Barb(a)ra Streisand(s). Often enough, these payments happen in potentially related groups. For example:

1.  This

     September 9, 2006 payment to Senator Chris Murphy

          (see the original FEC document here)

     and this

     September 9, 2006 payment to Representative Joseph Courtney

          (see the original FEC document here)

Read more about these payments here
2.  This

     November 2, 2018 payment to Rep. Eric Swalwell

          (see the original FEC document here)

     and this

     May 28, 2020 payment to Elizabeth Pannill Fletcher

          (see the original FEC document here)

Hint 1: try to find that Fletcher payment address on a map

Hint 2: try to find that Swalwell payment if you don't have its FEC URL. See an FEC search result backup for that Swalwell payment here.
3.  A mysterious January 13, 2020 payment to "Bollier for Kansas"

          (see the original FEC document here)

     Hint: try to find its mailing address on a map
____________________

Over time, jurors will become more aware of their labor, employment, and constitutional rights as jury duty temp job employees. Their full-time government employees, and maybe even some lawyers, might try to deny the truth behind those rights. The evidence - the proof - shown and backed up here will help jurors prove the truth and prove those rights.

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 around on San Francisco sidewalks near the courtroom building, relying on the latest San Francisco poop app navigation tools

• 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 . . .

'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?

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

• image 1
• image 2
• image 3
• image 4

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.