Wife's experience was that they are not so quick, even with the self employed, to let people off for that reason alone any more. I was surprised to get a permanent deferral for my condition, but I am not going to complain about it.
I'm hoping that they'll take the single income thing into consideration. If not I'll mention that I was a prisoners advocate for the john Howard society for ten years. That's gotta be considered potentially biased?
If that fails I'll wear my "I don't call 911" tshirt from the gun store in vegas!
Now that brings up another issue. What the hell do you have to wear to court as a juror? Gonna be my annual get dressed up day I assume? Respect for the court, etc.
I'm hoping that they'll take the single income thing into consideration. If not I'll mention that I was a prisoners advocate for the john Howard society for ten years. That's gotta be considered potentially biased?
If that fails I'll wear my "I don't call 911" tshirt from the gun store in vegas!
Now that brings up another issue. What the hell do you have to wear to court as a juror? Gonna be my annual get dressed up day I assume? Respect for the court, etc.
Exemptions, for which you must contact the sheriff's office are:
Serving as a juror would cause you extreme hardship. This could apply if, for example, you are a nursing mother, or self-employed and your business would be threatened by your absence.
Limited ability to speak or understand English or French would impede your duty as a juror.
Firm travel plans or other vacation plans conflict with the jury selection or trial date.
If you still feel you have valid reasons for exemption, you will have a chance to discuss them with the judge before you are sworn in or asked to make a solemn affirmation. (A solemn affirmation is a solemn promise that has the same effect as a religious oath.)
His business would not be "threatened" by losing a little profitability . . . at least that is the comment the Justice of the Peace made to the Roofer in front of me when I went.
Current thinking is that "threatened" means it will go under because of your absence. Unless you can prove that, you're stuck.
Bullshit. If he's the only employee, and if he doesn't show up then the family makes zero income, then yes, that is enough financial hardship to warrant an exemption. I'm of the impression that Wildbill is the sole employee of his painting business. If this is not the case, and other employees can cover for him, then you MAY be right.
But, why don't we let the scenario play out and see what happens? Why do you always have to be the negative Nancy?
Wildbill's got some options so let's just wait and see. Make the story good, Wildbill!
I'm gonna try and sell this like you won't believe Steve. Thanks for the info.
I understand the hardship/self employed thing is judge specific. I was talking to a woman yesterday who's hubby's a farmer. He got called. Told the judge he can't leave the farm for any length of time. Judge said "I have a hobby farm so I know what it's like. Suck it up!" They had to take out a loan to hire some guy to work the farm.
I really hope this works out today. Thanks for the info everyone.
Well, incredibly close call. Made it to round three of the selection process (which is incredibly boring).
The judge didn't care whatsoever about being self employed single income family and said "if we let everyone use that we'd have no juries."
Told him about the jhs affiliation. He asked if that would make me impartial. I said no.
My last hope was for the counsel challenge phase. Each are given a certain number to use. He handed what I wrote about being self employed, former prisoner advocate to defence. "No challenge your honour". He hands it to crown "CHALLENGE!"
Well, incredibly close call. Made it to round three of the selection process (which is incredibly boring).
The judge didn't care whatsoever about being self employed single income family and said "if we let everyone use that we'd have no juries."
Told him about the jhs affiliation. He asked if that would make me impartial. I said no.
My last hope was for the counsel challenge phase. Each are given a certain number to use. He handed what I wrote about being self employed, former prisoner advocate to defence. "No challenge your honour". He hands it to crown "CHALLENGE!"
Although it worked, and I need to keep working I don't feel 100% good about it. We need juries and they should be an overall representation of society.
Can't just have a bunch of unemployed people or retirees doing that kind of thing. I dunno, maybe if we had two solid incomes I would have just gone with the flow.
Glad you got out of it relatively unscathed. Hope you understand (even if others do not) that I was not trying to be negative, simply relay my experience with "the system".
And I agree with your points in post #50. Would love to serve on a jury sometime, but my Colitis makes it impractical, if not impossible. Hence my deferral.
Similar from what I saw from the judges when I went. One guy kept trying to get out of jury duty every single day in court with a different angle; on our final day, he had a letter from his lawyer and the different judge rolled up his eyes, :rolleyes: while a bunch of us couldn't help laughing.
Didn't the judge tell you to return for another selection round? I was talking to this girl who got challenged by one of the lawyers, then told by the judge to return the next day for the next court case.
Well, incredibly close call. Made it to round three of the selection process (which is incredibly boring).
The judge didn't care whatsoever about being self employed single income family and said "if we let everyone use that we'd have no juries."
Told him about the jhs affiliation. He asked if that would make me impartial. I said no.
My last hope was for the counsel challenge phase. Each are given a certain number to use. He handed what I wrote about being self employed, former prisoner advocate to defence. "No challenge your honour". He hands it to crown "CHALLENGE!"
Didn't the judge tell you to return for another selection round? I was talking to this girl who got challenged by one of the lawyers, then told by the judge to return the next day for the next court case.
Nope, trial is starting tomorrow. Pretty sure they needed a jury picked today and that was all they were concerned about. Two alternates as well. They didn't seem too concerned about a different round. We're also talking different population densities I'm sure.
Everybody kind of freaked out when they heard the tomorrow start date.
I was kind of surprised by this as well, but given what I saw in BC... It didn't surprise me that this was happening in Ontario. The whole court system is a complete cluster BLEEP.
The public has no clue what they pay unnecessarily for inmate transfer from remand center to courthouse and back. Video court has assisted in this, but it's not always available.
and so were you picked, given your release because of financial hardship or what?
Worst update ever.
Sorry Moose, I thought it was pretty clear. To me at least. I said I was excused. That's clear right? The judge didn't seem to care about the fact I was self employed. I can't say for certain that the crown chose this as the reason, but it appeared to be the case that it wasn't. It appeared to me moreso that my former employment role was the catch as a prisoner advocate. I thought that was clear, maybe not.
The counsel can choose any reason they want without question at the challenge phase. They don't have to provide a reason. My speculation is just that, but that's the way it appeared to me.
It appeared to me that the previous prisoner's advocacy role hit a note with the crown.
Comments
I didn't know stupidity was a 'condition' now.
Imo
If that fails I'll wear my "I don't call 911" tshirt from the gun store in vegas!
Now that brings up another issue. What the hell do you have to wear to court as a juror? Gonna be my annual get dressed up day I assume? Respect for the court, etc.
Oh great, now I've got to find all that around here? Hope it all still fits. It's been a while.
The JHS gig will likely work.
Wow . . . an engineer with a fynny bone. Who knew?
Canadian Jury Duty
Bingo!
Current thinking is that "threatened" means it will go under because of your absence. Unless you can prove that, you're stuck.
But, why don't we let the scenario play out and see what happens? Why do you always have to be the negative Nancy?
Wildbill's got some options so let's just wait and see. Make the story good, Wildbill!
I understand the hardship/self employed thing is judge specific. I was talking to a woman yesterday who's hubby's a farmer. He got called. Told the judge he can't leave the farm for any length of time. Judge said "I have a hobby farm so I know what it's like. Suck it up!" They had to take out a loan to hire some guy to work the farm.
I really hope this works out today. Thanks for the info everyone.
The judge didn't care whatsoever about being self employed single income family and said "if we let everyone use that we'd have no juries."
Told him about the jhs affiliation. He asked if that would make me impartial. I said no.
My last hope was for the counsel challenge phase. Each are given a certain number to use. He handed what I wrote about being self employed, former prisoner advocate to defence. "No challenge your honour". He hands it to crown "CHALLENGE!"
"Your excused sir."
Close call.
Good job.
Can't just have a bunch of unemployed people or retirees doing that kind of thing. I dunno, maybe if we had two solid incomes I would have just gone with the flow.
And I agree with your points in post #50. Would love to serve on a jury sometime, but my Colitis makes it impractical, if not impossible. Hence my deferral.
Although it's an American show, I've watched every episode of Law & Order (old school vanilla version) several times. All seasons!
u have to vote or some shit to get considered dont u?
lol voting
Didn't the judge tell you to return for another selection round? I was talking to this girl who got challenged by one of the lawyers, then told by the judge to return the next day for the next court case.
Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk
Nope, trial is starting tomorrow. Pretty sure they needed a jury picked today and that was all they were concerned about. Two alternates as well. They didn't seem too concerned about a different round. We're also talking different population densities I'm sure.
Everybody kind of freaked out when they heard the tomorrow start date.
I was kind of surprised by this as well, but given what I saw in BC... It didn't surprise me that this was happening in Ontario. The whole court system is a complete cluster BLEEP.
The public has no clue what they pay unnecessarily for inmate transfer from remand center to courthouse and back. Video court has assisted in this, but it's not always available.
Worst update ever.
Sorry Moose, I thought it was pretty clear. To me at least. I said I was excused. That's clear right? The judge didn't seem to care about the fact I was self employed. I can't say for certain that the crown chose this as the reason, but it appeared to be the case that it wasn't. It appeared to me moreso that my former employment role was the catch as a prisoner advocate. I thought that was clear, maybe not.
The counsel can choose any reason they want without question at the challenge phase. They don't have to provide a reason. My speculation is just that, but that's the way it appeared to me.
It appeared to me that the previous prisoner's advocacy role hit a note with the crown.
That's all I know. Sorry it didn't read well.
For what type of trial would you be a peer?