Obama judge denies Roger Stone request's for retrial amid increasing evidence of jury bias

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,257
5,975
64
✟333,152.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Ummmm......this is the kind of journalism you rely upon as a source...??

“Not just did devil court Amy Berman Jackson enable the court to be piled with crazed leftists, the media never ever troubled to report on the prejudiced jurors!

The court, with Tomeka Hart in the lead, founded guilty Roger Stone in November on all 7 matters.”

Really...??

How many sources have I used to support the need for a new trial? More than one. And I use more than one to cooberborate each other. So poo poo away the editorial license in a written piece all you want. All the sources I've used have factual evidence to support the bias of the juror.

It's not just opinion. So feel free to disregard any facts and evidence based upon your disapproval of the editorial license.

Now if you could say how the facts are not correct then we might actually have a discussion. And while your at it perhaps you can also show how the lawyers (not associated with the case) are wrong as to why a juror should be dismissed for cause.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,257
5,975
64
✟333,152.00
Faith
Pentecostal
It explains a lot about the poster and how he derives his beliefs.

Hmm.... Perhaps you can show how all the links are wrong when it comes to the facts of the case. Just cause you don't appreciate the journalistic license to editorialise a bit. If you could show how the facts are wrong, then you might have a REAL reason to disregard the article.
 
Upvote 0

SimplyMe

Senior Veteran
Jul 19, 2003
9,612
9,330
the Great Basin
✟325,878.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Bias does not mean she determined he was guilty. Bias is about personal opinions about people involved. She made statements about Stone being part of Trump's team. Which she has shown bias towards.

So nothing that I can recall specifically,” Hart replied. “I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN.”

“So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN,” she continued.

So she had knowledge and also showed preconceived negative notions about Trumps associates calling them racists and criminals. The attorneys tried to have her removed, but the judge said no.

Her tweets showed her bias towards Stone. She should have been removed.
Troubling Revelations About Roger Stone Jury Foreperson and She Wasn't the Only One With Issues

Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors

Bias towards people which the juror clearly had as seen by her actions and comments towards Trump and his associates are clear reasons for dismissal. So was her tweet showing she knew about the case and brought racism I to the situation. The defense wanted her out for legit reasons.

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/...s/reasons-for-rejecting-potential-jurors.html

This should be a mistrial and a new one held.

Basically the argument boils down to her re-Tweeting something someone else wrote about Republicans, who have ignored Blacks being shot and killed by police, were up in arms of how Stone was arrested -- there is nothing in that Tweet that shows she had any knowledge of the case.

There is a claim that since her husband works for the FBI in the same division that investigated Stone that she couldn't be impartial -- despite the fact there is no evidence that her husband had any knowledge of the Stone case, that he had ever worked on it or been involved with it, much less that he had ever talked to her about it.

Last, the remainder of the claims is basically that as a Democrat and a "civil rights activist," one that dislikes Trump, that she could not be impartial. I'm sorry, that does not show that she could not be impartial.

In fact, going through your link showing reasons for a juror to be dismissed -- none of them fit what is alleged against her. To go through the reasons:

1) "Personal knowledge about a party to the case or someone connected to the case." In this case, the example given is, "the prosecutor’s next-door neighbor would ordinarily be excused for cause, as would someone related to a key witness," and that appears to have not applied. If her husband had worked the case, particularly if he was testifying, that would have disqualified her. Instead, again, he worked in that "division" but, from what we know, was not involved and had no knowledge of the case.

2) "Personal experiences that might affect the person’s ability to judge the case." So, the example, "For instance, someone who has himself been the victim of a similar crime might be prone to project his trauma onto the alleged victim, coloring his ability to weigh the victim’s credibility." Doesn't apply here.

3) "Inability or unwillingness to follow core legal principles, such as the presumption of innocence or the defendant’s right not to testify." There is no evidence she had such an issue.

4) "Refusal to consider the sentence, including the death penalty. " Again, not an issue.

5) "Critical and extreme feelings about the judicial system or government." Again, no evidence of any issue here.

6) "A predisposition to believe police officers or other individuals involved in the case." No evidence that is the case here.

7) "An unfavorable predisposition towards the defendant’s race, lifestyle, or occupation." The examples: "“I know many members of [that ethnic community], and they’re all scammers,” or “I’ve had enough experience with people who [live like that] to know never to trust them.” This can be prejudice in its meanest form." While you can argue that she is a "racial activist" there is no evidence that she held that type of feeling towards white people. The closest you can claim is that you believe, based on her comments, that Stone is a racist (though there is no real evidence to support that idea) -- but that again does not mean she could not be impartial in this case, which had zero to do with racial issues.

8) "Exposure to pre-trial publicity." And the best you have is she reTweeted a comment someone else made about the arrest. In a case like this, with the story of the arrest being national news, that is not a reason to dismiss a juror.

The obvious bias in the article has been pointed out to you. As a prime example, they suggest that a juror that merely donated to a Democratic candidate should have been removed "for cause" -- if you notice, there is nothing in those above reasons that comes anywhere close to showing that as a reason to remove a juror. Yet they basically use that as an entire reason why that juror should not have been seated -- your article is not credible.

There is no evidence that the judge was wrong to not remove the juror "for cause" -- as, again, no evidence shows that she was unable to be impartial. And, obviously, the defense did not have enough concern to use a peremptory challenge -- the judge could not have overruled it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,934
17,415
Finger Lakes
✟7,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hmm.... Perhaps you can show how all the links are wrong when it comes to the facts of the case. Just cause you don't appreciate the journalistic license to editorialise a bit. If you could show how the facts are wrong, then you might have a REAL reason to disregard the article.
1) Corrupt Obama- assigned Judge Amy Berman Jackson - there is no evidence that either Obama is corrupt or that Berman is corrupt
2) On Wednesday it was exposed the court foreperson, Tomeka Hart, a previous Dem Congressional prospect was a crazed Trump- disliking left-wing protestor. - "it was exposed" - how and by whom; "crazed" - unevidenced inflammatory language; "protestor" spelling
3) she especially struck Stone on Twitter - "struck"?
4)hart was spoken with onnov 5, 2019 - is this professional? "spoken with" - by whom
5) Ms Hart really did not simply assault President Trump as well as his advocates as racists, she especially struck Roger Stone– as well as she wound up the lead juror on his instance. - "assault"? "she especially struck Roger Stone" - she didn't strike anyone. At worst, she retweeted someone else's comment.
6) the truth that she discussed him by name - that is incorrect, she merely retweeted someone else who mentioned him, along with others, by name. The gist of that post has less to do with Stone than with injustice for the other people mentioned and the hypocrisy of those decrying the "force" used on Stone compared with the force resulting in death of the others.
7) Not just did devil court Amy Berman Jackson enable the court to be piled with crazed leftists, the media never ever troubled to report on the prejudiced jurors! - do you take this kind of ranting seriously as "reporting"?

"Journalistic license" does not allow for editorializing "a bit".
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Here's an interesting question: Under Article 2, Section 2, the Constitution, POTUS has the power to pardon "Except in cases of impeachment."

Does that refer only to Donald pardoning himself, or anyone involved in an impeachable offense?
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,802
36,097
Los Angeles Area
✟820,294.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Here's an interesting question: Under Article 2, Section 2, the Constitution, POTUS has the power to pardon "Except in cases of impeachment."

Does that refer only to Donald pardoning himself, or anyone involved in an impeachable offense?

I assume that's if a Judge or other elected official is impeached.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I assume that's if a Judge or other elected official is impeached.

Normally I would as well, but the Constitution isn't specific.

The Found Fathers, however, were.

The pardon power and original intent

James Madison pointed out that when a President is impeached, he loses the power to pardon anyone connected to his impeachment, for obvious reasons.

What is not clear is whether that lasts only for the duration of his impeachment, or if the injunction is permanent. Considering that a president, even if acquitted in impeachment, can still be tried for his "high crimes" after he leaves office, the latter would make sense.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Why are judges in the USA affiliated with political parties? I have always felt that judges were supposed to be objective. This seems so incredibly strange that this could happen in a democracy.

They are associated with the political party of whoever appointed them -- more often than not by members of the opposition party.
 
Upvote 0

Arcangl86

Newbie
Dec 29, 2013
11,074
7,402
✟343,085.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
They are associated with the political party of whoever appointed them -- more often than not by members of the opposition party.
Though there are judges who obviously guided more by political ideology then legal philosophy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Though there are judges who obviously guided more by political ideology then legal philosophy.

True, and that's the fault of the people who appointed them.

That's why appointing judges is perhaps the most important responsibility of an elected official.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: JackRT
Upvote 0

DaisyDay

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State
Jan 7, 2003
37,934
17,415
Finger Lakes
✟7,379.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why are judges in the USA affiliated with political parties? I have always felt that judges were supposed to be objective. This seems so incredibly strange that this could happen in a democracy.

They are associated with the political party of whoever appointed them -- more often than not by members of the opposition party.
In some municipalities, judges are elected. Since very few people have any idea who the judicial candidates are, most vote along party lines.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,109
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,517.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
It's nice how you include that it is an "Obama judge"....because that way you can imply bias and undermine Evry decision an Obama judge makes.

That's a great way to maintain trust in the judiciary

Out of curiousity, when inevitably, Democrats do the same to trumps judges how will you respond?
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
It's nice how you include that it is an "Obama judge"....because that way you can imply bias and undermine Evry decision an Obama judge makes.

That's a great way to maintain trust in the judiciary

Out of curiousity, when inevitably, Democrats do the same to trumps judges how will you respond?

With wailing and gnashing of teeth, as like as not.
 
Upvote 0