"Wired To Win" sucks

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > in message <[email protected]>, Steve Freides
> > ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >
> >> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> in message <[email protected]>, Steve Freides
> >>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[email protected]...
> >>>>> in message <[email protected]>, Steve Freides
> >>>>> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The tests change, the methods to beat them change, the drugs
> >>>>>> change,
> >>>>>> and the whole business is quite the moving target. The only
> >>>>>> thing
> >>>>>> one
> >>>>>> can do, IMHO, is treat it like a court of law - you're innocent
> >>>>>> until
> >>>>>> you're proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of your
> >>>>>> peers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hamilton's peers are other racing cyclists.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, peers in a civil suit do not need any topic-specific expertise.
> >>>
> >>> That use of the word is too broad to be meaningful. If you had meant
> >>> 'a
> >>> jury of ordinary people' you should have said so. Professional
> >>> cyclists
> >>> are by definition not ordinary people. And civil suits are not heard
> >>> in
> >>> front of a jury, in any jurisdiction I'm aware of, in any case.
> >>
> >> As Robert suggests in his reply, the wording about a jury of one's
> >> peers is as old as the United States of America.
> >
> > The wording 'jury of one's peers' is as old as Magna Carta (1215 AD),
> > rather before the inception of the United States of America. The
> > reason
> > the barons wanted to be tried only before a jury of their peers was
> > that
> > their peers were people like them who would understand the sorts of
> > things they did.
> >
> >> One's peer in this case is
> >> intended to mean simply a fellow citizen of the country because, in
> >> the
> >> eyes of the law, we are all equal.
> >
> > No, that is /precisely/ what it does not mean. The Barons wanted to be
> > tried by their peers /precisely/ because they didn't want to get tried
> > either by the King, by churchmen or by commoners:
> >
> > 21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers,
> > and
> > only in accordance with the degree of the offense.
> > 22. A clerk shall not be amerced in respect of his lay holding except
> > after the manner of the others aforesaid; further, he shall not be
> > amerced in accordance with the extent of his ecclesiastical benefice.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or
> > in
> > anyway destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by
> > the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > 52. If any one has been dispossessed or removed by us, without the
> > legal
> > judgement of his peers, from his lands, castles, franchises, or from
> > his
> > right, we will immediately restore them to him; and if a dispute arise
> > over this, then let it be decided by the five-and-twenty barons of
> > whom
> > mention is made below in the clause for securing the peace. Moreover,
> > for all those possessions,from which any one has, without the lawful
> > judgement of his peers, been disseised or removed, by our father, King
> > Henry, or by our brother, King Richard, and which we retain in our
> > hand
> > (or which are possessed by others, to whom we are bound to warrant
> > them)
> > we shall have respite until the usual term of crusaders; excepting
> > those
> > things about which a plea has been raised, or an inquest made by our
> > order, before our taking of the cross; but as soon as wereturn from
> > our
> > expedition (or if perchance we desist from the expedition) we will
> > immediately grant full justice therein.
> >
> > See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/mcarta.html
>
> Thank you for the history lesson - much appreciated.
>
> I will close by restating my case - in this context, one's peers does
> not mean people who practice the same profession, only people with the
> same general rights and privileges in society overall. Here is the US,
> at least in principle, that means all citizens are peers. I believe the
> only exceptions are convicted felons, and there is some debates as to
> whether even that is acceptable. In the meantime, I intended to revisit
> my history and start reading up on the Magna Carta this weekend.

When you show up for cattle call at the courthouse do you
see any rich people? No, they have their own peers and the
best justice money can buy. Tho only people who claim this
is a democracy are the ones who want to impose their will
upon others for their own good.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Steve Freides" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Steve Freides wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> As Robert suggests in his reply, the wording about a jury of one's
> >> peers
> >> is as old as the United States of America.
> >
> > Uh, that's not what I was suggesting in my reply. What I was
> > responding to was Simon's statement that he was not aware of any case
> > in which civil suits are heard in front of a jury.
>
> OK, sorry for misinterpreting.
>
> I was called for jury duty in NYC for a civil case. The process was the
> same as when I was called for a criminal case - lawyers, questions, and
> lots of sitting around. I was looking forward to serving on this jury
> but the lawyers decided to settle it 'out of court' midway through the
> jury selection process. I've been called a few times but never served
> and I'd really like to serve on a jury some day.

Key to getting picked is to act like you are easily swayed
by appeals to your feelings. Best way to get unselected is
to answer articulately, thoughtfully, and forthrightly.

Twice I served, both times one of the sides should have
challenged me.

First time after the trial I asked the counsels why they
ever chose me. Counsel for defendant said "Since this was
a civil action only to determine _amount_ of damages, he
wanted an engineer because engineers understand magnitude
of numbers." Of course, counsel for plaintiff was an idiot
for allowing me on.

Second time defendant represented himself.

One time on a capital murder charge we filled in question
sheets, then came back for voir dire. Counsels were
interviewing candidates. When my number came up
prosecuting counsel announced that counsel for defense and
he had agreed to excuse me without further ado.

--
Michael Press

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, Tom
Kunich ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Simon, by all means please hang around.

Is that hanging as in hubs and spokes? And if so, do you want to make a
stand on that?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I can't work yanks out......
;; Why do they frown upon sex yet relish violence?
;; Deep Fried Lettuce