Post Number
This Post's ID Number Is= 5750
- Remember the Post ID Number.
- Enter the post number and it will be find.
ID System
See Post ID System For List Of Posts
Interview
Listen in as Jacob interviews the lady who was told jury duty is just a "dog and pony show" for prosecutors in Washington State.
Much more as we update court case situations and connect the dots.
Leesa Manion Carrying Corrupt Satterberg Torch
- Prosecuting Attorney Office: Miss Leesa Manion brags, boasts and marches in pride that she is a woman holding power. No man can expect a fair judgment as she adds to the corruption of Dan Satterberg and Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall in leaps and bounds. With a nonsense boast about being a woman so too just as Satan fell from heaven because he was full of pride about himself he then became the father of lies. See John 8:44
Transcription
67, Interview Dog – Pony ShowSD
Disclaimer: The Justice and Legal Segment on the Consider Podcast is only concerned with calling all individuals to repentance. No matter which side of the bar one is on. The demand is for repentance in accordance with Amos 5:24. Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream. Nothing discussed should be considered legal advice. Want legal advice, pay a lawyer. Want justice? Pray to the Holy God. As the living God recorded in Deuteronomy 16:20, all must follow justice and justice alone. The listener assumes all responsibility for their actions or refusal to act accordance with justice and justice alone. Because the legal system hides their corrupt deeds and darkness any discussion is fraud with inadequate information. The listener should keep in mind that the news media only communicates what sells. Finally, make note that the vast majority of what is called legal, is in fact, not lawful. The Consider Podcast examining today’s wisdom madness and folly. www.consider.info
Timothy: King County prosecutors refer to jury duty as a dog and pony show. Let’s talk about it.
Video: October 2006, jury selection, courtroom 4G, Seattle King County Prosecutors. Prosecutor Paul Sewell. Been selected for jury duty before, then you know it’s a dog and pony show. So, justice is driven back and righteousness stands at a distance. “Truth has stumbled in the streets. Honesty cannot enter.” (Isaiah 51:14). The Consider Podcast. www.consider.info. Where the rubber meets the road.
Intro: Welcome to the Consider Podcast where the whole Gospel message is used to examine today’s wisdom, folly and madness. Acts 5:20, “Go stand and speak to the people in the temple the whole message of this life.” Join the hosts Timothy and Jacob, as they pick up their cross to follow Jesus as we pray that God enlightens the mind according to verse 25 of Ecclesiastes chapter 7. So, I turn my mind to understand to investigate to search out wisdom and the scheme of things and to understand the stupidity of wickedness and the madness of folly. (Ecclesiastes 7:25). The Consider Podcast, examining today’s wisdom, folly, and madness with the whole gospel. www.consider.info.
Timothy: Morning Jacob. How’s it going?
Jacob: Morning. It’s going good.
Timothy: You used to do or do you still do is it EMT stuff? You know emergency calls and resuscitate people when they’re sick and that kind of thing?
Jacob: I am a volunteer first responder, yes.
Timothy: First responder. Do you ever get to use the paddles? You know somebody’s having a heart attack and you just you lay those on there and you shock them. I’ve never done it. Did you ever get to do that? I know you probably trained under it, right?
Jacob: There’s no paddle and have I been on CPR calls? Yes.
Timothy: CPR calls. So, what what’s kind of the process? If it’s not a paddle then what is it?
Jacob: The pads are placed on the person and the machine will tell you if shock is advised. The machine will tell you to clear because you do not want to be touching the person and then you push the button on the machine and it will do the shocking.
Timothy: It sounds like a lot of fun if you can’t even touch the body. So, I guess if you’re holding onto the body, what? You’re going to get shocked too?
Jacob: Yeah, the potential is the shock would go through. Yeah.
Timothy: I got you.
Jacob: You’ll get a jolt.
Timothy: Well, I have a favor to ask of you. If I’m ever having a heart attack, right?
Jacob: Yeah.
Timothy: And you want to resuscitate me. First of all, you know, I don’t want to be resuscitated.
Jacob: I know this. Yes.
Timothy: Okay. So, don’t use the, what do they call it again?
Jacob: Well, it’s an AED.
Timothy: AED. Wow. I bet you spend half your time just learning a lot of acronyms for what you’re going to do. So, the AED, don’t use on me. So just kind of let me go but if there’s some strange reason that you just have to save my life.
Jacob: Okay.
Timothy: What I want you to do is get the court testimony of the Malcolm Frazier trial when Enumclaw Detective Grant McCall and King County prosecutors endorsed his hate crime and just read me back part of that.
Jacob: Read you back. Okay, yeah.
Timothy: Just pick any section because it will make me so frustrated and so mad that I’ll come back. Now I’m going to sue you later, but if you have to resuscitate me that’s what you use because I know, you’re going, go ahead.
Jacob: Well, you already said don’t resuscitate you. So, I can’t, if I read you the material then you’d be so angry that you would come back. But I thought you said don’t resuscitate you.
Timothy: Well, that’s the need needs to be huge.
Jacob: Oh, okay. There has to be a really good reason.
Timothy: Right, I can’t be totally selfish if there’s some really like earth shattering thing that I have to be around. That’s why I said, I’ll sue you later. But yeah, don’t let that bother you and you got to bring me back because we’ve been looking at that again and I know you’ve been looking at it. It is the most frustrating. There’s so many lies that intersect so much hypocrisy. We literally, because if we look at the same testimony. We look at the same court procedure and we each can see two different things that we’re correct on because they’re coming in on four different sections and they’re all saying the same but nothing matches up. Nothing Consistent because the corruption is just solid, right?
Jacob: I think the most frustrating thing is not, well, okay I mean Grant McCall was a horrible cop. But the most frustrating thing is that it’s all happening in a courtroom and the judge doesn’t do anything. The prosecutor brings absolute garbage that he calls evidence that actually isn’t evidence into that courtroom. So, the whole process is almost more upsetting than the actions of the detective, which sounds weird as I’m saying it. But I think that’s the most frustrating point is that you have this testimony from the cop that is so riddled with errors, but nobody in the courtroom will like deal with the errors, the problems that happened. So, that’s what becomes I think you know what I mean? Because like we know all men are liars, they’re all sinners. So, it’s like okay yeah you got this bad cop but then everything else that comes after that just mind blowing. I don’t know if that made sense.
Timothy: You’re 100% correct and I’ll come in on a different direction. Meaning, when I listen to his theology, it’s not even logical. It’s not even reasonable. He has some talk about, you got to produce good fruit which meant riding the bus to bring people to church. It’s just weird or the King James Bible is the only Bible we should all use and so King County prosecutors because he’s a cop said, oh yeah, King James Bible is what we’re going to support. So, they just put our doctrines on trial against his Baptist doctrines and somehow that’s supposed to be criminalizing the accused crime. I mean, I hear what you’re saying. You’re everything you said, I think you’re being too nice actually. I think they knew they were lying. It was total lies. It was corruption but that you know, that’s what they do for a living.
Jacob: That is what they do for a living. Corruption and lies.
Timothy: Exactly, that’s what they do for a living and by the way, a little message out to King County prosecutors and I’m not going to use her real name. Let’s just call her Minion Moore. She told us in May of 25, May 25, 2021 that she had something to discuss with us and let me read the quote. It may be fruitful to have a discussion regarding the remainder of your request which had to do with the Malcolm Fraser trial. Well, we’re still waiting for that fruitfulness they’re talking about. What’s this good thing? I refuse to talk to them. They wouldn’t put it in he said, yeah, but you got to call us today. They always do this by the way, prosecutors they always have to be on top, they always have to be in charge. There’s no humility, so they’ll go yeah it may be fruitful to have a discussion regarding the remainder of your request which had to do with the Malcolm Frazier trial. But we can’t tell you in person, we got to talk on the phone and it has to be today. So, okay right, you know what? I may be a fool for Christ but I’m not an idiot. Am I going to pick up the phone and talk to King County prosecutors?
Look, these are nasty human beings. We’ve tried to talk for years. At this point, it’s decades. Nothing’s happened. So, where’s this fruitfulness you’re talking about? Nothing’s materialized. They lie. They connive. They put in darkness. It it’s just a complete deep cesspool of corruption and so we’re going to move. No wonder they call it the Dog and Pony Show. They’re correct.
Jacob: They’re are correct. They’re, that’s like one of the few honest statements they made. It is true.
Timothy: Yeah.
Jacob: Yeah. It is true.
Timothy: And the only reason the judge got upset is because the defense naturally objected to the comment but the comment’s not false.
Jacob: No. Yeah.
Timothy: Now what we’re going to do in this podcast by the way and will eventually get there is you interview the individual that heard this dog and pony show comment, correct?
Jacob: Correct.
Timothy: So that’s what this podcast is really about. The problem we’ve got is the corruption intertwines and in with every trial and since they refuse to repent on any level. For example, she’ll go through and as you listen to the interview, she’s going to describe how she communicated that King County prosecutors literally put an innocent man in prison while allowing Enumclaw detective Gram McCall and his co conspiracy to form a hate crime and they endorse that that was brought to him and his response is, well, thankfully, it doesn’t happen here. So, then he quizzes her and of course she has specific information, she has time, she has dates, all that stuff. You’ll hear her talk about those things. But guess what he does. What does he do Jacob about that? He now has that information. The judge now has that information that there was corruption that there was wrongness. Easily seen, easily seen and what did they do?
Jacob: Well, they don’t do anything.
Timothy: That’s correct.
Jacob: In the story, he apologizes to her apparently and he’s like, oh sorry, that happened. I mean, so he has an apology. I think she even maybe uses the words like it seemed like a sincere apology or something but then later on, when she kind of comes back around to it, there’s just silence. There was silence in the courtroom. No one said anything. She says her, I’m going to say peace. I don’t know what that, she says her peace, says her line.
Timothy: Sure.
Jacob: They just move on.
Timothy: I haven’t actually heard. I haven’t actually heard the whole interview. I haven’t listened to any of the interview actually. I had talked to her at the time right after it happened and she’s giving me a quick overview of what happened. And then she gets to the point where and I’m listening right and then she says, yeah, and on this jury questionnaire they ask for money. Do you want to give or donate your money, your jury money that they pay you with to go to a state sponsored program? And at that, my mind went blank. It’s like, what run that by me again. She’s not picking up on the manipulation and I don’t have time to go in that today. But the manipulation and jury duty. It’s just it’s overwhelming and people are just falling for it left and right.
So, she showed up for jury duty. Yeah, I have great respect for what she’s going to testify on but she’s being way too nice. There is nothing sincere about that apology. An apology that is sincere actually does something bad. You can’t look at this kind of corruption and a person being imprisoned under false accusations of the worst kind. A church being ran out of town. Everything being done that points to a hate crime. That the over the evidence is overwhelming and go, oh gee I’m sorry. I don’t need that kind of an apology. Go ahead and play the next intro Jacob.
Video: Jury duty goads. Goad 1, if it’s not illegal, prosecutors need to shut up. Goad 2, plea bargains are the final word. Just say no to extortion. “Yes, is yes, no is no. Anything beyond is from the devil.” (Matthew 5:37). Goat 3. If liars for the prosecution are not punished. Judges are wicked. “If a ruler listens to lies, all his officials become wicked.” (Proverbs 29:12_. Let us consider Jury Duty on The Consider Podcast. The Consider Podcast. www.consider.info, where the rubber meets a road.
Timothy: Any comments on anything so far Jacob before we move forward?
Jacob: No.
Timothy: Paul Seawall, am I pronouncing that right?
Jacob: Seawall? I think it’s like Seawall. I don’t know how to pronounce it.
Timothy: Exactly. There’s an Auburn police officer by the name of Jeffrey Nelson who’s being accused of using an aggressive force. I don’t know what the legal terms would be and shooting somebody. I’m pausing again because the corruption is just so huge. Alright. So, and it’s gone through several prosecutors and one of the corruptions is Paul Seawall used to work for King County prosecutors, right?
Jacob: Yeah.
Timothy: King County prosecutor, whoever the head prosecutor was at the time didn’t want King County prosecutors themselves to actually prosecute the crime. I won’t go into why I think that’s so. What they did then was go hire an outside law firm to be the prosecutors in this case. One of the reasons that King County prosecutors gave for doing this is that these were his friends that were starting this new law firm and so he gave the job to them. Okay, you ever heard of followed the money?
Jacob: Yes.
Timothy: So, they took out and I checked this a couple years ago. I’d have to check again. $500,000 to pay this law firm to pimp out and prosecute this police officer. They don’t want to do it themselves for whatever reason and it could be just as a matter like, hey, let’s just send some cash. In fact, it’s fraudulent nature because they stated in the Seattle Times that they were going to use COVID money to pay for this outside law firm to do the pimp prosecution. Are you getting it so far? I’m making myself kind of clear.
Jacob: Yes.
Timothy: I’m sure the money’s gone up. Alright, I don’t know what prosecutor Paul said while was earning King County prosecutors but now he’s joined this law firm and while he’s at this law firm, he’s going to be paid with that money while still representing King County prosecutors. This is all like in the news. Now, what if you and I were doing this kind of shenanigan stuff? Wouldn’t they find a crime in there somewhere, Jacob?
Jacob: Oh yeah, you’d be guilty of something.
Timothy: Oh, they’d make it up. Well, do make it up. But they could probably find a statue but of course because prosecutors did never mind. The COVID money supposedly was gotten from the federal government or whoever because all the poor defendants were sitting in jail because they couldn’t have enough prosecutors to do the prosecution. Well, why do they still have the money? Well, why is that still there? I thought it was to process. So, you’re fraudulently taking away and you’re taking away the rights of those people that they’re so concerned with that are sitting in jail. They can’t get to trial because they don’t have enough money to pay their local prosecutors and flipping that out to a pimped-out law firm to come in and do the prosecution, which by the way adds a whole another layer of discovery. If I wanted to get to the facts, I’ve got to go then through King County prosecutors to get to an outside law firm. You don’t think things are being covered up all the way around and obstacles put in the way? Absolutely. Any comment on any of that, Jacob?
Jacob: No.
Timothy: Alright, let’s just move on a little bit further and again I’m just and I’m skipping stones. This police officer has tattoos on his body. A total of 78. Are tattoos illegal Jacob?
Jacob: No.
Timothy: Are you sure?
Jacob: Yes.
Timothy: Or all tattoos legal?
Jacob: Well, it’s legal to get them but I’m pretty sure I know where you’re going with this.
Timothy: Well, my point is simply this, we have got to when I say we, I’m just talking about me. I’m not advocating anybody go do anything because these are nasty people. They do not like the truth or justice being introduced into the court system. So, when I say we, I only really mean me. You’re responsible for these are not nice people by any means. All you got to do is look around the country. Do we see any amount of justice coming through by you can pretty well predict. Well, you’re in Washington DC. Go how it’s going to come out and you’re over here, guess how it’s going to come out. If you’re in Seattle and you’re a white Christian male, guess what? How’s it going to come out? It’s all predictable, right? That’s because they have made jury selection a Dog and Pony show. They know how to manipulate and get right to where they want to go. That’s 100%. No, but it’s just like a casino. Is a casino designed for you to lose, Jacob?
Jacob: Yes, the house always wins.
Timothy: Everything is geared that way and in fact, if you start winning too much, can they ask you to leave?
Jacob: Oh man, I didn’t even know you’re going to talk about casinos because we’ll call it corruption in casinos. Casinos, it’s rigged. It’s 100% rigged and yes, it’s a perfect analogy because it’s facts, it’s all rigged. The cameras, some dealers are in on it. Some aren’t. It’s all rigged to take your money just like the justice. I’m using quotes. The courts system is totally rigged and they will do whatever they want for them to win.
Timothy: And even more than that and here you are absolutely correct. I think there should be a choice. If you’re a defendant because you know that the first goal of the prosecutors is to bankrupt you, right?
Jacob: Correct.
Timothy: That’s the first goal. So, they don’t really care anymore. They’ll just wear you down. That’s what they did to us. It was like we wanted a fast trial. They dragged that out because they were hoping that we would collapse financially and having any type of presence in the city before the trial. We pushed so hard they couldn’t even quite get there. They got close and they certainly did afterwards. Anyway, my point is if you start to win in a casino, they can say no you can’t come in.
Jacob: They’ll kick you out. They’ll literally go down to the table and say, sir, you have to leave and then they will boot you from the property. And blacklist you and you can’t come back in.
Timothy: Then there’s a list that all the other, alright. I’ve always thought that that’s illegal. That’s just unfair. If the idea of a casino, is you can go in and win as long as you’re not cheating meaning if you’ve got the capacity to go in there and remember cards and do all. They shouldn’t have a right to kick you out.
Jacob: Well and then well okay so only because it came up so, but at least a casino is a private company, right? I mean don’t most people agree in America. If it’s a private, if it’s a private truly private establishment, they can make up their own rules and they can do business with who they want to do business with. But if we’re jumping over to the court system, it’s just like you were saying earlier, I mean we’re talking about taxpayer dollars the corruption that happens with the taxpayer dollars. I still think the court system should be held to a way higher standard than a casino would.
Timothy: Well, agree. Yeah, I’m laughing I’m chuckling because yeah, I’m not trying to defend somebody going in to gamble. I’m just kind of getting to a principle like you rig all this up and I just think okay fine had to pay the price. You can only rig so far. My point being this, a defendant should be given two choices. One, to go to trial or two, to take all of his money and go to the local gambling house and if he wins, he’s set free.
Jacob: Oh well, it’s a new deal. There should be a new court system deal.
Timothy: Correct.
Jacob: Okay yeah.
Timothy: There’s no difference. Alright. Anyway, pressing on with this Jeffrey, Officer Jeffrey Nelson trial. He’s got 78 tattoos on his body. They’re legal. They’re all legal. So, it should be none of the court business. The only thing prosecutors should be able to bring up in a courtroom is that which is specifically illegal.
Jacob: Well, About the case about the case. Not what the officer did on his own private time. He didn’t go get a tattoo on duty. He went and got tattoo as a citizen. So, it doesn’t matter. That’s he can do that. It’s not illegal.
Timothy: Exactly. It is illegal to actually bring in something that is legal and that happened with detective grandma called. That’s what he counted on. He took our church doctrines and beliefs which were totally twisted and brought those into a courtroom and those were made illegal and so the person that was convicted was not convicted because they actually did the crime. There’s no evident that the crime was impossible to happen, and I don’t want to deviate too much. But the point is you find this combining of that which is legal with what is illegal and so prosecutors can play the most assured game. The prosecutor that was in charge of this, believe it’s Mark Larson the same one that was in charge of the fiasco that we went through. He said, yeah, he wanted to show what was in the officer’s mind. So, now we are past factual evidence and you’ve got a group of the most fool of fools the state can put in a jury box listening to a prosecutor reading people’s minds. That’s nuts.
Jacob: Yeah.
Timothy: And that’s why we find so much corruption. It gets inflammatory. Alright, moving on just to show you a little bit more of this corruption. The prosecution wanted to bring the tattoos into the trial because then they could play, oh let’s write a fiction book that’s close to lies. It sounds believable and convict this officer for having a tattoo and we’ll just combine it with that. Well, naturally, defense objected. Well, that’s inflammatory. I don’t know if they used, you can’t read people’s minds but they objected to it. The judge says, yeah, you know what? That’s right. It is inflammatory. You can’t bring it in, so I’m keeping this information private. Guess who objects Jacob? Guess who objects to some reasonable aspect of what is legal remaining private and legal. Guess who objected?
Jacob: Well, the prosecutor will object and I’ll try to argue his side.
Timothy: Correct. They objected which is absurd that you know, it’s a well I’d never make it as a judge. If I were that prosecutor would be doing time for contempt in prison side. You do not come into my courtroom and bring in that which is legal and try to make it illegal. You would be in some serious trouble. Alright. So, they bring this in and the judge goes no, no, no, no. Well, the news objectives. The Seattle Time goes, oh no, we need that information. We need to have that. It’s private. It’s legal. It’s really none of the Seattle’s business. But even on a minimum level, none of that tattoo stuff should be released till after the trial but because the prosecution objected and the judge is getting pressure from the news media, right? Get the point. I don’t have time to go into all those details. Oh, all of a sudden now, you get this little game of corruption all these judges play. They kind of split it down the middle and do the vote. So, the judge says, yeah, you know what? Now, I’m going to release some but it can’t be used in the trial. Okay. So, now we taint the whole jury pool of all of society through the Seattle Times and through the news but we won’t let it come into the courtroom.
Jacob: Yeah.
Timothy: Then they wind to the jury that don’t talk about this. Don’t look at the news. Well, you’ve already put it out there. You’ve already done the damage. This case should be thrown out on this one example alone. On this one example alone. You’ve tainted everything. It’s completely corrupt at this point. I’m repeating myself again, but that which is legal is nobody’s business. And especially the courts. Jacob, go and play this next inviting of liars into the courtroom.
Video: Washington State invites liars to lie. Seattle’s prosecutors never punish their liars. City of Enumclaw Police refuse to investigate approved liars. Thus explains the full-blown corruption. Proverbs 29:12, “If a ruler listens to lies, all officials become wicked”. The Consider Podcast. www.consider.info. Where the rubber meets the road.
Timothy: Everybody tells us not to talk to police. Everybody tells us that police are trained to lie. So why would we possibly believe that police have the capacity when they spend all day long lying and playing to the corruption of the court system to convict people that in this particular case that Paul Seawall and his the pimped-out law firm should believe all of their witnesses. I wouldn’t believe any of them. Hosea 9:9 says, “They have sunk deep into corruption.” These are not minor things. I just can’t do justice to it on a podcast nor do we have the time. They have sunk deep into corruption. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins. I encourage anybody considering jury duty to listen to a podcast where we talked about jury duty as we’ve covered this in more detail. Alright. Jacob, go ahead. I’m going to let you read the scripture. John chapter 3 verse 20.
Jacob: John chapter 3 verse 20. “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.”
Timothy: Remember I mentioned that COVID money was being used to start a new law firm. They drew the money out of like $500,000 and so you have this pimped out law firm. You’ve got King County prosecutors in my opinion obviously for all you lawyer types out there. That are fraudulently using money, misappropriating funds. Let’s just go down the list and all other kinds of darkness. They hide. In fact, as you listen to this interview, they totally went into covering up their tracks. They just won’t go in and fix anything. All they do keep going more and more into darkness so that the jury and other people can’t see what they’re doing.
Anyway, now there’s a motion before a new judge on this Officer Nelson’s trial to keep from the jury hearing that a pimped-out law firm is now prosecuting it. They want the jury, it’s hard to even say it. They want the jury to believe that everybody next courtroom represents King County prosecutors. And not money, not fraud, not a misuse of funds. On I think it’s the 12th this coming Friday the judge is going to rule whether this can be kept from the jury. Jacob, remind me if I’m wrong but when you go in, don’t they has a jury. Oh, can you set aside your opinion over here. Don’t they do that?
Jacob: Yes.
Timothy: Well, how come they don’t say, you know, here’s what we’re doing. Just set it aside.
Jacob: Yes, set it aside. Yeah.
Timothy: We’re pipping it. Oh, how on the one hand is it? Oh, you can really trust the jury verdict because they said all these things aside. I remember in the Malcolm Fraser trial, right? Afterwards, the anonymous and I’m using giant quotes. The anonymous person said, oh that 28 days of vilifying the church, that didn’t have anything to do with our decision. Not a single thing. Yeah, that’s right. Prosecutors spend 28 days bad mouthing legal activity because it has no effect on the jury. So, this is all twisted up, but okay so on the one hand you’re trusting the jury to say oh it didn’t have an effect. Well, then how come we’re not laying all of this out before the jury that says, oh, you can know that we’re spending all this money. In fact, I want an update account on the amount of money that’s going that direction. What’s protect what’s projected to go that direction and what the justification is and is there anybody still in prison because of there’s not enough COVID money in prosecutors to go around, right? Wouldn’t that be reasonable?
Jacob: That would be reasonable.
Timothy: Because of course jurors can be trusted. Nah, we know they’re manipulating when the prosecution walks in, they want that jury to believe they are pristine. They are honest. They’re for justice. And this is truth. And this is what is in his mind. And look at this tattoo over here. Look at this hang nail over here. And look at how he parts his hair. Oh, and he’s zealous to protect his own life when he’s out there and he’s doing his job and his duty guess what, he wants to protect his life. Oh, and we know that just goes whatever that’s what they want the jury to believe. You’re not allowed to take note, not allowed to ask questions back. You’re not allowed to do any thinking whatsoever. It’s supposed to be these feelings that are going on. Again, the right people are not on trial here. Everybody that sanctioned this police officer to be in the police force up to this point, those are the people responsible. He was merely doing what he has been commanded to do by prosecutor and judges.
Enumclaw detective Grant McCall was able to lie, have hypocrisy with lie, come in with full arrogance, be wrong on everything that he said, twisting and perverting it, bringing in liars for the state that he rounded up to just whine and complain to carry it a bitter root to not even in investigate the crime. I want to repeat that. Not even investigate the crime. Didn’t even go over to the house to examine and that you get a guilty verdict. You can see why? Because King County prosecutors and these judges are completely whitewashing and dumbing down the jury pool so they think, oh, it must be true because why? Prosecutors saying that– you know Jacob if you got rid of everybody that told the truth and brought in a bunch of liars. Couldn’t you find me guilty on something?
Jacob: Yeah.
Timothy: Yep, that’s how it works. Any comments all that because I know I’m just kind of getting worked up there.
Jacob: No, no comments.
Timothy: Alright, let’s play the four types of jurors and you can decide which kind you want to be or that you are.
Video: Jury duty, four types of jurors. “Therefore, the law is paralyzed and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous so that justice is perverted.” (Habakkuk 1:4). The window of time for judges, prosecutors and police to repent is fast coming to a close. “Christian”, police, lawyers, and prosecutors had best repented their unholy silence towards the corruptions and impurities among-st their fellow workers. In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. (Acts 17:30).
1: Worldly wise juror: The worldly-wise juror are the most qualified, talented, smart, bright, correct decision makers a country has and thus refuse to show up for jury duty. These worldly-wise jurors when showing up for jury duty have serious questions for the prosecution, police, and to judge during jury’s election. They are quickly dismissed. (Jeremiah 35:6). But they replied, “We do not drink wine, because our forefather Jehonadab, son of Rekab, give us this command.: ‘Neither you nor your descendants must ever drink wine.’”
2: The naive juror. The naive juror still believes the legal system is fundamentally decent, doing some good and shows-up for jury duty. The naive juror are re-soundly rejected by the prosecution, the judge and the government because they are highly likely to employ honest common-sense and decent logic towards The Law, life and facts. The naive juror is not easily manipulated, and the legal system seeks to discourage their involvement with many a goad. (Matthew 15:14). Leave them, their blind guides. If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.
3: The injudicious juror. The injudicious juror lacks the ability to render good judgments and supports the police, prosecutor and the judge of “the law” by default. They always show up for jury duty and are eager to be admired by the judge, prosecution, and police. The injudicious juror is the all-time favorite of the state, for such individuals look respectable but are fools to their own egos. They speak the same lie-language of the court system and are swayed by emotions rather than facts. Such are easily manipulated, often compromising the mob-radical elements of society. The injudicious juror is thoroughly deceived by tabloid prosecutions. (Proverbs 26:12), “Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them.”
4: The fool juror. The strongest goal of the prosecution, judges and police is to place as many fool jurors in the jury box. The fool juror is eager to be manipulated, to set-aside any conscience for the privilege of expressing a fool’s opinion. Concepts such jury nullification, facts and reality are beyond their grasp.
The fool juror may come to a correct conclusion, but usually for the wrong reasons. How long will you who are simple love your simple ways? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? (Proverbs 1:22). Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. (Proverbs 1:82).
The consider Podcast. Today’s events, tomorrow’s realities. www.consider.info. “Follow justice and justice alone.
Jacob: We’re here to talk about your experience with jury duty because I myself have never even I’ve never been on a jury. I’ve never been inside the courtrooms where all this stuff goes down. So today we’re recording this on April the 7th 2024 and first take me back to just a few of the specific details. What day did your experience happen on?
Jan: Well, Mine was back in 2006.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: I was there October 17th, 18th, and 20th, 3 days.
Jacob: Oh, okay. And so, tell me just go ahead and start the story. What okay well first let’s go and back up real quick. So, what happened? You get like a summons in the mail, right? Isn’t that how jury duty all starts?
Jan: Yes, I got a summons in the mail saying that I would be summons and to call to find out when and where. Which I did and they told me to show up on October 17th for my first interview. And so, on the 17th I went to the court, to the courthouse Superior Courthouse in Kent. And I was assigned well actually, okay, when I arrived, I went to the jury room. Oh, my goodness, the jury room was crowded. There were so many people in there, people were talking on their phones, computers. I don’t know these puzzles set out all over the place for people to do on tables. There were vending machines. People getting snacks there it was a very unsettling atmosphere. I mean…
Jacob: Okay, and this is, oh I’m going to slow down just a smidge only because this is in King County is my understanding, right? I don’t know if you specified.
Jan: Yes. King County and Kent Washington.
Jacob: Okay, yeah. That’s where, that’s the courthouse you went to.
Jan: Yes.
Jacob: Okay. And the rooms they stick you in a room. So, when you like you show up, you enter the courthouse doors and you report to a specific room.
Jan: Yes, and they say yeah go to the jury room.
Jacob: Oh, it’s a room. The jury room and It’s chaotic.
Jan: Yes, it’s very chaotic and it’s mainly chaotic. One of the main reasons is because nobody knows what they’re supposed to do.
Jacob: Oh sure. Yeah. Nothing’s clear.
Jan: Yeah, nothing’s clear. You just go in this room. You’re waiting and waiting and everyone’s wondering, okay, what’s going to happen, you know? No one knows. Some people just they want to get out of there like ASAP.
Jacob: Oh. Is that a vibe in the room. You can tell a lot of people don’t want to be there.
Jan: Well, it’s kind of a mixed thing. There’re those people that do not want to be there and then there’s other people that are like, well, no. This is something very important that we’re doing. We are participating in the legal system, you know. I can really make a difference and they want to be on the jury.
Jacob: What did you think? What were you there for?
Jan: What was, I did not want to be on the jury.
Jacob: Okay yeah.
Jan: But I really had, I had no reason to get out of it.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: I mean in the past I’d had reasons. I had children or I was working, but I really didn’t have any reasons. So, I didn’t really necessarily want to be on the jury. Because we are just, I just had actually a bad experience in that courthouse.
Jacob: Yes. And so, they didn’t, just to be clear to They didn’t give you there was nothing ahead of time because you said, they didn’t give you any instructions. So, they didn’t tell you anything. They didn’t, there was no packet on how to be a good juror. There was no outline of what to expect that day walking in.
Jan: Nope. Just go to this room.
Jacob: Okay, nothing. Show up. So, you’re already just being herded around like a cow. You don’t even know where to go.
Jan: Right.
Jacob: Okay. Alright. So go ahead.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: So, what happens next? You’re in this room.
Jan: Okay. Yeah. Well, then they did start handing out some paperwork.
Jacob: Oh okay.
Jan: And so, they asked you to fill out some personal information, your name, address, that kind of thing. Then, they sent out this paperwork. They wanted you to donate your jury compensation to the new court childcare program.
Jacob: How much do you get compensated? This is, it’s joke pay, right?
Jan: Yeah, it is. It’s like, I think it was like $10 maybe $15 a day.
Jacob: Okay, yeah. Yeah, that’s a joke pay.
Jan: Yeah, that’s all you get, but they want you to donate it.
Jacob: What is the new core child care program as in like what is this?
Jan: I have no idea. I’ve never heard of it. I mean, in fact, right now, we’re trying to get some information on this childcare program.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: And to find out, okay, how much money has been donated over the years to this program. Because you most jurors, they don’t want their $10 a day. And so, they’re going to go, okay, sure, fine. I mean, personally, I took my $10 a day.
Jacob: Okay, yeah, yeah. Sure. But they’re hoping. That’s, of course that’s like the government. The taxes already paid for the courthouse and everything in it and then you show up to supposedly and then they still want the tiny bit of money that they’re going to hand in your pocket. That just sounds like the government, right?
Jan: Yeah. Exactly.
Jacob: Okay and they and they called it the child Care program. So, and was this is it just like a check box? Like you just check, hey, my money will go to it. I’m good with that or was it more in depth like you had to sign away or, no it was an easy-peasy, we just take your money.
Jan: You just put a little check in the box either you do or do not and you sign it.
Jacob: But they didn’t explain in any ways what the money was for other than it was for the children. That’s what everybody says right. You’re like if you don’t give to the children, you’re a bad person. Okay, so that’s weird. Alright, so then what else do they ask on these forms?
Jan: Okay, oh well at this point, oh, the other form that they gave you at this point they were just asking your name and address your occupation that kind of thing.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: Then they had this, it would they called it an anonymous questionnaire. And they said they were doing a study on jurors, and their mindsets. And so, they wanted you to answer all these questions about your mindset you know.
Jacob: Did you answer them?
Jan: Yeah, I answered them.
Jacob: So then, so is it a separate piece of paper? How is this an anonymous?
Jan: Yes.
Jacob: Okay, obvious that’s a separate piece. Not that they can’t match up handwriting if they wanted but anyways that’s a different story. So, and you did fill it out.
Jan: Right. I did fill it out.
Jacob: What kind of questions are they wanting to know? Do you remember?
Jan: Well, I don’t really remember.
Jacob: You did not recall.
Jan: But I know there were a lot of kind of psychological kind of things like you know what do you think of a courts and you know.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: I don’t really remember much.
Jacob: Do you remember how long it was? How was this like one piece of paper or you were flipping it?
Jan: It was a couple pages.
Jacob: Couple pages, okay.
Jan: I mean I kind of got the idea. They, it didn’t say this but I got the idea that maybe some college was doing some program on this like gather all this data. We want to do an analysis on jurors and their mindset.
Jacob: Well, I doubt it’s the college. It’s more like the government. The government wants to know everything.
Jan: Yeah, right.
Jacob: I doubt it was a college. Pretty sure it was them. What? So, what happens next? No, go ahead. Okay what? What?
Jan: Okay.
Jacob: I can’t help myself. I can’t help myself to like to the whole judicial system is so corrupt to think it was a supposed college people anyways. Go ahead. What?
Jan: Okay, so then you just wait, wait, wait until your name is called. So finally, I was in to go to a courtroom.
Jacob: Okay, so wait so you’re in I’m just because I’ve never been in one of these rooms. This is a big room? Would you call this a big room?
Jan: Yeah, I would.
Jacob: And there’s and how so how many people are in the room you figure?
Jan: I would say couple hundred.
Jacob: What? No. Really?
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: Oh, I didn’t know. I didn’t know. Okay, so there’s a big room. There’s a couple hundred and the whole time it’s the chaotic setting. Even while you’re filling out your paperwork?
Jan: Well, I mean there’s some worker.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: I mean people are sitting there and you’re passing these papers down this aisle where you’re sitting. It’s like okay take one pass it on, take one pass it on.
Jacob: Who comes in the room? Did do they say like hey my name is so and so I’m a something, something?
Jan: Yes, they did have someone come in and explain a few things. They did have like this I guess a teleprompter or something going on in the corner that was explaining some things just please wait. So, I guess I guess now that I think about there were that instructions you could read up there. Okay, please just wait till your name is called, be patient and be courteous that kind of thing.
Jacob: And so, you’re sitting there how long did they make you wait before your name is called?
Jan: Wow. Let’s see. I think I was in there may be about 30 minutes.
Jacob: Okay. 30 minutes. Okay. So, then what happens?
Jan: Okay, so then your name is called and then you go up to this desk. You get a number. Everybody has assigned like a certain number and then you’re instructed to go to a courtroom.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: So, I was given my number and then I was instructed to go to Judge Gain’s courtroom on the fourth floor. And so, I went up there, Judge Brian Gain. It was his courtroom. And so, we went up to his courtroom and again there’s 50 of us. It’s just it was a very small courtroom. And I wondered how are we all going to get in there.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: So, people went in and they all sat down and of course there wasn’t enough room and then the judge said, okay well, everybody just go up to the jury box that are left that are still looking for seats. So, we went up and kind of I was one of the ones that went up to the jury box. And then at that point they told us some things about the case.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: And so, this particular case was a state of Washington versus Bernard Bella Roach. The crime was there was an assault charge and a drive-by shooting at an Arco Gas Station in Federal Way. So, we were introduced to the prosecutor Paul Sewell and the defense attorney and the accused. He is there too.
Jacob: Is he like in a, oh, okay first backup. The prosecutor was Paul. What’d you say? Sawal or Seawal?
Jan: Paul, well Paul Sewell. I pronounced it Sewell.
Jacob: Oh Sewell.
Jan: Paul SEWELL.
Jacob: Okay, got it. He’s the prosecutor. Do you remember who was on the other side? Who was the defense? Do you remember that?
Jan: No. I don’t. I don’t and I think he was an assigned by the court.
Jacob: One of the, okay yes. Okay. Public defender. That’s what he would be. Okay and so then the mister Gains don’t they always do mister and missus, right? Mister Gains was there. Was he in like an orange jumpsuit or they had already cut him loose out of jail?
Jan: No wait, wait. No. Mister Gains. That was the judge.
Jacob: Oh, that’s the judge. Okay sorry. I’m getting, I’m sorry. I’m getting my names and stuff. Oh no Bernard. Careful there. Bernard yes. No, no, no. Okay. I bet that’s why we’re talking about it. Okay, so Judge Gains Bernard was the guy they were going after and is he in a jumpsuit or is he, you know what I mean? Or is he free?
Jan: No, he’s not free. Yeah.
Jacob: Okay. And so, you’re in the jury box and then so what happens next?
Jan: Okay, so we’re introduced to these people like I said and you know everyone’s very quiet and everything. Some of the jurors are relaxed. Others are really nervous and tense and stuff. So, the judge asked does anybody have any hardships? And so different you know people brought up different hardships. I mean some were legitimate you know.
Jacob: Like what? What’s legitimate? Who he let them? Yeah.
Jan: Like one person I mean okay this person was having surgery had surgery scheduled because this case was supposed to last for two and a half weeks. One person had surgery scheduled, do you know? Another person, but some people had weird excuses like I don’t like being around murderers and crimes and stuff and fearing about this stuff. Can I leave, you know?
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: And another person had, well, I have fear of Being around people. Can I leave?
Jacob: Did he let them off?
Jan: I don’t know.
Jacob: Okay, I see.
Jan: Because I couldn’t I couldn’t really keep track of everybody, you know? He didn’t say it on the spot.
Jacob: Oh. I see. They’re making notes. Is that what’s happening?
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: They’re writing stuff down. Okay. Alright.
Jan: They’re making notes or someone else said, I’ve worked in the sheriff’s office for decades and I’m a very opinionated person.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: So, people, they all gave their different excuses and stuff and then, some people they did let go then and then other people then at that point after everyone gave their reasons and stuff the judge just dismissed us for the day.
Jacob: So, you weren’t trying to get out of it.
Jan: I wasn’t trying to get out of it. No.
Jacob: And then that was it. They cut you loose.
Jan: That was it for that day and they go, please come back tomorrow morning. Okay, so then we all come back the next day and so it has been we have our final pool of 50 jurors.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: And then we all went back to the courtroom. Some of those people got released, some didn’t. I don’t know which one? So, anyway, so then the judge, he starts telling us, okay, he has four rules for jurors. And those are, they’re pretty straightforward I thought but anyway, one was no discussing of the case with anyone including family, friends, or other jurors. That at deliberation, you can talk to the other jurors about the case but.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: Nothing until then. No looking up information about the case online. No going to any locations mentioned in the case, and no outside research.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: Then he told us that we’re going to be using this method of jury selection called the Oprah Doctor Phil method. And what that meant is all the jurors are going to participate in a group discussion. That when a question is asked, we’re all given these numbers. They’re really big numbers. And so, when a question is ask it’s our, it’s your opportunity to raise up your number and you can share your viewpoint.
Jacob: What number were you?
Jan: I don’t remember what my number.
Jacob: Oh, you don’t remember? Oh okay.
Jan: Maybe 247 or something.
Jacob: Oh, it was a big number. They didn’t go like one through 50.
Jan: No. It was not.
Jacob: But they because they didn’t call you by name though, right? They were like juror number two, whatever blah blah blah. Oh okay. Now what is this? I literally have never heard. Again, I never been on a jury. That’s what he said. We’re using the Oprah Doctor Phil method.
Jan: That’s what he called it. Yes.
Jacob: But isn’t Oprah and Doctor Phil are like, it’s TV.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: Its fake.
Jan: Exactly.
Jacob: Why are we using, what did you think of that at the time? Okay when you first heard it, what did you, what were you thinking?
Jan: At the time I thought oh my goodness this is like an encounter group that I’ve been in you know in the back in the 60s or something.
Jacob: Sure. So, did you?
Jan: We’re using some kind of encounter group method.
Jacob: Oh, weird. Okay, so you thought it was odd at the time too? Because I think it’s odd as we talk about it.
Jan: I thought it was very odd too that you would use like TV personalities in a courtroom.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: And that’s the method that we’re using.
Jacob: Yeah, that’s our method. Okay, so we’re doing the Oprah Doctor Phil method. There’s no music this is not production, right?
Jan: Right.
Jacob: Okay. So, then what happens?
Jan: Okay, well a couple other things I want to say about the about that method and he said if you don’t participate in the discussion then you will be singled out for questioning.
Jacob: Oh, so if you never raise your card, they’re going to come ask you questions.
Jan: Yes, they’re going to come ask you questions yeah, and then he just goes, okay and the whole purpose of this is for the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney to determine if each juror would be right for this case.
Jacob: Oh, okay. And. Wait, what was that list again? Well, wait. Who gets to determine? Who’s determining?
Jan: Now the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney.
Jacob: Okay. They all get a veto. Is that what that meant? They could all, okay. Alright.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: Then what happens?
Jan: So, the first thing is they want us to go around the room. Everyone is to give your name, the city where you live, your occupation, and the occupation of all the adults in your house and what you like to do in your free time.
Jacob: Wow. Okay.
Jan: So, we go around, 50 people, talk about all those things.
Jacob: Sure, okay. So, everybody does that. Eventually, it comes around to you and you answer all their questions.
Jan: Right.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: Yes. I answer all my questions. Then, they have a list of all the potential witnesses in this case and so they go through every witness and just say, okay, does anybody know this person? Does anybody know this person? One thing that was so strange about this case is there were 30 police officers as witnesses.
Jacob: Really?
Jan: 30 and I’m like, oh my goodness. They really want this guy. They’re going to have 30 police officers as witnesses.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: So anyway.
Jacob: Why is, was there, so when they’re reading down, do you remember there was like 30 police officers and like a bunch of other people too. There’s a long list they’re going down.
Jan: Oh yeah, it’s a list. Most of them were police officers, and so were these police officers.
Jacob: Were these names in written form or just verbal?
Jan: They were just verbal and they would just say, does anybody know this person? Does anybody know this person? Does anybody know this person? Some people would know them.
Jacob: Oh, really? People would, you would, you just raised your number.
Jan: Yeah. You raised your number.
Jacob: They would say like so and so is a police officer?
Jan: Well, no, they would say officer.
Jacob: Oh, I see. Yeah.
Jan: They would say, they would identify them as a police officer. So, we knew they were police officers.
Jacob: Yeah. Okay. Weird. Why do you think there were so many police officers on the list? Why do, what did you think at the time?
Jan: At the time I just thought oh my goodness they really want this guy. They really want this guy. He’s known by the police and the police want him.
Jacob: So, who’s reading this list?
Jan: Ooh, don’t remember now, judge or the prosecutor. I think it was still the judge at this point.
Jacob: He was going down the list.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: Okay. Wow. Okay. So, a lot of police officers. Then what happened.
Jan: And after we went through that time to go home again. Everybody go home and come back the next day.
Jacob: Wow. Okay. So how long were you there you figure?
Jan: Probably maybe an hour and a half.
Jacob: Oh, it’s not very long. Okay.
Jan: No. It wasn’t real long except you’re just sitting there in the unknown. Like what’s going to happen next? When can we leave? You know that kind of thing. But.
Jacob: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.
Jan: Okay, so then like I said we left and we returned the next day. And then that day they told, we were told that both the prosecutor and the defense attorney are going to be questioning us. And the way it was going to work is one of them was going to question us for half an hour and then the other one’s going to question us for a half an hour. And so, we started to begin and the prosecutor went first and he was the one he started out, his first question was has anybody been on a jury before? And some jurors responded that they had and so he made the comment okay well then, you’ve been through this Dog and Pony show before?
Jacob: Wow, so okay because, I’ve heard you give that quote before and this is the first, thing, this is the first comment from the prosecutor right out of the gate.
Jan: Exactly. His first comment. His first comment. Yeah.
Jacob: What did you think of that comment when he said it?
Jan: I’m like he was so, I just thought he was so arrogant. The defense attorney, well the defense attorney immediately jumped in and objected stating to the judge that comment is very disrespectful to the court.
Jacob: Wow. Really? What did the judge say?
Jan: Yeah. The judge agreed and he sustained the objection.
Jacob: Oh, so this guy out of the gate is super cocky or prideful or both.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: Do you feel like okay you were there. I mean do you legitimately feel like his like demeanor was like that?
Jan: I did. I did. He reminded me a lot of Jason’s Simmons.
Jacob: Okay sure. Yeah.
Jan: I mean, he kind of even kind of looked like him acted a little bit like him and yeah and I just thought, he’s just kind of coming on like oh look this is my world, I’m the prosecutor, I run this show. It’s just a Dog and Pony Show, hey you guys are here just going through the motions. I’m the one that decides what happens in this courtroom and yeah, he did just have an heir like that about him. But he did when he got called out. I mean he did apologize at least.
Jacob: What was his apology?
Jan: He just go, he just said, oh, I’m sorry your honor.
Jacob: Okay, really? So, then what’s he do?
Jan: Okay, well then he goes on with some other questioning and one of the things that he asked is has anyone been involved or had an experience with the jury trial.
Jacob: Oh.
Jan: So, I held up my number. And I told him that I said, yes, I have and juries don’t always make the right decision. That I know of a case where an innocent man was sent to prison. He was the assistant pastor of my church. He was set up on a sex crime. I know the people that set him up and there were many lies that were told then I start crying. Because I mean it been a few years but it was still pretty fresh. So anyway, so I start crying.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: And I just say, it’s not right what’s happened to it what has happened to it. And so, after I finished the prosecutors like, oh well, I’m really sorry that that happened. Where was that case tried? And I said, here in the Kent Courthouse. And he’s like, oh, do you know the name of the prosecutor? And I go, yes, it was Jason Simmons. And so, he goes, oh well, when did it happen? So, I told him and anyway then he just moved on to his next questions.
Jacob: Really? Was he like taking notes when you asked, when he’s asking you okay when did this happen? Who was the prosecutor? Is he like taking notes or he’s just talking looking right at you?
Jan: Yeah, he was just talking looking right at me but I could tell he was thinking about it. He wanted to know where was this? He was really thinking about it and then he wanted to know okay who was the prosecutor and when did happened? I could tell he was really evaluating all that.
Jacob: How so and at this point, how long had it been since the Frazier trial?
Jan: Well, it been three years.
Jacob: Three years.
Jan: So, I was surprised that I was still so emotional about it.
Jacob: Well, there’s it’s, I don’t know if it’s a surprise. It was a horrific experience and it was a gross injustice on like countless levels pretty much but we’re not necessarily here to talk about that. I was just asking the time frame because he’s probably wrecking his brain. He knows that case. There’s no way a higher profile case he’s not going to remember and as a prosecutor he’s going to know Jason Simmons, so he’s just logging it away.
Jan: Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I’m sure he did know that case. By the time the because I’ll get to this later, but I did discuss it again in more detail later on during my interview.
Jacob: Yeah, okay so you said that at the time and you said you even cried at the time. It was very emotional still. Did.
Jan: It was.
Jacob: I don’t, I know at the time it was very emotional for you. So, do you remember like were people kind of staring at you weird or you don’t remember because it was in the time, the heat of the moment?
Jan: I don’t really know how other people were responding to me but I think anytime someone is crying people are sympathetic.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: And the prosecutor was sympathetic to me too.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: I mean he actually of course did he genuinely care well. I’m not going to evaluate that. But he did respond like I’m sorry that happened.
Jacob: Well, it’s a Dog and Pony Show. He has to say he’s sorry. Wow. Yeah. Because right out of the gate it’s this is a show and so you actually are answering honestly and then he’s got to play the part but okay. Yeah.
Jan: Yeah. Yeah. I mean yeah. He was playing the part but he was playing the sympathetic prosecutor part.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: I guess you’d say.
Jacob: Yeah. And so, then he just he, so he moves on.
Jan: Yeah. So, he moves on with his with his other questions and then of course his time is up. His 30 minutes up and so the defense attorney comes on. So, the defense attorney asks this question, how many of you think someone was guilty if they did not testify and many people did many people did. I mean before Malcolm’s case; I thought that too if they didn’t testify then they were guilty.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: So, I think it’s a misconception a lot of people have but anyway yeah, a lot of the jurors did have that misconception. Well, the defense attorney explained to the jury that the full burden of proof is with the prosecutor. That it’s his job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. It’s not the responsibility of the defense attorney or the accused.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: And then he asked some other questions. I don’t really remember what else he did ask.
Jacob: And so, this is just a back it’s a back and forth. So, he used his 30 minutes and then it goes back. Okay. Okay. So, it goes back to the prosecutor.
Jan: Yeah. So, then it goes back to the prosecutor. So, the prosecutor
Jacob: Paul Sewell. Sewell.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: How do we say his name again? How do you say?
Jan: Sewall. I say Sewell. Paul Sewell. I think that’s the way they pronounce.
Jacob: So, this is like, this is this is round two prosecutor Paul Seawall and what’s he got to say now? Unfortunately, I have a disdain in my voice because oh boy, what happens next?
Jan: Yeah. Well, this is what really got me going.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: This was what happened next but anyway, so then it goes back to him and so he restated the fact he goes, okay, as the defense said, it is my responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. And so, then asked the jury he goes, okay, how many of you will hold me responsible for that. Well, of course everybody raises up their number and so when they’re raising up their number and then I say it’s like, yeah, I say and I want to really emphasize this point. I go, listen jurors the prosecutor has asked us to hold him accountable, hold him responsible for proving behind the shadow of a doubt the accused is guilty. It’s so important that the facts of the case are considered and evaluated not the emotional content. The case I was involved in a few years ago, there was no factual evidence, only the testimony of a false accuser and the prosecutor even had to concede at the end of the trial that some of the false accusers’ claims were questionable and may have been thoughts and not realities. But then the prosecutor went on to make a plea to the jury based on emotion.
Jacob: So, you said this, so when you all raised your hands you’re saying this to everybody in the room.
Jan: I’m saying this to all the jurors I’m addressing the jurors at this point.
Jacob: Oh, but you weren’t called on I’m just clarifying the story you weren’t called on but you like what, you couldn’t help yourself?
Jan: Well, it’s kind of like when you raise your number up you can talk if you want to.
Jacob: I see. Okay.
Jan: So, yes everybody raised their number up. I was the only one that spoke. But when you raise your number up, you can speak.
Jacob: Okay, alright.
Jan: And so, we all raised our number up and then I you know I spoke because hey my numbers happened.
Jacob: Sure. Yeah, and so then what else did you say? Go ahead. I know I cut you off a little bit there. I was just getting a clear picture in my mind.
Jan: Yeah, of what happened. Okay. Okay, and so then I went on and said, I said and plus there was evidence that was not allowed to be presented at the trial. The detective, detective Grant McCall was found with misconduct by Beth Andrus because of his religious bias in this case, but that wasn’t allowed to be known to the jury. And the prosecutor and the police were working together to hide and conceal evidence from the jury as well. And so, I’m like guys you’ve got to pay attention to the facts of the case and decide based on facts not emotion. So anyway, okay. So, I say all this, I mean it is totally quiet.
Jacob: Sure, like really quiet. I mean like one of those times it’s silent.
Jan: Yeah. I mean super, super quiet.
Jacob: Everybody is looking at you.
Jan: Everybody is like they’re not doing anything or saying it. I mean it’s just totally quiet.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: And then the prosecutor he just ignoring everything I just said. He just continue with his next question.
Jacob: Do you think that, I think you had mentioned earlier. What was your words he was prideful in something else; I think you had mentioned. Or at the beginning when he’s spouting off this is going to this is a dog and pony Show. Did he have that kind of when after you said it, did he was he given, did you ever look over at him? What was his look like?
Jan: I think he didn’t really know what to do.
Jacob: So, he had like a, how would you describe his looked in? Like before it was prideful, what was it now?
Jan: Yeah, I think it was just, it wasn’t like he was humbled or humiliated but it’s just like I’m not dealing with this. I’m not going to address it. Well, see like before when I commented he was like, oh I’m sorry, you had that experience and everything. He was sympathetic towards me. This time it’s just not, going to touch this one with a 10-foot pull.
Jacob: Oh, because he wait, because this is the next day he remembers that case especially now when you’re bringing stuff.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: He knows.
Jan: He knows the case and he might have even I don’t know. He might have even refreshed his memory before he came back. I don’t know.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: But anyway, yeah, he knew for sure then and I didn’t really think about it at the time but I was just thinking about it when I was looking over my notes again when I actually said the prosecutor and the police worked together to withhold evidence from the jury. Well, I mean he’s the prosecutor.
Jacob: Oh yeah.
Jan: And this case is involved with prosecutors and lots and lots of police.
Jacob: And lots of police, yeah.
Jan: And I’m telling the jury. Watch out for this stuff guys. Go for facts not emotions.
Jacob: What, was there any other reactions amongst the jurors that you noticed when you said that?
Jan: Not that I noticed. Not that I noticed.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: But because after I said it yeah because you know yeah nobody really said anything to me. I mean you know.
Jacob: So, what happens next
Jan: So anyway, then he just goes on, he just goes on. He had a few more questions and he asked those questions. Well, then we get to the point where okay that they start eliminating jurors. And they’re taking turn the prosecutor and the defense are eliminating jurors. So, they start eliminating jurors and I was the second juror that the prosecutor said, okay, you can go.
Jacob: Oh, okay so who got to go first? Who gets to boot somebody first? Prosecution or defense?
Jan: I think the defense did first.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: Got to, you know.
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: And they said, okay juror number so, so we’re all identified as numbers. Okay you can go and then the prosecutor at someone go and then it goes back and forth. But it was interesting, okay. So, I’m the second one he tells to go but it was interesting because he was like very friendly to me when I left.
Jacob: Sure, You’re out. He’s happy. He got you out. He says, I don’t want to touch that. Yeah. Prosecutor Paul Seawall, says I’m getting this one out because I’m running this pony show.
Jan: Right, I’m running it my way.
Jacob: I am running it my way so he got you out one way or the other. And so, then and this is when they cut you lose this is all in front of one, it’s all in the same big room and then they just boot you and you literally just stand up and walk out.
Jan: Exactly. Yeah. You stand up, you walk out, you’re done.
Jacob: That’s it. You’re done. So, whatever happened to Mister Bernard. Did you ever find out later what happened with this case? Were you curious?
Jan: Yes, it was very interesting. I thought what happened. The jury in this case was deadlocked.
Jacob: Oh, it was a they really.
Jan: They could not make a decision.
Jacob: How did you find it out? How did you how did you find out this out?
Jan: In the court documents and newspaper.
Jacob: Did, how easy was it to get your hands on court documents?
Jan: Yet I would say, it wasn’t I mean the thing is I could not I could not find this case in the court documents.
Jacob: Oh really?
Jan: Yes, because I wanted to see what happened and I couldn’t find it. I called the clerk’s office and they verified this is the right number and all the so. I had a very very hard time finding the information on this case. Finaly, the clerk did send me the information.
Jacob: Well, wait.
Jan: They had to send.
Jacob: This is public record. You go there and you’re like, hey, I want to know about this case. I think you knew the case number, right? You were there.
Jan: Yeah. Oh yeah.
Jacob: And then what happened. What do you mean? They’re like, we’re not going to tell you?
Jan: Well, no, no. See, they have this online system. The prosecutors have this have this online system and you go on this online system you put in the court, the case number and all this information comes up. Well, his information would never come up on this particular case. A lot of other cases would come up but not this one.
Jacob: Really?
Jan: Yeah. And I don’t know why, so I couldn’t get anything. So, I finally had to call the clerk, the county clerk and she’s like, well, I don’t know what the problem is and everything. So, she had to do kind of a special research on this and so then she did get me the information.
Jacob: Do you think they were like burying this thing?
Jan: I don’t know. I don’t know.
Jacob: So, this because so this took you several tries. How many tries before you finally got it?
Jan: oh, pro, oh a lot like maybe 5.
Jacob: Wow. Okay. It just seems weird as, because you said you know other cases you can just pop up and I don’t you know are they burying the case. Because they didn’t like what you said which we know they didn’t like what you said? Are they burying the case? Well, okay do you think looking back do you think that like what you said to the jurors like helped them and hopefully maybe they followed your advice?
Jan: I think maybe they did. I think some of them did and they really thought about this. No, look. We have to go on the facts. Do they have the facts to prove this guy did this?
Jacob: Yeah.
Jan: And so, I think some of them were like, no, they really do not have the facts. They might have to…
Jacob: Go ahead.
Jan: They might have the 30 police officers and all this stuff, but do they have the facts on this particular case?
Jacob: Yeah, for sure.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: And so, you keep your, would you describe it? How long was this process? Because you’re trying to, it’s even human nature just find out like what happened with that case and you said five times you’re trying to figure it out and so over how long of a time are you trying, you’re like I want to know what happened to this case. How long did this take?
Jan: I think it took me like probably a couple months because I kept getting referred to as like, well, I don’t know you’ll have to talk to somebody else. It’s like okay, who’s that okay, then I try to get that person and they kept, they were trying to get rid of me. But in doing that they kept making me go up to hire people. So finally, I got someone, yes. So finally, I was the persistent, I guess say the persistent widow type.
Jacob: Sure.
Jan: And so, I got someone high up and they’re like oh I don’t know what the problem is with this. You should have had all these problems here. I’ll get it for you.
Jacob: And she finally did. She finally got it.
Jan: And she finally did. Yeah.
Jacob: You mentioned that you had looked at the you know court records, right? I guess of the case and then also like newspaper stuff. Do you think the 2 kind of matched up?
Jan: Yes.
Jacob: Okay it did. Alright.
Jan: Well, they did accept you know this wasn’t a case that the newspapers were very very interested in, so there wasn’t a lot of information on it.
Jacob: Sure. Yeah. Yeah.
Jan: Yeah. Because what end up happening is he got a new trial date and he plead guilty on the second trial date. So, he got some kind of a plea deal.
Jacob: So, this trial he was pleading not guilty.
Jan: Right.
Jacob: Then for this particular Dog and Pony Show, it was a hung jury so he’s let off, right? He’s cut loose.
Jan: Well, he’s let off. He’s let off, but then they filed a motion to continue the case. See, I guess and I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think that’s right, they can do that but that’s what they do if the jury’s deadlock. They’re like, okay, we’ll try it again.
Jacob: No way. So, for the second round, was it the same prosecutor Paul Sewell on round number two?
Jan: No, I don’t know about that. But we’ll see because on round two, he plead guilty. And so, I think they gave him a very good deal, because I kept looking for him to be in prison because I mean this was a bad guy, he had killed a lot of people. I mean a lot of people. I mean like point blank kill people.
Jacob: And so, he plead guilty and then so what was the outcome of the second trial, the outcome is what?
Jan: He never went to prison.
Jacob: Okay.
Jan: And he had some kind of a I don’t know exactly what happened but I think he just had to have some kind of supervision for like three years. And then he got off his supervision.
Jacob: He got off wow. So, no jail second round.
Jan: No. No.
Jacob: It was a like a plea deal right? Yeah, plea deal.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: Because you’re pleading guilty and then though we and deal. So, the second one wasn’t really a trial. Did it ever go to trial with jurors? He just cut the deal.
Jan: Yeah, it never did. I mean they set the trial date and then the day of or, no, see I think it was five days before the trial then he plead guilty. He accepted their plea.
Jacob: I see the prosecutor right, come with the deal.
Jan: Yeah.
Jacob: Wow.
Jan: Yeah. And so yes. So that’s pretty much it. That’s what happened.
Jacob: That’s your story of the state of Washington versus Bernard Baruch with Prosecutor Paul Seawall in the Dog and Tony Show.
Closing: This has been the Consider Podcast with your hosts Timothy and Jacob where the whole gospel message has been used to examine today’s wisdom, folly, and madness. For more information, drop by www.consider.info. The Consider Podcast, examining today’s wisdom, folly, and madness with the whole gospel.
67_interviewdog-_pony_SD
Disclaimer: The Justice and Legal Segment on the Consider Podcast is only concerned with calling all individuals to repentance. No matter which side of the bar one is on. The demand is for repentance in accordance with Amos 5:24. Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream. Nothing discussed should be considered legal advice. Want legal advice, pay a lawyer. Want justice? Pray to the Holy God. As the living God recorded in Deuteronomy 16:20, all must follow justice and justice alone. The listener assumes all responsibility for their actions or refusal to act accordance with justice and justice alone. Because the legal system hides their corrupt deeds and darkness any discussion is fraud with inadequate information. The listener should keep in mind that the news media only communicates what sells. Finally, make note that the vast majority of what is called legal, is in fact, not lawful. The Consider Podcast examining today’s wisdom madness and folly. www.consider.info
Disclaimer
The Consider Podcast attempts to express opinions through God’s holiness. Nothing concerning justice or injustice should be taken as legal advice or a call to action. There is no political agenda. There is no individual moral life advice. Indeed, each person is solely responsible before God and man for their actions or inactions. The Consider Podcast is narrowly focused on one thing, and only one thing – the need for all to surrender to a life of repentance according to the whole gospel.
The Consider Podcast
Examining today’s wisdom, folly and madness with the whole gospel.
www.consider.info
- #71, Jury Manipulation, 2nd Admendment, Wrap-Up - 04/29/2024
- #70, Jury Manipulation, pt 3 - 04/29/2024
- Book: Insanity In The Church - 04/28/2024
