Jury Demand: Should You or Shouldn’t You

Since this question keeps popping up I figured I would take a shot at it.

The theory is that by asking for a jury verdict you are taking the matter out of the hands of a politicized judge and putting it in the hands of what is likely to be a very angry jury pool itching to whack the Wall Street players. I think that’s right, theoretically.

My problem with the theory is that in practice I don’t see much mileage in it. These cases don’t seem to EVER get to trial which is the only place a jury will hear anything. In the meantime you still have the the same politicized judge making all the preliminary rulings about whether your case will survive, much less get to trial.

The other problem I have with the Jury Demand is that you only have a right to trial by jury on money damages, not equitable relief, like an injunction or some mandate against the players. So the jury demand won’t have much effect on the main issue: whether the foreclosure is right or wrong and whether the money is owed and if so to whom, and whether the party seeking to foreclose has any right to do so.

And the last problem I have with it is the issue of bifurcation. If you ask for a jury trial the Judge might split the case into two cases — first the case involving the legality of the foreclosure and second, the damage case that will go to the jury. This creates the appearance that the Judge is “protecting” your right to be heard on your claims while “protecting” a secured creditor (who is neither a creditor nor secured) from further losses on a “legitimate” obligation.

So obviously I think that a jury demand takes the focus off whether the party you are fighting is a creditor, has standing or is just trying to steal the property. But I could be wrong. This isn’t a legal opinion, it is just a knee-jerk reaction.

15 Responses

  1. As long as the masses (lay people) are willing to allow a minority (lawyers, judges) hostage, then we will have a corrupt judiciary.

    They want you to think that they own the court room and the law, but we all own the court room and the law. They want you to believe that you must fight within the system by the system’s rule, fully knowing that you can not fight the system unless you are a part of it and also knowing that those within the system (lawyers and judges) will not fight the system of which they are a part.

    It is up to us outside the system (the pro se litigant) to find alternative means to fight judicial corruption.

    Use a court reporter. Use a sketch artist.

    Expose them to the press.

    Invite the public, especially children, into the court room and point out the obvious biases and discrepancies. Point them out so that everyone in the courtroom will be made aware.

    Write your Senator who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

    Write your Congressman.

    Write a blog.

    Do not be silent. The more voices we have in opposition to the corrupt judiciary, the more aware the public becomes of the perjured testimony being used to hold them down, the more chaos we can create … the better our chances of forcing those who are benefiting from the corrupt judiciary to alter their behavior.

    Do not go quietly into the night. Tell somebody. Tell a bunch of somebodies. Scream.

  2. In California civil trials, a court reporter is usually not present. Face reality. Our courts can not afford to pay for a court reporter for every case. We can’t have it both ways — low taxes/ fees with maximum services. If you want a court reporter, hire your own. It is the best investment you will make and will save you a lot of headache down the end on appeal. It also keeps the judges straight. Without one, the Court of Appeals (which is made up of judges) will side with the Judge (who they interact with regularly) over any one appellant (one shot deal). Judges are only human.

    The reason smart lawyers demand a jury trial upfront is because if you want to preserve you right to a jury trial, you MUST demand it up front. You can always waive the jury trial later, but if you don’t demand a jury trial at the beginning it is extremely difficult to change your mind later. Demand then waive, or forget then beg. Which one do you think is better for you?

  3. I’m with you, Dying Truth. As a wise man once said, “The answer to 1984 is 1776.”

  4. Are court reporters not automatically present at trials in equity/foreclosure hearings?

  5. Ann,
    Since foreclosures are equity cases, it is almost
    impossible to get a Jury trial even if it was a good idea, which it usually isn’t. I think the demand is more for show than for real.
    A court reporter is the best way to keep everyone honest and its cheaper and easier. Even corrupt Judges fear a good court reporter because it means the possiblility of reversal on appeal and even criminal charges if the lawyers or Judge try anything corrupt. Corruption usually only happens when the
    defendant defaults, which is about 90% of the time.

  6. I THINK IT’S TIME WE RE-DECLARED OUR INDEPENDENCE. I MEAN REALLY WHO NEEDS JUDICIARY WITH A BROKEN SCALE, A PASSIVE ADMINISTRATION AND A CONGRESS ENGAGING IN THE HUGEST EMBEZZLEMENT AND MONEY LAUNDERING SCHEME IN WORLD HISTORY. IT’S SIMPLE I DON’T SEE HOW NOBODY ELSE SEES IT
    1.THEY MANAGED TO PASS LEGISLATION WHICH PERMITS PUBLIC OFFICIALS INCLUDING JUDGES TO RECEIVE CONTRABUTIONS(ACCEPT BRIBES)
    2.A CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TREASURY JOINTLY WITH THE FED AND NUMEROUS (REFUSED TO BE IDENTIFIED BY THE FED) BANKS
    3.US SUPREME COURT RULES THE LOBBYING LIMITS VIOLATE THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION
    4.(I HOPE THEY DON’T GET TO A #4 & THE FACT THAT THEY’VE MADE IT THIS FAR SCARES ME[NOT REALLY])

  7. Almost all of April Charney Esq. Foreclosure Answer with Affirmative Defenses included Jury Trial Demanded. She is teaching Foreclosure Defense Lawyers to do so. Maybe she knows somethings that we don’t know ? Other prominent lawyers are also demand Jury Trial for Foreclosure Defense.

    Her Answer with Jury Trials are too long to post. E-mail me at ocean11@the-beach.net , I’ll e-mail them to you.

  8. I know from experience with the criminal courts,
    that if the Jury goes against you, it is almost impossible to win on appeal because factual issues can not be raised again, only law and procedural issues.
    With a Judge trial, if you have the transcript, all issues both factual, legal and procedural can be
    raised.
    In my case, there was no “corpus delecti” ie no
    proof a crime was even committed, by anyone, much
    less me. In spite of that, the Jury convicted. Thank god
    the Judge followed the law and overruled the Jury
    do to the lack of a “corpus delecti”.
    So, I have no confidence in Juries. A clever lawyer
    can stack them against a defendant even when the
    defendant has the law on their side.

  9. You must bring a Court Reporter. If possible, get permission to tape everything. Expect everyone to lie.

  10. I’m just pissed because there’s no way a person can defend themselves against a corrupt justice system.

  11. hey krieger for the 12 “braindead” jurors you can explain it in simple layman’s terms…”Wall Street bought some thing they built that came with a warranty, they also payed to have it insured, then they intentionally broke it themselves, collected on the insurance, sold the knowingly broken product to shell companies they created, collecting on the warranty(with the financial assistance of bailouts) and amassing huge profits from supply & demand not being met from lack of alternate supplement. DOES THAT SOUND SUFFICIENT FOR 12 “BRAINDEAD” JURORS?

  12. and how would the case be split when there is criminal liability needed to be discovered at the trial stage(do remember that congress intended to hold creditors criminally liable for those who willfully violated it read the original bill). judges are attempting to conceal criminal liability because they know that thier financial investment interests will be exposed in the event of a trial which will implicate thier involvement. COME ON NIEL YOU KNOW THAT IT’S TRUE!

  13. Oops … I also forgot to mention that if you get the jury trial you have to educate 12 braindead jurors into the intricacies of securitization and proprietary trading … whereas with a bench trial you only have to educate 1 person … the judge. When you’ve got 12 minds making a decision, there’s a greater chance it won’t go your way. That’s the danger of voir dire taking out the desired players you want whacking Wall St.

  14. Neil,

    Knee-jerk reaction or not … I think you have brought up many valid points about why you should keep the matter “at the bench”. Once you get a favorable ruling, you can always proceed into other matters like FCRA violations (the pretender lender violating Section 623 of the FCRA by knowingly reporting false credit information on your credit reports, even though he was not the legitimate creditor) in federal district court. Damage awards there a statutory and punitive, plus attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party.

  15. I agree. It is better to do a judge trial, bring a Court
    Reporter and get everything down in writing. If the
    Judge makes a mistake, you can appeal.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: