OBAMA may WANT an actual DEFAULT!! See why here!!

Remember the phrase - "NEVER LET A GOOD CRISIS GO TO WASTE"?

It is certainly conceivable that Obama would like nothing better than to have the Republicans stand firm and let the August date go by without a debt ceiling increase.

At that point, our country will not have the money to pay ALL of its expenses. Hence, some things will have to be cut.

EVERYONE KNOWS, by now, that there is more than enough revenue income to pay the interest on our debt and still pay Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Military, and Veterans benefits.

Nonetheless: The President (Executive Branch) will decide who gets paid and who doesn't.

Is it so outlandish to think that Obama WOULD PURPOSEFULLLY DEFAULT ON OUR LOAN INTEREST PAYMENTS ANYWAY? And SEND OUR COUNTRY INTO DEFAULT?????

The Democrats have not passed a budget in years. WHY?
He has NEVER offered a budget plan of his own. WHY?
He has stood on the sidelines (golfing mostly) for this whole debt ceiling process. WHY?
His brokering in meetings has only been as an arbiter, NEVER a participant. WHY?

Just my opinion – BUT – allowing the debt ceiling date to pass without an increase allows the President to declare that – HE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DEFAULT ON OUR LOAN PAYMENTS
.
He will declare that, because the Republicans pushed his hand, he decided that defaulting on the debt payment was the best thing for the country.

He will say:

I COULD NOT JUSTIFY PAYING FOREIGN INVESTORS BEFORE PAYING AMERICANS.

SENIORS AND THE MILITARY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PAYING A LOAN PAYMENT.

FOREIGN INVESTORS CAN WAIT – They'll still get paid – just a little later. OUR SENIORS, PEOPLE ON WELFARE, PEOPLE ON UNEMPLOYMENT, MEDICARE and MEDICAID PATIENTS ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN PAYING A LOAN PAYMENT.

I CAN NOT JUSTIFY PAYING A LOAN PAYMENT WHILE FIRING PARK RANGERS, WEATHER SERVICE EMPLOYEES, FOOD INSPECTION WORKERS. (And so on and so on and so on). THE FAMILIES OF THOSE WORKERS ARE FAR MORE IMPORTANT TO ME.

In his mind, Obama would be the HERO OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Is it crazy to think this could happen?
For 57 of my 61 years on this Earth, I would have said "Yep – this is nuts"
Today – I am scared to death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WALL STREET – LISTEN UP – NOW IS YOUR CHANCE !!

The absolute BEST way to send a signal to the world that we here in the United States are aware of our problem and DEALING with it is to NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING.

WALL STREET – LISTEN UP – This is your chance to Deliver a Message right at Obama's doorstep.

If the Republicans are able to keep the Debt Ceiling from being increased:

FIND A WAY TO MAKE SURE THE MAKETS RISE IN REPONSE!!!!!!!

The markets are losing ground in this run-up to the decision – it is a perfect time to tell all your hedge managers, stock portfolio managers, investment advisors, etc. to advise their customers that this is the right time to BUY!!

Obama has postulated dire drastic upheavels if his debt ceiling is not raised. Don't let him get away with it. PROVE HIM WRONG !!!!!!!!!!

Send a message to the World and Obama and the rest of the Nation that controlling our debt is the RIGHT DECESION!!!! For Business, for Banking, For Growth, For America.

Obama has trashed you as a greedy capitalistic entity that is completely removed from and indifferent to the average American.

PROVE HIM WRONG!!!!!!!!

THIS IS YOUR CHANCE!!!!!!!!!!!

Show other Markets how they should react to similar measures in their own countries!!!

MAKE A STATEMENT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 WAYS TO FIX THE CASEY ANTHONY JURY ISSUE

Given the outrage over the Casey Anthony Jury and having heard from several jurors (most notably jurors #14 {alternate} and # 3) it would seem that these jurors were incapable of understanding their task and unable to understand or comprehend the meaning of "Reasonable Doubt" as instructed by Judge Perry.

To see why I believe they GOT IT WRONG – read:

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profiles/blogs/reasonable-doubt-vs-shadow-of-1

That being said, I believe there are two methods available to forestall or at least minimize a repeat of the outrage that precipitated upon the reading of the Casey Anthony verdict.

For reasons of cost, complexity, and time these suggestions are to only be applied in Capital/ Felony offenses (State or Federal) where the penalties are Death or Life imprisonment.

1. Overhaul and restructure the method and proceedings of a "Voir Dire"- it generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury.
   
   1. Go beyond a search into bias and background and include intellectual competency.
      
   2. Have professionals devise a test (several different ones) to asses a person's ability to understand compound or complex instructions.
      
   3. Do the "Voir Dire" in sections – 1^st group weeds out bias and background (as it is done now with both prosecuting and defense attorneys approving or dimissing jurors) – 2^nd group is thinned again by independent court appointed personnel that administer the "complex issue testing" – 3^rd group is given a problem to solve as a team. They are put into a conference room, given the problem (A non legal and unrelated to their case problem) of moral, political or financial consequence. The deliberations are watched by both sides and either can exclude jurors based upon their ability or inability to handle the problem or their ability or inability to contribute to the process.
      

   For a 12 member jury – 36 candidates are picked in group 1, 24 candidates are chosen from those tested in group 2, and the final 12 are selected from the team deliberation in group 3.
   

Right now, "Voir Dires" take days to accomplish in high profile cases.

In the scenario above, the first group questioning can be done rather quickly. (Remember – in today's method of voir dire the attorneys ask far more questions because who they pick will actually be on their jury.) In the scenario above the people picked in the first group only move on to group 2 and if they survive group two testing they can still be weeded out in group 3.

Part c above in the "New Voir Dire" can actually be a real time saver. Observing potential jurors in a deliberation setting for 30 to 45 minutes or so can reveal far more than days of questioning can accomplish.

If there is a concern over the ability to find "qualified jurors" in this manner – then just increase the pool in order to double the first number of candidates picked in group 1 to 72 and whittle it down to 48 in the testing phase so that you will have two 24 member panels going through group 3 deliberations.

The group 3 deliberations can be watched live by the selecting attorneys or just videotaped for their joint review.

Group 3 observations by video can be done with the defense watching the first group deliberation while the prosecutors are watching the second group video – or – they can watch the tapes together consecutively.

1. Employ a Professional (non-voting) Jury Foreman
   
   1. Professionally train personnel to act as jury foremen.
      
   2. No criminal law attorneys (prosecuting or defense) can hold the position. Retired trial judges would be able to act as
      

      Professional jury foremen only if they had never held criminal prosecuting or defense attorney positions.
      

   3. They are the 13^th member of a 12 member jury and have no vote in the case outcome.
      
   4. Their job is to organize data, promote discussion, poll members and take ballot counts.
      
   5. They may not speak to case, evidence or trial issues and may only answer questions to or clarify issues regarding trial judge instructions or charge definitions.
      
   6. If a jury is to be sequestered – then the selected jury foreman must be sequestered during the trial and away from the proceedings. He only comes into play if the jury is given the case to deliberate and then leads the jury in cohesive deliberations over issues and evidence that he has no previous awareness of.
      

To all the people that have expressed such outrage over the Casey Anthony verdict and have vilified the jurors as well as proclaiming that our jury system is broken – I say:

Our criminal justice system is the best in the world – BUT – we can make it better, or at least more responsive to and reflective of our society and system of jurisprudence.

That's just my viewpoint – What do you think?

"Reasonable Doubt" vs "Shadow of a Doubt" - How the Casey Anthony Jury GOT IT WRONG!

I happened to be watching Griff Jenkins interview Russell Huekler (alternate juror) on the Great Van Susteren Show on Fox News Wednesday evening - I now have a HUGE PROBLEM -

Huekler was speaking to the fact that Judge Perry was VERY CLEAR about his instructions regarding "Reasonable Doubt".( The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented.)

Yet, in the same sentence, Huekler says to Griff Jenkins “…if you had the SLIGHTEST RESERVATION…”

Whoa! - - That is NOT the "Reasonable Doubt" standard - that is the “BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT” standard and more importantly - NOT WHAT JUDGE PERRY INSTRUCTED!!!

Huekler then, in a follow-up question by Griff about what turned the decision for him, stated that he made his decision when CHANEY MASON (in the closing) told the jurors how to decide if someone is guilty. (see SLIGHTEST RESERVATION referenced above).

That’s right – CHANEY MASON – set Huekler’s standard of judgement and NOT JUDGE PERRY.

If other jurors (in interviews or discussions) ALSO evidence such a decision standard - this jury DID GET IT WRONG !!!

They deliberated on the standards suggested by the Defense and NOT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE JUDGE.

I am sure I must not be the only one that caught on to the importance of what Huekler said in that interview - sooo - by now, many of the jurors may be on the alert not to make the same mistake - BUT - you cannot erase the interview that we have already heard on Greta's show. Huekler let it slip.

Why Judge Perry allowed Chaney Mason to do, in the closing, what the Judge would do anyway in his instruction set is beyond me. I am sure he probably thought the jury would still hold his instructions as the standard to use in their deliberations.

Huekler let it out accidently - nonetheless - the jury DID GET IT WRONG by using the wrong standard of proof.

It would seem to me that JURY NULLIFICATION has to be considered based upon Huekler's statement (which is on record now and can't be taken back).

Irrespective of all the other reasons people are angry with this jury, this one seems to be the most telling.

Plus - 

When one expert says “The smell of Death was in a car” and another expert says “There was no smell of Death in a car” the 1^st expert HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED. Countered yes – but refuted – absolutely not. This is the way defense attorneys CONFUSE JURIES.

Put more simply – If a 50 year old woman is on trial for robbing a bank and one witness testifies that the robber he saw was about 50 yrs old or so and another witness is brought up by the defense and says the woman I saw was about 20 years old or so, it means one of them is right and one of them is wrong. NOT – BOTH OF THEM ARE WRONG.

The jury is charged with using evidence based on who they believe.  They are not charged with discarding evidence because two sides have issued different viewpoints.

When 2 experts testify to an issue or fact and they are polar opposites – the jury must decide on who they believe. If not – then there is no reason for the jury in the first place. Hell – if juries can just discount testimony because it has been countered, why even present conflicting testimony to them. When the prosecutor presents the court with {gun expert 1} that says “Gun A” was used in this crime and the defense comes up with {gun expert 2} that says “Gun A” was not used in this crime, the judge might just as well refuse both the ability to testify because the jury will just be confused. HOW STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is the jury’s job to make decisions based on expert testimony. Listen to the testimony of the experts and chose the expert you believe is right. If a jury can’t come to a verdict because they can’t decide between two issues and tell the court the same – that is fine – that is a “HUNG JURY”. BUT if a jury actually states a person is guilty or not guilty (which this jury did) because they “…just couldn’t decide. THAT IS WRONG!! – THEY DID NOT DO THEIR JOB.

As to nothing linking Casey Anthony to the crime:

Only one person searched for Chloroform (even if it was only once for 3 minutes) – CASEY

Only one person owned a car that had the smell of decomposition in it – CASEY

Only one person owned a car that had traces of Chloroform in it – CASEY

Only one person asked to borrow a shovel – CASEY

Only one person lied and sent the police on purposeful “wild goose chases’ – CASEY

Only one person had the last known physical custody of Caylee - CASEY

Now before any of you scream – THAT DOES NOT MAKE HER GUILTY - your right – but they all do LINK HER TO THE CRIME!!!

That is what circumstantial evidence is all about.

The actual jurors on this case have already admitted that they thought she might be guilty (even felt so) but since it wasn’t proven, they couldn’t decide on her guilt. Well – by their own statement – they could also not decide on her innocence. Therefore – I submit - this jury GOT IT WRONG!!

Hueklers own statements attest to the fact they used the wrong “standard of proof”. The statements of others (as I just mentioned above) show they were undecided as to guilt or innocence.

A more intelligent and less lazy jury would have spent far more time on deliberations, asked for transcripts and testimony to re-examine or argue over and then after several days of deliberation, and finding they cannot decide on guilt or innocence, tell the judge they are a HUNG JURY!!! This would have been the proper pronouncement and would have sent the message they wanted, which was – Hey Prosecutor, there is a case here, now go back, FIND MORE EVIDENCE OR CHANGE THE CHARGES, and try this again, because you couldn’t convince us either way.

Thats just my opinion - What do you think??