After receiving numerous phone calls, e-mails, Facebook postings and hearing the idea being discussed on the late afternoon show on a local talk radio show that were all positive I called my friend David.
He likes the idea!
And he agreed to run for the post after some cajoling from me.
His platform includes:
1. I'd run as an alternative to the taxpayers to ensure that if Mr. Bonner resigns, a crony would not get the position.
2. In my official capacity as jury commissioner, I would take every opportunity to lobby against the continuation of the position. I find it interesting that the Republican Commissioner is not even saying a word about this and how it would effect him.
3. I have much experience with downsizing and elimination of my job. I'm good at it, in the last decade I was downsized three times. It was not of my own making. Finally I can downsize out of a job because the job is not needed.
So let's write-in David Yonki for Democratic Jury Commissioner. The one good thing about the new electronic voting machines it is easy to write-in a person for an office. No more stickers or golf pencils just hit the letters on a touch screen.
August 10 was the last day to take your name off the November ballot so the chances are that Jerry Bonner will still be listed as the Democratic candidate for Jury Commissioner.
Go for it good luck I would be afraid to be in that courthouse you might get robbed
ReplyDeleteCorbett's ahead of you on this one; he's asking for regular callers to call in for an endorsement interview.
ReplyDeleteTo Hell with Yonki!! I've had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Bonner over the years and found him to be not only an honorable man but a personable on as well. One time Thelma Jean and me were at the Carriage Stop and Jerry bought us each a Steak Dinner with all the trimmings. That was during his first run for Jury Commissioner and we never forgot his generosity. If all public servants were like Mr. Bonner, the world would be a better place. I know of at least 2 votes he will be getting come November and the last thing we need is a subversive in a county row office whose only intent is to goof off (as he put it). To Hell with you all!!!
ReplyDeleteThe Yonkster has MY vote! I met him at Gort's bloggistan meeting, and Dave Yonki is as "right as rain"!
ReplyDeleteDave didn't look as handsome in real life as that doctored up picture in this post, though...
ReplyDelete3. I have much experience with downsizing and elimination of my job. I'm good at it, in the last decade I was downsized three times. It was not of my own making. Finally I can downsize out of a job because the job is not needed.
ReplyDelete...funny stuff! Sense of humor - CHECK!
Sorry Anon, but Gort was the one who suggested the Yonk on the Sue Henry show. Corbett is following a blogger again. He doesn't have one up on Gort, but he'll never admit it. That's where Corbett came up with the idea. Sorry, but bloggers rule.
ReplyDeleteHey Yonk..
ReplyDeleteAfter you win and before you abolish the office, please inform the people on their rights about jury nullification before you go.
Thanks..
P.S. Gort was the originator of the idea on Sue's show. Oh, and Sue, check out Jessica Peck Corry.
http://fija.org/
Colorado Juror: Medical Marijuana Case A Waste Of Resources
If you’re confused over the term ‘jury nullification’, a prime example of such emerged from a courtroom in Boulder, Colorado last week. Many legal and sociology experts recognize a significant change in society by whether or not juries, made up of one’s local peers, will continue to enforce what many in a society have come to believe are bad and/or antiquated laws.
Throughout America’s relatively short history, when elected policymakers and bureaucrats are not responsive to the will of the citizens or pass laws not supported by society, citizens sitting on a jury have an absolute right to vote their conscience, which also means in effect nullifying the law by not voting for conviction.
The effect of this becomes abundantly clear when jurors consistently refuse to convict so-called ‘criminal offenders’, and numerous examples abound from prior civil rights movements in America: Abolitionists, Women’s Sufferage, Minority Rights and Access To The Vote and Gay/Lesbian.
In time, and NORML is observing this right now around the country in ever-increasing amounts, prosecutors are having an increasingly harder time winning criminal convictions for ‘crimes’ a majority of the citizens do not in fact believe is a crime.
Want to know more about the awesome power each of us possess as jurors to stop ‘bad’ laws from their continued enforcement? Check out FIJA!
I want to personally thank ‘D. Walters, Erie, CO’ for both voting their conscience while sitting in judgment of a fellow cannabis consumer, and for letting their fellow citizens in the Boulder area know via a letter-to-the-editor what a waste of time and valuable social resources cannabis prohibition enforcement is for the criminal justice system.
Medical marijuana case a waste of resources
Posted by Camera staff in Tuesday, August 11th 2009
I was a member of the jury on the medical marijuana case and beg to differ with Mr. Garnett’s assessment as presented in this Open Forum on Tuesday.
This case was both a waste of taxpayer money and a travesty of justice that the charges against this man were ever brought in the first place. First of all, Mr. Garnett’s assertion that the jury found “that the amount of marijuana in Mr. Lauve’s home was medically necessary” is an inaccurate statement. The job of the prosecution was to prove that the amount in possession was NOT medically necessary and that Mr. Lauve was aware that he was in violation of the law. The prosecution presented absolutely NO EVIDENCE regarding either point of law. They brought no witnesses to show that the amount was not medically necessary. They did not even assert that the amount was not medically necessary. In fact, they prevented the defense from offering evidence regarding medical necessity. The prosecution did not even attempt to assert that Mr. Lauve knew the amount was excessive or suggest that he was doing anything inappropriate with the ‘excess’.
This jury admired Jason Lauve for standing up to an unfair prosecution. The physical, emotional and legal costs to Jason Lauve of defending himself do not seem to be of concern of Mr. Garnett.
And the cost to taxpayers? 4 full days spent by a judge, two prosecutors, a bailiff, a clerk, a detective, assorted police officers and 12 jurors! Plus laboratory time and expense to prove that it was ‘real’ marijuana. All of us could have spent these 4 days doing something that actually involved prosecuting a crime.
D. Walters
Erie