September 15, 2007

For the last two weeks I have been in court sitting on a jury. The plaintiff’s attorney presents his side of the case and then the defendant presents his. Who is telling the truth, the people on the jury ask? Could they both be telling the truth? Was the company negligent or was the incident an act of God? Did they use reasonable care in the safety of their customers or could they have prevented this accident from occurring had they been more strict in their safety policy? How do you perceive “reasonable care”?

In this case the jury was a group of 10 who sat and listened to the many days of testimony. At the end of the trial two jurors were selected as alternates, dismissed and the remaining 8 went into a closed room to deliberate. It was late, we were tired and would have preferred to go home. However the thought of the long commute home and back to the courthouse the next morning was more than we could bare. We decided to stay until we reached a decision.

Thinking back to the jury selection process I remember stating to the court that I did not believe in lawsuits. “I believe in forgiving and moving on with your life,” I said. I was surprised that I was one of the eight actually going into deliberation having expressed my disapproval in what was about to take place in this courtroom. Nevertheless I promised to remain open and unbiased, consider the evidence presented, and to abide by the law and the instructions received from the Judge.

When deliberations began behind closed doors, I realized that the other jurors did not hear or see what I saw. Not only did they not hear or see, but they had made up their minds and wanted it to be over so they could go home to their families and be done with this whole “court thing”. When we went around the table to present our position and reasons why we voted the way we did, I was shocked and appalled! There was very little consideration of the evidence, harsh judgment based on personal bias, stomachs growling and a desire to get this deliberation over with!

I realized that these 7 jurors, who I would say were basically ”good” people, were so tainted and disillusioned in their perception of life that they were quick to come to their decision of judgment. Instead of considering and weighing the evidence that was presented they were cynical, untrusting and not open to even consider the possibility that the Plaintiff was sincere.

They judged the character of this man because of his income tax returns stated so little income and the fact that he admitted to smoking marijuana once a week for the last 30 years. Because marijuana is against the law they were convinced that he did not respect the law, was lying, cheating on his taxes, faking his injuries and had dollar signs in his head that motivated him to take advantage of the accident for financial gain.

In spite of the compelling evidence of the many health care practitioners who were treating this man for his severe back pain for the last 4 years without payment for their services rendered and the uncontested facts, from both sides, that this load of building materials fell off the fork lift and hit the Plaintiff in the back while he was in the store selecting his materials for purchase to complete a job he was doing for his home repair business.

As I argued the case in favor of making an award to this man and the evidence presented in the lack of safety policies within this company and the fork lift that had no horn or warning device to warn the customers of the danger in this equipment operating within 10 to 15 feet of the customers it was clear that I was not being heard.

One of the jurors stood up and spoke. She said that she did not feel sorry for this man one bit but she felt sorry for me because she knew I was hurting because of the jury’s lack of compassion for this man who was obviously permanently disabled as a result of this accident. She went on to say that she thought everyone would agree that they would like to be more like me but they were not. Then she ended in saying, “I honestly think you are an Angel who was sent to us, from God, to help us to be more open and trusting.”

These apparently “good and decent citizens” were not able to be open to perceive another truth. They were so disappointed and disillusioned by the dishonesty of a few that they could not see any possibility that this one man, who claimed to be a man of God, was sincere. They ruled by a majority vote against the Plaintiff and decided that the company was not negligent or liable and used reasonable care. They believed it was a gust of wind that blew off this load, an act of God that the company had no control over. Perhaps it was an act of God?

Perhaps this man was being given an opportunity to forgive in a “big way” and was sucked into the “system” of lawyers and a law suit by the possibility of being awarded a large sum of money and was caught up in the “process” playing the role of the victim to the end. Had he forgotten to place his faith in God and to turn Him for resolution, understanding and comfort?

Now, after the trial, can he accept his situation for what it is, forgive and move on to creating another means of income to support himself. Or not? Will he go into anger and focus on the injustice of the outcome of this trial after 4 years of “hope” in compensation and remain the “victim”?

I do believe there are lessons for us all to learn from this experience. I do believe that our legal system was originally based on principles of “goodness” and justice for all but I am told that it is no more. Any award this man may have received in this lawsuit, would it truly have been a blessing? It would have come from another source that was not from God. Must we place our trust in God for all good to come? Are we wrong to expect compensation from a corporate insurance company who spent over $100,000 in expert witnesses to dispute this mans injuries instead of paying for his medical bills incurred as a result of this accident instead of going to trial?

To refuse to participate in our legal system because we believe or know it to be controlled by the dark, we would be preventing the love and light from penetrating this corrupt system and the possibility of it ever changing. Even though I was not able to convince the jury of this man’s sincerity, I am told that I did make a difference in being there. I will accept that this situation was divine and there is a silver lining even if I cannot see it at this time.

As I was leaving the courthouse the Plaintiff’s attorney pulled me aside and said, “Kerry, can you see we have a lot of work to do to raise the consciousness of the people of this planet?” What a statement, he made! We then spent some time with the Plaintiff in reminding him to “believe in good no matter what”, that he is not a victim, but a creator and to not loose faith in God or in himself because of the outcome of this trial. He was most open and receptive and reaffirmed his faith that perhaps God would answer his prayers and heal him from his pain and injuries and that God would continue to provide for him all the abundance he desires and is willing to receive.

I ask, would I do this again if called? Yes, I would. As light workers we cannot help others to come to God if we refuse to go into places where there is darkness. To be on a jury does not mean we must succumb to darkness or waiver from our truth and faith. We can remain God centered and speak from our truth where we may or may not be heard. But our light will shine and will be hard not to notice! Do not be quick to judge, for in our perception, truth is subjective. And remember, even the attorney could be an Angel sent from God and the loss of a case could be a win/win situation for all!

In Love and Light,
Kerry and her Angels

Copyright © 2007 Kerry Sue Hettleman