Print document
 1 of 1 
September 3, 2004
Encinitas, CA 92024
Mr. Neal Methvin, Jr.
  Jury Services Manager     
      0300 1290 0007 7615 6937
Ms. Michaele Mattera
         USPS Tracking Receipt
   Deputy Jury Commissioner
Hall of Justice
330 W. Broadway, 1st Floor
P.O. Box 121531
San Diego, CA 92112-1531
Dear Mr. Methvin & Ms. Mattera:
I am responding to your letter dated August 26, 2004.  Today, September 3, 2004,
I am returning a facsimile of my August 11, 2004 Notice/Request for Excuse with a
second original signature, the attached December 5, 2003 letter from David
Yamasaki supporting the original request, and a facsimile of your denial of my
Request for Excuse, dated August 26, 2004.  I have retained the original
Notice/Request for Excuse, hereinafter Notice, and your Notice of Refusal (Form
Kcbk.rev.4/9/99), to maintain the chain of custody of these documents in order to
preserve an audit trail and to prevent spoliation of evidence. 
Maintenance of Records
Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 207(a):
“The jury commissioner shall maintain records regarding selection, 
qualification and assignment of prospective jurors.” 
California statute mandates that the Superior Court is required to maintain these
documents.  Failure to properly maintain complete records or compromising the
chain of custody of those records pertaining to the selection of prospective jurors
invites obstruction of justice by concealing the existence and submission of
documents.  Improper maintenance of records impairs their integrity or availability
for use in an official proceeding, enabling the court to evade review by courts of
appeal and law enforcement agencies. 
You have violated California law governing the jury commissioner’s duties in the
jury selection process.  This conclusion is supported by the following facts:
You returned original documents formally submitted by a person
summoned for jury duty by the court.
Page 2 of 6
  N. Methvin Jr./M. Mattera 
No court stamp or other acknowledgement of receipt appears on either of
these documents.
You made no notation(s) on the court’s denial form that you had returned
my original documents on August 26, 2004. 
You provided no statement(s) on the denial form explaining the reason(s)
for the return of these original documents. 
Stating that you do not “understand” a request does not permit the court and its
agents to violate California statutes. 
CCP § 196(c) states: 
“…Any information thus acquired by the court or jury commissioner shall be
  noted in jury commissioner records.” 
These documents constituted my response regarding my “…qualifications and ability
to serve as a prospective trial juror…” pursuant to CCP § 196(a).  
Your violations of the aforementioned California statutes have perverted or obstructed
California Penal Code § 96.5(a) states:
“Every judicial officer, court commissioner, or referee who commits
any act that he or she knows perverts or obstructs justice, is guilty of 
a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not
more than one year.” 
The San Diego Union-Tribune confirms that illegal secrecy is a long-standing
policy, practice, and custom at the San Diego Superior Court.  (“Secret Justice” by
Greg Moran, April 27, 2003)  Mr. Moran wrote that “Some cases are so deeply
secret that there is no public record of them.  Typing in the case number or names
of the parties in the court computer yields the message that the file does not
exist…  ‘That is completely wrong.’  said Alonzo Wickes, a media lawyer in Los
Angeles.  ‘If the public does even know a mater is pending in court that is the
epitome of secret justice.  And the whole idea of access is to prevent secret
The Court Granted My Request for Excuse
The San Diego Superior Court’s “Notice for Trial Jury Service,” in bold,
conspicuously displayed capital letters, on the front side of the form, informs
prospective jurors as follows:
Page 3 of 6
  N. Methvin Jr./M. Mattera 
The original submission of my “Notice/Request for Excuse” was dated August 11,
2004.  The Notice summoned me to report for duty on August 24, 2004.   Your
letter denying my request is dated August 26, 2004.  Your ex post facto denial
violates the court’s own policies and procedures, subjecting citizens to the
imposition of arbitrarily imposed requirements that illegally justify harsh penalties. 
The court’s written warning on the Jury Summons envelope clearly states this
Legally, the court has excused me from jury duty and has accepted the reason I
provided, i.e., “Failure to provide  ‘…access as contemplated by the Americans
with Disabilities Act…’ to court programs, services & activities.”  (See attached
Yamasaki 12/5/03 letter).  The burden is on the court to explain why it is not
implementing and conforming to its own jury service policies, procedures and 
California statutes.
Wrongful Denial of My Request
As you admit that you do not “understand” my request, your return of the original
request and the supporting documentation does not comport with your subsequent
request that I telephone you to provide additional information.  Obviously, my
request for excuse was based upon these documents, including Mr. Yamasaki’s
Your decision to deny my request may have been made without consulting Mr.
Yamasaki and other court officers mentioned in his correspondence who have
facts that would have enabled you to “understand” my request.  I am troubled that
my request for excuse has been summarily denied ex post facto absent a careful
review of the totality of the facts and circumstances by all court personnel who
have knowledge of material facts pertaining to my request for excuse. 
Your denial of my Request for Excuse is moot.  You have neither authority nor
jurisdiction to deny my request. 
Pretextual Reason for Denial
Your reason for denying my request for excuse is pretextual.  If you truly did not
understand my request, you first would have obtained available of information from
your colleagues at the Superior Court, as Mr. Yamasaki’s letter provided you with 
Page 4 of 6
N. Methvin Jr./M. Mattera
numerous opportunities to expand your understanding.  After exhausting these
sources if you still were unable to understand my request, as a subsequent step in 
the fact finding process, you would have then contacted me for additional
information prior to my August 24, 2004 report date.  You would not have denied
my request absent the totality of the facts.  Your inability and/or unwillingness to
“understand” my request is not a reason for its summary denial pursuant to 
CCP § 208 and CRC 860.  
Moreover, the items on the court’s form letter to me are not mutually exclusive. 
Indeed, your request that I telephone you to enable you to “understand” my
request (Item No.4), does not necessitate that my “excuse cannot be granted.” 
(Item No. 1).  Also, your instruction to discuss my situation by telephone (Item No.
3), does not necessitate that my “excuse cannot be granted” (Item No. 1).  Items
Nos. 3 and 4 do not support denial under Item No. 1. 
This indicates that you made an arbitrary denial as there is no rational, much less
legal, reason to deny a Request for Excuse absent a crystal clear understanding of
the totality of the facts, while simultaneously returning the Notice/Request for
Excuse and supporting documentation absent any notation that these documents
were received and returned without providing a written reason(s).  Your request for
telephone contact without retention of these documents allows you unfettered
discretion to memorialize the conversation to achieve nefarious purposes, which
include, but are not limited to jury tampering and disability discrimination.   
Failure to Provide Access as Contemplated by ADA
As Mr. Yamasaki and other court supervisory personnel are aware, I am totally
disabled from polio, intractable pain, and osteoporosis.  They cannot claim, “That’s
news to me!”  I did not request an excuse due to my physical disabilities.  The
reason for my request is that the San Diego Superior Court does not provide
access to court programs, services and activities “as contemplated by the
Americans with Disabilities Act.”  Non-compliance with ADA illegally denies access
to court jury  programs, activities and services for myself and other disabled
In his letter, Mr. Yamasaki stated that the San Diego Superior Court refuses to
comply with ADA Title II requirements.  In addition, Mr. Yamasaki’s letter confirmed
that the duties of the Presiding Judge do not include the investigation of disability
bias complaints against superior court judges in violation of ADA Title II and the
court’s Local Policy Against Bias. 
As Mr. Yamasaki stated, he is able to “…confirm that this information is correct.” 
Additional material facts pertaining to my request for excuse are available from 
Stephen V. Love, Court Executive Officer. 
Page 5 of 6
  N. Methvin Jr./M. Mattera 
Pursuant to CCP § 195, the court’s jury commissioner is appointed by and serves
at the pleasure of a majority of the judges of the superior court.  The Executive
Officer, Mr. Love, serves as an ex officio jury commissioner.  The jury
commissioner has “…the authority to establish policies and procedures necessary
to fulfill this responsibility.”  All court policies, including jury service policies, must
conform to the requirements of ADA, Title II. 
The interests and resulting policies/procedures/practices of the court, its judges
and its jury commissioners are inextricably intertwined.  Mr. Yamasaki’s letter is
broadly constructed to express intentional non-compliance with ADA in all court
programs, services and activities.  As judges’ disability discrimination is not
investigated by the court, jury commissioners’ disability discrimination is not
investigated by the court.  This is apparent from your conduct.   
Conspiracy to violate ADA Title II, California Code of Civil Procedure and California
Penal Code, to destroy evidence, and to evade review by courts of appeal are
illegal, in violation of my constitutional and civil rights. 
My Request for Excuse Complies with California Law
California Rule of Court 860(b) governs the granting of excuses from jury service
by the jury commissioner on grounds of undue hardship under Code of Civil
Procedure § 204.  CRC 860(d)(5) states:
“The prospective juror has a physical or mental disability or impairment,
not affecting that person’s competence to act as a juror, that would
expose the potential juror to undue risk of mental or physical harm.  In
any individual case, unless the person is aged 70 or older, the prospective
juror may be required to furnish verification or a method of verification of the
disability or impairment, its probable duration, and the particular reasons for
the person’s inability to serve as a juror.”
My August 11, 2004 Notice/Request for Excuse, supported by Mr. Yamasaki’s
letter and this correspondence, satisfied CRC 860(d)(5) in that the court’s failure to
provide access to its programs, services and activities as contemplated by ADA
Title II exposes me to an “undue risk of mental or physical harm.”  Moreover,
judges’ disability discrimination can expose me to undue risk of financial harm by
fine, incarceration or both pursuant to CCP § 209.  Disability discrimination by
judges and court personnel humiliates and injures my dignity.  I have no
meaningful remedy for judges’ disability discrimination in jury service, absent a
lawsuit, which shocks the conscience. 
“…Even indirect coercive contacts that could affect the peace of mind of jurors
…must be presumed to be prejudicial to the juror’s ability to serve.”  USA v. Dutkel,
192 F.3d 893, 897 (9th Cir. 1999).  The Ninth Circuit recognizes “…the broad goal 
Page 6 of 6
N. Methvin Jr./M. Mattera
of eliminating [disability] prejudice from the judicial system…”  USA v. Henly, No.
9650697, 9th Cir., filed February 7, 2001, citing Remmer v. U.S., 347 U.S. 227 
(1954). “The courts have emphasized that judges should exercise additional
caution when government employees are involved, because of a heightened
concern that jurors will not ‘feel free to exercise [their] functions with the
Government looking over their shoulders.’”  USA v. Rutherford, No. 03-10158, 9th
Cir., filed June 10, 2004.
Given these facts, I am placing this Court on notice that I consider the court’s ex
post facto refusal to grant my excuse from jury service to be coercion and
retaliation for exercising my rights and protections under the U.S. Constitution and
ADA Title II to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for relief from
disability discrimination by the California court system, its judges and court
administrators, which are capable of repetition and have evaded review.   
Jacquelyn Finney
Cc: Stephen Love, Court Executive Officer
       Hon. John Einhorn, Presiding Judge
1.  Request for Response – Jury Services (Form Kcbk.rev.4/9/99)
     (Facsimile of original document)
2.  Notice for Trial Jury Service inc. Request for Excuse
     (Facsimile of original document with second original signature dated 9/3/04).)
3.  David Yamasaki letter to Jacquelyn Finney, December 5, 2003 (Copy)