CONDEMNED USA'S CHANGE OF VENUE
I, Treniss Evans, on behalf of CondemnedUSA, have personally theorized, researched, and structured this work product in the following exhibits. Great efforts were performed by our team, especially A.J. Fischer, regarding the engagement of the task to compile our research implicit bias. Brad Raksales melded our Google Trends research and into a fantastic study recording the data analytics as they applied to our case.
This legal strategy birthed of the question “How do we turn qualitative Judicial Bias into quantitative data?”
A layman or experienced counsel can see here that we have done just that. We have brought the data, the arguments, and resulting previous decisions as they relate to our unique approach to Change of Venue.
Attorney George Pallas at present has been the only exception to the general rule, having the courage and energy to take on a fight so many before him have abandoned.
Peruse for yourself, and see how we have converted qualitative reality into data-driven study.
SEE OUR PREVIOUS NOTES ON HOW TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE DATA
CHANGE OF VENUE - DC Jury Pool Vs. The USA
Our Presentation provides the necessary evidence to prove that a D.C. jury pool is the MOST willfully engaged with biased information in the United States. Our data is more powerful and relevant than any polling data you could pay an expert for, and our sample sizes include the entirety of the United States based on their own Google Search Data.
DATA SAMPLE SIZES
Google has over 246 million unique US visitors.
More than 75% of the US population.
This is our data sample size; it cannot be disputed.
Traditional Polling & Change of Venue
Most polling works like this:
1. A sample size is determined.
2. A set of questions are prepared to collect data on the mentality of the potential jury pool.
3. The selected sample population completes the questionnaire.
4. That data is gathered, and statistics are collected.
5. These statistics are HOPEFULLY, representative of the larger population with results that would replicate enough to prove the venue is inappropriate for trial.
In D.C. prosecutors claim an unreal number based on the population without regards to conflict of interest, but Judges often agree with them based on the standards of Voir Dire.
But what if you could flip that around?
The Condemned Method
Google data represents an immediate population of 245 MILLION Americans, there is no squabbling about the sample size of our data.
In every single test we have run, the margin has been close to a 1 to 6 ratio, irrefutable proof that not only are the residents of Washington DC CONSTANTLY receiving biased data (WUSA being one of the most prominent local outlets, and by far some of the most biased reporting of any. Their parent Company, TEGNA, is run by majority Democrat Donors.) on everything January 6th, they are ACTIVELY PERSUING such data.
To boot, they have effectively put the perceived ‘victims’ of the issues being tried. into the Jury slots. There is a reason the victim does not sit in the jury box.
DATA SPIKES & THE JANUARY 6TH HEARINGS
Judges in Washington DC keep asking for someone to ‘show me the data‘ to prove that these jury pools are tainted.
Condemned USA was eager to Oblige.
TERM: "Select Committee."
Now look what region is exponentially more WILLFULLY exposed.
Take a look at the dates of the spikes…
Term: "Insurrection"
And the regions…
Control Group Term: "Hurricane Ian"
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR J6 DEFENDANTS
The conviction rate in DC for Jury Trials is currently at 90%, for Bench Trials it remains solid at 88%.
By effectively putting the perceived ‘victims’ on the stand , Washington D.C. has usurped the necessity of an unbiased Court System and made itself Judge, Jury, and Executioner of these defendants. There is no such thing as a ‘Jury of Their Peers’ in Washington D.C., and our data backs this up.
