ILNews

District courts warn of new juror scam

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Once again, the federal courts are warning of a juror scam designed to trick unsuspecting people into giving their personal information.

At least 14 federal District courts have received reports of local residents receiving an email notifying them of their selection for jury duty and demanding they return a form with such information as Social Security and driver’s license numbers, date of birth, cell phone number and mother’s maiden name.

Moreover, the email warned that anyone who failed to provide the information would have to explain the failure to the court and could be penalized with fines and jail time. The email falsely claimed that it was affiliated with eJuror, an online registration program used in about 80 U.S. court districts.

The email is fraudulent. Anyone receiving an email like this should contact their local federal court.

Such scams are not new. The federal courts have been used in these types of cons since 2004, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation has released three warnings since 2005.

“The criminals are trying to cloak themselves in the authority of the court to try to squeeze valuable information out of people,” said a spokesman for the U.S. Courts. “People have to be on alert.”

Within the last month, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has received reports from two people who received phone calls telling them they had missed federal jury selection and asking them for their financial information, according to Laura Briggs, court clerk.  

Also, six months ago, the Southern District got a report that someone had received an arrest warrant on what looked like letterhead from the federal courts. The document asked for personal information and provided a phone number the recipient could call to settle the debt.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana has not gotten any reports of suspicious emails or arrest warrants from local residents, said Kurt Koch, manager for the Hammond and Lafayette divisions.  

The federal courts reiterated that eJuror never requests personal identification information be sent directly in an email response. Requests by courts to complete a qualification questionnaire would be initiated by formal written correspondence. These letters would then tell jury participants how to access an authenticated, secure online connection.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT