Join a jury and vote.

Earn from home, earn from phone.

It's easy. Pick a case. Vote for the solution you think is best. Earn RHUCoin.

Consensus voters share bonus pool. Suggest a new solution—earn bonus RHUCoin.

Vote in any of these simple 1-question surveys to voice your opinion and earn RHUCoin rewards. It’s easy: click the green start button for case description and ballot, examine the choices, and vote for the option you think is the best solution.

Filters
Public Fairness Assessment
(Tim Draper's Cal 3 initiative blocked by state Supreme Court)
Cal 3 / Proposition 9, a proposal to divide California into three new states, will not be on the ballot in November, 2018 due to intervention by the state Supreme Court. The initiative, which had nearly twice the number of signatures required, is a project of Silicon Valley capitalist Tim Draper. The court order denying ballot access said there were questions about Cal 3's validity and that there was more potential harm letting it stay on the November ballot than in delaying it for a future vote. Draper responded via Facebook, saying "Whether you agree of not with this initiative, this is not the way democracies are supposed to work."
  • The court acted in the best interests of Californians because it decided Cal 3's potential for damage outweighed the downside of making an exception to normal democratic process and deferring the people’s vote to a future election.
  • The court's action was justified because Cal 3 as worded made public approval tantamount to legislative approval, circumventing state representatives’ statutory role in the democratic process.
  • The court overreacted in denying the ballot to Cal 3 because a public vote in favor is still subject to the court’s own legal review and final approval by the U.S. Congress.
  • The court was wrong to prefer an unusual and anti-democratic action over popular vote.
  • California should consider other mechanisms for regional autonomy and authority to accomplish the goals of Cal 3, without the constitutional and logistical challenges of creating new states.
  • I'm not sure
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 150,000 RHU
Eligibility: 500 Lawyers member | Law student / intern | Lawyer / Attorney | Blockchain 500 | 500 VCs (venture and angel investors) | Journalist / Blogger | Non-California citizen | California citizen | Member of California State Assembly | Member of California State Senate | Legal Scholar
Poll opened: 31 Jul 2018
Poll closes: 16 Jul 2019
Current jury pool: 436
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(The experts have weighed in. Now you can vote.)
Was the Mueller report a total exoneration of President Trump, or a roadmap for a Congressional investigation? We've gathered opinions from top legal experts. Vote for the best.
  • Maybe. "Mueller intended both the American people and Congress to judge the results of his investigation for themselves... the question of whether Trump is guilty of obstructing justice is still very much open."' ~ Chris Truax, appellate lawyer and board member of Republicans for the Rule of Law
  • It doesn't matter. "One can predict with extremely high confidence that Trump will never be prosecuted for the obstruction of justice evidence that Mueller presented." ~ Noah Feldman, Bloomberg Opinion columnist and professor of law at Harvard University
  • Yes. "The Mueller report describes several acts that satisfy all of the elements for an obstruction charge: conduct that obstructed or attempted to obstruct the truth-finding process, as to which the evidence of corrupt intent and connection to pending proceedings is overwhelming." ~ Statement signed by 688+ former federal prosecutors
  • No. “Nothing in the end was obstructed. The FBI probe continued after Mr. Comey was fired, and Mr. Mueller wasn’t interfered with.” ~ WSJ Editorial Board
  • Yes. "On obstruction, Barr is wrong…ordering obstruction to save himself from the consequences of his own behavior is unlawful, defenseless and condemnable.” ~ Andrew P. Napolitano, former judge and current senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel.
  • No. "It's kind of ridiculous to go after a man for obstruction when he was falsely accused, he was defending himself. His intent in each one of these situations, all ten of them, is easily explained as an intent to not get framed." ~ Rudy Giuliani, former NYC mayor and legal advisor to President Trump
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 15,000 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | 500 Lawyers member | Judge | Law Professors | Legal bloggers and media | Blogger | Editor | News Reporter
Poll opened: 07 May 2019
Poll closes: 08 May 2019
Current jury pool: 97
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Should "military style semi-automatic guns" be banned in the US, and subject to buy-back, as they are in New Zealand?)
Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, recently garnered worldwide admiration - not just because of her sensitivity and empathy after the terrorist killing of Muslims at prayer in New Zealand, but also because of her swift and decisive action to ban military-style semi-automatic guns.

Meanwhile, the NRA in the US is opposing even a ban of bump stocks, used to convert a semi-automatic to automatic fire. (New Zealand's NRA, which has remained a hunting association, is struggling to disassociate itself from the US NRA.)

Once again, the issue of gun ownership in the US is thrust into an unflattering spotlight.
  • US Citizens have an incontestable right to bear arms (federal and/or state bans on switchblades, bazookas, grenades etc. notwithstanding.)
  • The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted to sideline its punctuation, grammar, and intent - particularly our Founder's use of "the People" and "well-regulated." Private ownership of weaponry should at least be well-regulated.
  • "Military-style, semi-automatic guns" should be banned and a public buy-back initiated, as in New Zealand.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 1,500 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | 500 Lawyers member | Law student / intern | Law enforcement professionals. | Hunter
Poll opened: 28 Mar 2019
Current jury pool: 51
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Healthcare is shaping up to be the biggest issue of Election 2020. What plan do you want YOUR candidate to fight for?)
Reasons for the crisis in healthcare include:
Extremely high cost
Balance billing
Narrow networks
Lack of transparency
Loss of job = loss of coverage for many
Fee for service model may encourages over-testing and treatment
Those with more negotiating power (large companies, Medicare) are subsidized by those with less negotiating power (small companies, individuals)
  • Medicare For All, with or without private insurance options (like BUPA in the UK)
  • Medicare for America - individuals and companies can opt to buy in to Medicare, or stick with private insurance
  • Repeal the ACA - espouse free market competition and new technological solutions
  • A German-style plan with a large public pool administered by individual insurance companies; private options for wealthier people
  • One Price Fits All - (see the Surgery Center of Oklahoma.) Each visit, surgery, test etc. has one cash price, paid for by the patient or their healthcare coverage.. Eliminates admin, narrow networks, balance billing, barriers to competition, etc
  • Govt. must convene a bipartisan panel to explore best options from systems worldwide and design a uniquely American system from scratch within one year. If they fail, they lose their taxpayer-funded insurance.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 30,000 RHU
Eligibility: Doctor (MD) | Hospital Administrator | American with employer health insurance | American with individual insurance | American with insurance provided or subsidized by Medicare, Medicaid, VA, ACA | American with NO healthcare insurance due to cost | American with no healthcare insurance due to principle
Poll opened: 27 Mar 2019
Poll closes: 28 Apr 2019
Current jury pool: 99
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
A proposed New York State Legislature bill (S9191) would require people seeking or renewing handgun licenses to submit to police review of their search engine history and social media accounts. Applicants would have to hand over all account login credentials.
  • For any activity that is a privilege rather than a right.
  • For gun ownership, because the public risks are high.
  • Only non-citizens should be subject to such searches.
  • Only convicted felons should be subject to such searches.
  • Only convicted felons and people with a history of mental illness or domestic violence should be subject to such searches.
  • Only anyone with a diagnosis of mental illnessor a confirmed history of drug abuse should be subject to such searches.
  • None. It violates privacy rights and constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
  • By Court order only, with Probable cause.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 15,000 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | 500 Lawyers member | ADR Professional (Alternative Dispute Resolution) | Law student / intern | Lawyer / Attorney | Privacy advocates
Poll opened: 25 Nov 2018
Poll closes: 21 Jan 2019
Current jury pool: 183
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Equal access to store amenities for paying and non-paying users alike)
In April, 2018, Starbucks was hit with a wave of protests over its “loitering” policy. Two young black men were denied the use of a restroom and arrested in a Philadelphia Starbucks. They were waiting for a business associate, had not purchased anything, had declined to do so when informed by the manager that the store allowed restroom use to paying customers only, and did not leave the store when asked. Protesters accused Starbucks of bias towards people “Sitting While Black.”
 
Starbucks’ response was to formalize a “Third Place Policy,” stating that “any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer.” Separate company procedures would cover anyone acting in a disruptive or unsafe manner.
  • This just puts it in writing – most Starbucks stores have never had a policy of ejecting people who just want to use the restroom or sit for a while. Starbucks is a highly-profitable and valuable company. They should give back to the communities they serve by allowing access to all.
  • The Third Place Policy should be scrapped. It encourages homeless people and drug users to congregate in Starbucks, crowding out paying customers.
  • Starbucks seating areas, amenities, and restrooms should be for paying customers only.
  • Starbucks should address the problem through its rewards program: anyone who has previously made at least ten purchases can use seating areas and restrooms without buying anything.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 15,000 RHU
Eligibility: Member of the public | Starbucks customer | Starbucks employee | Law enforcement officer | Lawyer / Attorney
Poll opened: 04 Sep 2018
Poll closes: 30 Sep 2018
Current jury pool: 274
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Is New York City putting the interests of its taxi drivers ahead of the riding public?)
New York City is imposing a one-year freeze on new licenses for app-based rideshare vehicles, and considering a minimum wage for rideshare drivers. The move is said to be in response to traffic congestion from growing numbers of rideshare vehicles, and reduced driver income for both rideshare and taxi drivers due to increased competition. Opponents argue that Uber has made local transportation cheaper and more available, especially to destinations shunned by taxi drivers. New York is the first U.S. city to limit availability of app-based rideshare vehicles.
  • Yes. The moratorium will prevent further traffic congestion and reduce wage deterioration for rideshare and taxi drivers.
  • No. The city has no business limiting the supply or pricing of ride options for its citizens.
  • NYC is right to seek minimum wage equality between rideshare and taxi drivers, but not to limit the number of new rideshare licenses.
  • NYC should regulate the number of rideshare licenses but not impose a minimum wage for drivers.
  • NYC should require the same training / licensing requirements for app-based ridesharing services as they do for taxis.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 15 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 7,500 RHU
Eligibility: New York City resident or commuter | Ridesharing driver (Uber, Lyft, etc.) | Taxi driver | Consumer Advocate | Member of the public
Poll opened: 09 Aug 2018
Current jury pool: 211
Status: Voting in progress
Public Fairness Assessment
(Thought leaders weigh in on how to fix Facebook)
Voting options
  • Reduce anonymity. Require real verification with goal of 100% user verification.
  • Open the Facebook platform to independent research of user behavior and use of advertiser tools.
  • Allow users the choice to sort their news feeds chronologically rather than Facebook’s algorithmically-sorted feed.
  • Offer users a paid option in exchange for greater control over data.
  • Require Facebook and other online platforms to be considered “information fiduciaries” with a legal duty to protect their users’ information.
  • Convert Facebook to a blockchain-based liquid democracy where users vote directly or by proxy on all privacy and governance matters. Distribute 10% of revenues to users based on years of active membership.
  • Do nothing; let the market decide.
RHUCoin reward
Vote: 15 RHU
Consensus bonus: 20 RHU
Total RHUCoin pool: 75,000 RHU
Eligibility: Venture Capitalist (VC) | Legal Professional | Journalist / Blogger | Regulator / Legislator | Technologist | Facebook user | 500 Lawyers member | 500 Tech Leaders member
Poll opened: 18 Apr 2018
Poll closes: 05 Jun 2018
Current jury pool: 4146
Status: Voting in progress
RW vs. ADT Security Systems Inc.
Voting Results:
Poll opened: 30 Apr 2019
Poll closed on: 09 Sep 2019
Voters: 100
Total RHUCoin awarded: 2,320 RHU
Status: Closed
Should illegal aliens be allowed to vote in U.S. elections?
Voting Results:
Poll opened: 24 Jul 2018
Poll closed on: 31 Aug 2018
Voters: 288
Total RHUCoin awarded: 3,645 RHU
Status: Closed
Claimant vs. Testarossa Motors, League City, Texas
Voting Results:
View case on PeopleClaim
Poll opened: 05 Jun 2018
Poll closed on: 05 Jul 2018
Voters: 352
Total RHUCoin awarded: 3,445 RHU
Status: Closed
Should cryptocurrency be regulated as a security?
Voting Results:
Poll opened: 27 Apr 2018
Poll closed on: 05 Jun 2018
Voters: 1547
Total RHUCoin awarded: 24,515 RHU
Status: Closed

Important – Read before proceeding: Rhubarb provides a user platform for consensus answers / opinion from the public, industry experts, and community on a wide range of topics, including how to resolve disputes and answers to legal, technical, and other questions.

You understand and agree that nothing communicated on the site constitutes legal or professional advice, including all user posting, advocate suggestions, and consensus votes. Posting by legal and industry professionals is not professional advice and does not imply or constitute a legal, professional, or other fiduciary relationship between any of the participating parties.

Rhubarb and its members do not provide legal or professional advice or services. We are not a legal referral service. Rhubarb is not responsible for the accuracy of information posted on its site by members. Users are strongly advised to seek independent professional counsel before making decisions regarding cases or topics posted at Rhubarb.

You further agree to these and all other Terms of Service, and to hold Rhubarb harmless for your use of its services or for any decisions you may make based on its content or any content you post, including voting, suggestions, comments, or other content; and for mechanical or data failures, hacks, or other technical or critical features of the site.