78 year old gets arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets

reply to post by whatukno

Your right once again JPZ, I do fear jury nullification on every single case brought before every court. I mean why bother holding court then right? I mean why bother having a trial at all? Just say everyone is always innocent no matter how much evidence there is that they actually did something.

No Wukky, you fear freedom. This is why you lie and fear monger, and in spite of the fact that no one has argued that jury nullification means every case be an instance where jury nullification is the answer, you continue to spread that fear. Why? Because you don't have a valid argument. That's why.

reply to post by silo13

He's holding up a sign that says JURY INFO. He's standing amidst a cluster of courthouses. He's been arrested 11 times for the SAME offense.

How many times has Julian Heicklen been convicted? Plenty of people are arrested for all kinds of reasons. Indeed, this is the very reason we have the right to a trial by jury, because governments love to arrest people. Thankfully, convicting them in The United States of America is a different story, and there is a burden of proof and guilt placed upon the prosecution. You want to play prosecutor? Then the burden of proof is upon you!

Standing out on a public sidewalk, regardless of the proximity to the courthouse, and regardless of what that he is holding say's, is legal.

Julian Heicklen has never been convicted by the state for these actions. The last time Homeland Security arrested him, the charges were eventually dismissed. Here is the account of that ordeal as told by Heicklen in his own blog

Seriously, if you're not a dogcatcher would you take a pamphlet that said 'Dogcatcher Info'?

There is absolutely no comparison between dogcatcher info, and jury info. Of course, if you are a dog owner then you would probably be more interested in dog catcher info than if you weren't. All registered voters are potentially members of the jury at some point. A vast majority of the people coming into and exiting a court house would have some interest in jury information. The better question is that if you were passing out information for medical information would you stand near a courthouse to pass that information out, or would you stand next to a hospital?

As for Jury tampering? Well one thing can be said, without the 'JURY INFO' sign this would all be a non-incident.

You have no more right to regulate freedom of speech or press than legislatures do. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but this is all you ave offered in your post, and that opinion has shown a willingness to paint a man as being convicted simply because he was arrested.

peace

Peace? Peace hardly seems to be anything your interested in when you willingly advocate the regulation of speech, and willingly condemn a man simply because he was arrested several times, even though he has never been convicted for his actions in this regard. If there is no justice, there will be no peace.

im glad this vid was posted.....hopefully this will lead more people to the number 1 freedom liberty minded podcast out there....please please everyone get their podcast or go to freetalklive and listen to them.....the guys at ftl are huge! shining the light on tyranny and police stupidity........they know this older gentleman that got arrested in this vid.....and i think they may be the ones video taping.....anyway go get the podcast and go to their website now......

www.freetalklive.com...

also a sister site of FTL

freekeene.com...

Haven't read all the response yet, will do so, just remembered a "racket" I came upon involving Jury Duty and I thought I'd share it so that potential jurors might beware.

I live in the US, Chicago. I'm sure other spots must be running a similar game though.

OK. I used to have this junk car. Cracked engine block. Hey, it's no big deal - you just keep putting in fluids. But - such a beater will NOT pass emissions, they won't even test it because fluids might leak in the testing bay machinery.

So. Car won't pass emissions. Fix it or get rid of it. OR - your Drivers License will be suspended.

I let it go too long - and my Drivers License got suspended. Got a notice in the mail.

Not 2 days later - I got a Jury Duty Summons.

See what they're doing here? They WANT people with suspended DL's - especially driving into their assigned court house - because that's bringing in more gravy fines for them. They don't even have to go out and look for them - they sucker 'em in via the Jury Summons, kill 2 birds with one stone. They likely scan the cars in the court house parking lots looking for any type of violations and pinch you on the way out.

No I don't think it's any "co incidence" at all. Why pass up revenue opportunities? Easy to do by simply cross referencing data bases. I had a jury summons shortly before this also, and have been told by court workers that there's some sort of usual calendar rotation here, eg. you get one you won't get another for 6 months or something. So why did I get one immediately after my DL was suspended?

Yeah, I see what they're doing here. Pretty clever.

Sorry if a bit off topic; But there are many things to beware of with Jury Duty.

Yes, I junked the beater car.








[edit on 8-8-2010 by Whiffer Nippets]

I'm a little late getting in on this thread, but I just had a thought about a correlation between the idea of "Jury Nullification", as related to a juror's opinion of a law, and the Prop 8 situation, in California.

I went to FIJA's site and found their mission statement to contain this:

The FIJA mission is to educate Americans regarding their full powers as jurors, including their ability to rely on personal conscience, to judge the merit of the law and its application, and to nullify bad law, when necessary for justice, by finding for the defendant.

fija.org...

Please let me know if I am missing an important bit of information, but here's my thought.

How can it be considered acceptable for a single juror to nullify a jury, based solely on his opinion on the validity of the law, yet a majority of voters establish a "law", only to have it overturned by a Judge?

This seems, to me, to be the epitome of a double standard.

Additionally, after reading a few of the posts here, i have another question.

If jurors are permitted to consider their personal opinions of the validity of a law, how can our justice system be allowed to continue, at all? How can that system deliver fair and equal justice? One jury, due to their agreement with a law, convicts a defendant. The next day, a different jury is nullified, potentially freeing a defendant for a violation of the same law.

I see potential for mucho problemas, following this path. But I've been wrong before!

reply to post by WTFover

How can it be considered acceptable for a single juror to nullify a jury, based solely on his opinion on the validity of the law, yet a majority of voters establish a "law", only to have it overturned by a Judge?

A single juror does not nullify the law. A jury is made up of either 7 members, or if a judge decides, 9 members, with the exception of a death inquest held by a Coroners Court. When a jury is held in this instance the number is usually 5.

If all members do not agree on the verdict, this results in hung jury which brings about a mistrial. A mistrial does not in any way nullify the law. Thus, all members of the jury must be in a agreement that acquittal is the appropriate action. If all members acquit based upon the facts, they are rebuking the prosecution and saying in no uncertain terms that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt. If the jury acquits and does so clearly contrary to the facts, they are speaking clearly to the legislature and saying in no uncertain terms that they do not accept the legislation as valid.

Further, a jury, which in a criminal trial makes up either 7, or 9 members, does not overturn legislation, they simply reject the validity of that legislation for that particular case. In order to overturn legislation through jury nullification, it would take several instances of jury nullification across the state, or nation.

This so called "war on drugs" through legislative acts, should have been repealed years ago, but Congress and the Supreme Court have stubbornly contributed to the prison nation of which we now live. The U.S. imprisons more people than any other industrialized nation in the world, and the primary reason for that is because of this foolish drug war, not because the United States is filled with outlaws, but because the lawless government is hell bent on criminalizing behavior. Since the federal government is tyrannical in its persistence on the "war on drugs", it is up to juries to take matters into their own hands and reject the "law" in favor of justice.

This seems, to me, to be the epitome of a double standard.

Since all judges derive their authority from the we the people, the double standard is the notion then that only judges can decide the validity of legislation, which is passed by legislatures, and enacted as "law" by officials from the executive branch. We the people have every right to decide when an act of legislation has gone too far and is in fact abrogating and derogating the rights of individuals.

If jurors are permitted to consider their personal opinions of the validity of a law, how can our justice system be allowed to continue, at all? How can that system deliver fair and equal justice? One jury, due to their agreement with a law, convicts a defendant. The next day, a different jury is nullified, potentially freeing a defendant for a violation of the same law.

First of all permitted by whom? Is it not we the people from which all government authority is derived? Is not this the entire basis of forcing government to acquiesce to a jury trial in cases where the people demand it? A jury of our peers has a far better chance of establishing fair and equal justice than a government unrestrained and allowed to convict people based upon its own opinions. Since judges are permitted to consider their personal opinions of the validity of a law, why then would the people from which all government derives its just authority, not be "permitted" to do the same. That my friend, would be a double standard.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A single juror does not nullify the law.

Oh no. I understand the law is not permanently nullified. However, if even one juror chooses to use his "vote" to go against the others', ignoring the facts of the case, due to his opposition of the law in question, that law has, in effect, been nullified in that particular case. Because, in many cases, a mistrial results in the dismissal of charges, by the prosecution. (Hope that long, run-on sentence makes a little sense)

A jury is made up of either 7 members, or if a judge decides, 9 members, with the exception of a death inquest held by a Coroners Court. When a jury is held in this instance the number is usually 5.

Not that it has any relevance to the issue at hand, but here in Texas, juries consist of either 12 members, in the case of felonies, or 6, in the case of misdemeanors and infractions. Interesting how jury makeups differ so much, from State to State.

...they simply reject the validity of that legislation for that particular case.

This is where I have a problem with the whole concept. It completely destroys the idea of "Equal Justice Under Law". Two trials, taking place in courtrooms across the hall from one another, with identical cases and similar facts, have the potential of resulting in one defendant being imprisoned and the other being freed. However, if the juries are limited to determining the veracity of the testimony, the findings "should" be the same.

Since all judges derive their authority from the we the people...

True, with lower court judges who hold elected positions. However, those appointed to the bench, by the nasty, partisan process, seem to ignore that mandate, in many cases.

We the people have every right to decide when an act of legislation has gone too far and is in fact abrogating and derogating the rights of individuals.

Hence, my comparison to the Prop 8 issue, in CA. If "We the People" can make judgement on the abrogation and derogation of the rights of individuals, can they not, also, make the judgement on the lack of? e.g., Establishing a ban on the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.

FIJA's approach is to destroy the fabric of justice in this country. Jury Nullification, Hung Juries, so that no one has to be responsible for their actions. It's the purpose of FIJA to destroy the Judicial branch of this country from the inside.

They want to see murderer's and rapists and thieves go free. They want jurors to ignore the evidence in front of them, ignore the testimony of witnesses, ignore the facts and just either use Jury Nullification or come back as a hung jury.

That's why they hang out giving out pamphlets at court houses instead of doing a mass mailing, they want to influence potential jurors to their cause at the site. If they can get a few jurors to vote against the law instead of by the evidence presented, they will achieve their goal and potentially a mass murderer can go free, or the baby killer, or the serial rapist, or the crack dealer.

This also has the added benefit of allowing a new case to be used as an argument like our friend JPZ does. He can say "But look, this jury in such and such a place ended in jury nullification and that accused serial killer was able to go free! Sure, 45 more people died, but natural law prevailed and his natural right to be a predator won out!"

reply to post by WTFover

Oh no. I understand the law is not permanently nullified. However, if even one juror chooses to use his "vote" to go against the others', ignoring the facts of the case, due to his opposition of the law in question, that law has, in effect, been nullified in that particular case. Because, in many cases, a mistrial results in the dismissal of charges, by the prosecution. (Hope that long, run-on sentence makes a little sense)

I have gone to great lengths in research to show that juries judging the law as well as the facts has been a part of American Jurisprudence. This is why I found a reputable source in quoting John Jay asserting this much. Who was the First Chief Justice of the United States, among other distinctions. It has only been through the dumbing down of the American public, and the willful conspiracy of judges and the BAR association omitting the fact that juries have the absolute right to judge the law, that most people do not know this.

As to your concerns, you do realize that a hung jury can result when one juror refuses to believe a persons guilt based solely on the facts, right? This is a part of the jury system. There is a very famous film with Henry Fonda, called 12 Angry Men that in fact illustrates how one single juror can convince the rest of the members of the jury that based on the facts alone, 11 people can believe the defendant is guilty, but upon further consideration of the facts, a decision can be made that the burden of proof was not shown. (By the way, I was aware in some states that it is 12 members of the jury, I can't believe I forgot to add that number!)

This is where I have a problem with the whole concept. It completely destroys the idea of "Equal Justice Under Law". Two trials, taking place in courtrooms across the hall from one another, with identical cases and similar facts, have the potential of resulting in one defendant being imprisoned and the other being freed. However, if the juries are limited to determining the veracity of the testimony, the findings "should" be the same.

The scenario you described can just as easily happen, and indeed does, when solely the facts of the case are being considered. The O.J. Simpson case is just one example. That jury was not nullifying the law, and actually, in fairness to that jury, certain facts relating to that case were suppressed in trial, while being made available to the public through the media. That jury of Simpson's peers, acquitted Simpson even though he looked pretty damn guilty, even with certain facts being suppressed, with other defendants under similar circumstances in the same courthouse being convicted of murder.

While Wukky is spitefully and disingenuously arguing that juries would nullify the law of murder, I do not believe this is what you think would be the case. I am not precisely clear what you mean by a destruction of the idea of fair and equal justice, especially since the history of American jurisprudence shows a clear and irrefutable history of unfair and unequal justice. African Americans, of whom the Dred Scot case demonstrates were not even considered to be Americans for a time, have experienced an undeniable history of unfair and unequal justice, which I do believe played heavily in the minds of the jury of the O.J. Simpson case. You are ignoring much of this history in order to make the claim;

However, if the juries are limited to determining the veracity of the testimony, the findings "should" be the same.

I understand you have placed quotation marks around the word "should", presumably to emphasize that it could happen that the same set of circumstances in two different trials could render two different verdicts, but you seem to be arguing that such an occurrence would be rare, or an anomaly, rather than the regularity of which it has happened and happens still.

Further, the so called "war on drugs" has led to such a great injustice in this nation, not to mention that it is has greatly disturbed the domestic tranquility and general welfare of the people, that there should be little argument that this war on drugs is wrong, and yet that argument continues in this country, and even though more and more people are arguing that the drug laws should be repealed, there is a gross defiance by particularly the federal government that borders on criminal. Even further, that there are so many people in prisons across this nation for the simple "crime" of possession, should give you a clue that juries have for too long been rendering verdicts based solely on the facts.

True, with lower court judges who hold elected positions. However, those appointed to the bench, by the nasty, partisan process, seem to ignore that mandate, in many cases.

All judges, not just those elected, derive their authority from We the People, and it is not just appointed officials who are ignoring mandates made by the people, it is elected officials as well. Take note how the federal government still raids medical marijuana offices in spite the mandate made by the people.

Hence, my comparison to the Prop 8 issue, in CA. If "We the People" can make judgement on the abrogation and derogation of the rights of individuals, can they not, also, make the judgement on the lack of? e.g., Establishing a ban on the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Proposition 8 shows all that is wrong with democracies, and it is the duty of the courts in that regard to protect the rights of those minorities whose rights are being abrogated and derogated. However, the issue of proposition 8 is also in regard to obtaining marriage licenses, and here is just another example of how the government themselves have abrogated and derogated the rights of not just gay people but all people. A license is by definition, the grant by government to do that which would otherwise be illegal. The biggest tragedy of proposition 8 is that more people aren't asking themselves why they need a license in order to be married.

Further, proposition 8, in many regards, is rooted in the concern that government will begin mandating to churches that they must marry gay people. Of course, one would think according to the First Amendment that such a thing could never happen, but then again, there was a time in this nation that judges would, as a matter of course, instructs juries that they had the power to judge both the facts and the law, and look where we are now.

Sometimes the law itself is criminal.

How can we sit idly while our countrymen get deprived of their property and liberty for no good reason other than being a lawbreaker? Many do nothing thinking "Wow, I'm so glad that's not me." But let me tell you, your day is coming too!

With every session, our legislators vote to ban this, criminalize that and tax that over there without batting an eyelash. In a country like this everyone becomes a lawbreaker!

Who/what will defend us from the law? Will we ever see the day where liberty is increased?

Juries are an unfortunate last line of defense from a law-mongering government.

reply to post by whatukno

FIJA's approach is to destroy the fabric of justice in this country. Jury Nullification, Hung Juries, so that no one has to be responsible for their actions. It's the purpose of FIJA to destroy the Judicial branch of this country from the inside.

Don't even pretend for one minute, Wukky, that you advocate people taking responsibility for their own actions. You advocate big government to regulate the crap out of people, and call that, like all double speakers do, freedom.

They want to see murderer's and rapists and thieves go free. They want jurors to ignore the evidence in front of them, ignore the testimony of witnesses, ignore the facts and just either use Jury Nullification or come back as a hung jury.

Of course, it is a wonder you even bother to engage in double speak at all since you are so willing to blatantly lie. You want to play that game? Let's play that game. Congress and practically every single person running from Congress wants to enslave the American people! Man, the prison unions have got to love you.

That's why they hang out giving out pamphlets at court houses instead of doing a mass mailing, they want to influence potential jurors to their cause at the site. If they can get a few jurors to vote against the law instead of by the evidence presented, they will achieve their goal and potentially a mass murderer can go free, or the baby killer, or the serial rapist, or the crack dealer.

Show one single piece of credible evidence to support your contention that FIJA does not use mass mailing to get their information out. Of course, you just follow up that lie with more of the same lies you've been telling in this thread from the beginning.

This also has the added benefit of allowing a new case to be used as an argument like our friend JPZ does. He can say "But look, this jury in such and such a place ended in jury nullification and that accused serial killer was able to go free! Sure, 45 more people died, but natural law prevailed and his natural right to be a predator won out!"

Now you are linking me with advocating the freedom of serial killers. Your lack of ethics may make you think your a good candidate for Congress, but you only represent everything that is wrong with this country and the political process. Like any coward, you refuse to debate the facts, and instead will willingly libel another member just so you can feel like you are "winning" an argument. Your lack of ethics is deeply disturbing. Accept responsibility for actions? Where in this thread have you accepted responsibility for your actions, Wukky?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Good GOD I hope you aren't selected for ANY jury!

That kind of bias is sickening to my core. Having a fair trial and a trial by impartial jury is one of the cornerstones of this great country, and with one post you have proven that you would willingly throw that impartiality away just to get back at the cops.

I hope you are never on any jury! People like you make me sick, it's people like you that would let a multiple rapist go just because you don't like cops.

He never said anything about RAPISTS...I do believe he was speaking of specific things that he is very set in his opinions about. Cops have nothing to do with what he said, just because he would be on the side of the bad guy in some cases. does not necessarily mean he is against the cops We need more people like that, people that actually HAVE opinions and dont sway.....
I am proud of that poster......
He has beliefs that he is set in, more than I can say for alot of other folks !!!!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Don't even pretend for one minute, Wukky, that you advocate people taking responsibility for their own actions. You advocate big government to regulate the crap out of people, and call that, like all double speakers do, freedom.

Yea, the same can be said about your stance too, you don't advocate people taking responsibility for their own actions, you advocate anarchy. Society without rules is anarchy.

Of course, it is a wonder you even bother to engage in double speak at all since you are so willing to blatantly lie. You want to play that game? Let's play that game. Congress and practically every single person running from Congress wants to enslave the American people! Man, the prison unions have got to love you.

It's because of people like you that I decided not to further my bid to be elected. People like you want this country to fail, they look for weaknesses and try to exploit them for their own nefarious means. It's people like you that make me want to leave this country, you take an issue, exploit it for your means, and twist the truth to fit your own agenda.

Show one single piece of credible evidence to support your contention that FIJA does not use mass mailing to get their information out. Of course, you just follow up that lie with more of the same lies you've been telling in this thread from the beginning.

You want me to prove a negative? How is that supposed to work?

Now you are linking me with advocating the freedom of serial killers. Your lack of ethics may make you think your a good candidate for Congress, but you only represent everything that is wrong with this country and the political process. Like any coward, you refuse to debate the facts, and instead will willingly libel another member just so you can feel like you are "winning" an argument. Your lack of ethics is deeply disturbing. Accept responsibility for actions? Where in this thread have you accepted responsibility for your actions, Wukky?

Why wouldn't you advocate the right of a predator to be a predator? You don't arrest a lion for taking down a gazelle do you? That's natural law. That has always been your prime avocation in these kinds of threads right? Natural law, the law of the jungle? Anarchy? A lion will do what a lion will do and so will a serial killer, that's natural law. No government intervention, only who can kill who faster. Your argument is that natural law trumps all other laws is it not? Well, natural law dictates that a predator will in fact be a predator and so it's natural law after all, can't legislate against someone doing something they are predisposed to do right?

reply to post by whatukno


Before we continue I'd like to give you the chance to retract those lies you made earlier.

Now that it is too late to edit your posts, perhaps it is a good time to do that.

*But first - please tell us why you lie, misrepresent statements and engage in other disingenuous behavior.

It is just that you have let it get so bad that a person can now call you a liar and not face any consequences for it from the mods (who've read your posts and see how often you use deception.)

So perhaps you'd care to tell us why you do it?






[edit on 9-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Exuberant1


Where have I lied? The fact remains that these people can in fact do a mass mailing to the entire county and it would be protected under free speech, but instead they go to the court house and fly a sign saying Jury Info and give them pamphlets telling them to purposely screw up the judicial system in this country.

reply to post by whatukno

Yea, the same can be said about your stance too, you don't advocate people taking responsibility for their own actions, you advocate anarchy. Society without rules is anarchy.

Once again you are flat out wrong. Mnemeth is the anarchist, not me. I certainly advocate rules, and I begin with the Constitution for the United States of America when it comes to rules. You know Wukky, that document you have such disregard for? Further, where mnemeth advocates anarchy, that man is an honorable man, and worthy of respect. He is an honest man who does not resort to lying. I may not agree with anarchy, but I admire mnemeth completely. Honorable people deserve respect, and liars do not.

It's because of people like you that I decided not to further my bid to be elected. People like you want this country to fail, they look for weaknesses and try to exploit them for their own nefarious means. It's people like you that make me want to leave this country, you take an issue, exploit it for your means, and twist the truth to fit your own agenda.

Yeah right, you are not running for office because of people like me? How about you are not running for office because you don't have the wherewithal to do so?

Nefarious means? What nefarious means are you accusing me of Wuk? You not only cannot differentiate between people, you generalize all the time. Where I come from, people who cannot differentiate and speak in generalities are usually suppressive people. You have no regard for ethics, honor, or the rule of law, and want to imprison all the people that scare the crap out of you. If you want a nanny state that will protect you from people, then perhaps you should leave this country, because there are far too many people in this country who do not want a nanny state and have tolerated the nanny state people like you have shoved down our throats for long enough.

You want me to prove a negative? How is that supposed to work?

Your question only supports my contention that you are lying. Several people in this thread, including me, have linked the site to FIJA, and it is clear that FIJA engages in many different ways to get information out. All you have to do is give them your e-mail address and you will get plenty of information from them. In this regard they are mass mailing. Since you are the one accusing them of refusing to mass mail, it is incumbent upon you to prove this, it is not incumbent upon FIJA to prove they do, that responsibility lies with you.

Why wouldn't you advocate the right of a predator to be a predator? You don't arrest a lion for taking down a gazelle do you? That's natural law.

No it is not Natural law, and I linked a definition to Natural law to settle that stupid argument with you, but you continue to blatantly lie and play this predator game. When a lion takes down a human they don't get arrested for that either, they get hunted down and usually killed. You are purposely linking Darwinism to Natural law, and it is a good thing you have decided to withdraw from your Congressional bid since you know absolutely nothing about the law, which in the end, is probably why you are not running any longer.

That has always been your prime avocation in these kinds of threads right? Natural law, the law of the jungle? Anarchy?

I have always advocated Natural Law, I have never advocated anarchy or the law of the jungle. This has just been your continual lie about me.

A lion will do what a lion will do and so will a serial killer, that's natural law.

I have all ready stated, when the predator known as a lion becomes a threat to people it is normally hunted down and killed. When the predator known as a serial killer kills he, or she, is normally hunted down and arrested. This is because we have, in order to form a more perfect union, in order to establish justice, among other reasons, ordained a Constitution, of which you know full well I am an ardent supporter of that Constitution. Even though you know this, you continue to lie as if anyone other than those who are suppressive just like you will take you seriously. You are the little boy who cried wolf, and the sad thing about that, is someday you are going to tell the truth and very few people will be willing to believe you because you spend so much time lying.

No government intervention, only who can kill who faster.

I do not want government intervention into the lives of people who are acting lawfully, and by lawfully, I mean, just as I have in numerous threads stated, (ad nauseum), that if it causes no harm, outside of self defense, it is lawful.

Your argument is that natural law trumps all other laws is it not?

My argument is that if it is law it is natural, and legislation in and of itself is not necessarily law, and is only law when it is natural. The prohibition of homicide, manslaughter, rape, theft, and many other abrogation and derogation of peoples rights are natural laws. Get it? No of course you don't and you know why? Because you have no regard for inalienable rights. You would willingly abrogate and derogate the rights of others, and whats worse, you would do so as a coward by advocating a tyrannical government.

Well, natural law dictates that a predator will in fact be a predator and so it's natural law after all, can't legislate against someone doing something they are predisposed to do right?

No not right, Wuk. As I said, I linked a definition to Natural Law, you are necessarily calling lexicographers wrong in their definitions by insisting that Natural Law is what you say it is, not what it is. I get that you think that if you say a lie loud enough and long enough that people will come to believe it is true, but thankfully, I am here, as well as numerous other members in this site to counter your lies with truth. Of course, you want to suppress the truth, just like all tyrants do, right?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The bottom line of this whole stupid debate is, as I originally pointed out, even though that this group just wants to destroy the judicial branch of this country, their freedom of speech does exist.

Now with that freedom of speech, they do have responsibility. to hand out fliers on court house grounds is quite inappropriate because it's obviously an attempt at juror tampering. You can't expect people to buy the crap that they aren't doing that.

Like someone going to a kindergarten dressed as pedobear, are we supposed to believe that, this individual isn't there to molest children?

A little common sense goes a long way.

reply to post by whatukno


The bottom line is this, you have libeled me in this thread, and you are libeling FIJA by insisting they want to destroy the judicial branch of this country. Where you can get away with libeling me, as Jean Paul Zodeaux, you cannot get away with libeling FIJA. You can get away with libeling JPZ because he is just a user name and it can't harm me in my real life. However, FIJA is not just an acronym, it is a very real organization that is working towards informing we the people of our rights as members of a jury.

You are probably not aware of this, but FIJA is actively engaged in suing those people who acted under color of law when they arrested some of their members, and if they caught wind of your libelous words, they might attempt to do something to put a stop to that too. Where Whatukno may not be in any danger, this site may be, due to your reckless disregard for other peoples rights.

So, when you sanctimoniously say that with freedom of speech comes responsibility, what you really mean is that you are above the law, and you can say whatever you want and hide behind "it is my opinion", but you do not have the right to smear other people or organization by spreading lies. There is nothing in FIJA's website that supports "your opinion", and to the contrary of your "opinion", what they advocate is justice.

Now, what you can do is say that in your opinion you don't think what they are advocating is justice, and that they are misguided in their understanding of justice, but you have no right to lie and say they are working to destroy the judicial branch in this country, that is libel.

Further, attempting to link FIJA to child molestation is dangerously close to libel as well.

A little common sense goes a long way.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I see, so it's your opinion that I shouldn't have 1st Amendment rights because I disagree with the way that this group goes about things?

How very selective of you. I am glad you straightened me out on this so I know that I am not allowed my 1st Amendment rights by decree of JPZ. Any other rights you want to whimsically take from me oh purveyor of natural rights?

reply to post by whatukno

I see, so it's your opinion that I shouldn't have 1st Amendment rights because I disagree with the way that this group goes about things?

Libel or slander is not a right.

How very selective of you. I am glad you straightened me out on this so I know that I am not allowed my 1st Amendment rights by decree of JPZ. Any other rights you want to whimsically take from me oh purveyor of natural rights?

I am not being selective at all, and am remaining quite consistent with my ideology. I have stated, as I all ready said, ad nauseum, that if it causes no harm it is lawful. You are maliciously defaming FIJA, and in fact have done the same to Jean Paul Zodeaux. Defamation, slander, and libel, have their roots in common law, or Natural Law, if you will, and do not exist as law because I have decreed it as such. The whimsy is all you sport. You do not have a natural right to harm others maliciously.