78 year old gets arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets

reply to post by SyphonX

You go to the venue where the information is valid and appropriate.

Exactly...

And I don't know how anyone could consider informing someone of their rights a form of tampering...I guess if I tell my friends the rules of a game before we play I'm tampering with the game? I'm not "tampering" with it...but I am potentially changing the outcome...my motive of telling them about the rules was because I wanted a fair game...if I hadn't of told them the rules, my motive is to have it go one way, and that's my way...why don't they want people knowing their rights in this case?

How dare anyone hand out valid information to people...they deserve to be uninformed...it keeps them all dumbed down etc and so on...

As requested:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bbbd45e6eb12.jpg[/atsimg]

It's not Imperial Stormtroopers, but I thought this might be a better connection for the DHS.

I can't believe anyone on this board would in any way defend what happened here, knowing what we know. It scares me really. This is absolutely the bedrock of free speech, denied to this man by throngs of police and DHS because his ideas are not approved of. If they can do this to an old man peacefully handing out literature in an appropriate venue, who's next? Who's after that?
Who will be there to protest when we are arrested because our IP's are linked to ATS?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

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.

Invoking rape....

Wow, you must feel like you are winning this one.


*Mnemeth1 did not say he would let sexual criminals go free, yet you took the opportunity to associate him with those who you claim do that sort of thing.

Anyhow, I'd do the same as Mnemeth1. That young man has the right mindset.

Over the years, I have worked with police, but always had control as rescue head during events. However, that was years ago.

I am now 71 and pretty much disabled and had a wake up call. Our zoning administrator here in my area is a state cop on the side, his real job. Last year he barged into our little cabin on the lake, one that is not our home, opened drawers and cabinets, took pictures and is now trying to force it's removal or destruction after eight years there. He claims he can do anything he wants as he is a cop.

This year in a meeting, I stood up to my rights and pointed out I would not allow this type of action as he did not have the legal right to do what he claimed. In pointing my finger at him, he went berserk and tried to take me outside to beat the crap out of me. Only my wife saved me from being beat up, and I only have one arm that works due to injury plus four joint replacements. I think either some cops let power go to their heads or poor choices are made in hiring. This one is a mi. state policeman.

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.

I'd probably do the same thing, but it has nothing to do with the behavior of cops:

Regarding drugs, as far as I'm concerned its a crime to prevent someone to do with their body what they wish so long as they are not harming someone else. If there is no victim, there cannot be a crime. The politicians who create drug wars are the ones who belong in prison. The drug producers are simply giving customers what they believe is best for them and therefore are not usually doing something wrong (either morally or ethically since most drug users are normal people who can properly handle them).

Regarding tax evasion, taking without asking is stealing. Stealing is a crime. Therefore, IRS agents are guilty of theft when they take people's money without permission and they therefore belong in jail. And so does any judge who participates. So of course there is nothing wrong with tax evasion.

What you are missing here is that this topic isn't just about bad cops but also FIJA, which talks about how if you have extreme moral objection to a law then it is acceptable to declare someone innocent based on that objection to the law. We don't even have a criminal justice system today. We have a criminal injustice system because crimes should have to have actual victims if you want to consider them crimes.

Originally posted by SyphonX


To reiterate though... Tampering with a jury.. Seriously?

What about the police and DHS interfering with the passage of information to jurors who may or may not know know their rights and powers? Isn't that tampering with a jury too? Restricting access to the information for the sake of what, exactly?



[edit on 7-8-2010 by SyphonX]

Not to mention the prosecution and defense both attempting to vet jurors towards what the two teams can agree on, meaning a favorable outcome for either side. What it really means though, is getting easily, emotionally swayed folks who can believe in ANY argument, true or false, as long as it feeds the respective jurors own level of self importance for basically being ordered to serve the jury process. Justification, if you will.

Jury members are not selected for their knowledge of law or even right or wrong for that matter. They have been developed as a tool to enhance prosecution and defense. In a courtroom, there are three players; judge, prosecution, and defense attorneys. Even though the jury is handing out the verdict, its the three players who ultimately influence that verdict. Its a way of passing the buck because the players pretty much stay neutral, while the jury is the party that does the condemning. Easy way to save face.

Think about it, the judge instructs the jury as to which laws are applicable to the case in question. Judge will not cite every, or even any, case law that may possibly have any relevance. It would be damn near impossible to do so, so they resort back to whatever statute or code that was allegedly in violation and resort to the very intentionally vague "rule" that the jury must be instructed upon in order to deliver a verdict. Most judges do not like to set precedent. Its a way of keeping their hands clean. One reason why the jury is a tool.

The prosecution does not want a jury that is going to be biased in any way against what they want to prove, as is the defense. They meet in the middle ground and find the least common denominator. People who can be easily swayed without the inconvenience of having to instruct them on case history. If they did, a trial would go on forever. Thats because when you dig deep enough you'll find a ruling that will contradict any ruling when proper case history is applied. The reason for that is that law is almost always improperly applied to any given situation. Everyone involved cannot reasonably be expected to know the law because its too much info to process. That is why juries reach verdicts emotionally. The judicial process preys on these types.

I'll be back to continue my rant. I apologize if this is non-useful.

reply to post by whatukno


Here is a simple question I hope you can answer. When a judge gives the jury their jury instructions before the end of the trial, is that judge guilty of jury tampering?

The purpose of FIJA is to ensure juries have proper jury instructions. Therefore, if they are guilty because they tell juries what their rights are as a jury, then the judges who do this are equally guilty and it would be entirely biased for you to suggest the FIJA members go to jail but not also the judge right along with them.

If the jury tampering laws prevent juries from being informed of their rights, then they are in violation of the 1st amendment of the US constitution. Free expression means we can express whatever we want except for libel and slander. If its not libel and not slander, then its clearly allowed.

Trying to convince a jurist to render one specific verdict in one specific case while they are passing by a public space is not libel and is not slander and therefore is constitutionally protected speech. If courtrooms don't like people doing that as I imagine they would not, they can put a specific parking area in the courthouse reserved for jurists and a restricted entrance for jurists as well.

All these exceptions being made from the constitution are starting to throw the country into chaos.

reply to post by SyphonX

Yeah, you're not against them.. nah, you're just being remarkably dense about it, is all. Like suggesting a baseball retail shop should relocate to the nearest hockey rink for better sales. Because that's where all the baseball fans are, of course.

So you are saying it IS about jury tampering, because the same effect can be done with a mass mailing. Sending out the fliers over an entire zip code would have the exact same effect.

reply to post by Exuberant1

Anyhow, I'd do the same as Mnemeth1. That young man has the right mindset.

Ok so you would set a person that was accused of selling crack coc aine to 6 year olds free because you don't like cops. Despite any evidence against him, you would immediately vote in deliberation for a verdict of not guilty because cops to you are bad.

Basically saying to everyone that no matter what jury you are on you are going to be completely bias in one way is a terrible injustice.

[edit on 8/7/2010 by whatukno]

Originally posted by soontide


I was tempted to file suit against the county for violation of my constitutional rights but I didn't have the money at the time.

Even if you had the money, the attorneys refuse to take the case against Government or its agents. I was in a situation that the 4th Attorney told me flat out that nobody is going to take my case against the government because it is their daily business with the government and that they will not ruin it just for me.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by SyphonX

 

Ok so you would set a person that was accused of selling crack coc aine to 6 year olds free because you don't like cops.

Interesting scenario. And I notice you always try to get your digs in like it helps you or something - alas.

I would have to say 'guilty' on that one (selling crack to six year olds) - so long as police followed procedure and did not violate any of the man's rights.

Adults should have a right to put whatever they want in their own bodies (the state disagrees), but children do not and should not.

However if the same crack dealer was selling the stuff to an 18 year old, I would probably vote 'not guilty'.


Edit:

I believe Mnemeth1 would also vote not guilty for the scenario involving the 18 year old man.

Mnemeth1, do you concur?



[edit on 7-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by DINSTAAR


julian heicklen is the new coolest man in the world.

his bio was funny.

"but he prefers prison, where he has around the clock police protection he could not otherwise afford."

haha

reply to post by Exuberant1


While I agree in principal to people being able to do with their bodies as they see fit, it's not the job of a juror to legislate from the jury box. The juror is tasked with only defining whether or not a person is innocent or guilty of the charges brought against them, based solely on the evidence and arguments presented.

We have an elected body of people that we task to legislate, influence them if you want to change the law. To do so in a jury box is beyond irresponsible, it would be as bad as if you sentenced a person to death based only on the fact they were arrested for the crime.

Judges should never legislate from the bench, and certainly neither should jurors. On the larger part of the OP, the problem is in location of where these people are distributing this pamphlet. While I agree that they have every right to distribute this information, the complications arise when it's obvious these people are attempting to influence the jury pool. If they truly just wanted to give out this information to everyone they could, they certainly can send out a mass mailing to everyone in the zip code or county, or state if they wish. Perfectly legal and a large population would get the information.

reply to post by whatukno


How the hell is it tampering when you inform potential jurors of their rights. Idiotic.

[Edit to add] Having read the whole thread it's a relief to know that this one was the only post against this action. Also good that it was shot down immediately. I've seen this issue from a slightly different view point, from those journalist who have covered this issue. Also some activist who film their actions and the eventual harrasment by LEO's. Last I heard one activist was actually physically jumped for the horrible terrorist act of filming on a public property...

[edit on 7/8/2010 by PsykoOps]

reply to post by whatukno

Jurors have exclusive anonymity by Law

Since Juries, and their members, namely jurors, are selected from our peers, and are in essence common United States citizens prior to their assignment to a Jury and afterwhich thereby acquiring legal status and designation as a Juror.

They meaning Jurors are also guaranteed by law, to their right to privacy and as a result their identities are only known by law, by the Judge, the prosecution and the defense.

Therefore, In order to directly tamper by influence with a Jury, would require the specific selection of said individuals, or members of a Jury, called Jurors, and knowingly in which to specifically distribute said information/pamphlets and NOT to have legally distributed said information freely and indiscreetly, amongst All United States citizens encountered on a public thoroughfare, in passing.

This being due to Jurors, originally comprised of our peers, and under the direct employ of the courts, are not distinctly discernible from their peers in which they have been selected and maintain their status as private citizens and maintain their anonymity amongst their peers while assigned the status and responsibility as Jurors.






[edit on 7-8-2010 by nh_ee]

This will be thrown out, and the man should sue the cops involved in Federal court.

Unless there is specific INTENT to ILLEGALLY influence a jury in a particular case, then there can be no conviction.

This is just a case of cops who do not care a bit about the law or Constitution, and who are so used to falsely arresting people they do not care. Unless a person SUES the scummy cops, they will get no justice. it is NOT enough to just get the charge thrown out, it is critical to SUE the cops so they think twice about doing it again.

If one cop gets ruined, professionally and personally, it send s message to all the other jackboots out there: Arrest the wrong man and you will pay. Cops must be made to pay, or they will always abuse the power they have.

This phony charge will never stick, and the DA should drop it fast and hope for the best...but the cops MUST get sued.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Invoking rape....

Wow, you must feel like you are winning this one.


*Mnemeth1 did not say he would let sexual criminals go free, yet you took the opportunity to associate him with those who you claim do that sort of thing.

Anyhow, I'd do the same as Mnemeth1. That young man has the right mindset.

That's right.

I would convict a rapist, a murder, a looter, or any other person guilty of damaging a person or property.

Drugs, guns, tax evasion, code breakers, and all other crimes where the State claims itself as the victim are no crimes at all.

In order for a law to be legitimate, it must have a victim. If there is no victim in the courtroom besides the State, then its no crime at all.

reply to post by whatukno

The juror is tasked with only defining whether or not a person is innocent or guilty of the charges brought against them, based solely on the evidence and arguments presented.

This is just not true, and jury nullification has long been a recognized right of juries. In fact, as recently as 1995, to give just one example, The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, in the case of State of West Virginia v Morgan Stanley, jury nullification was spoken to in no uncertain terms:

Thus, we have what is perhaps the leading (but not the earliest) instance in Anglo- American law of "jury nullification"-- a valuable prerogative that intrudes itself into the rational court mechanism when, notwithstanding technical legal rules, the application of those rules to the facts at hand would be an utter outrage and such that all mankind should exclaim against it at first blush.

And went on to say:

As Dean Pound once said: "Jury lawlessness is the great corrective of law in its actual administration."See footnote 22 And, although jury nullification is out of favor as an explicit jury function in modern times, it is still worth savoring Mr. Justice Jay's charge to the jury in the civil case of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 3 Dall. 1, 4, 1 L.Ed. 483, 484 (1794):

They then quote John Jay, who said:

It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumable, that the court are the best judges of law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision.

(Emphasis added)

The court went on to hold:

Mr. Justice Jay's jury instruction would not be given today in federal court, yet even in federal court there remains an abiding respect for the power of the jury to nullify oppressive law, even if there is no express right on the part of the jury to do so. See, e.g., Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895); United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (1972); United States v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (1969); United States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165 (1969).

www.state.wv.us...

We have an elected body of people that we task to legislate, influence them if you want to change the law. To do so in a jury box is beyond irresponsible, it would be as bad as if you sentenced a person to death based only on the fact they were arrested for the crime.

This is your opinion Wuk, of which you are most certainly entitled to, but as a point of law, you are emphatically wrong.

Judges should never legislate from the bench, and certainly neither should jurors.

Both do, and the so called "Miranda Warning" is just one example of judge made law. In terms of juries "legislating" they have the absolute power to nullify the law, and there is not a thing anyone in government can do about it. A judge can, if a member of the jury informs the judge that another member of the jury has openly declared he would nullify, have that juror removed, but absent of such an act, once the verdict is rendered, if the jury voted to nullify the law, this is perfectly legal, and there is nothing government can do once that verdict has been rendered.

If they truly just wanted to give out this information to everyone they could, they certainly can send out a mass mailing to everyone in the zip code or county, or state if they wish. Perfectly legal and a large population would get the information.

Standing near a courthouse on a public sidewalk is also a perfectly legal way to do it as well. You would be hard pressed to cite one instance of case law where the state was able to convict someone of jury tampering just because they were passing literature out on jury nullification, indiscriminately in the proximity of a court house. Jury nullification is perfectly legal, and the people should be made aware of that fact.

reply to post by Exuberant1



People make it way more complicated than it is.

The simple idea is that every crime must have a victim. That is freedom.

God bless the donut eating, pot bellied, anger management deprived folks of law enforcement. Just another example of power tripping, uninformed slobs who carry a badge. Each passing day I have less sympathy for cops who take a beating, seems we need a lot more of it, could certainly use it here. Not saying all cops are like this but I firmly believe a large majority are. These ass clowns clearly demonstrated a lack of public awareness but ooze stupidity and bravado. Perhaps its boredom or time lost working on spelling their names in crayon. Guess that's why I continue to label them pigs.

brill

[edit on 7-8-2010 by brill]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You know, for someone who doesn't believe that laws exist, you sure do hide a lot behind case law, you are a terrible anarchist.

The truth to the matter is these people are trying to influence jury members to legislate from the bench. The rationale that they are standing on public property and handing out their fliers to everyone indiscriminately is bogus. As I stated before, if they truly are trying to educate the public, a mass mailing is much more efficient. But they aren't trying to educate the public, they are trying to influence a jury. Which is jury tampering.

You cite jury nullification as an example. And I say that it should be a rare instance where jury nullification is used, you attest that it should be used as a matter of course for every single case that is brought before a jury. When the law is applied improperly to a case, jury nullification should be used, otherwise, no, I don't agree with your stance that every single case should always be thrown out because of jury nullification.





[edit on 8/7/2010 by whatukno]