78 year old gets arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

.....otherwise, no, I don't agree with your stance that every single case should always be thrown out because of jury nullification.

Where in the thread did JPZ state that every single case should always be thrown out because of jury nullification?

If he didn't, why are you pretending like he did?

*Do you think that the use of strawman tactics helps your arguments?





[edit on 7-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by whatukno

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.

You have me confused with mnemeth, brother. He is the anarchist, not I. Although, I am much more in synch with his ideology than yours. It is also you who puts out the canard that I don't think law exists, I never once said any such thing. You like to present it that way because I assert that law is Natural and exists with or without legislation, and your disingenuousness is constantly your down fall. You know darn well I expect more from you than that.

The truth to the matter is these people are trying to influence jury members to legislate from the bench.

It is incumbent upon you to prove this then. What you are talking about is mens rea:

As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.

Since you are playing prosecutor, it is your responsibility to prove mens rea. Simply asserting it is not enough. The O.P. has all ready linked Fully Informed Jury Association, if you have not done your due diligence and taken the time to look at that site, then you are making one heck of a lousy prosecutor, my friend. FIJA's website is rife with materials and links to Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook as well as other outlets that they use to inform the public. They standing in front of courthouses is just one of many places they stand to get this information out there. You are not going to be able to prove mens rea in this case Wuk, no matter how loud and how long you scream it.

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.

I do not attest that it should be used in every single case. Damn Wukky, have you never read any Aesop's Fables? Never heard of the boy who cried wolf? Your sad exaggerations, and mischaracterizations are obvious, and very few buy into your childish nonsense.

With more than 600,000 legislative acts on the books, however, rarely is just not enough. Let's face it, even though your heart is in the right place regarding the ill advised "war on drugs" and even if you do get elected to office, do you honestly think you alone can get the ridiculous drug policies changed? You are going to need the help of the people on that matter, and the best way they can help you is through jury nullification.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Since you are playing prosecutor, it is your responsibility to prove mens rea. Simply asserting it is not enough. The O.P. has all ready linked Fully Informed Jury Association, if you have not done your due diligence and taken the time to look at that site, then you are making one heck of a lousy prosecutor, my friend. FIJA's website is rife with materials and links to Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook as well as other outlets that they use to inform the public. They standing in front of courthouses is just one of many places they stand to get this information out there. You are not going to be able to prove mens rea in this case Wuk, no matter how loud and how long you scream it.

The fact that they are passing out information to potential jurors near the courthouse is prima facie evidence of juror tampering. While I don't disagree with their statement per se, (I do disagree with the whole idea that everyone should be acquitted of every crime despite the evidence against them.) I disagree that they aren't trying to tamper with the jury pool.

But maybe your right, maybe there are no laws and natural law of survival of the fittest rules the world. There is no murder, because of course it must be a persons right to kill another if they are able. There is no victim in that case because the supposed victim is dead and therefore cannot attest to being a victim. There is no theft, because you know, you can't go into a contract to purchase anything anyway so the person who had it obviously stole it first. So I guess I must be forced to agree with you that there are no laws, other than the fundamental and unbreakable laws of the universe. States have no rights, the country has no rights, only a mob of people making up personal individual rules they act by themselves.

But to hide behind case law to prove that there are no laws? Seriously? Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?

I know, the ideal scenario to you would be that every jury would incite jury nullification on every single case and acquit every single thing that came before them till acquittal after acquittal after acquittal chokes the whole system to the point of breakdown.

All I was saying was that if they wanted this information out, they could use a mass mailing and do the exact same thing without the possibility of juror tampering.

reply to post by whatukno

The fact that they are passing out information to potential jurors near the courthouse is prima facie evidence of juror tampering.

Prima facie evidence for which case Wukky? Which specific case was that 72 year old man attempting to tamper with a jury? Do you even know which cases were on the docket that day? Do you have clue as to what you are talking about?

Jury Tampering Legal Definition:

Jury tampering is the crime of attempting to influence a jury through other means than the evidence presented in court, such as conversations about the caseoutside the court, offering bribes, making threats or asking acquaintances to interfere with a juror.

A person commits the crime of jury tampering if, with intent to influence a juror's vote, opinion, decision or other action in the case, he attempts directly or indirectly to communicate with a jurorother than as part of the proceedings in the trial of the case. Jury tampering may be committed by conducting conversations about the case outside the court, offering bribes, making threats or asking acquaintances to communicate with a juror.

Some jury tampering cases have involved physical barriers or obstructions to the courthouse, and protests or pamphleting in the courthouse area. At issue in such cases is the conflict between First Amendment protections of expression and coercive influencing of jurors. Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375 (1962) held that a state may not punish out-of-court statements critical of judicial actions, absent special circumstances showing an extremely high likelihood of serious interference with the administration of justice. It approved the clear and present danger standard used in Bridges v. California, Pennekamp v. Florida, and Craig v. Harney. Id., at 314 U.S. 252 (1941); 328 U.S. 331 (1946); and 331 U.S. 367 (1947), respectively.

(I do disagree with the whole idea that everyone should be acquitted of every crime despite the evidence against them.)

You are undeniably and irrefutably the only one who is making that argument. If you disagree with it why do you keep making the argument? No one else is.

But maybe your right, maybe there are no laws and natural law of survival of the fittest rules the world.

Wukky, if you actually had a valid argument you wouldn't have to rely on lying so much. Now for the second time in this thread, I assert that I have never, ever said that there are no laws, and you can not at any point ever quote me as saying as much, nor have I ever argued that Natural law equates to survival of the fittest.

Natural Law Defined:

A law or body of laws that derives from nature and is believed to be binding upon human actions apart from or in conjunction with laws established by human authority.

I understand you have ambitions of being a politician, and you obviously think that a part of a politicians job description is lying as a matter of course, but just as you are mistaken about the law, you are mistaken that lying is a requirement of being a politician.

But to hide behind case law to prove that there are no laws? Seriously? Isn't that a tad bit hypocritical?

You really have fun lying, don't you? I didn't even bother to quote your diatribe of lying above this statement, as it is just pathetic. Stop lying Wukky, it is not serving you at all.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Nope, sorry, your right, I am wrong, there are no laws other than natural law, and every case in court should always end by jury nullification. That way, mob justice can be the only justice and I guess that is the right way. (although I think you will have a hard time arguing case law to an angry mob)

Frankly I am tired of arguing with you, end, B Saint, and mnemeth on the horror show you want this country to be. Between the four of you, this country would look like mad max in a week.

Makes me think more and more maybe Canada is a better place to go all the time.



[edit on 8/7/2010 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

Frankly I am tired of arguing with you, end, B Saint, and mnemeth on the horror show you want this country to be. Between the four of you, this country would look like mad max in a week.

And here is just another lie of yours. You're not at all tired of arguing. You love it, you live for it, and you do anything you can do to bait and get people angry. What frustrates you with me is that I don't get angry with you, but then again, I am used to dealing with children like you.

Pouting and throwing tantrums is not the way adults debate Wuk. The tragedy is that this country is headed for Mad Max country without my ideals, End's ideals, or mnemeth's ideals being what is bringing us there. It is your Marxists expansive state controlled government that all ready exists that is bringing us there. Unemployment keeps getting higher and higher, we are fighting two wars on different fronts, and gearing up for two more wars with Iran and North Korea. We are heading for a Third World War that you obviously want to happen. After all, it is this precious big government you love so much that is hell bent on having WWIII.

You accuse others of your own hypocrisy. You fear jury nullification because the last thing you want is a nation where everyone is equal under the law. The last thing you want, your pretentious posturing notwithstanding, is freedom. You want to escalate the prison nation we all ready live in.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You accuse others of your own hypocrisy. You fear jury nullification because the last thing you want is a nation where everyone is equal under the law. The last thing you want, your pretentious posturing notwithstanding, is freedom. You want to escalate the prison nation we all ready live in.

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.

Sure a guy hacks his wife to bits gives a full confession to it both online and to the police, DNA evidence confirms it was him that wielded the axe that slashed his former wife. But thanks to the wonders of jury nullification we don't have to bother with a trial to determine whether he is innocent or guilty because the person is automatically acquitted. So, this persons next victim will be free to enjoy being brutally hacked to death because well hell, he won't ever have to be held accountable for his actions.

YAY for jury nullification! Bringing justice to it's knees! Hell, with ends removal of the 13th Amendment, thus bringing back slavery, and B Saint's gestapo death squads along with you and mnemeth's anarchy. What a glorious world it will be!

And all I was arguing was the propriety of distributing pamphlets to potential jurors on court grounds.

What could be more simple than this? A picture paints a thousand words folks.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ab213591996.jpg[/atsimg]

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.

So get real. This guy is doing NOTHING to 'help' the 'cause' he says he supports.

He's hindering it

He's grandstanding and a suck up for attention and more You Tube time.

This man really wanted to get the news out - he'd be holding up a sign 'INFO FOR FREEDOM' or 'INFO FOR ALL' or something catchy and along those lines.

Me? If I walked by someone and they were holding up a sign that said 'JURY INFO' and I wasn't on a jury, I wouldn't waste my time with reading the material.

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

No, so, sorry folks, as much as I agree this information should be 'out there' - this is by far the biggest 'fail' I've ever seen trying to succeed in 'spreading the news'.

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

peace

Edit = punctuation/bold


[edit on 8-8-2010 by silo13]

reply to post by silo13


The sign doesn't specify which jury and which case, so how could he be trying to tamper any specific jury for any specific case?


*Silo, I think you are just upset because your side lost this one.

reply to post by Exuberant1


So it's ok if I go to a courthouse, hold up a sign saying Jury Info and hand out pamphlets to people saying all people arrested are guilty?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

So it's ok if I go to a courthouse, hold up a sign saying Jury Info and hand out pamphlets to people saying all people arrested are guilty?

I don't think anyone will believe you.

And you wouldn't do that anyways.

reply to post by Exuberant1

I don't think anyone will believe you.

And you wouldn't do that anyways.

That wasn't the question, the question was, it's ok if I go to a courthouse, hold up a sign saying Jury Info and hand out pamphlets to people saying all people arrested are guilty?

What law would that brake then? And don't say jury tampering, that's been shot down already.

Originally posted by OhZone
Reply to whatukno.
Jury tampering?
Really? Have you read the FIJA info?

Informing potential jurists of their rights and duties is tampering/influencing?
Would you like to tell us How exactly?

Have you ever listened to the judge's instructions to the jury?
They are Never told that they have the duty to judge the Law as well as the accused.
In some cases he outright Tells them how to vote.

Also common law precedes maritime admiralty law.

Most of the court actions we see take place these days is based
on Admiralty law, not common law.

In a lot of the rural areas common law is making a come back.

The only serious issue I see about that is it might give support
to the rise of Sharia law as it is considered islamic common law.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Actually if even one juror took that pamphlet and based their decision on it it is in fact Jury Tampering. Impossible to prove, but it's the exact same as if that juror took a bribe.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


The gold fringed flag conspiracy has already been widely debunked Dale Gribble.

Bad money pushes out the good.

Same for cops.

& government,
& military,
& corporate power,
& media focus.

In so many things the best things remain quiet &/or are extracted from common circulation.

The most intelligent minds are those that build their perspective upon the fragile constructs of facts & their understanding of logic,
full of all the uncertainties & non-absolutes of reality,

While mindless purveyors of blind & factless faith & certainty scream, schizophrenically from the rooftops & more relevantly from your TV screen.

Commercial, marketable 'news' is about whatever is the most lurid, sensational & most shocking,

and not about the depth & soundness of very often dull facts.

This is very often true in the criminal justice system.

This is almost without exception true in politics, made even more exaggeratedly distorted by outsider, alien interests & mountains of money, infecting your local election process.

As for cops, & am sure they get good ones,
but they get fed up with the dirt & corruption all around them & leave,
or eventually they succumb to the flow of vile corruption.

Maintaining a hard, centered balance, when everything is in violent flux around you, verges on a thankless impossibility.

So the next time you see someone maintaining balance,
even when you may disagree with their points,

Thank them for helping everyone keep their heads above the fray, at least a little.

Hate me because I force you to think.

Hate me because I make you face your own hypocrisy.

Hate me because I use logic.

Hate me because I make you consider that justice is truly blind.

Hate me because I hate violence.

Just hate me.

The more you hate me, the more I win.


[edit on 8-8-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted 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.

He's grandstanding and a suck up for attention and more You Tube time.

Me? If I walked by someone and they were holding up a sign that said 'JURY INFO' and I wasn't on a jury, I wouldn't waste my time with reading the material.


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

I'll start by asking you the same question that another person entirely ignored because it pointed out how he was entirely wrong (just like you are). So here is the question I expect you to ignore:

A judge, before the jury renders a decision, gives a set of jury instructions to a jury to help them make an informed decision. Is that judge guilty of criminal jury tampering? I ask that because FIJA members do the exact same thing, only better. Its only fair that at the same time you call FIJA activists grandstanders you should be calling the judge a big-ass grandstander right along with them because they are both doing the same thing.

We have people getting arrested in the streets for speech and here you are cheering on the cops. Gross.

Your comments are actually offensive. I know members of FIJA and they don't waste their time grandstanding. They are there at the courthouse to ensure jurists are informed of their rights as jurists. And that is exactly what they do.

By holding up the sign, the guy is ensuring that jury members and potential jury members know their rights. And here you are pooping on that process as if you actually don't think we have a right to inform jurists of their rights. If I was a potential jurist I may very well go up to a guy with "jury info" and ask him some questions so I got the real answers rather than the government answers. Are you actually against that?

I'd advise you to think about the importance of the freedom of expression and how much it means to people (especially) in America which is the one place that is supposed to be more free than the rest).

I also strongly challenge you to point out one instance where any person was harmed in any way by being informed of their rights as a jurist.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Actually if even one juror took that pamphlet and based their decision on it it is in fact Jury Tampering. Impossible to prove, but it's the exact same as if that juror took a bribe.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

The gold fringed flag conspiracy has already been widely debunked Dale Gribble.

Before the jury renders their verdict, a judge gives them a set of instructions on how they are to render the verdict. If this set of instructions changes the verdict of one of the jurists, is that judge then guilty of jury tampering? FIJA is doing the exact same thing as the courthouse, but only better.

Also, I am under the distinct impression that all speech except for libel and slander are protected under the constitution. But apparently any speech that does not suit your personal preferences can now be rendered illegal. How do you explain how making suggestions to a jurist about a specific case can possibly be illegal when it is our right as human beings to offer our opinions on any and all issues?

Not that FIJA activists are doing that at all... they are merely offering general information about jury duty that applies equally to all cases. A fact that you seem to continually ignore. Is that a relevant fact or not? Is that relevant that FIJA only offers advice equally applicable to all cases? Yes or no?

reply to post by truthquest

Before the jury renders their verdict, a judge gives them a set of instructions on how they are to render the verdict. If this set of instructions changes the verdict of one of the jurists, is that judge then guilty of jury tampering? FIJA is doing the exact same thing as the courthouse, but only better.

No, it's not jury tampering, because unlike FIJA who is trying to get all juries to legislate from the jury box via jury nullification, a judge has a set of instructions that he/she gives to them that do not change the verdict. FIJA wants all trials to end in an acquittal.

Also, I am under the distinct impression that all speech except for libel and slander are protected under the constitution. But apparently any speech that does not suit your personal preferences can now be rendered illegal. How do you explain how making suggestions to a jurist about a specific case can possibly be illegal when it is our right as human beings to offer our opinions on any and all issues?

Actually, it is libel.

libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Freedom of speech is a great thing, but what FIJA does is not freedom of speech, it's trying to get all juries everywhere to legislate from the jury box and render acquittal after acquittal after acquittal, thereby choking the very life from the legal system and ensuring that no one get a fair trial.

For example a serial rapist is on trial for the brutal rape of several women, there is a mountain of forensic evidence against him, many eye witnesses, and the testimony of the women that he violated. FIJA wants jurors to say that laws against rape aren't valid therefore the rapist committed no crime, and so they nullify the law and the serial rapist gets to go free to rape more women.


[edit on 8/8/2010 by whatukno]