78 year old gets arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


But previously you said...

You can get away with libeling JPZ because he is just a user name and it can't harm me in my real life.

So by your admission and by your "natural law", I have done you no harm so therefore no crime has been committed, as for FIJA, I doubt that one malcontent really can do them harm, besides, I can just hand the jury FIJA pamphlets and get away with it if for some god knows reason it does wind up in court.

reply to post by whatukno

So by your admission and by your "natural law", I have done you no harm so therefore no crime has been committed, as for FIJA, I doubt that one malcontent really can do them harm, besides, I can just hand the jury FIJA pamphlets and get away with it if for some god knows reason it does wind up in court.

Frankly, if I believed for a second that the malicious things you said about JPZ would influence those members in this site that I respect, and by doing so, harmed JPZ, I wouldn't have hesitated to report you to the moderators. It is only because I know that those people who matter to me are not influenced by your defamatory remarks that I haven't reported you.

As to your cavalier attitude about your remarks about FIJA, if that organization caught wind of the one "malcontent" as you put it libeling them, and decided to put a stop to it, it is this site they would hold accountable. This site has moderators who are expected to keep up with such defamatory remarks. In fact, if I didn't count you as a friend and brother, perhaps I would be remiss in not all ready reporting you just to protect this site. I am instead, giving you an opportunity to retract your defamatory remarks and behave reasonably.

Malcontent defined:

Dissatisfied with existing conditions. n.

1. A chronicallydissatisfied person.

2. One who rebels against the established system: "immature malcontents who have long since sold out to conformity" (John M. Wilson).

Give an unethical person enough rope and they will always hang themselves with it.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Apparently suddenly you are new to this site, members on this site defame people and organizations constantly. Just look at the threads about the POTUS for example.

FIJA can do what they will, I stand by my remarks about them and if called to defend them in court I will do so.

TAN has no liability for the things I say as each and every post I make is copyrighted to me.

Hey, new here, just got done reading the thread.

Are people allowed to constantly lie and libel others on this site?

Just wondering because this whatukno fellow seems to be doing it constantly.

Puts words into other's comments.

Lies about FIJA mission.

Defames other posters.

Just wondering, is this the standards of the site?

reply to post by Tyrannyispeace


Hi endisnigh, how are you today?

reply to post by whatukno

Apparently suddenly you are new to this site, members on this site defame people and organizations constantly. Just look at the threads about the POTUS for example.

I don't defame the POTUS, nor anyone else, but that is just one of the many differences between you and I. Apparently you think as long as other people are doing it, you can too. Well, guess what Wukky, other people murder, rape, deal crack, and molest children, being as you confessed to being a malcontent, are you going to start doing all of that too?

FIJA can do what they will, I stand by my remarks about them and if called to defend them in court I will do so.

Uh-huh. So you will stand by your lies under oath as well? Your malicious intent on harming those people who frighten you makes you everything you claim to be against. I know of no bigger hypocrite in this site than you, but this thread is not about you, it is about the juries absolute right to judge both the facts of a case and the law pertaining that case.

Where few have entered this thread disagreeing with that right of a jury, one member WTFover has entered the thread and respectfully spoke his opinion on why he thought that was wrong. He did not libel anyone, nor did he engage in histrionics and fear mongering in a blatant attempt to sway others to his opinion. He simply respectfully offered his, and when challenged on that opinion, he respectfully replied. For the most part, this has been my experience with the members of this site, you are one of the few exceptions, and while I have counted you as my friend and brother, unlike other "malcontents" in this site, you are no doubt a malcontent who gleefully and unrepentantly harms others with malicious intent.

If you were sued for your remarks, you should pass out the pamphlets in your defense, it will only help any jury to render a guilty verdict against you.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I know of no bigger hypocrite in this site than you, but this thread is not about you, it is about the juries absolute right to judge both the facts of a case and the law pertaining that case.

Actually this thread isn't about that, it's about how a man was arrested for deliberately trying to tamper with juries. Whether or not he is actually guilty of said crime is also at issue.

But it is not about the rights juries have, you have forced that into this debate and thus changed the course of this thread. Had you not forced down our throats this groups beliefs to tell juries to acquit everyone for any charge we wouldn't be at this point would we?

You saw that you were loosing the argument that this 78 year old man was in fact trying to tamper with juries by handing out "juror information" at a court house. So instead you decided to manipulate this discussion into something else.

Then because you did not like my answers you decided to pull out that old catch all of yours the fact that I wanted to be a politician so you started as early as page 3 in calling me a liar.

From then on it seemed your point was to try and paint me into a corner and attempt to anger me in such a way as to nullify any counter argument I may have by way of calling me a tyrant, a fear monger & that I advocate big government to regulate the crap out of people.

So please, don't pretend for a second that you are the innocent poster who was unwarrantably attacked by a forum bully. From the start of this thread you have veered off topic to try and make it appear that anyone that disagrees with jury tampering is some sort of vicious tyrant out to destroy rights of the people.

reply to post by whatukno

Actually this thread isn't about that, it's about how a man was arrested for deliberately trying to tamper with juries. Whether or not he is actually guilty of said crime is also at issue.

Once again you lie. Have you no shame? You are morally repugnant! Here are the facts of the day of August the 4th, the day Julian Heicklen was kidnapped by Homeland Security.

In a telephone conversation later Julian stated that he was released from the hospital unharmed. He also said that technically he wasn't arrested, just shipped off in the ambulance.

In Heicken's own words:

The police called Emergency Medical Service of the NY City Fire Department to send an ambulance. I was placed on a stretcher at 12:25 pm and put into the ambulance. On the way to the hospital, two medics examined me, but I gave no response. We arrived at the NY City Downtown Hospital at 12:35 pm, and I was carried on a stretcher into the emergency ward.

And continues with:

I still uttered no sound nor moved a muscle. The hospital staff applied painful pressure to my chest in order to get me talk. Also a large object was place in my mouth with the intention of forcing it down my throat, but it was too large to get into my jaw. Then I was tickled by a small fine brush on my lips, nostrils, and left cornea. Still I did not move or talk.

Finally Dr. Rubinstein, an intern, begged me to talk, so I did at 1:10 pm. I said that I was all right and wanted to be discharged. He said that I would have to answer some questions, but I informed him that I was exercising my Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. He asked for my name, but I refused to divulge it.

He left me and talked with some other staff. He said that I would be discharged. He filled out some paperwork authorized by the attending Physician Antonio Dajer. Dr. Rubinstein admonished me that the Emergency Medical Service was intended only for sick people. I responded that he should so inform the Federal Protective Service. I signed the discharge paper as John Galt and left at 1:30 pm.

Found at this link here.

No charges were brought against Heicklen, he was taken to a hospital and discharged that day.

Other links telling the same story:

www.opednews.com...

fr33agents.ning.com...

You don't even try to do any research. You could care less about the facts. You simply state what you believe and present it as if it is fact, but you are a liar Wuk, that is all you are, and seemingly all you'll ever be.

But it is not about the rights juries have, you have forced that into this debate and thus changed the course of this thread. Had you not forced down our throats this groups beliefs to tell juries to acquit everyone for any charge we wouldn't be at this point would we?

Once again you lie, and I entered this thread because of lies you were telling, and I responded directly to those lies and presented the facts.

You saw that you were loosing the argument that this 78 year old man was in fact trying to tamper with juries by handing out "juror information" at a court house. So instead you decided to manipulate this discussion into something else.

You are lying. Julien Heicklen was not arrested for jury tampering. This is something you are making up. You can not offer any source to back up your claims, and apparently believe all you have to do is say it and people will accept it as truth. You have been called out by more than just I for your lies. You are a liar.

Then because you did not like my answers you decided to pull out that old catch all of yours the fact that I wanted to be a politician so you started as early as page 3 in calling me a liar.

Because you are lying.

From then on it seemed your point was to try and paint me into a corner and attempt to anger me in such a way as to nullify any counter argument I may have by way of calling me a tyrant, a fear monger & that I advocate big government to regulate the crap out of people.

As long as you continue to lie, I will continue to expose those lies. This is why I actually provide sources, and you don't.

So please, don't pretend for a second that you are the innocent poster who was unwarrantably attacked by a forum bully. From the start of this thread you have veered off topic to try and make it appear that anyone that disagrees with jury tampering is some sort of vicious tyrant out to destroy rights of the people.

I have backed up my assertions that you are a liar by pointing to the lies you are telling right here in this thread, one of them being that I advocate letting serial killers go free. That was a lie, and a libelous lie smearing the good character of Jean Paul Zodeaux. You told that lie maliciously, and now attempt to claim victimhood because I called you a liar, but you are a liar and I have proven it.



[edit on 9-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Tell you what, because it seems that we have come at an impasse, Ill secede this debate, you win.

The title of this thread is 78 year old gets arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets. I assumed along with the 78 year old that he was arrested. I must have been mistaken.

I believe that jury nullification is wrong for the most part and I believe that this groups whole intent is to destroy the judicial system by legislating from the jury box. I may be mistaken, but those are my beliefs and opinions on the subject.

I believe that those that employ the tenants of Natural Law are anarchists who advocate the freeing of serial killers because I believe that those who advocate Natural Law assume that no law exists other than the laws of the Jungle, I may be mistaken, but those are my beliefs and opinions on the subject.

But never, have I lied in this thread. I may be wrong, I don't believe I am, but I might be wrong, but I have not lied. I have stated my opinions as I see them, I have stated my beliefs as I have seen them, if you don't like those beliefs and opinions, that is your problem solely.

reply to post by whatukno

The title of this thread is 78 year old gets arrested for handing out FIJA pamphlets. I assumed along with the 78 year old that he was arrested. I must have been mistaken.

That's what you get for assuming.

I believe that jury nullification is wrong for the most part and I believe that this groups whole intent is to destroy the judicial system by legislating from the jury box. I may be mistaken, but those are my beliefs and opinions on the subject.

That's an honest statement, and had you maintained that level of honesty from the get go, rather than invent stories and present them as fact, then there would be little I could say to you. You are entitled to your beliefs, Wukky.

I believe that those that employ the tenants of Natural Law are anarchists who advocate the freeing of serial killers because I believe that those who advocate Natural Law assume that no law exists other than the laws of the Jungle, I may be mistaken, but those are my beliefs and opinions on the subject.

Now you're stretching it, and here is what I believe; I believe with that last remark you aren't being honest, you are just being disingenuous. When you say you may be mistaken that those who advocate Natural Law assume that no law exists, you in fact know that I advocate Natural Law and I do not ever say that no laws exist. You are entitled to your beliefs and opinions, but it remains my belief that honesty is a virtue that you have little to no regard for. That is my opinion.

But never, have I lied in this thread. I may be wrong, I don't believe I am, but I might be wrong, but I have not lied. I have stated my opinions as I see them, I have stated my beliefs as I have seen them, if you don't like those beliefs and opinions, that is your problem solely.

You have only now begun to frame what you began asserting as fact, as opinion. You had plenty of opportunity to state it as you have just now, but instead kept presenting it as if it were fact. You are wrong, you have been shown to be wrong, and one example is the link I provided for the definition of Natural Law. Either all lexicographers are wrong and you are right, or they are right and you are wrong. I choose to believe the latter. I will trust the dictionaries definition of Natural Law, and I certainly don't trust you, but as you said, that is solely my problem. Your problem is the pathological lying you can't seem to stop.

[edit on 9-8-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Tyrannyispeace

 

Hi endisnigh, how are you today?

What?

Oh, by the way, I see you are still lying.

Hey, have you read this thread yet-www.abovetopsecret.com... Doublethink-alive and well in today's society.

I read that one and decided on my monicer, Tyrannyispeace.

You should change your name whatukno to Liesaretruth.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...instructs juries that they had the power to judge both the facts and the law, and look where we are now.

Okay, accepting that a juror has the "power" to judge the law, let's examine the juror.

A juror is selected from a pool, made up of citizens from within the jurisdiction of the court. Those same citizens make up the electorate, within that same jurisdiction.

So, if that juror is empowered and entrusted to determine a law to be abrogative or derogative of the rights of an individual or group of individuals, then it must be accepted that that juror is, also, empowered and entrusted to determine a law to be absent abrogation and derogation.

Therefore, the electorate, being potential jurors, have the power to establish a law, though the act of casting a ballot for it. And, because the majority of the voters have cast a ballot in favor of the law, it must be deemed to be absent abrogation and derogation, because the people, from whom all authority is derived, have declared it so.





[edit on 9-8-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by WTFover

Therefore, the electorate, being potential jurors, have the power to establish a law, though the act of casting a ballot for it. And, because the majority of the voters have cast a ballot in favor of the law, it must be deemed to be absent abrogation and derogation, because the people, from whom all authority is derived, have declared it so.

The same could be said about Congress, or a state legislatures authority to legislate, although they derive their power from the people. When Congress, or a state legislature passes a legislation, and it is enacted into "law", by the executive branch, it is deemed to be absent abrogation and derogation, unless an a grieved party demands remedy by a redress of grievance. Then the matter goes before the courts. It is the checks and balances of a republic. So, an Amendment passed by ballot of the people, can then wind up abrogating and derogating a right of an individual, and if such abrogation and derogation takes place in the form of criminalizing a individuals behavior, that individual can rely on a jury of his peers to acquit him of charges brought about based on this Amendment, and therefore the people passed a "law", and the people later rejected this Amendment as valid, and therefore lacking the force of law.

At all times the system is set up to protect the rights of individuals.

The coming elections would be a GREAT time to pass out these pamphlets. Since the jury pool is from registered voters, what better place to do good work.

Pass out the pamphlets and say some pocket Constitutions.

The issue is this: The filthy, stinking cops had this man dragged off to a hospital to get rid of him because he was NOT brekaing any law.

If a sorry, stupid, law breaking cop decides that you need to go away, even if you are totally legal, then he calls an abulance and declares you are crazy!1

ALL cops involved should be sued until they bleed...sued until they have no home and no job and no money...sued until they give up and commit hara kiri...SUE the scum!!

ONLY a lawsuit against the scumbag cops will stop this illegal and treacherous violations of our rights.

It is LEGAL to pass out literature in public. Period. it is ILLEGAL to interfere with a Constitutional right, and the cops should be thrown in a Federal prison for 10 years each for having this man taken away.....cops are the worst scum on earth and someday they will regret all they have done...guaranteed.

To the posters that argued about whether or not the victim was ' arrested ' or not:

Anytime a cop takes charge and causes you to lose your liberty, thus being detained against your will, that is in fact an ' arrest '. Just because it is an arrest that never gets filed or followed up on in no way diminishes the fact that an arrest of liberty took place.

When a cop decided to be a cowardly dog and use an ambulance instead of a paddy wagon, and the destination was a hospital instead of a jail...he then became a law breaking cop, who violated the mans rights.

The cop is the one who directed that the medics take custody of the man, and the cop is responsible for the false arrest and subsequent illegal detention. If that had been me, I would be so outraged that God knows what I would do.

The scummy copper knew that he had no legal reason to bother the man, but he decided, ON THE BASIS OF THE CONTENT OF THE LITERATURE, that he would violate the mans rights and shufflr him off...in effect accusing him of being crazy or otherwise needing attention. the cops should be ashamed...but they have no shame.

Cops like the ones in this case should be fired, sued, and have their homes and cars and savings and future earnings taken away and given to the victim of their abuse. They then should get 10 years in a particularly nasty federal prison for civil rights violations, so they could contemplate their crimes in depriving this man of his liberty.....cops care nothing about us, and so we need to make them pay. big time, when they violate our rights.