How dare we suggest that evidence of wrong-doing and a trial might be required?

How dare the courts try to intervene?

The Obama Administration is fighting tooth and nail to kill a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of New Mexico cleric Anwar Awlaki, arguing that even though Awlaki isn’t charged with any crimes it “strains credulity” to argue that the US government needs to present evidence before assassinating the US citizen.

In fact the papers filed by the Justice Department attempting to quash the case argue that the court system should have absolutely no oversight over the administration’s sudden, bizarre claim that it can assassinate any American citizen it wants on the basis of nation security, arguing that such issues are “for the executive branch of the government to decide rather than the courts.”

Read the rest here, if you can stomach it.

• second-degree murder in the shooting of Oscar Grant, for “intentionally committing an inherently dangerous act, while knowing it was dangerous and acting with conscious disregard for human life.” Sentence:  25 years to life.
• voluntary manslaughter,  if they believe “he acted in ‘imperfect self-defense,’ based on an actual but unreasonable belief that he needed to use lethal force.”  Sentence: 6 – 21 years.
• involuntary manslaughter, if they think “he committed a crime – using excessive force on Grant by deciding to shock him with a Taser – that was not in itself potentially lethal, but became so because of the manner in which it was committed” – i.e., with a gun instead of his Taser. Sentence: 5 to 14 years.
• acquittal, if they believe he committed no crime.
• If they choose either form of manslaughter, the judge would have the option of sentencing him to probation instead of prison.

I’m not on this jury.  I’ve only seen the evidence that has been documented publicly, but based on what I have seen, and knowing that plain stupidity was not one of the available charges, I would convict him of  involuntary manslaughter.

I don’t believe he intended to kill Grant.  This video clearly shows his surprise when he heard the report of his gun.  Nonetheless, he was a trained police officer who should have known the difference between a gun and a Taser.  A man is dead because of his stupidity.

Unfortunately, the truly guilty in this case are not on trial.  To my knowledge, there is no case pending against the BART police department.  Mehserle was trained just once, in December of 2008, on how and when to use his Taser.  Mehserle testified that the police department  “left it up to us” to figure out how to carry their Tasers, and did not stress the possibility of confusing the two weapons.  In April of this year, BART temporarily suspended Taser use, subsequently updating their training and policies to conform with federal court rulings.

Neither is there a case pending against the Taser manufacturer, who has erroneously sold these weapons as a “safe” alternative to guns, despite the fact that multiple people have died from their use.  The latest statistics I could find said that 351 people died as a result of being Tased between 2001 and 2008.

More importantly, police in general no longer view themselves as officers charged with keeping the peace in their own communities, but as paramilitary us-against-them organizations.   If they encounter a barking dog, they shoot it.  If one unreliable informant tells them someone has a drug stash they could confiscate to fund their department, they get a no-knock warrant and charge in with their weapons drawn, often shooting the wrong people – including a 7-year-old girl, whose grandmother watched her die. While I’m sure there are still “good cops” out there, their unconditional support of department policies and most any officer who steps over the line makes them just as guilty.

Once again, a SWAT team in Georgia has raided the wrong house – this after a supposed two-year investigation.  Maybe I’m missing something here, but it would seem that after two years they would know where they’re supposed to be going.

Once again, an elderly woman (this time 76-year-old  Helen Pruett)  has suffered the consequences (this time a heart attack.)

Once again, there will be an “internal investigation” and absolutely nothing will happen to these cowboys. (To their credit, this time they did actually apologize.)

In my rural area we have annual hunting accidents, where a horse or a dog or a mule is shot because some yahoo thought it was a deer.  I’ve long proposed that prospective hunters be required to pick a deer out of a photo line-up to get their license.

Perhaps SWAT teams should have to prove they can read a map and follow directions before they’re given weapons.

Jury duty? Yes, jury duty. If you are called, don’t complain or try to get out of it. Use that opportunity to effect change where it matters most – right in your own community.

I learned with amazement about jury nullification a few years ago. They sure don’t teach it in public schools, and you won’t hear about it from a judge when he’s charging the jury. You won’t even see it on TV. But it’s the truth about our jury system, and I encourage you to learn just what it means.

The following quiz is taken directly from the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) website.  See if you’ve believed any government lies.

THE JURY QUIZ

TRUE OR FALSE?

1. The primary purpose of the jury is to prevent oppression by the government.

2. The jury is an independent arm of government.

3. The defendant is innocent of any criminal charge until proven guilty by the government.

4. The judge can require the jury to find the defendant guilty.

5. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, even if the defendant broke the law.

6. If the jury finds a defendant not guilty when he is clearly guilty, the judge can punish the jurors.

7. The judge decides all questions of law.

8. The jury is not required to reach a verdict.

9. The jurors can vote according to their consciences.

10. The jury must take the law as the Court gives it, whether they believe the law is right or wrong.

11. The jury can find the defendant not guilty, because they believe the law is unjust.

12. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

ANSWERS & EXPLANATIONS

1. TRUE: The criminal trial jury was created by the constitutions of the Federal and State governments to be a guardian of the individual’s rights.

Its purpose is to prevent oppression by the Government.. A right to jury trial is granted to criminal defendants in order to prevent oppression by the Government. – Justice Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145, 155 (1968)

The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power….– Justice Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522, 530 (1975)

2. TRUE: The Constitution divided the government into three branches –the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial – in order to prevent an unhealthy concentration of government’s powers. And it created the Jury – the Fourth Branch of Government – in order to hold the first three branches in check. In order to fulfill its purpose, the Jury must be independent of the other branches of government.

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine, 1789

3. TRUE: Under our system of government, it is a sacred principle of criminal law that the government has the burden of proving every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant has no burden to prove his innocence. The government makes the criminal accusation and must prove its accusation to the satisfaction of the jury.

4. FALSE: Not legally! The judge has no authority at all to compel the jury to find a defendant guilty. The jury is absolutely independent in this function.

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence…If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide by that decision. – 4th Circuit Court of Appeals United States v. Moylan 417 F.2d 1006 (1969)

5. TRUE: The jury can find the defendant not guilty, regardless of what the law says, and regardless of the facts. The jury has the power to find the defendant not guilty for any reason which appeals to them. This is usually called “jury nullification” of the law. In short, the jury has a veto power over bad law and bad judges.

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact. – Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Horning v. Dist. of Columbia 249 U.S. 596 (1920)

In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government’s position. – U.S. v. Wilson 629 F.2d 439, 443 (1980)

6. FALSE: No one has any authority to punish a juror because of his vote. Period. This issue was resolved in 1670 in London in the case of Edward Bushell – one of the jurors in William Penn’s trial.

But juries are not bound by what seems inescapable logic to judges. – Justice Robert H. Jackson Morisette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246

7. FALSE: The judge has the authority to declare to the jury what he believes the law to be. But the jury has the authority to ignore that advice, to determine for them what the law says, and to judge for themselves the justice of the law.

It is universally conceded that a verdict of acquittal, although rendered against the instructions of the judge, is final, and cannot be set aside; and consequently that the jury have the legal power to decide for themselves the law involved in the general issue of guilty or not guilty. – Justice Gray, U.S. Supreme Court, Dissenting Sparf v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, 172 (1894)

8. TRUE: A verdict is the guilty or not guilty decision of a jury. All jurors must agree to the verdict. Otherwise, they must report a “hung jury.” That means that the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict. Each juror is free to vote in accordance with his or her conscience and cannot be forced to vote for conviction or acquittal just to reach a verdict. In the event of a hung jury, the government may bring the defendant to trial again in front of another jury.

9. TRUE: The jurors have not only the right, but the obligation to vote according to conscience. If the jurors believe that the law itself is unjust – for any reason – they have the power to do justice by simply voting not guilty. Every juror has a right to leave court with a clear conscience.

…it is the conscience of the jury that must pronounce the prisoner guilty or not guilty. – Lord Chief Justice Mathew Hale 2 Hale PC 312 (1665)

10. FALSE: The court has no authority to dictate the law to the jury. However, many courts will force jurors to swear an oath to accept the law as the Court dictates. Such an oath violates the Constitution. But anyone refusing to take the oath will be excluded from the jury, thereby depriving the defendant of an independent jury. Such an oath is taken under duress. And nothing agreed to or sworn to under duress is binding. It is ironic that the same judge who demands that jurors take such an oath is violating his own oath to uphold the Constitution.

The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. – Chief Justice John Jay State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 DALL. 1,4

The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate…. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be the judges of the law and the facts. – Georgia Constitution Art. I, § I, Par. XI (a)

11. TRUE: To be faithful to their duty, the jurors must vote not guilty, if they think the law is unjust.

It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court. – John Adams (1771) Yale Law J. 74 (1964): 173

12. FALSE: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” may have made sense centuries ago when the law confined itself to real crimes with real victims. Everyone knew that murder, rape, robbery, arson, and other such crimes were crimes. Today, with government passing thousands of new laws each year, no one can understand all his obligations under the law. If the jury does not believe that the defendant knew of his obligations under the law, it has the power to find the defendant not guilty. Ignorance of the law is an excuse if the jury says it is.

This preposterous doctrine, that “ignorance of the law excuses no one,” is asserted by courts because it is an indispensable one to the maintenance of absolute power in the government. –Lysander Spooner Massachusetts Attorney An Essay on the Trial by Jury, 1852

* * *

So, did you learn anything?  If you did, and you know other people who are ignorant of jury nullification, the FIJA website is a gold mine of information, including:

• several printable brochures, one of which includes the quiz above
• a juror’s handbook [pdf]
• advice about handing out FIJA literature around courthouses
• FIJA contacts by state

Help spread the word and maybe justice can prevail … at least in your neck of the woods.

Child endangerment.  That must be serious, because the story was married to another about a woman who was giving alcohol to minors, two of whom had to be treated at a local hospital.

So what did these Cressy criminals do that they were arrested and their mugshots broadcast to the world?  What was the danger to their children?  Were they drugged or abused?  Were they locked in a back room, cut off from the world?  Are they illiterate?

No.  There have been no allegations that the children have suffered in any way, but given Montgomery County’s history of high-handed interference with parental rights, it’s no surprise that the parents were arrested anyhow – on an anonymous tip, of course.

The evil and nefarious crime that these parents committed was a failure to submit paperwork, emphasis on submit.  The superintendent of the Fonda-Fultonville Central School (FFCS), which I reluctantly and repugnantly confess is my alma mater, Dr. Richard Hoffman, told the same TV station that, “We follow the law.”  And the law, of course, states that parents who have the audacity to reject the public school system in favor of educating and raising their own children must submit a curriculum for the superintendent’s approval.  Hoffman said this has now been done and the Cressy’s curriculum has been approved – but the parents were still arrested.

This demand for blind adherence to the letter of the law is eerily reminiscent of the story of Matthew Whalen , the Troy Eagle Scout who was suspended for keeping a survival kit with a 2″ pocketknife locked in his car on school grounds.  As Whalen’s father so eloquently stated:

“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for some intelligence on the part of administrators to use discretion and judgment in their daily decisions,” said Bryan Whalen. “Otherwise, what are we paying them for?

“You could have a trained monkey or a computer sitting there just spitting out right and wrong and never any gray areas. That’s just not the way the world works,” he told Foxnews.com.

I’d wager that discretion and judgment are not in the curriculum to train school superintendents.  They’re probably not in the FFCS curriculum, either, but that’s to be expected.  They’re much too busy developing the popular Participation in Government class (PIG), where the kids learn how to apply for welfare and food stamps.

And then, of course, the administration has to develop and document policies for doing strip searches:

Strip searches may only be conducted by an authorized school official of the same sex as the student being searched and in the presence of another district professional employee who is also of the same sex as the student.

[Note to Hoffman:  You might want to re-think this same sex requirement in fairness to your homosexual teachers and/or students.]

If [sic] every case, the school official conducting a strip search may [sic] have probably [sic] cause – not simply reasonable cause – to believe the student is concealing evidence of a violation of law or the district code.

[Note 2 to Hoffman:  You might also want to run these policies by the English department before posting them.  A couple years ago I sent an email pointing out multiple typographical and grammatical errors on your website, but this situation has obviously not improved.]

Proper English aside, the real issue underlying this whole arrest scenario and the complete disruption of the Cressy family, of course, is power.

Whose Kids Are They?

Do they belong to the state?  The state obviously thinks so, just like the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty proposal, which would “give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.”

This mindset conforms with the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, the socialist agenda behind church transformation, health care reform, education reform, and welfare reform – in short, the long-planned  “transformation” of our free society.

Rest assured that if you challenge this mindset, you might be arrested just like the Cressy’s.

Whose Kids Are They?

Did you sign on as short-term parents? Do your responsibilities end when the kids are five and you can turn them over to the state babysitter?

Whose Kids Are They?

I applaud Richard and Margie Cressy for doing what most parents are too fearful, selfish, or brainwashed to even attempt.

I deplore the actions of Dr. Hoffman, the Fonda-Fultonville Central School, the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, and  Montgomery County Child Protective Services for flexing their muscles to make an example of the Cressy’s.  All have over-stepped the bounds of their authority, demonstrating everything abhorrent in power-hungry, egotistical bureaucrats.

Whose Kids Are They?

Behold, children are a gift of the LORD,
The fruit of the womb is a reward.
(Psalms 127:3)

• Our economy cannot help but collapse at some point under the weight of a national debt over $12 trillion, or almost $40,000 for every man, woman, and child.  This number continues to increase at an average of $3.81 billion per day, and someday the Chinese will either quit investing in a losing proposition – or they’ll own it outright.
• Al Quaeda has won the war on terror.  You won’t see that headline on the nightly news, but you can read an excellent article on the subject by Fred Reed.  Granted, the man is more than a little crude, but he’s honest in pointing out that the goal of a terrorist is to terrorize.  On that point alone, they have won hands down. [HT to Jim.]

• So little is necessary to terrorize the world’s hyperpower. A free-lance dingaling secretes a bomb of sorts in his shoe, whereupon the US goes into convulsions and long lines of Americans stand comically barefoot in airports. Dingaling Two popularizes liquid explosives, and so Washington frenziedly confiscates toothpaste. Yes, the world’s hyperpower is afraid of Colgate, with fluoride. Dinglaling Three hides the infernal machine in his skivvies, so Obama makes Firm Pronouncements, and we will now have to undergo examination by panty scanners. Always, over and over, the terrorists have the iniative. The country reacts hugely and predictably.

• We routinely kill and maim innocent men, women, and children all over the world, and can’t even be bothered to keep a tally, because as General Tommy Franks said, “We don’t do body counts.”
• We have murdered over 50 million innocent, unborn babies in this country calling it choice, when in actuality it’s a result of the demand for freedom from the consequences of our personal actions.
• The Bill of Rights is swiss cheese.  We willingly submit to arbitrary searches at airports, train stations, and driving anywhere within 100 miles of an external border – which includes more than 2/3 of the population; we have politically-correct hate laws to prevent Christians from speaking the truth of scripture; our every electronic transmission from private phone calls to internet searches are arbitrarily monitored and sold to the government; we need “permits” to gather in protest of the latest government outrage;  habeus corpus and the Posse Comitatus Act have become quaint historical traditions; and the list goes on.
• Government officials at every level have run amok.  They ram every imaginable law down the throats of an unwilling populace; they defend bribery, blackmail, and coercion as normal political practice; and their personal, financial, and sexual “scandals” have become commonplace.

So how did this happen?  Why is America dying?

We can blame the public school system that is hell-bent on indoctrinating our children with feel-good, anything-goes secular humanism, but neglects the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the historical significance of these documents.

We can blame big business, who courts corrupt politicians to pass laws to give them an unfair advantage over the competition.

Or we can blame the power-hungry politicians, who care not about the people they are elected to represent, but only about their own positions.

Or … we can look a little deeper and recognize that the above are just symptoms of a much deeper problem, one that we have been warned about from the beginning:

… there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; George Washington, his first inaugural address, 1789

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, speech to the military, 1798

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and the genius of America . . . America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.” Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835, 1840

Above all, I know there is a Supreme Being who rules the affairs of men and whose goodness and mercy have always followed the American people, and I know He will not turn from us now if we humbly and reverently seek His powerful aid. Grover Cleveland, Second Inaugural Address, 1893

We do not need more national development, we need more spiritual development. We do not need more intellectual power, we need more spiritual power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen. Calvin Coolidge, President 1923-1929

The basis of those ideals and principles is a commitment to freedom and personal liberty that, itself, is grounded in the much deeper realization that freedom prospers only where the blessings of God are avidly sought and humbly accepted. Ronald Reagan, speech 1983

This sampling of wisdom is based, of course, on the Bible – that same Bible that is largely rejected or ignored in today’s America.  The latest evidence of this fact, and the one that prompted this post, comes from a recent Rasmussen poll.  These answers cannot come from Christians who put their faith in God.

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted December 30, 2009

By Rasmussen Reports

1*Some people say that there is a natural tension between protecting individual rights and national security. In the United States today, does our legal system worry too much about protecting individual rights, too much about protecting national security, or is the balance about right?

43% Legal system worries too much about protecting individual rights
17% Legal system worries too much about protecting national security
28% Balance is about right
12% Not sure

2* In light of the recent attempt to blow up an airliner as it was landing in Detroit, should the United States take full control of security measures at foreign airports so that anyone flying to the U.S. would have to go through U.S. security?

54% Yes
29% No
16% Not sure

3* Should the attempt to blow up the airliner be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act or by civilian authorities as a criminal act?

71% By the military as a terrorist act
22% By civilian authorities as a criminal act
7% Not sure

4* Should waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques be used to gain information from the suspected bomber?

58% Yes
30% No
12% Not sure

5* How do you rate the U.S. government’s response to the attempted airline bombing – excellent, good, fair or poor?

5% Excellent
29% Good
27% Fair
35% Poor
4% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Whether you agree or disagree with the majority, understand that these attitudes do not reflect Christianity.  They do not reflect the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  And ultimately, God will give us what we ask for.

If you will fear the LORD and serve Him, and listen to His voice and not rebel against the command of the LORD, then both you and also the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God. If you will not listen to the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the command of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you, as it was against your fathers. (1 Samuel 12:14-15)

Another aspect of the friend list controversy has been its impact on political activism in oppressive regimes. In an interview with PC World, Facebook seemed to claim that the new friend list policy would somehow aid dissident movements. A spokesperson said, “We believe that Facebook, as demonstrated during the Iran elections and events in multiple other countries since our inception, plays a critical role in allowing people to communicate, organize and stand up against oppressive regimes and there is real value of connecting and sharing, which is what we’re trying to facilitate.”

However, an anonymous ZDNet commenter offered an altogether different perspective:

A number of my friends in Iran are active student protesters of the government. They use Facebook extensively to organize protests and meetings, but they had no choice but to delete their facebook accounts today. They are terrified that their once private lists of friends are now available to “everyone” that wants to know. When that “everyone” happens to include the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and members of the Basij militia, willing to kidnap, arrest, or murder to stifle dissent, the consequences seem just a bit more serious than those faced from silly pictures and status updates.

Read the whole thing at EFF.

If Schmidt thinks only evil-doers need or want privacy, he obviously has no understanding of the Fourth Amendment or the reasons behind it:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Schmidt reveals the same corporate attitude recently revealed by Sprint, who created a special portal for law enforcement to access their customer’s private information.

Fortunately, we can have all the advantages of google’s search engines without giving them any private information to save for the government: Scroogle.  Here’s a screenshot of their homepage:

No cookies, no tracks, no government collaborators like Eric Schmidt.

I’ve been using Scroogle for quite a while now, and it works great for most searches.  The only problem I’ve encountered is that you can’t limit your Scroogle search to a specific date range.  Other than that, why increase the size of the government database?

Sprint Nextel provided law enforcement agencies with customer location data more than 8 million times between September 2008 and October 2009, according to a company manager who disclosed the statistic at a non-public interception and wiretapping conference in October.

The manager also revealed the existence of a previously undisclosed web portal that Sprint provides law enforcement to conduct automated “pings” to track users. Through the website, authorized agents can type in a mobile phone number and obtain global positioning system (GPS) coordinates of the phone. [Read the rest of the story at Wired Threat Level.]

If this doesn’t make you realize that the Bill of Rights is now used toilet paper, nothing will.  And if you keep your Sprint account after reading how they created an automated surveillance system just for Big Brother, don’t say you weren’t warned.