NEW YORK (AP) - Judges must root out jurors who use personal beliefs about race, ethnicity or anything else to disregard the law in deciding a case, a federal appeals court said Tuesday (5-20-97).
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that judges have a duty to stop jurors from ignoring the law by issuing firm instructions or even dismissing jurors. "We categorically reject the idea that, in a society committed to the rule of law, jury nullification is desirable, or that courts may permit it to occur when it is within their power to prevent," Judge Cabranes wrote.
Removing the legalese from the phrasing, this says: "We, the government, can stack the jury as we see fit - to insure that the jury will find as we see fit. We will only permit judgments by people who respect the law of rulers."
The Peoples' right to a trial by a jury of their peers has been replaced by whatever the government bureaucrats decide is in the government's compelling interest.
The Rule of Law is the concept that every person has a right to defend his property (life is considered to be that individual's property, as well). A just government is merely an extension of every individual's rights. What we see being defended by the "judges" is just the opposite: the Law of Rulers. To protect future generations from exactly this, the founding fathers included trial by a jury of peers. This is intended to insure the common citizen protection via a check upon the expanses of government. We must be aware of our rights and assert them or we will lose them.
Does anyone else find it coincidental that jury duty is continually promoted as inconvenient and difficult by the popular media? Is it possible that promoting this view has a more sinister and long-term purpose, such as reducing our faith in the jury system to the point where we are finally glad to be rid of it? Enter the Professional Juror, who is paid to parrot the judge.
A former E-Check technician has questions to be asked.
(A) Why does the Ohio EPA continue to allow inaccurate testing in the state of Ohio? The proof is in the EPA official state audits, if they will allow public access. If they don't, what are they covering up?
(B) Why does the Ohio EPA continue to fail cars on NOX readings when the current analyzers are not set up to test NOX emissions? These devices have been set to N/O
Greg Bell, CROE Communications director. firstname.lastname@example.org
P.O. Box 402, Miamisburg, Ohio 45343
24 hr. voicemail and FAX: 937.429.4183
email: email@example.com * http://www.coax.net/croe
Become a member--follow "Take Action" & "Join Us!" links on our website
you can get this from http://www.logan.com/liberty/
E-check was a scam, is a scam, and will continue to be a scam. Early registration turned out to be of no benefit. The advance testing was good for a year. They tested again, the next year, just to get back into the normal two year testing cycle.
Technicians were supposed to have 6 months training. Well, most of that became on the job. If the tests were run by the book, half of all cars tested would have failed. Eight to twelve percent failure is what was eventually reported. Greg offered to help audit the multitude of programming changes made to permit higher test-passing rates. What could not be audited was (is?) the multitude of changes made directly to the data by the technicians, without any programming changes. In anything except a government program, this would be called "fraud."
E-check has not contributed to any improvement in air quality where it has been implemented.
We do not need E-check, even if it did work. Ohio Air quality has been getting steadily better over the last few decades - without any E-check.
Frequently, Geauga county has higher pollution counts than Cleveland's Cuyahoga county. Must be all of those flatulent cattle. Ohio's air quality is in compliance. In 1990, it was just a bit above compliance level. We are still compliant. What the EPA (Environmental Prostitution Agency) is mainly concerned about is not air quality - just the appearance of doing something. That way, they insure their jobs.
In September of 1993, a 10-year plan was enacted, complete with a poison pill. If the state bails out, then it (read "we") must pay EnviroTest the remaining balance. This comes to $100,000,000 per year until the contract would normally expire.
The same soulless bureaucrat who signed off on Ohio's being in compliance to the Federal EPA, 6 months later signed the 10-year contract on an unproven system (previously physically ejected from the state of Pennsylvania), which was supposed to get us into compliance. Given the money involved, he was probably most eager to do so. (Don't anybody use the words "bribe" or "kickback;" they're illegal.) We could have used a fraction of the money on proven means, such as reclaimer nozzles for evaporation and spillage at the pumps.
It is also telling to note that the equipment currently being used in Ohio is the same, faulty equipment ripped - unused - from Pennsylvania testing stations, when the program was rejected, there.
What has been done? CROE has sponsored simultaneous countywide protest in Columbus. They have been in Parades and used other media outlets. They now have a web site, have driven around Columbus in a BUS pasted with banners. They have done letter campaigns. The bureau-critters know who they are.
Here is what the Feds are willing to do to us:
They threaten not to refund gas tax money. Currently Ohio drivers "donate" about a $1 billion a year, and get back about $640 million. Other states, like Massachusetts, get $2.14 for every dollar they "donate."
Because Ohio was at a borderline state of attainment, when Mercedes Benz was looking for a new site, it factored compliance heavily, along with other considerations, and went to South Carolina instead.
New Jersey enacted a state law allowing confiscation of property (cars) which is non-compliant. They then took an auto collector's Packards because they were not tested. (Excerpt from Article V. of the Bill of Rights: "…. Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.")
Those cars were stolen. This is a perfect example of the difference between law and justice.
What is being /can be done:
Let supporters understand that money is being diverted from more effective solutions. If you back a program that the public backs, and it turns out to be a modern Dodo - you will lose backing, later, when it may really count. CROE is targeted as a statewide organization to help shut down the E-check.
We need more people involved in more geographic areas. The gentleman with(out) the Packards should be wallpapering the New Jersey capitol building with affidavits contesting the illegal seizure of property, demanding proof of jurisdiction, and targeting the misuse of public offices.
? HB175 - would have given local officials a bit of more coverage an opportunity to say yes to the E-check rather than the means of passing a bill where no response meant a YES, as was originally set up. ?
How to challenge the validity of the E-check:
Ohio Senate Bill 18 has 13 Constitutional violations. These seek to divide and conquer by selecting some counties and ignoring many others. This is unequal treatment of people within the state; a selective discrimination; a quarantine zone.
E-check does not fulfill their end of the deal, which voids the contract. Pennsylvania paid a $145 million bribe to the Federal EPA instead of running an E-check. The E-check that Ohio got was starting to be installed in Pennsylvania (the junk machines we are currently stuck with). Apparently, as far as the Environmental Prostitution Agency is concerned, getting money is the same thing as clean air. After all, they do sell "pollution credits" to those rich enough to pay. This just makes the word "Prostitution" that much more appropriate. Too bad it's our asses they're selling.
That was the operative code word for the BATF's military offensive raid against the Wako compound, at Mount Caramel.
It is not normal for free Americans to read or hear that our worst enemy could be our own government. Not here! This is America, land of the Free and home of the Brave. We have a Constitution that clearly defines the powers of our government. We have a Bill of Rights that explicitly lists some of our rights as free citizens. We believe in the freedom of citizens, not the servitude of subjects. So, how does a Waco happen here? What is to stop it from happening again?
What were some of the lies and continued deceit that go on from Waco? The justification for the initial raid was that they (the FBI) could not get Koresh out of the compound. Fact: He daily jogged alone past the house rented by the "college students" who lived next door. These middle-aged "students," who drove $40,000 4x4 autos, were not enrolled in the school they claimed. They were employees of the BATF, wasting tax dollars snooping while attempting to create a case. They could have taken Koresh, alone and peacefully, on virtually any day they chose. But, that was not what they wanted. The day after the raid, three separate businessmen in Waco stated in the local paper that they had personally dealt with Koresh in their establishments the previous day. If Koresh was all the FBI wanted, why didn't they take him then? In the past, any time people of official capacity came to see anything, they were given free access to the compound. There was nothing to indicate that the future would be any different. This implies that Koresh could even have been taken on his own turf, if desired. The FBI denied the Branch Davidian's repeated requests to allow news camera crews to come into the compound and film. Why? Because too much damning evidence would have been gathered?
The FED'S claimed that children were abused, in order to justify the raid. If you really care about children, attacking their home in a military assault is a strange way to show it.
Much evidence disappeared during the fire, some of it afterwards. Fully automatic weapons fire was initiated from the BATF. Helicopters fired down into the buildings. One of the initial victims, a 72-year-old man, was shot in the head from up high. He still held French toast in his hand. This was not the appearance of a suicide pact member, at the height of his fanaticism, in a battle against the Beast.
One of two steel doors "disappeared" in the fire. This was the one that was shot out of Koresh's hand at the onset of the raid. The other was intact after the fire. With the disappearance of that door, the FBI removed any proof of fully automatic gunfire used against Mount Caramel.
Several people who were outside the compound managed to get into it after the initial siege. One who did not make it was portrayed as part of a suicide charge against the FEDs. That must explain why he had five bullet holes in his back - and a final one from close range, at the base of the skull. The only weapon found anywhere close to him was a stun gun. The feds left his body dangling on a fence for three days, to be chewed by local animals. CS gas was used in the attack. This is a gas that the US, along with a host of other nations, declared would not be used even in war against a sworn enemy. Janet Reno used it on US citizens who never committed any offensive action against any other person or their property. It was referred to as "tear gas" by the Feds, for media purposes.
The positions of the holes in the building were excellent for ventilation. The CS gas, as an aerosol, is highly flammable. CS gas is to be used outdoors only - according to the manual from the manufactures (with no apologies to the Geneva Convention). Based upon the number of spent canisters, over 1,000 gallons of liquid CS gas were used. It burned well, as seen clearly in the official footage.
The day of the raid, the FBI made a call to the local hospital at 6 a.m., asking how many burn beds could be available by 12 a.m. Afterward, the FBI declined to cover any costs, resulting from the final assault, that this hospital incurred. They changed their minds, and paid up, when the hospital threatened to sue them to recover expenses. The fire had to have been part of the plan.
The fire trucks were ordered to stay back while the fire raged. This was necessary. Autopsies showed that 47 victims had lethal dosages of Cyanide, a result of igniting the CS gas. The fed's were aware that water would have released clouds of cyanide gas into the surrounding air, causing far more injury over a wider area. To contain the poison, and protect agents, the compound was allowed to burn.
The tank attack was extremely well thought out. . The first object of the tank attack was to collapse the entry onto a buried bus - the only protection which would have been available to the women and children, had they been able to reach it in time. The tanks then collapsed the walls upon the women and children, causing blunt force trauma. The feds claimed that the Davidians beat and killed their children as part of a bizarre suicide pact (How do these people sleep at night?)
As David Tribeadu was "captured" and interrogated with his face shoved into the mud, the agents bickered back and forth about which plan should have been used. Interrogators kept screaming at him about what a horrible person he was for what he made them do. Transferal of guilt does not happen that way.
Before the trial, Judge Walter Smith was being investigated by the Feds and was about to be indited for perjury. Charges were dropped and he had another trial. Beholden to none, judge?
Breaking tradition in jury selection, the Judge personally reviewed and selected the names that the jury would be "chosen" from.
Vital information was suppressed at the trial. The judge denied the inclusion of 911 calls recorded during the initial raid. The judge claimed that the information would only be "self serving." Does anyone think that the surviving Davidians just might have a ligetimant self interest in using pertenant facts to defend them in selves in court?
The judge reinstated charges that the jury dismissed. These were aiding and abetting manslaughter, use of weapons and conspiracy against federal agents. The judge ignored the jury Forman's request for greater leanency. If all the evidence had been admitted, the jury would have acquitted all of the defendants.
I remember thinking, when the events were unfolding, how nuts the Davidians must be, how dangerous they must have been for the government to decide to do what it was doing. But over time, the truth will out. The case against David Koresh - or any case against any individual - simply does not square with the atrocities committed by my government against those people. If they wanted Koresh as they claimed, then they could have taken him alone on any day. Instead, they called the media and presented a show.
Make no mistake about it. The attack was intentional, malicious, illegal, and immoral. It showed the true color of the current leadership of this country. The fact that the perpetrators have been given awards rather than jail or a death sentence shows the level of worship of government in the minds of many, inside and outside. To many, nothing must get in its way - for the good of the many. That is the same plea used by Marx, Lenin, Hitler, and that ilk. The 100+ million graves of innocent citizens show the cost of allowing anyone in a position of power to decide what is good for whom, and to decide who is expendable.
It can't happen here because this is America! It did happen. Being part of the American government neither excuses, nor makes the participants immune to, such atrocities. Arrogance and pride, hiding behind official shields, fuel the ugly reality, while claiming it can't happen here. Worse, they try to justify these actions when they do occur, by painting the victim as the aggressor.
We give power to the government to protect the weak from the strong. History shows repeatedly, a government that does not respect all people and their property equally ends up being a pawn of those who are in power.
Oklahoma City revisited - why I'm happy with the Pledge as it is. One of the positive things I can see about being a Libertarian is that, when tragedies like Oklahoma City are forced upon us, I can distance myself from the actions of violent-minded factions. These can't possibly be my kind of people; we do not believe in the initiation of force to achieve our goals. What about you? Does your party have such a pledge? Does your party advocate violence for a peaceful world?
This challenge has set Republocrats back on their heels every time one is intent on pigeonholing me as some kind of right- or left-winged nut. They no longer see my ideals as that of a violent sect, but are instead forced to re-evaluate their own core beliefs.
There was some debate about adding to the Pledge a statement that retaliation against tyrants is justified. The concern is that we have occasionally been viewed as pacifistic, thus we have lost some potential members. It is a good point. If tyranny is not opposed it only gets worse. Everyone has a right to self-defense and a means for it. But reminding these people of the importance of the Second Amendment, along with the simple reality that expanding the pledge to attract every possible person who might be good … well, we can wait for them to catch up to us.
What is the difference between a free citizen and a subject? Citing the agreement between the Democrats and Republicans on a balanced budget. Clinton claims more programs, the republicans claim smaller government. For once I actually believe the democrats.
The "smaller government plan" will cost an additional $200 billion if the "aggressive" cutting plans are followed. (Every time I listen to this double-speak, I envy Star Trek it's Universal Translator.)
What also is counted against the debt is the "Social Security Surplus." There is still more money coming in than what is going out from Social Security. That extra money is immediately spent on daily operations. An IOU is set aside for later repayment, to keep the SS trust fund "fully funded" (without accounting for the IOU being created). The reason for the "surplus" is the constant changing of the rules. Instead of paying 1 percent of our gross income, we pay 15 percent. Instead of working to age 65, we will have to work to age 67, then 69, and so forth. Instead of a $3,000 dollar cap on gross income, the ceiling is above $60,000 and rising. And when today's children get working they will be taxed at a rate of 60% of the results of their labors. If any private insurance company did what the Fed does, it would justifiability be sued for fraud and shut down. Where in the Constitution does it say the government has all of the rights and the people can only obey?
After all of that baloney is sliced, there is the simple fact that the debt is not being touched. Ever. The current level of debt already has the US paying more interest on the debt then it is spending on the military, which is one of the few legitimate main functions of the federal government.
A summary of basic points from Vultures In Eagles Clothing - a book by Lynn Merideth, published by We the People, which outlines the steps necessary to assert your rights as a Sovereign citizen and get the IRS (Ignorance Related Slavery) off your back:
1) The People are Sovereign. The People created the Constitution and the government.
2) The government (state and federal) is limited by the Constitution and can have no powers not specifically granted by it.
3) The United States of America is a corporate entity, distinct and separate from the 50 Sovereign united state Republics of America, and having no direct control of the 50 states other than that granted specifically within the body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. (The word "united" was an adjective used to describe the unity of the original 13 states against the tyranny of England. The name of our country is "America." Each state is a separate and distinct Republic.)
4) A Right cannot be taxed. Only a privilege can be taxed.
5) The Right to work and earn a living (to contract; to conduct business) is a Sovereign Right.
6) Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution declares that: "No Capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to census or enumeration…." In other words: without an awful lot of work that the federal government doesn't want to have to do, no direct tax can be levied, and the Income Tax is a direct tax.
7) The IRS codes can only effect the corporate United States of America, which is an entity legally foreign to the 50 Sovereign states. The jurisdiction of the federal government extends only to it's territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., to the District of Columbia and to federal enclaves deeded to the federal government by the 50 states. Federal jurisdiction does not extend to the 50 Sovereign states, nor does it extend over the Sovereign Citizens of America. By definition, a natural born American citizen (of the 50 states) is an "alien non-resident" with respect to the [federal; corporate; district] United States of America.
8) Sovereign citizens of the 50 states have been paying a "voluntary" tax for over sixty years, without ever being told that they do not legally have to pay it. Under the rules of Common Law, which is the basis for all law, if the assumption of responsibility to pay the tax is not refuted in writing via affidavit, it is assumed to be true. (Under Common Law, the last affidavit submitted is assumed to be true, unless legally refuted by another affidavit.) So, unless the Sovereign Citizen refutes the responsibility to pay, he or she is stuck with it. Literally. The Citizen must assert his/her rights as Sovereign, in order to refute the standing operating assumption of the IRS.
Why don't most Americans want to grow up? Why don't they realize that their government treats them like children?
Remember when mommy told you not to eat too much sugar? Your government also tells you what you may or may not consume. Don't do drugs or your grounded for five to ten years with no parole.
Did mommy ever forbid you to play with BB-guns? It's all fun and games until some one loses an eye? Your government wants to forbid you to use guns, even though you probably think of your gun as more than a mere toy.
Did daddy ever tell you not to read those filthy magazines or say dirty words? Your government also dictates what pictures you are allowed to see and what words you are allowed to say. At this moment, the FCC tells you what is OK for radio and television, but you can bet your social security checks that it wants to do the same for the internet.
How much money did daddy give you as an allowance, a few dollars a week if you mowed the lawn? Your government lets you keep about 60% of what you earn. But if you are a good boy or girl, and you do just what daddy tells you to do (like help him get re-elected), you get to have part of your brothers and sisters money too.
Hillary Clinton wrote that "It takes a village to raise a child." The village is a fitting analogy: The "village" is the state and we are the children. Bill and Hillary Clinton are Daddy and Mommy, and you better listen to Daddy or he'll send the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms after you.
The parent/child analogy is not a perfect one. Most parents want their children to grow up, to be independent. Your government, however, wants you to be dependent on its handouts. It wants you to live as a child on an allowance, to ask for permission before you can do anything, like build a house or start your own business.
But there is another reason why the parent/child analogy doesn't fit. A child has no choice who his parents are. He is born into a family, and must live with his parents until he is old enough to leave the house. You, however, can choose your government. You can choose a government that treats you like a child, or a government that lets you live your own life as long as you bear the consequences for your actions. You can choose a government that wastes your money trying to protect you from yourself, or a government that will defend you from real criminals, the people who initiate the force against others.
So which government should you choose? If you want to be treated like a child, just keep voting for the Democrats and Republicans. They believe that naughty boys and girls like you need to be supervised. If you want to live as a free, responsible adult, then vote for the only political party committed to the principal of personal responsibility. The Libertarian party.
The Libertarian paradox: We must unite to protect our individuality. To use the politically correct jargon; We are socially challenged by our excessive individuality. Libertarians don't want to bother anybody else and we don't want them bothering us. That's all fine and dandy until the flip side of the social equation is entered. Enter those meddling self-proclaimed do-gooders who want to make everything over into their own image of what is good and proper.
They have a natural tendency to get together and regulate everyone else. If they stuck to their own voluntary collective, it wouldn't bother anybody. This would be a voluntary association, right in line with the Libertarian view. But NO, they have to get into every aspect of everyone's lives. They steal our rights by placing theirs at what they consider a higher moral level. ("All animals are created equal. But some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm - George Orwell.)
So how do we get our rights back? What price are we willing to pay? (Gosh, I hope a $35 toss to national LP membership is not too much!) So what about getting co-workers, friends, family informed maybe to join? The Republicans and Democrats roughly have 400,000 regular voluntary dues-paying members and that is fine. The rest of us are involuntarily supporting the Republicans and Democrats because we are taxpayers. The Libertarian party has 23,000 members. Right now we are peanuts compared to the others, but we are bigger then ever before. The media has done more inquires to and interviews with the national HQ in the first quarter this year than in the last presidential bid year. The Cato institute is quite frequently referred to in the Wall Street Journal as a Libertarian think tank. The Libertarian Ideals of personal responsibility and smaller government are having an impact. But to be successful we need more than the 190 libertarians in offices that dot the nation. We need party growth. We need people, their energy and (yeah, you guessed it) their money.
If we can double our size over the next two years, that will generate a larger base for more people to take office, more existing officeholders to stop shying away from freedom-promoting ideas. More media coverage, more candidates, more Libertarian voices are saying enough is enough. Not everybody needs to go run for president, but we do need people to join and renew national, state and local memberships. Participation can be as simple as submitting letters to the editor maybe once a quarter, going to a local town meeting and asking whether we really need this new bill or law or ordinance? Have we paid for the ones we're saddled with already? Are there private, voluntary alternatives?
Former Congressman Bob Dornan has blamed the Libertarian party for the loss of seven Republican congressional seats. We apparently stole the fiscally conservative voters who have seen way past the Republican rhetoric. If divide and conquer works for them, why not for us? Hey, Bob, you guys already had a chance and you blew it because you're just like the Democrats! Greedy!
May I recommend:
Party growth - the pitch WIIFM radio ( Whats In It For Me?). Some of the daily grind.
Local ordinances, private ownership and the collective (Borg) - Who owns this thing anyway?
I only had to cross my street to experience practical verification of why government doesn't work. The problem in this case was local zoning ordinances.
A neighbor of mine has constructed a garage three feet from his home. He was denied a permit to attach the house to the garage, while the garage was being constructed. He wishes to improve his property and it's safety by connecting the garage to the house. Because of the city's original intervention, there was created an unplanned and unexpected dangerous circumstance whereby the steps going to the basement created an exposed open pit, going straight down ten feet from ground level. The owner contends that it would be far safer if these steps were enclosed within the building. The local government has, so far, denied his right to peaceful enjoyment of his own property. The City says they have their rules and they simply can't allow exceptions (except the ones already excepted - more bureaucratic doublespeak).
The city's lawyer said that the owners had the options of petitioning city council, going to court to sue the city, or hiring an attorney. The petition of city counsel route appears best. That is the source of the problem; that is where it must be cured. I like the First Amendment route of demanding redress until the mayor appears like NY City mayor Rudoph Juliani, if necessary. There is no limit on demand for redress.
(I annoyed one of the bureucritters at the counsel meeting because I "falsely accused them (the board) of being the Bad Guys." They choose to take the safe route and ignore the fact that the zoning board - on their lawyer's recommendation - already voted down my neighbor's request for the building expansion. Thus, they have already acted as the Bad Guys.)
The Owners stressed the safety issue and petitioned for a variance. They also pointed out how precedence has been set because there are other similar properties that were approved. The owners also pressed the liability issue, in the event they were denied the opportunity to improve the safety. They believe that, if the city denies an improvement that increases safety, the city should be completely liable in the case of any injuries as a result of the denial. This seems perfectly reasonable.
I reread the definition of property, which describes ones exclusive right to possess, use, and dispose of a thing. I also reread my own definition: If one can not legally control a thing then they do not own it. My neighbors are not being allowed to do this work on their home, so do they own it? The point was also raised that bureaucratic fiat apparently valued its rules more then the rights of those whom those rules are supposed to protect.
One of the board members was offended. She pointed out that we have to have our rules otherwise "people will be living in tents." I pointed out that in those locations with the tightest control on property - i.e., rent control like New York City - also have the highest rents and the highest level of homelessness. 20/20 hindsight shows that I missed a far more important point: Those laws which outlaw tents also outlaw the Taj Mahal. We must all live in identical ticky-tacky houses to please bureaucrats.
I closed by lauding the honesty of the zoning member who pointed out that they had no solution to the problem. I pointed out that the owners had a solution that would not cost the city a cent. It only required the city to respect the owners' right to their own property.
I pointed out that government has the necessary function of protecting persons and property. And I asked again: What is property? Who are owners?
The city counselor promised to re-evaluate their "law". Cripes, folks, it's an ordinance! My, how officials like to inflate their importance. With any luck, a variance will be granted and we will go away. If something extraordinary occurs, the board could have a stroke of sanity, respect persons and their property, and remove the ordinances prohibiting peaceful use of property by it's owners. Or they may dig in their heels to prove how damn important they are (legends in their own minds). I hope for sanity.
Separation of sports and state, - why must the common Cuyahoga taxpayer be compelled to subsidize the millionaire life styles of baseball players and owners?
E-check, - the G-Check Government schools funding. A time bomb with a short fuse. $11 billion additional package difficult to swallow