A few thoughts regarding the Sun Times' coverage of Thaddeus Jimenez (http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/400788/even-25-million-couldnt-keep-wrongfully-convicted-chicago-man-trouble), a man who served 16 years, wrongly convicted of murder, who has since been arrested for a series of petty "drug offenses." (This is in quotes for good reason, since a "drug offense" is not really an offense against anyone.)
Upon being released from jail, and paid $25,000,000 in damages, one would think that it might give the Chicago Police Department just a little bit of pause in aggressively prosecuting Jimenez for "victimless crime" offenses. (Let's face it, if drug use and minor anger issues are your only problem after losing 16 years of your life to police misconduct, you're probably a better-balanced person than most people would be in similar circumstances.) And let's face it: possessing plant products (which are almost all safer than alcohol) is technically a non-crime, according to the Bill of Rights. (There will be people who argue this point, so I deal with it more fully in a moment, clarifying the legalese that is designed to obfuscate the issues. How is legalese designed to obfuscate the issues? It makes us dependent on licensed lawyers for legal protection from increasingly more arbitrary laws. There is no "conspiracy," other than that licensed attorneys have shared interests: they realize that if no jury will convict anyone, and the legal language is straight-forward, defendants would have no reason not to represent themselves pro se.)
In 1906, the Pure Food and Drug Act was passed, which allowed the government to regulate drug quality without intervening jury trials. The public stupidly (unwittingly self-destructively) and ignorantly (without all the facts) ignored the fact that this law was in direct violation of the property rights of all citizens. By having "gotten away with" passing the 1906 Act, congress essentially received "feedback" from the American public that they weren't paying any attention to what congress was doing. In 1914, the Harrison Narcotics act was passed, illegally, and in direct contradiction to the entire U.S. Constitution (again, they noticed that there were no crowds with pitchforks and torches assembled outside their offices; no literate people to hold them accountable for making laws that criminalized the behaviors of racial minorities and jazz musicians). Over the years, the Harrison law was strengthened by the marijuana stamp act (1937), which was also never successfully challenged. In 1971, Richard Nixon ignored the Shafer Commission's report indicating that marijuana should be legalized, and escalated the drug war via a series of (also totally unlawful) presidential edicts. Ronald Reagan, (who confusingly claimed to favor a "free market"), did the same thing, resulting in grotesque denial of even the most basic property rights (primarily by claiming allegations of drug dealing could result in the confiscation of non-drug property, without any proof or an intervening jury trial).
Every single drug prohibition law flatly ignores the foundation of property rights that the USA was built upon, in multiple ways. (And yes, slavery also ignored that foundation, but ultimately was overturned because of it. Abolitionist Lysander Spooner's famous essay "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery" was adopted by Frederick Douglass as the core argument against slavery. This same argument popularized the Free Soil Party, resulting in bringing multiple western states into the Union as "free states.")
Every single drug law (and presidential edict) was also initially pushed through congress as a means of legalizing bigotry (bigotry against racial minorities, jazz musicians, drug users, Native American churches, etc). This allowed racist police and public to physically assault minorities under the excuse of "looking for contraband." (A free society where all individuals are equal under the law cannot label any private property as contraband, other than human beings, and "weapons of mass destruction." A "WMD" can be defined as any weapon that cannot be targeted purely defensively.)
So what part of the Bill of Rights technically outlaws a drug war? The same part of the Bill of Rights that outlaws prohibitions on "unmarried cohabitation." The 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments.
The "common law" (referred to in the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) requires that every "crime," in order to be properly considered a "malum in se" (a wrong, in and of itself; an inherent wrong) must possess two elements (as a part of "due process"). The two elements are: "injury" (to a specific, named individual or group of individuals), and "intent to injure" (the same, specific, named individual or group of named individuals). When both elements are present, there is said to be a "corpus delicti" or "body of the crime." When a "malum in se" has occurred, the prosecutor is to determine if there is adequate evidence of a valid "corpus delicti" that can be assigned to an accused. If so, the accused is charged. This is what the term "corpus" in the 4th Amendment refers to.
When the state criminalizes non-criminal actions (actions that lack a valid "corpus delicti"), the state has created a condition of "false crime" known as a "malum prohibitum" (plural: "mala prohibita"). The creation of mala prohibita is, itself, a crime. Why? Because the creation of false laws allows police to use force against innocent people. By definition, those who are not guilty of "malum in se" are innocent.
The creation of "mala prohibita" has resulted in the creation of an American police state, where the police powers have become the "standing army" the Founders once warned against.
The "injuria et damnum" ("injury" and "intent") requirement exists precisely to prevent the government from outlawing things that are not inherently criminal. ...Such as the drug possession and gun possession Jimenez was charged with. (No form of gun possession is even considered a crime in AK, AZ, VT, and WY, even under pseudo-law that now governs most of the USA. Further, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Putting people in prison for gun possession is an immense infringement, as is escalating other unrelated "mala prohibita" charges.).
By enforcing laws that criminalize non-criminal behavior, the U.S. has become the number one incarcerator in the world. The U.S. has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population. This gives us the highest per-capita prison population, by far. By most counts, there are now 2.4 million people in prison, with over 60% of them incarcerated for victimless non-crimes. The existence of these prisoners is, by many accounts, even worse than the existence of plantation slaves. (This is only meant to compare the rationality of the every day voter who votes for the two faces of "the prison party," but would never consider voting for the two faces of "the slavery party.")
So, America has become an unfree country. It's no longer "The Land of the Free, and The Home of the Brave." It's just another police state that imprisons arbitrarily, unequally (one in three drug offenders is black, in spite of equal drug use in the white population), and unfairly. The unfairness of the laws is largely because police officers can clearly see who is black, enabling their racism and allowing them to respond to perverse incentives favoring the enforcement of unjust laws against populations that are not large enough to defend themselves via the vote. (Former U.S. Marshal and DEA Joint Task Force Agent Matt Fogg has stated in a youtube video that he was told not to plan drug interdiction in white areas, because they'd "arrest a judge or senator's son and they'd pull the plug on this thing.")
So, why doesn't the public know this already? Simple: They are taught in government schools by tax-financed educators who have no interest in creating a nation of legally-literate tax-resistors. So, "Civics" class has been substituted with "Social Studies" and "Government" class. At no point in a child's education do they learn about the ideas inherent in the Enlightenment, nor the long battle for security in one's "persons, papers, and effects."
The last State to resist universal "free and compulsory" government-run education model, Vermont, had been operating under government schooling for 14 years, (since 1900). Prior to that time, parents strove to educate their children according to the independent nature of a free society. As free men and women, they had every incentive to educate their children well. Clay Conrad, in his book "Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine" indicates that Giles Jacobs' "New Law Dictionary" was the most popularly read law-book in the colonies, with many thousands of copies in circulation. One way that we know that Jacob's intent was to create a society full of free people capable of defending themselves in front of a jury, if they should ever be charged with violating an arbitrary law, was the title of his next book: "Every Man His Own Lawyer."
America has been hijacked by licensed attorneys, and a sociopathic political class. This political class (prosecutors, legislators, cops) doesn't mind putting your sons and daughters in prison for non-crimes. When you hire an attorney, their license prevents them from attacking the legitimacy of the law. They thereby legitimize a system that is totally illegitimate, by attempting, usually unsuccessfully, to dance around the fact that their client clearly broke an unjust law.
This is what makes America unfree. Without property rights, there is no freedom, because we all live in material reality. Your body is material property; you own it. The unconstitutional, unlawful police State disagrees.
Do you mind? Does knowing this make you mad? If you don't mind being unfree, then please, keep voting for Democrats and Republicans, and don't bother to look up the term "libertarian," or "jury nullification of law." Don't bother to find out what you need to do to survive "voir dire" (more legalese!), the unconstitutional and unlawful "jury selection process." (Voir dire was originally used as a means of kicking abolitionists off of juries, so that the Fugitive Slave Act could be enforced in the pre-Civil-War North.)
If you do mind, then "dummy up" when you're called to serve on a jury, so you get seated. The judge will kick you off for answering any differently than "yes your honor" when asked if you can "agree to apply the laws as given to you." Once seated, render a holdout "not guilty" vote, if you serve on a victimless non-crime case, no matter whether it's a billionaire drug cartel on trial, or a teenager with $25 worth of marijuana.
Without a valid "corpus," there is no crime, no matter what any group of legislators has decided. In much the same way that the legislators are not allowed to build concentration camps for Jews (no matter who wins any election, and no matter what percentage of the public is bigoted against Jews), they are also not allowed to make laws that criminalize self-ownership, or private property. In a democratic republic, citizen-jurors limit the power of the government.
We were intended to have "a republic, if we could keep it." We have lost it. Restoring it means taking responsibility for the propriety of our jury verdicts, supporting those who fight the government, and voting "not guilty" in victimless non-crime "cases."
Showing posts with label jury rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jury rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Saturday, March 2, 2013
A Reading List For Libertarian Activists
Essential Reading Regarding Jury Rights, Especially For Libertarian Activists:
Send In The Waco Killers
by Vin Suprynowicz
This book will help define the problem of tyranny, for those who think that America is still a free country, with equality under the law. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years. This book is well worth reading to get everyone on the same page about what the most important problems are, as far as American liberty is concerned. The freedom movement is useless, unless it has clear solutions for those problems that can be implemented, starting now. This book contains arguments in favor of "jury nullification of law," specific examples of it, and an accurately-prioritized description of how the current legal system has been corrupted by the unconstitutional courtroom procedure of "voir dire" (prosecutorial jury-selection).
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine
by Clay Conrad
This book will show you your full power as a member of the jury, and how to exercise that power. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years, with a clear and detailed insight as to how to reverse them. You hold the power as a member of the Jury, you just need to reach out and claim it.
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice
by Paul Butler
Historically, juries exist to answer three questions: (1)Most importantly: Is the law in question legitimate? (2)Second most importantly: If legitimate, is it being fairly applied in this case? (3)Least important: Did the accused break the law? In addition to covering different areas of the topics covered in Conrad's book, this book argues for a compelling interpretation of point number two prior. This book makes a case for "political jury nullification," when justice systems refuse to apply legitimate laws evenly, against minorities. For example: In California at the turn of the century, there was a law that made it illegal for Chinese people to testify against white people in court, due to the prejudice whites had for the large numbers of Chinese railworker immigrants. So, civil rights activists encouraged white jurors not to convict chinese people of murder, until the situation changed (which it eventually did, due to the pressure put on the courts). Butler argues (with mountains of well-researched evidence) that the current war on drugs has always been racist, and seeks a similar solution. Well worth reading.
The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Volume II: The Methods of Nonviolent Action
by Gene Sharp
This book deals with eliminating the causes of tyranny by appealing to broad public opinion, using nonviolent tactics. This book will be especially useful for activists who are concerned with the problem that the freedom movement is seemingly "outgunned" by the government.
Works That Explain How Libertarian Movements Can and Have Succeeded:
Freedom for Alaskans
by Dick Randolph
A book about the prospect of electing libertarians to office in Alaska, the state with possibly the most inherently-libertarian demographics in the nation. In Alaska, from 1978-1982, there were more Libertarians elected (to offices capable of significantly expanding individual freedom) than there have been anywhere else, before or since. The result of this accomplishment (and the ballot access initiative promoted by Dick Randolph) is that it is illegal for Alaska to have a State income tax. If the Libertarian Party wants to replicate this accomplishment, then why don't they learn from the successes pioneered by Randolph? I understand why Libertarians place more emphasis on philosophy than strategy, but I strongly disagree with that emphasis. Both are essential to any legitimate freedom movement, as is this book.
The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedom's Greatest Champions
by Jim Powell
A book precisely described by its subtitle. This book is a broad and general high-hierarchical level overview that allows people to see many avenues toward effectively advancing individual freedom. Most chapters are no more than 5 to 10 pages, but they are information-packed pages. "Triumph" introduces the reader to the people who advanced freedom the most rapidly, and briefly explores the strategies they used. This book serves as an excellent "starting point" for those who want to get a handle on how quickly the cause of individual liberty can be advanced, and what strategies are most likely to rapidly advance the cause of liberty. Some of the movements and individuals outlined in this book served to keep the ideas of liberty alive, others organized mass movements that directly reduced state interference with people's lives. Well worth reading for those who want to understand, historically, the answers to the questions, "What has expanded individual freedom the most?" and "What tactics work best to expand liberty?"
Top Futurist Works on Life Extension:
Fantastic Voyage
by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman
Perhaps the best book on extending healthspan that currently exists. Contains the best up-to-date health information available, as well as information about how one can stay on top of emerging life-extension technology. This is the information and cellular-reprogramming approach to diet and health, par excellence. Contains a lot of information that is immediately useful, as well as a look at what is likely to come in both the short and long term. "Reprogramming Our Biochemistry for Immortality" Interview with Ray Kurzweil
Ending Aging
by Aubrey de Grey
The book "Ending Aging" deals with eliminating the causes of aging, beyond heart attack, cancer, and stroke (the big 3). Going far beyond extending healthspan, de Grey's book focuses on eliminating the buildup of cellular garbage that contributes to age-related decline in biological functioning. If you want to know whether this book contains information of interest to you, you should read de Grey's "Bootstrapping Our Way to an Ageless Future" (free online copy).
World Without Cancer
by G. Edward Griffin
In the age of Obama, we all need to individualize our personal approach to medicine, or allow the socialized government medical cartels to pump us full of patented pills. This phenomenal book explains how individuals can best prevent and possibly defeat cancer, using a simple, natural preventative diet, commonly found. The second half of the book is a fascinating look into how the private sector of chemical processing industry merged with government allowing legal monopolies to defeat medical freedom in the USA, in the early 1900s.
Send In The Waco Killers
by Vin Suprynowicz
This book will help define the problem of tyranny, for those who think that America is still a free country, with equality under the law. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years. This book is well worth reading to get everyone on the same page about what the most important problems are, as far as American liberty is concerned. The freedom movement is useless, unless it has clear solutions for those problems that can be implemented, starting now. This book contains arguments in favor of "jury nullification of law," specific examples of it, and an accurately-prioritized description of how the current legal system has been corrupted by the unconstitutional courtroom procedure of "voir dire" (prosecutorial jury-selection).
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine
by Clay Conrad
This book will show you your full power as a member of the jury, and how to exercise that power. It's an excellent overview of the largest and most important power-grabs made by government in the past 100 years, with a clear and detailed insight as to how to reverse them. You hold the power as a member of the Jury, you just need to reach out and claim it.
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice
by Paul Butler
Historically, juries exist to answer three questions: (1)Most importantly: Is the law in question legitimate? (2)Second most importantly: If legitimate, is it being fairly applied in this case? (3)Least important: Did the accused break the law? In addition to covering different areas of the topics covered in Conrad's book, this book argues for a compelling interpretation of point number two prior. This book makes a case for "political jury nullification," when justice systems refuse to apply legitimate laws evenly, against minorities. For example: In California at the turn of the century, there was a law that made it illegal for Chinese people to testify against white people in court, due to the prejudice whites had for the large numbers of Chinese railworker immigrants. So, civil rights activists encouraged white jurors not to convict chinese people of murder, until the situation changed (which it eventually did, due to the pressure put on the courts). Butler argues (with mountains of well-researched evidence) that the current war on drugs has always been racist, and seeks a similar solution. Well worth reading.
The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Volume II: The Methods of Nonviolent Action
by Gene Sharp
This book deals with eliminating the causes of tyranny by appealing to broad public opinion, using nonviolent tactics. This book will be especially useful for activists who are concerned with the problem that the freedom movement is seemingly "outgunned" by the government.
Works That Explain How Libertarian Movements Can and Have Succeeded:
Freedom for Alaskans
by Dick Randolph
A book about the prospect of electing libertarians to office in Alaska, the state with possibly the most inherently-libertarian demographics in the nation. In Alaska, from 1978-1982, there were more Libertarians elected (to offices capable of significantly expanding individual freedom) than there have been anywhere else, before or since. The result of this accomplishment (and the ballot access initiative promoted by Dick Randolph) is that it is illegal for Alaska to have a State income tax. If the Libertarian Party wants to replicate this accomplishment, then why don't they learn from the successes pioneered by Randolph? I understand why Libertarians place more emphasis on philosophy than strategy, but I strongly disagree with that emphasis. Both are essential to any legitimate freedom movement, as is this book.
The Triumph of Liberty: A 2,000 Year History Told Through the Lives of Freedom's Greatest Champions
by Jim Powell
A book precisely described by its subtitle. This book is a broad and general high-hierarchical level overview that allows people to see many avenues toward effectively advancing individual freedom. Most chapters are no more than 5 to 10 pages, but they are information-packed pages. "Triumph" introduces the reader to the people who advanced freedom the most rapidly, and briefly explores the strategies they used. This book serves as an excellent "starting point" for those who want to get a handle on how quickly the cause of individual liberty can be advanced, and what strategies are most likely to rapidly advance the cause of liberty. Some of the movements and individuals outlined in this book served to keep the ideas of liberty alive, others organized mass movements that directly reduced state interference with people's lives. Well worth reading for those who want to understand, historically, the answers to the questions, "What has expanded individual freedom the most?" and "What tactics work best to expand liberty?"
Top Futurist Works on Life Extension:
Fantastic Voyage
by Ray Kurzweil and Terry Grossman
Perhaps the best book on extending healthspan that currently exists. Contains the best up-to-date health information available, as well as information about how one can stay on top of emerging life-extension technology. This is the information and cellular-reprogramming approach to diet and health, par excellence. Contains a lot of information that is immediately useful, as well as a look at what is likely to come in both the short and long term. "Reprogramming Our Biochemistry for Immortality" Interview with Ray Kurzweil
Ending Aging
by Aubrey de Grey
The book "Ending Aging" deals with eliminating the causes of aging, beyond heart attack, cancer, and stroke (the big 3). Going far beyond extending healthspan, de Grey's book focuses on eliminating the buildup of cellular garbage that contributes to age-related decline in biological functioning. If you want to know whether this book contains information of interest to you, you should read de Grey's "Bootstrapping Our Way to an Ageless Future" (free online copy).
World Without Cancer
by G. Edward Griffin
In the age of Obama, we all need to individualize our personal approach to medicine, or allow the socialized government medical cartels to pump us full of patented pills. This phenomenal book explains how individuals can best prevent and possibly defeat cancer, using a simple, natural preventative diet, commonly found. The second half of the book is a fascinating look into how the private sector of chemical processing industry merged with government allowing legal monopolies to defeat medical freedom in the USA, in the early 1900s.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Stephen King Can Pay My "Fair Share" of Civic Duty. (And by "Civic Duty" I mean Warmongering, Property Theft and Destruction, Prohibition, Mass Murder, Civil Liberties Violation, and Economic Destruction...)
Stephen King claims that because he's rich, he should be taxed more. So, politically and economically, he's uneducated. Here's the link: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
King, I bought and read most of your books when I was in 6th grade, and I enjoyed them. ...But you don't know dick about politics, the Federal Reserve, or the way what's left of "America" really works. Have some respect for Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Frederick Douglass, and the long tradition of political nonaggression that came before you. Crack a book, read some Hayek, read some Harry Browne. Re-read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government." The opening paragraph could just as well be about the Mexican DRUG War, as the Mexican War Thoreau was discussing.
When it comes to government, you don't get to decide how your tax dollars are spent.
When it comes to the private sector, you can always "opt out."
You acknowledge that the last 4 administrations have been "anti-business." Then, you bitch about there not being enough "regulation." LOL! Regulation sidesteps that core foundation of American jurisprudence, THE JURY. We, the jury, to be precise. We, the randomly-selected (in rare instances when a proper jury is called and seated, without prosecutorial stacking in "voir dire") people, who comprise the 4th branch of government.
So, what does the government do for me, that the private sector cannot? NOTHING. I am poor, and I don't want to give one red cent to the government. It is insulting to you to assume that because you're so dumb you think you're getting a great deal from the government that someone who is less well off can't be better-informed about the value they're getting from their dollar in government services. If you want to pay more, YOU CAN.
And what will your tax dollar buy? It will firstly,. buy things you cannot choose NOT to buy. The government is not Burger King, and you don't get to pick and choose what you want. My tax dollar will go to put my friends in jail, for victimless crimes. It will go to enforce the drug and gun laws on a horribly racist and classist basis. It will go for foreign wars of aggression that do nothing to keep me safe, and everything to piss off insane theocrats on the other side of the globe. It will go to crappy government schools that do a far worse job of educating our young than WIKIpedia does --to the extent that not one person in 1,000 can tell me how the Federal Reserve functions, or how jury trials are supposed to function. My tax dollars will deny gays equal marriage rights, and will put sex stores out of business. My tax dollars will harass comic book artists like Mike Diana, and musicians like the Dead Kennedys, in the name of christian theocratic values that directly contradic the First Amendment to the US Constitution. My tax dollars will be pissed away on pork-barrel projects in every state, all of which are less efficient than any private-sector provision of services that comes with a price tag, and the option of voiding contract for nonproduction. In short, because government is coercion, and this nation walked away from the idea of "a government by consent" when it passed the Federal Reserve Act into law, government services do not need to be competitive in any way with private sector services.
So what did I miss? Oh yeah, the FDA claims the right to actively deny me life-saving treatments, so innocent people can die young and in terrible pain while moronic fucks like you complain that you --and everyone else-- are not being forcible deprived of enough of their income. Watch a youtube video where Stephen Badylak shows that his lab can regrow every human organ, and replace it surgically with adult stem cells, then listen to him talk about how the life-saving procedures are being held up by the FDA, which may or may not give us slaves PERMISSION to save our own lives with his procedures. ...Since when did a free people need permission to engage in risking their own lives in order to save them? Since when were manufacturers not allowed --by the First Amendment-- to print "sweetened with stevia" on food products? (1986, when Donald Rumsfeld's "Searle & Associates" successfully lobbied the FDA to destroy natural competitors to Nutrasweet, that's when! Result: 150,000 type II diabetics per year dead from bad diet and a scientifically incorrect food pyramid taught to them in gradeschool.) Since when did the FDA get the right to hold up AIDS research and development for years while Big Pharma milked the gay and African communities for their patented "slow death" drugs? They never had any right to do any of this.
If you pay one dollar extra in taxes, not only will I not commend you for your "civic duty," I'll spit on your good name for being a naive, willing dupe of powerful, sociopathic prohibitionists.
America is a nation where the collective isn't supposed to steal from the individual, nor bar the individualist from following his dreams. But that's what the U.S. government does. Then, it tries, in a half-assed manner to undo some small amount of the damage it itself caused, and its lapdog liberal "popular intellectuals" come to its defense like whipped dogs.
Go back to writing books about rabid dogs that just want to be obedient, it seems you know a lot more about that than what it means to hold an American ideology.
And while you're at it, don't bother taking out your checkbook to end the drug war, or the foreign wars, or to pay an insignificant amount of the $16T Federal Debt (not including untenable outstanding liabilities of over $58T). You're right: that won't solve the problem --just like even taxing 100% of your income wouldn't solve the problem. The only thing that would solve the problem would be you coming to your senses, and being one more voice of truth, telling the young to drop out of the system, withold their support, and begin building the parallel institutions that will leave the American Police State in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
Until then, ...we ask not your counsel, nor your arms.
King, I bought and read most of your books when I was in 6th grade, and I enjoyed them. ...But you don't know dick about politics, the Federal Reserve, or the way what's left of "America" really works. Have some respect for Henry David Thoreau, Lysander Spooner, Frederick Douglass, and the long tradition of political nonaggression that came before you. Crack a book, read some Hayek, read some Harry Browne. Re-read Thoreau's "Resistance to Civil Government." The opening paragraph could just as well be about the Mexican DRUG War, as the Mexican War Thoreau was discussing.
When it comes to government, you don't get to decide how your tax dollars are spent.
When it comes to the private sector, you can always "opt out."
You acknowledge that the last 4 administrations have been "anti-business." Then, you bitch about there not being enough "regulation." LOL! Regulation sidesteps that core foundation of American jurisprudence, THE JURY. We, the jury, to be precise. We, the randomly-selected (in rare instances when a proper jury is called and seated, without prosecutorial stacking in "voir dire") people, who comprise the 4th branch of government.
So, what does the government do for me, that the private sector cannot? NOTHING. I am poor, and I don't want to give one red cent to the government. It is insulting to you to assume that because you're so dumb you think you're getting a great deal from the government that someone who is less well off can't be better-informed about the value they're getting from their dollar in government services. If you want to pay more, YOU CAN.
And what will your tax dollar buy? It will firstly,. buy things you cannot choose NOT to buy. The government is not Burger King, and you don't get to pick and choose what you want. My tax dollar will go to put my friends in jail, for victimless crimes. It will go to enforce the drug and gun laws on a horribly racist and classist basis. It will go for foreign wars of aggression that do nothing to keep me safe, and everything to piss off insane theocrats on the other side of the globe. It will go to crappy government schools that do a far worse job of educating our young than WIKIpedia does --to the extent that not one person in 1,000 can tell me how the Federal Reserve functions, or how jury trials are supposed to function. My tax dollars will deny gays equal marriage rights, and will put sex stores out of business. My tax dollars will harass comic book artists like Mike Diana, and musicians like the Dead Kennedys, in the name of christian theocratic values that directly contradic the First Amendment to the US Constitution. My tax dollars will be pissed away on pork-barrel projects in every state, all of which are less efficient than any private-sector provision of services that comes with a price tag, and the option of voiding contract for nonproduction. In short, because government is coercion, and this nation walked away from the idea of "a government by consent" when it passed the Federal Reserve Act into law, government services do not need to be competitive in any way with private sector services.
So what did I miss? Oh yeah, the FDA claims the right to actively deny me life-saving treatments, so innocent people can die young and in terrible pain while moronic fucks like you complain that you --and everyone else-- are not being forcible deprived of enough of their income. Watch a youtube video where Stephen Badylak shows that his lab can regrow every human organ, and replace it surgically with adult stem cells, then listen to him talk about how the life-saving procedures are being held up by the FDA, which may or may not give us slaves PERMISSION to save our own lives with his procedures. ...Since when did a free people need permission to engage in risking their own lives in order to save them? Since when were manufacturers not allowed --by the First Amendment-- to print "sweetened with stevia" on food products? (1986, when Donald Rumsfeld's "Searle & Associates" successfully lobbied the FDA to destroy natural competitors to Nutrasweet, that's when! Result: 150,000 type II diabetics per year dead from bad diet and a scientifically incorrect food pyramid taught to them in gradeschool.) Since when did the FDA get the right to hold up AIDS research and development for years while Big Pharma milked the gay and African communities for their patented "slow death" drugs? They never had any right to do any of this.
If you pay one dollar extra in taxes, not only will I not commend you for your "civic duty," I'll spit on your good name for being a naive, willing dupe of powerful, sociopathic prohibitionists.
America is a nation where the collective isn't supposed to steal from the individual, nor bar the individualist from following his dreams. But that's what the U.S. government does. Then, it tries, in a half-assed manner to undo some small amount of the damage it itself caused, and its lapdog liberal "popular intellectuals" come to its defense like whipped dogs.
Go back to writing books about rabid dogs that just want to be obedient, it seems you know a lot more about that than what it means to hold an American ideology.
And while you're at it, don't bother taking out your checkbook to end the drug war, or the foreign wars, or to pay an insignificant amount of the $16T Federal Debt (not including untenable outstanding liabilities of over $58T). You're right: that won't solve the problem --just like even taxing 100% of your income wouldn't solve the problem. The only thing that would solve the problem would be you coming to your senses, and being one more voice of truth, telling the young to drop out of the system, withold their support, and begin building the parallel institutions that will leave the American Police State in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.
Until then, ...we ask not your counsel, nor your arms.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Undercutting the Racist Establishment
Ron Paul is heroic. I'm a middle aged person who would NEVER vote for any of the other mainstream false republicans. Incidentally, Ron Paul is right about getting his delegates on the ballot. If he does that, he's still a contender, because it can come down to him and Mitt "obviously unelectable" Romney, Newt "even less electable, death sentence for marijuana" Gingrich, or Rick "google santorum" Santorum. As soon as it's just 2 candidates, the other candidate will LOSE because distractions and lies don't work as well, when it's "mano e mano." Notice how Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich all favor the Federal Reserve system, the drug war, some form of individual tax on labor or consumption. Materially, they favor UNACCOUNTABLE SYSTEMS OF CONTROL.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who favors clear accountability, and clear limits on government.
That said, if Paul somehow doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for and contributing to R. J. Harris at http://www.rjharris2012.com R. J. Harris is a principled Ron Paul supporter who fully understands a decentralized strategy of promoting liberty based on jury rights activism: bringing the power of freedom directly to the individual, without even winning a single election. Check out Ron Paul's "Power to the Jury" speech on youtube for more information about how this is accomplished, or visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com or http://www.fija.org
One thing that Ron Paul could do to beat Romney and Obama would be to say that he'd consider Dr. Paul Butler (a Nationwide defender of jury nullification of law) to be his running mate. This would do several things:
1) It would force people to look up Dr. Paul Butler's website, and learn more about jury nullification of law, and how the drug war is racist. If people did this, there would be an instant debate over institutionalized racism.
2) It would make the establishment crap its pants in fear, because it would totally defeat arguments in favor of voting for Obama, if Obama did not instantly reverse course and follow through on his forgotten 2008 campaign promises on civil liberties. (Ending the CA and CO marijuana raids, etc..)
3) It would make Paul the ONLY viable contender against Obama from the Republican field. It would set Paul Butler up to whisper in Paul's ear on every issue where injustice is institutionalized, from an INSIDER's perspective. (Dr. Butler was a federal prosecutor, before he realized that moral people could not be prosecutors, having the integrity to then quit his job.)
4) It would definitively prove that Paul is not a racist, to those who won't let go of the newsletters made by infiltrators to his operation in the early 1990s.
5) It would make any criticism of Paul impossible, from those who know anything about anything, meaning, only the totally ignorant in society would be criticizing Paul. This is ALMOST the case right now, but it would increase this variable dramatically.
6) Some people have said that Jesse Ventura would be an insurance policy against assassination, because he's more radical than Paul. Well, Dr Paul Butler would be an even bigger "insurance policy" and it would be an insurance policy with a message: "No more victimless crime enforcement. No more institutionalized racism. Pardons for all victims of the unconstitutional, false-justice system. A black man who truly understands the issues black america faces today, who will do more than give lip service to issues of institutionalized racism in policing."
7) Obama would not be able to criticize one single move Paul made, from a position of legitimacy. This would set Dr. Butler free to pressure the whitehouse to do the right thing, or get booted from the whitehouse in November. That way, even if Paul lost against Obama, the changes would have already been made.
Again, Paul Butler's page is http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
I like these strategic ideas, because they ensure a large measure of victory, no matter the outcome of the elections (primary or general). Plus, they bring in giant new growth coalitions, that penetrate into society far, far, far deeper than the Republican primary alone can possibly reach. They also set Paul up to optimize a shift to the Libertarian Party, if he so desires.
Moreover, Dr. Paul Butler brings in civil libertarian Democrats by the score, by finally reaching those millions of Democrats for whom social tolerance is more important than socialist welfare projects.
Obviously, a conversation would need to be had between Paul and Dr. Butler, but it would be an unbelievably powerful coalition, with Dr. Butler making the rounds on the media. ...And even if it resulted in lost elections, it would result in dramatically more individual freedom, because it would result in a focus on the jury nullification of law message.
Now, I know it's not likely, given Dr. Butler's past (somewhat passive) support of social welfare programs, and given the likelihood of a Paul-Judge Andrew Napolitano run, if Paul got the GOP nomination. But it's still intriguing to me, because of the instant benefit it would confer to both parties, and to the message of liberty.
Feel free to copy and repost this post. This post has no copyright, but you can give me credit if you like. I want it to travel across the internet as a meme. "Undercutting the Establishment" Thanks, --Jake Witmer.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who favors clear accountability, and clear limits on government.
That said, if Paul somehow doesn't get the nomination, I'm voting for and contributing to R. J. Harris at http://www.rjharris2012.com R. J. Harris is a principled Ron Paul supporter who fully understands a decentralized strategy of promoting liberty based on jury rights activism: bringing the power of freedom directly to the individual, without even winning a single election. Check out Ron Paul's "Power to the Jury" speech on youtube for more information about how this is accomplished, or visit http://www.jurorsforjustice.com or http://www.fija.org
One thing that Ron Paul could do to beat Romney and Obama would be to say that he'd consider Dr. Paul Butler (a Nationwide defender of jury nullification of law) to be his running mate. This would do several things:
1) It would force people to look up Dr. Paul Butler's website, and learn more about jury nullification of law, and how the drug war is racist. If people did this, there would be an instant debate over institutionalized racism.
2) It would make the establishment crap its pants in fear, because it would totally defeat arguments in favor of voting for Obama, if Obama did not instantly reverse course and follow through on his forgotten 2008 campaign promises on civil liberties. (Ending the CA and CO marijuana raids, etc..)
3) It would make Paul the ONLY viable contender against Obama from the Republican field. It would set Paul Butler up to whisper in Paul's ear on every issue where injustice is institutionalized, from an INSIDER's perspective. (Dr. Butler was a federal prosecutor, before he realized that moral people could not be prosecutors, having the integrity to then quit his job.)
4) It would definitively prove that Paul is not a racist, to those who won't let go of the newsletters made by infiltrators to his operation in the early 1990s.
5) It would make any criticism of Paul impossible, from those who know anything about anything, meaning, only the totally ignorant in society would be criticizing Paul. This is ALMOST the case right now, but it would increase this variable dramatically.
6) Some people have said that Jesse Ventura would be an insurance policy against assassination, because he's more radical than Paul. Well, Dr Paul Butler would be an even bigger "insurance policy" and it would be an insurance policy with a message: "No more victimless crime enforcement. No more institutionalized racism. Pardons for all victims of the unconstitutional, false-justice system. A black man who truly understands the issues black america faces today, who will do more than give lip service to issues of institutionalized racism in policing."
7) Obama would not be able to criticize one single move Paul made, from a position of legitimacy. This would set Dr. Butler free to pressure the whitehouse to do the right thing, or get booted from the whitehouse in November. That way, even if Paul lost against Obama, the changes would have already been made.
Again, Paul Butler's page is http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
I like these strategic ideas, because they ensure a large measure of victory, no matter the outcome of the elections (primary or general). Plus, they bring in giant new growth coalitions, that penetrate into society far, far, far deeper than the Republican primary alone can possibly reach. They also set Paul up to optimize a shift to the Libertarian Party, if he so desires.
Moreover, Dr. Paul Butler brings in civil libertarian Democrats by the score, by finally reaching those millions of Democrats for whom social tolerance is more important than socialist welfare projects.
Obviously, a conversation would need to be had between Paul and Dr. Butler, but it would be an unbelievably powerful coalition, with Dr. Butler making the rounds on the media. ...And even if it resulted in lost elections, it would result in dramatically more individual freedom, because it would result in a focus on the jury nullification of law message.
Now, I know it's not likely, given Dr. Butler's past (somewhat passive) support of social welfare programs, and given the likelihood of a Paul-Judge Andrew Napolitano run, if Paul got the GOP nomination. But it's still intriguing to me, because of the instant benefit it would confer to both parties, and to the message of liberty.
Feel free to copy and repost this post. This post has no copyright, but you can give me credit if you like. I want it to travel across the internet as a meme. "Undercutting the Establishment" Thanks, --Jake Witmer.
Friday, January 13, 2012
The Most Important Court Case in the USA
http://www.activistpost.com/2012/01/activist-appeals-felony-ruling-for.html
If this court case is lost, then free political speech no longer exists in the USA. Watch the videos, pay close attention. If Mark Schmidter loses his case, we're all going to wake up the next day with no Bill of Rights. If you've ever wondered how the Weimar Republic caved in to nazism, it probably looked a lot like this.
If this court case is lost, then free political speech no longer exists in the USA. Watch the videos, pay close attention. If Mark Schmidter loses his case, we're all going to wake up the next day with no Bill of Rights. If you've ever wondered how the Weimar Republic caved in to nazism, it probably looked a lot like this.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Jury Nullification is the Solution to the Problem of Tyranny
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/22/montana-jury-marijuana-mutiny_n_800074.html
Ron Paul and R. J. Harris advocate jury nullification of law, as the proper constitutional remedy for overbearing government tyranny. Keep in mind that you're under no obligation to comply with answering intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) "voir dire" (jury selection) questions from the prosecutor when you're called as a juror. Also keep in mind you'd be stupid/servile to plea bargain with a prosecutor if a jury couldn't be seated. You're always stupid not to fight with 100% of everything you have. Never accept injustice.
Ron Paul and R. J. Harris advocate jury nullification of law, as the proper constitutional remedy for overbearing government tyranny. Keep in mind that you're under no obligation to comply with answering intellectually dishonest and unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) "voir dire" (jury selection) questions from the prosecutor when you're called as a juror. Also keep in mind you'd be stupid/servile to plea bargain with a prosecutor if a jury couldn't be seated. You're always stupid not to fight with 100% of everything you have. Never accept injustice.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Meme Programming That, Once it Reaches a Certain Threshold, Results in A Free Society:
In the middle 1600s, a generally-intelligent biological supercomputer began reproducing and serving up the jury rights programming to fellow generally-intelligent biological supercomputers known as "human brains." The supercomputer did this by speaking the programs in audible symbols, and hoping that the symbols or "words" would be translated into useful neo-cortical patterns, inside the receiving brains. The serving supercomputer's name was John Lilburne or "Freeborn John" and one of the receiving supercomputers was Richard Overton. These supercomputers called themselves "levellers" because they believed that everyone should have "level" or "equal" rights under the law.
The most powerful supercomputers on the planet are still human brains, but sometimes we forget that. Worse, we forget that what brains are programmed with are the most important software programs on the planet. They are the software programs that determine whether we will go to war, go to the gas chamber, or go to the market to purchase what we want and need, in order to live. We forget the heroic meme programming that has provided us all with the expectation of equality under the law.
This afternoon, I gathered several of my favorite book-format meme programs into my hands. It was a stack of books about six inches thick. The collective page count of the stack is 1,366 pages (308-We The Jury, 311-Jury Nullification, 213-Let's Get Free, 225-Adventures in Legal Land, 309-Nullification). I thought about the contents of each book, and how they form, taken together, both a complete political philosophy and the knowledge necessary to implement that philosophy, nationwide. It struck me that, if even 10% of the USA read and absorbed the contents of these books, the resulting USA would be totally libertarian. ...We would have our freedom.
...Even if the total number of libertarians in the USA was not increased.
This would mean that you could walk down the street carrying a .308 rifle as well as a concealed side-arm in Chicago, and have little to fear from the police. You could also advertise a restaurant with no food handling license in that same currently unfree American city (being free to suffer the negative press and lawsuits if you made anyone sick). You could put a dash of cocaine on your nail, and sniff it into your nose, or relax in a hash bar smoking a marijuana cigar, and noone could or would bother you. You could legally pay for sex, and not worry that the person you were paying would then participate in your brutalization and arrest. You could open a business without any money for lawyers to wade through the bureaucracy (although it might still be good to have their services as soon as you could afford it, to avoid aggressive lawsuits from accident or controversy). You could offer to defend anyone in a court of law, without being licensed by the BAR. When politicians came by, insinuating that 'bad things might happen to your business' if you didn't contribute to their campaigns, you could simply keep your money and tell them all to go to hell. And for the more productive citizens among us? They could make us all wealthier than Bill Gates by selling currently "unapproved" (that is, prohibited) medical treatments, without begging (currently witheld) permission from the FDA and AMA for doing so. Instead of our paper money going down in value, our gold-backed money would steadily rise in value, in direct proportion to the amount of human thought and labor, planet-wide. ...We would all be living healthy lifespans beyond age 120, in something that looks like a utopia compared to what we're now experiencing.
All of this would be the result of roughly 20% of the USA's citizens being made aware of the contents of this small stack of books, now sitting on my desk. (This assumes, in the manner of Pareto's law, that roughly 20% of those 20% ---that is, 4% of the total--- would become active supporters of organized jury rights activism in some way.) A meme can be defined as "an easily-transmissible idea" or "an easily-transmissible philosophical idea." Essentially, a meme is a software virus for the mind (bad), or a useful software program for the mind (good). Hence, the title of this post. Since there are roughly 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the USA, and the transmission of these ideas requires 2 "meme-serving" or "memenode" activists" per county courthouse (4 or more is better), if we estimate that there is one courthouse per county, we come up with a figure of 6,286 activists needed to make this plan functional.
The government school system has implanted bad memes in people's minds. The oversimplified views most people have of juries, generally constitute a "bad meme cluster." The impression that bad results emerge from juries (without the knowledge that those juries are judicially-misdirected and controlled) is another bad meme installed by government schoolteachers (or the authority and media figures they've programmed). These bad memes defend themselves, but only weakly. A presentation of the facts of history is generally enough to dislodge these views. Ultimately, a person's agreement with jury independence tends to revolve around their core beliefs: Is man always improving and making progress? Is the free individual worth protecting? If so, then the meme of jury rights clearly trumps the tyrant meme that believes judicially-instructed juries are optimal.
The book I am now in the process of writing adds strategic information to the material found in these books. It suggests a plan for getting the most useful information from those books into enough minds to result in exponentially-expanding jury nullification (to an appropriate level). (As jury nullification happens more and more frequently, it may become less necessary, because prosecutors may attempt to prosecute fewer victimless crime cases. Thus, the number of cases nullified always needs to be correlated to attempted victimless crime cases filed against defendants, in order to contain the most meaning, and be "spin proof.") This strategy will produce increases in liberty directly in proportion to activist effort. Until my book comes out, however, the following sources are the absolute most useful sources one can read.
So, if you wish to have a much greater degree of individual freedom, please seek out, purchase, and familiarize yourself with the following links:
Jury Rights Internet Links:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
--An essay that condenses the history of our lost jury rights
to something that fits on a single-page tri-fold pamphlet. This pamphlet should be handed out, outside of courthouses.
http://www.fija.org
--The Fully Informed Jury Association (Comprehensive Jury Rights Information)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s
1/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL)
(Congressman Ron Paul explains the power of individual members of the jury in this video. This video should be sent to anyone you know who will not read the books and online sources cited in this recommended reading list.)
http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
--Dr. Paul Butler's Jury Rights Activism website, "Jurors for Justice".
(A useful website that reveals the racism that always results from "mala prohibita," as well as a plan for its elimination.)
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35
--Abolitionist Lysander Spooner's "An Essay On the Trial by Jury"
(The abolitionist movement was the first pro-freedom movement in the USA to take advantage of jury rights activism. This brought on the Civil War, which then freed the slaves. Although the US government could have freed the slaves peacefully, by buying and then releasing them, the presence of informed Northern abolitionist juries made enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law impossible. Northern juries refused to punish free slaves, and thereby made slavery impossible to enforce, without walls and prisons capable of preventing slaves from running away, or being smuggled away.)
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html
--A groundbreaking essay that talks about how politicians are self-selected for sociopathy. This relates to jury rights because the jury is NOT self-selected for sociopathy --proper juries are RANDOM, and contain a random assortment of morally-normal or normally-conscienced people. This explains why juries trend toward benevolence, and politicians trend toward democide and injustice.
http://fija.org/download/40/
--"Surviving Voir Dire" by Clay Conrad (How to get seated on the jury, if you understand the importance of doing so, and don't want to be removed during the unconstitutional "voir dire" or "jury selection.")
reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
"The War On Cameras" --Radley Balko
(This groundbreaking article records the loss of freedom of the press in the USA. A free press [including the freedom to record video in public] is essential to the nonviolent spread of jury rights information. The state never gives up its right to record us in public, so if we don't have the equal right to record their agents, we lose the ability to prove ourselves innocent with exculpatory evidence of our own conduct. We also lose the ability to hold them accountable for incriminating evidence of their misconduct. While handing out jury rights information in front of local courthouses, it is therefore absolutely essential that you videotape what you are doing, and upload it to the net, and to interested media outlets. This amplifies your message, allowing it to reach places you cannot even imagine, online. When the police respond to you with force and threats, if they do so, they will look terrible, and lend sympathy to your cause. Since you get a free impression of credibility for dressing well while you are doing this, please wear a business suit [or nice dress if you are female] while handing out jury rights pamphlets. By presenting yourself well, in person and on video, you make the receivers of your message much more likely to engage in jury nullification, and that's the goal you are optimizing for. The more jury nullification, the more the establishment is forced to take your message seriously, and the less time they will wish to risk trying to prosecute innocent people.)
Essential Books:
The Triumph of Liberty --Jim Powell
(This book briefly covers the Lilburnian origin of English Jury Trials, and covers the major incremental advances in individual freedom through the prior 2,000 years. If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.)
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (1988) --Clay Conrad
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." Highly recommended.)
We, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (1994) --Jeffrey Abramson
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." There is significant overlap with the prior book on the same subject, but it also covers a great deal of new ground.)
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice --Dr. Paul Butler
(Covers new ground, in terms of jury nullification and jury rights outreach and activism. Definitely worth reading for the self-educated juror. Goes further into jury veto as a tool to be used against institutionalized racism than the other books do.)
Adventures in Legal Land --Marc Stevens
(A detailed explanation of the legal theory that is compatible with jury nullification, including a step-by-step explanation of a proper legal response to aggression from the courts. ie: Directions regarding what a pro se defendant should say, if he wants to increase his chances beyond throwing himself on the mercy of the jury. Absolutely essential for people who will risk arrest by performing organized and coordinated jury rights activism.)
Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century --Tom Woods
(Extending the defense of individual liberty into the political structure. In short, in stead of getting individuals to refuse to punish other individuals, this book shows how States can refuse to punish their citizens by rejecting federal law. This is the political extension of a libertarian society that has already embraced jury nullification of law.)
The most powerful supercomputers on the planet are still human brains, but sometimes we forget that. Worse, we forget that what brains are programmed with are the most important software programs on the planet. They are the software programs that determine whether we will go to war, go to the gas chamber, or go to the market to purchase what we want and need, in order to live. We forget the heroic meme programming that has provided us all with the expectation of equality under the law.
This afternoon, I gathered several of my favorite book-format meme programs into my hands. It was a stack of books about six inches thick. The collective page count of the stack is 1,366 pages (308-We The Jury, 311-Jury Nullification, 213-Let's Get Free, 225-Adventures in Legal Land, 309-Nullification). I thought about the contents of each book, and how they form, taken together, both a complete political philosophy and the knowledge necessary to implement that philosophy, nationwide. It struck me that, if even 10% of the USA read and absorbed the contents of these books, the resulting USA would be totally libertarian. ...We would have our freedom.
...Even if the total number of libertarians in the USA was not increased.
This would mean that you could walk down the street carrying a .308 rifle as well as a concealed side-arm in Chicago, and have little to fear from the police. You could also advertise a restaurant with no food handling license in that same currently unfree American city (being free to suffer the negative press and lawsuits if you made anyone sick). You could put a dash of cocaine on your nail, and sniff it into your nose, or relax in a hash bar smoking a marijuana cigar, and noone could or would bother you. You could legally pay for sex, and not worry that the person you were paying would then participate in your brutalization and arrest. You could open a business without any money for lawyers to wade through the bureaucracy (although it might still be good to have their services as soon as you could afford it, to avoid aggressive lawsuits from accident or controversy). You could offer to defend anyone in a court of law, without being licensed by the BAR. When politicians came by, insinuating that 'bad things might happen to your business' if you didn't contribute to their campaigns, you could simply keep your money and tell them all to go to hell. And for the more productive citizens among us? They could make us all wealthier than Bill Gates by selling currently "unapproved" (that is, prohibited) medical treatments, without begging (currently witheld) permission from the FDA and AMA for doing so. Instead of our paper money going down in value, our gold-backed money would steadily rise in value, in direct proportion to the amount of human thought and labor, planet-wide. ...We would all be living healthy lifespans beyond age 120, in something that looks like a utopia compared to what we're now experiencing.
All of this would be the result of roughly 20% of the USA's citizens being made aware of the contents of this small stack of books, now sitting on my desk. (This assumes, in the manner of Pareto's law, that roughly 20% of those 20% ---that is, 4% of the total--- would become active supporters of organized jury rights activism in some way.) A meme can be defined as "an easily-transmissible idea" or "an easily-transmissible philosophical idea." Essentially, a meme is a software virus for the mind (bad), or a useful software program for the mind (good). Hence, the title of this post. Since there are roughly 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the USA, and the transmission of these ideas requires 2 "meme-serving" or "memenode" activists" per county courthouse (4 or more is better), if we estimate that there is one courthouse per county, we come up with a figure of 6,286 activists needed to make this plan functional.
The government school system has implanted bad memes in people's minds. The oversimplified views most people have of juries, generally constitute a "bad meme cluster." The impression that bad results emerge from juries (without the knowledge that those juries are judicially-misdirected and controlled) is another bad meme installed by government schoolteachers (or the authority and media figures they've programmed). These bad memes defend themselves, but only weakly. A presentation of the facts of history is generally enough to dislodge these views. Ultimately, a person's agreement with jury independence tends to revolve around their core beliefs: Is man always improving and making progress? Is the free individual worth protecting? If so, then the meme of jury rights clearly trumps the tyrant meme that believes judicially-instructed juries are optimal.
The book I am now in the process of writing adds strategic information to the material found in these books. It suggests a plan for getting the most useful information from those books into enough minds to result in exponentially-expanding jury nullification (to an appropriate level). (As jury nullification happens more and more frequently, it may become less necessary, because prosecutors may attempt to prosecute fewer victimless crime cases. Thus, the number of cases nullified always needs to be correlated to attempted victimless crime cases filed against defendants, in order to contain the most meaning, and be "spin proof.") This strategy will produce increases in liberty directly in proportion to activist effort. Until my book comes out, however, the following sources are the absolute most useful sources one can read.
So, if you wish to have a much greater degree of individual freedom, please seek out, purchase, and familiarize yourself with the following links:
Jury Rights Internet Links:
http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
--An essay that condenses the history of our lost jury rights
to something that fits on a single-page tri-fold pamphlet. This pamphlet should be handed out, outside of courthouses.
http://www.fija.org
--The Fully Informed Jury Association (Comprehensive Jury Rights Information)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pA4GKG__B-s
1/3 Ron Paul presents "Power to the Jury" At Issue (NEFL)
(Congressman Ron Paul explains the power of individual members of the jury in this video. This video should be sent to anyone you know who will not read the books and online sources cited in this recommended reading list.)
http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
--Dr. Paul Butler's Jury Rights Activism website, "Jurors for Justice".
(A useful website that reveals the racism that always results from "mala prohibita," as well as a plan for its elimination.)
http://lysanderspooner.org/node/35
--Abolitionist Lysander Spooner's "An Essay On the Trial by Jury"
(The abolitionist movement was the first pro-freedom movement in the USA to take advantage of jury rights activism. This brought on the Civil War, which then freed the slaves. Although the US government could have freed the slaves peacefully, by buying and then releasing them, the presence of informed Northern abolitionist juries made enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law impossible. Northern juries refused to punish free slaves, and thereby made slavery impossible to enforce, without walls and prisons capable of preventing slaves from running away, or being smuggled away.)
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/groves/groves1.html
--A groundbreaking essay that talks about how politicians are self-selected for sociopathy. This relates to jury rights because the jury is NOT self-selected for sociopathy --proper juries are RANDOM, and contain a random assortment of morally-normal or normally-conscienced people. This explains why juries trend toward benevolence, and politicians trend toward democide and injustice.
http://fija.org/download/40/
--"Surviving Voir Dire" by Clay Conrad (How to get seated on the jury, if you understand the importance of doing so, and don't want to be removed during the unconstitutional "voir dire" or "jury selection.")
reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/the-war-on-cameras
"The War On Cameras" --Radley Balko
(This groundbreaking article records the loss of freedom of the press in the USA. A free press [including the freedom to record video in public] is essential to the nonviolent spread of jury rights information. The state never gives up its right to record us in public, so if we don't have the equal right to record their agents, we lose the ability to prove ourselves innocent with exculpatory evidence of our own conduct. We also lose the ability to hold them accountable for incriminating evidence of their misconduct. While handing out jury rights information in front of local courthouses, it is therefore absolutely essential that you videotape what you are doing, and upload it to the net, and to interested media outlets. This amplifies your message, allowing it to reach places you cannot even imagine, online. When the police respond to you with force and threats, if they do so, they will look terrible, and lend sympathy to your cause. Since you get a free impression of credibility for dressing well while you are doing this, please wear a business suit [or nice dress if you are female] while handing out jury rights pamphlets. By presenting yourself well, in person and on video, you make the receivers of your message much more likely to engage in jury nullification, and that's the goal you are optimizing for. The more jury nullification, the more the establishment is forced to take your message seriously, and the less time they will wish to risk trying to prosecute innocent people.)
Essential Books:
The Triumph of Liberty --Jim Powell
(This book briefly covers the Lilburnian origin of English Jury Trials, and covers the major incremental advances in individual freedom through the prior 2,000 years. If you don't know history, you are doomed to repeat it.)
Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine (1988) --Clay Conrad
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." Highly recommended.)
We, The Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy (1994) --Jeffrey Abramson
(This book examines, in detail, the doctrine of jury nullification of law, also known as "jury veto." There is significant overlap with the prior book on the same subject, but it also covers a great deal of new ground.)
Let's Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice --Dr. Paul Butler
(Covers new ground, in terms of jury nullification and jury rights outreach and activism. Definitely worth reading for the self-educated juror. Goes further into jury veto as a tool to be used against institutionalized racism than the other books do.)
Adventures in Legal Land --Marc Stevens
(A detailed explanation of the legal theory that is compatible with jury nullification, including a step-by-step explanation of a proper legal response to aggression from the courts. ie: Directions regarding what a pro se defendant should say, if he wants to increase his chances beyond throwing himself on the mercy of the jury. Absolutely essential for people who will risk arrest by performing organized and coordinated jury rights activism.)
Nullification: How To Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century --Tom Woods
(Extending the defense of individual liberty into the political structure. In short, in stead of getting individuals to refuse to punish other individuals, this book shows how States can refuse to punish their citizens by rejecting federal law. This is the political extension of a libertarian society that has already embraced jury nullification of law.)
Monday, July 4, 2011
We All Celebrate the 4th of July for Different Reasons: Why I Celebrate
Some otherwise fine and decent people have recently complained about fireworks, on their facebook pages, not being the type who like loud noises.
In my home state of IL, there are leech-like government parasites twenty levels deep in every area of human endeavor. Yet, the poor and middle class mexicans in my neighborhood have the balls to set off totally illegal fireworks, in open defiance of their illegality. This DOES, in fact, send an important message to our police state, and the police who enforce it: "This far, but no further."
And this heroic sentiment is why the gadsden flag is flying outside my residence, this 4th.
The louder and more illegal the display, the more resolutely the busybodies are being told (and shown): "THIS FAR, AND NO FURTHER. ...YOUR TIME IS GOING TO COME."
And when I'm asked why I'm blowing things up, there are a few different answers I might give:
1) I'm celebrating the last time that people openly gunned down police and politicians in North America, and got away with it.
2) I'm celebrating the Camden 28's jury, that set them free for the destruction of government draft cards, in open defiance of the law. The jury found that the draft cards were "property that had no right to exist." (If only they had made that discovery before 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam!) ...I'm also celebrating every other jury that had the balls to resolutely hold fast to a vote of "not guilty" even though the accused had clearly broken the law --setting an innocent person free, even though the prosecutor and judge had violated all of their rights, trying to pressure them into sending an innocent person to an undeserved punishment.
We all celebrate for different reasons. Some legitimate, others less so.
The high treason that has reduced our freedom and our lifespans so horribly sometimes makes it unclear that we have this remaining freedom. Government (and government-protected cartels') interference with medical freedom has cut all of our healthspans in half. Restrictions on basic property rights abound in every state. Our paper money makes us all indentured serfs of the Federal Reserve.
...But so long as we're alive, there is freedom to choose, and freedom to act.
We should never forget that it can get a lot worse, and it WILL get a lot worse, if we don't stand up for ourselves, and draw a line in the sand.
The earth-shattering, window-pane-rattling, bang of a "concussion grenade" (an airborn M-80) exploding 150 feet in the air is a wonderful reminder of what it sounds like when a .308 round is fired from a rifle at close range.
...It's a fearful sound. Let the politicians cringe, indoors. Let them bemoan the fact that the public is not minding their bogus laws.
And let the common man realize that the laws are written to be enforced selectively. Let him look up the amount of prison time that he could receive for the things he's done today. Let him figure out that his bloated and unconstitutional government is not his friend.
And let him make a private, personal, patriotic oath to himself:
1) The redcoats will never take me alive.
2) If I am called for jury duty, I will tell the prosecutor what they want to hear, and I will be seated on the jury. I will then absolutely refuse to convict anyone who has not aggressed against another person. I will vote "not guilty", even if it means that the jury is hung.
3) And, there is that one thing, that one line which the state may not cross. That private line is known only to me. That line is different for every man, but every man has such a line. Well, I am a man, and I know where my line in the sand is. If that line is crossed, I will declare war, and no force on earth will stop me from extracting my revenge on those responsible.
So, in my opinion, the Fourth of July is a good reminder that in order for true freedom to exist, THINGS MUST GO BANG!
In my home state of IL, there are leech-like government parasites twenty levels deep in every area of human endeavor. Yet, the poor and middle class mexicans in my neighborhood have the balls to set off totally illegal fireworks, in open defiance of their illegality. This DOES, in fact, send an important message to our police state, and the police who enforce it: "This far, but no further."
And this heroic sentiment is why the gadsden flag is flying outside my residence, this 4th.
The louder and more illegal the display, the more resolutely the busybodies are being told (and shown): "THIS FAR, AND NO FURTHER. ...YOUR TIME IS GOING TO COME."
And when I'm asked why I'm blowing things up, there are a few different answers I might give:
1) I'm celebrating the last time that people openly gunned down police and politicians in North America, and got away with it.
2) I'm celebrating the Camden 28's jury, that set them free for the destruction of government draft cards, in open defiance of the law. The jury found that the draft cards were "property that had no right to exist." (If only they had made that discovery before 58,000 Americans died in Vietnam!) ...I'm also celebrating every other jury that had the balls to resolutely hold fast to a vote of "not guilty" even though the accused had clearly broken the law --setting an innocent person free, even though the prosecutor and judge had violated all of their rights, trying to pressure them into sending an innocent person to an undeserved punishment.
We all celebrate for different reasons. Some legitimate, others less so.
The high treason that has reduced our freedom and our lifespans so horribly sometimes makes it unclear that we have this remaining freedom. Government (and government-protected cartels') interference with medical freedom has cut all of our healthspans in half. Restrictions on basic property rights abound in every state. Our paper money makes us all indentured serfs of the Federal Reserve.
...But so long as we're alive, there is freedom to choose, and freedom to act.
We should never forget that it can get a lot worse, and it WILL get a lot worse, if we don't stand up for ourselves, and draw a line in the sand.
The earth-shattering, window-pane-rattling, bang of a "concussion grenade" (an airborn M-80) exploding 150 feet in the air is a wonderful reminder of what it sounds like when a .308 round is fired from a rifle at close range.
...It's a fearful sound. Let the politicians cringe, indoors. Let them bemoan the fact that the public is not minding their bogus laws.
And let the common man realize that the laws are written to be enforced selectively. Let him look up the amount of prison time that he could receive for the things he's done today. Let him figure out that his bloated and unconstitutional government is not his friend.
And let him make a private, personal, patriotic oath to himself:
1) The redcoats will never take me alive.
2) If I am called for jury duty, I will tell the prosecutor what they want to hear, and I will be seated on the jury. I will then absolutely refuse to convict anyone who has not aggressed against another person. I will vote "not guilty", even if it means that the jury is hung.
3) And, there is that one thing, that one line which the state may not cross. That private line is known only to me. That line is different for every man, but every man has such a line. Well, I am a man, and I know where my line in the sand is. If that line is crossed, I will declare war, and no force on earth will stop me from extracting my revenge on those responsible.
So, in my opinion, the Fourth of July is a good reminder that in order for true freedom to exist, THINGS MUST GO BANG!
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Instruction Set For Winning Increased Individual Freedom
1) Read this essay: http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
2) Print out (or order for five cents apiece) as many copies of the above pamphlet as you can, and hand them out to other people. You've achieved a minor success when you've fully communicated the following facts to even one person:
(a) America currently doesn't have proper, constitutional jury trials, and that has caused every other tyranny that once existed and currently exists, from Southern chattel slavery, to our current enslavement to fiat currency, to the drug war, to gun control, to the bailout of the big bankers and the federal debt. (A rigged federal jury recently found Bernard von Nothaus guilty of offering an alternative to paper money.)
(b) American jury trials were gradually weakened by a series of changes that allowed judges and prosecutors to punish vastly more people, in 5 major ways. (outlined below)
(c) You need to withhold information about yourself during jury selection, or be willing to give unclear answers to State prosecutors, in order to counteract the destruction of the jury system. (This is not dishonest, because the destruction of the system to its current state has made the trial system itself into a lie. Lying to avoid detection of an unjust violation of your privacy is not a lie at all --it is a failure or rejection of subjecting yourself to immoral compulsion.)
3) Spreading this information to at least 1 in 12 potential jurors is all that is necessary to reinstate justice in your local area. After your local area is secure, you can safely expand outward to additional territory, by driving to neighboring courthouses or districts.
4) #3 can be done door-to-door in your area, or it can be done in front of your local courthouse. If this activity is done in front of your local courthouse, you need to have someone videotape it, and you should also be videotaping it yourself (unless you are in one of the states where the first amendment right to gather exculpatory evidence is now illegal, such as IL, MA, or MD). When, not if, you are threatened with arrest and/or arrested, you will be much better off if you can generate a lot of public sympathy and attention with video proof that you did nothing wrong. In the states where it is illegal to videotape government employees, you risk being charged with felony violation of their right to privacy, and lacking evidence to exonerate your conduct, the witness against you will all be authority figures, and your jury will be prosecution-selected conformists. The judge and prosecutor will dismiss all independent-thinking nonconformists from your jury during "voir dire".
100% of the battle for individual liberty is the battle to reinstate proper jury trials in the USA. Most people can’t name the 6 major ways jury trials have been eroded, and hence, they are simply tools of tyranny. [[1-"voir dire" "prosecutorial jury selection" (1851-present), 2-licensing of lawyers (1832-present), 3-false judicial instruction of jurors (1895-present), 4-silencing of constitutional arguments with threat of "contempt of court" citations and "motions in limine" (gag orders) 1800s-present, 5-high pressure plea bargains combined with the threat of cruel and unusual punishment if they are not taken "carrot and stick" greatly increased from 1970s-present with the "war on (some) drugs"), 6-the loss of access to the grand jury by the general public.]]
Until we regain control of our court system (and then education system), we will be more tyrannized than the early American colonists were, under King George III. What is necessary is localized jury rights activism in all 50 states. 10% of the membership of the libertarian Party is now roughly 4,000 people (and growing, thanks to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential run). There are 3,143 counties (including “boroughs” in AK, and “parishes” in LA) in the USA.
Now, let’s say that 1/10 of that membership wanted to get serious about winning individual freedom, and –not knowing anything about how to actually win that individual freedom themselves– they decided to hire a number equivalent to 10% of themselves who did know something about that subject. That would be 40 people, paid to win individual freedom for the USA. That's a manageable number, of young single people (males are slightly less effective at outreach than females, but they are more likely to put in long hours, and stick with with the activism over the course of a year or so).
Let’s say it takes 2-3 people per courthouse to “interfere with” the prosecution of victimless crimes. (My experience has borne this out. One person must videotape the attempted violation of free speech, covertly, while the other person verbally engages the public.) Let’s say it costs around $150/month for a 4G data plan that will stream video of this interaction to a server. Let’s say it costs $3,000 for a car, $200/month in auto insurance, $40 gas per day (since this can’t happen right away, and many counties are rural, gas costs will be inflated to around $270 per week by the time this plan is put into effect, with $250 for each change of venue), and $300 per week for a motel.
OK. 40 people isn’t enough for the entire USA, all at once. But it is enough for any given low population State. A sortable list of average county populations is given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_%28United_States%29
There are two ways a county’s jury rights activism can be organized:
1) selecting for people who are being tyrannized + people who show up for jury duty who are being asked to tyrannize them. (people who show up to the courthouse)
2) gradually reaching every single person in the entire county, door-to-door. (This has the added benefit that territory can be won according to political districts –from city council districts and then mayor, then county districts, and then State legislature. Once a 51% majority has been won on the state legislature, the governor’s race can be won, and nonviolent offenders can be reliably pardoned, and federal statutes can be nullified. Unfortunately, this approach costs more, and likely takes longer to reach emergent order, unless the county population is small. For ultra-low county populations, such as SD, ND, and Loving County, TX this might be the way to go.)
The “Free State Project” (a plan to move 20,000 libertarian freedom-lovers to one state, and take over its government) is therefore an admirable idea. But there are severe problems with it: NH (the state chosen) has the largest state legislature in the entire nation (over 400 seats!). Also, libertarianism is not likely to ever “take off” there, because most people are bigots who support what they (correctly or incorrectly) perceive to be “the status quo”. (And the culture of tyranny and corruption –that is, state employment– are both very great in NH.) A return to the actual jury system of the USA –upon showing people how it’s been subverted by judges and prosecutors– is somewhat more likely than a political return to individual liberty on an issue-by-issue basis at the polls (which require 51% to win, and the more pro-freedom positions a candidate has, the less likely he is to win).
But on any individual issue, at least one person in 12 is highly likely to disagree with unnecessary punishment of another individual (unless that individual actually did violate someone else’s rights).
To that end, here are some excellent websites, pamphlets, and fliers you can download and use to spread the message in your area:
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
—Again, what I consider to be the best pamphlet to show the average specimen of Boobus americanus (H.L. Mencken's term for the uninformed American submitizen) that he is no longer living under a constitutional government.
http://www.fija.org
—Comprehensive knowledge and hundreds of links about the rights, duties, and power of the jury.
http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
–An emphasis on how the openly racist “war on (some) drugs” has destroyed the African American Community, and how jury rights activism can reverse this sad, sad trend in the USA.
The United States is –like the failed German Weimar Republic– a doomed church of state. People now hold government as a solution to problems, without recognizing that government, by its nature is coercive (since you cannot "opt out" or refuse to financially support it. Even if you make no payments whatsoever, and all your transactions are black market, you still support the government with your labor, by allowing them to inflate the currency supply.). Without recognition of the prior facts, and correction of the situation those facts describe, the system will trend toward sociopathy, over time, as it has. Since we’ve had 131 years of government “education” of our young (when they tend to uncritically accept what they’ve been told), our system is now completely corrupt (history and philosophy, including jury rights, are no longer taught in the government schools).
Luckily, as tech-philosopher Kevin Kelly notes, “A system is anything that talks to itself”. Systems tend to self-correct, or self-destroy. They remain in motion, (or cycle in motion, as even a stupid system such as a toilet does) caused by continual communication (feedback). The smarter the system, the more complex the interaction of the system nodes. (Flocks of birds with birds reacting to the birds around them, are intelligent. Human brains’ neocortices reacting to neurons around them are vastly more intelligent still, especially when they are highly-self-educated with directed feedback. Superhuman intelligences modeled on neocortices will be vastly more intelligent still, since they will not be limited by cranium space.)
The Lilburnian (Jeffersonian, in the USA) jury system exhibits a wonderful emergent order. It is an emergent order that allows human compassion and forgiveness. It is anarchic, because it places the government below optimal human intelligence and judgment (See movie: “12 Angry Men”). Proper juries exhibit remarkable intelligence.
But right now, in the USA, proper juries don’t exist. That’s the one single problem that allows all other manners of tyranny and oppression to exist. When we solve that problem, all the other problems will solve themselves.
Do you really think that if juries existed, for instance, not one in 12 people would sympathize with peaceful ownership of firearms or marijuana? The USA currently has 2.4 million people in prison, with 73% of them there for first time nonviolent drug offenses (according to former NM governor Gary Johnson, in his radio interview with Free Talk Live).
2) Print out (or order for five cents apiece) as many copies of the above pamphlet as you can, and hand them out to other people. You've achieved a minor success when you've fully communicated the following facts to even one person:
(a) America currently doesn't have proper, constitutional jury trials, and that has caused every other tyranny that once existed and currently exists, from Southern chattel slavery, to our current enslavement to fiat currency, to the drug war, to gun control, to the bailout of the big bankers and the federal debt. (A rigged federal jury recently found Bernard von Nothaus guilty of offering an alternative to paper money.)
(b) American jury trials were gradually weakened by a series of changes that allowed judges and prosecutors to punish vastly more people, in 5 major ways. (outlined below)
(c) You need to withhold information about yourself during jury selection, or be willing to give unclear answers to State prosecutors, in order to counteract the destruction of the jury system. (This is not dishonest, because the destruction of the system to its current state has made the trial system itself into a lie. Lying to avoid detection of an unjust violation of your privacy is not a lie at all --it is a failure or rejection of subjecting yourself to immoral compulsion.)
3) Spreading this information to at least 1 in 12 potential jurors is all that is necessary to reinstate justice in your local area. After your local area is secure, you can safely expand outward to additional territory, by driving to neighboring courthouses or districts.
4) #3 can be done door-to-door in your area, or it can be done in front of your local courthouse. If this activity is done in front of your local courthouse, you need to have someone videotape it, and you should also be videotaping it yourself (unless you are in one of the states where the first amendment right to gather exculpatory evidence is now illegal, such as IL, MA, or MD). When, not if, you are threatened with arrest and/or arrested, you will be much better off if you can generate a lot of public sympathy and attention with video proof that you did nothing wrong. In the states where it is illegal to videotape government employees, you risk being charged with felony violation of their right to privacy, and lacking evidence to exonerate your conduct, the witness against you will all be authority figures, and your jury will be prosecution-selected conformists. The judge and prosecutor will dismiss all independent-thinking nonconformists from your jury during "voir dire".
100% of the battle for individual liberty is the battle to reinstate proper jury trials in the USA. Most people can’t name the 6 major ways jury trials have been eroded, and hence, they are simply tools of tyranny. [[1-"voir dire" "prosecutorial jury selection" (1851-present), 2-licensing of lawyers (1832-present), 3-false judicial instruction of jurors (1895-present), 4-silencing of constitutional arguments with threat of "contempt of court" citations and "motions in limine" (gag orders) 1800s-present, 5-high pressure plea bargains combined with the threat of cruel and unusual punishment if they are not taken "carrot and stick" greatly increased from 1970s-present with the "war on (some) drugs"), 6-the loss of access to the grand jury by the general public.]]
Until we regain control of our court system (and then education system), we will be more tyrannized than the early American colonists were, under King George III. What is necessary is localized jury rights activism in all 50 states. 10% of the membership of the libertarian Party is now roughly 4,000 people (and growing, thanks to Ron Paul's 2008 presidential run). There are 3,143 counties (including “boroughs” in AK, and “parishes” in LA) in the USA.
Now, let’s say that 1/10 of that membership wanted to get serious about winning individual freedom, and –not knowing anything about how to actually win that individual freedom themselves– they decided to hire a number equivalent to 10% of themselves who did know something about that subject. That would be 40 people, paid to win individual freedom for the USA. That's a manageable number, of young single people (males are slightly less effective at outreach than females, but they are more likely to put in long hours, and stick with with the activism over the course of a year or so).
Let’s say it takes 2-3 people per courthouse to “interfere with” the prosecution of victimless crimes. (My experience has borne this out. One person must videotape the attempted violation of free speech, covertly, while the other person verbally engages the public.) Let’s say it costs around $150/month for a 4G data plan that will stream video of this interaction to a server. Let’s say it costs $3,000 for a car, $200/month in auto insurance, $40 gas per day (since this can’t happen right away, and many counties are rural, gas costs will be inflated to around $270 per week by the time this plan is put into effect, with $250 for each change of venue), and $300 per week for a motel.
OK. 40 people isn’t enough for the entire USA, all at once. But it is enough for any given low population State. A sortable list of average county populations is given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_%28United_States%29
There are two ways a county’s jury rights activism can be organized:
1) selecting for people who are being tyrannized + people who show up for jury duty who are being asked to tyrannize them. (people who show up to the courthouse)
2) gradually reaching every single person in the entire county, door-to-door. (This has the added benefit that territory can be won according to political districts –from city council districts and then mayor, then county districts, and then State legislature. Once a 51% majority has been won on the state legislature, the governor’s race can be won, and nonviolent offenders can be reliably pardoned, and federal statutes can be nullified. Unfortunately, this approach costs more, and likely takes longer to reach emergent order, unless the county population is small. For ultra-low county populations, such as SD, ND, and Loving County, TX this might be the way to go.)
The “Free State Project” (a plan to move 20,000 libertarian freedom-lovers to one state, and take over its government) is therefore an admirable idea. But there are severe problems with it: NH (the state chosen) has the largest state legislature in the entire nation (over 400 seats!). Also, libertarianism is not likely to ever “take off” there, because most people are bigots who support what they (correctly or incorrectly) perceive to be “the status quo”. (And the culture of tyranny and corruption –that is, state employment– are both very great in NH.) A return to the actual jury system of the USA –upon showing people how it’s been subverted by judges and prosecutors– is somewhat more likely than a political return to individual liberty on an issue-by-issue basis at the polls (which require 51% to win, and the more pro-freedom positions a candidate has, the less likely he is to win).
But on any individual issue, at least one person in 12 is highly likely to disagree with unnecessary punishment of another individual (unless that individual actually did violate someone else’s rights).
To that end, here are some excellent websites, pamphlets, and fliers you can download and use to spread the message in your area:
http://isil.org/resources/lit/history-jury-null.html
—Again, what I consider to be the best pamphlet to show the average specimen of Boobus americanus (H.L. Mencken's term for the uninformed American submitizen) that he is no longer living under a constitutional government.
http://www.fija.org
—Comprehensive knowledge and hundreds of links about the rights, duties, and power of the jury.
http://www.jurorsforjustice.com
–An emphasis on how the openly racist “war on (some) drugs” has destroyed the African American Community, and how jury rights activism can reverse this sad, sad trend in the USA.
The United States is –like the failed German Weimar Republic– a doomed church of state. People now hold government as a solution to problems, without recognizing that government, by its nature is coercive (since you cannot "opt out" or refuse to financially support it. Even if you make no payments whatsoever, and all your transactions are black market, you still support the government with your labor, by allowing them to inflate the currency supply.). Without recognition of the prior facts, and correction of the situation those facts describe, the system will trend toward sociopathy, over time, as it has. Since we’ve had 131 years of government “education” of our young (when they tend to uncritically accept what they’ve been told), our system is now completely corrupt (history and philosophy, including jury rights, are no longer taught in the government schools).
Luckily, as tech-philosopher Kevin Kelly notes, “A system is anything that talks to itself”. Systems tend to self-correct, or self-destroy. They remain in motion, (or cycle in motion, as even a stupid system such as a toilet does) caused by continual communication (feedback). The smarter the system, the more complex the interaction of the system nodes. (Flocks of birds with birds reacting to the birds around them, are intelligent. Human brains’ neocortices reacting to neurons around them are vastly more intelligent still, especially when they are highly-self-educated with directed feedback. Superhuman intelligences modeled on neocortices will be vastly more intelligent still, since they will not be limited by cranium space.)
The Lilburnian (Jeffersonian, in the USA) jury system exhibits a wonderful emergent order. It is an emergent order that allows human compassion and forgiveness. It is anarchic, because it places the government below optimal human intelligence and judgment (See movie: “12 Angry Men”). Proper juries exhibit remarkable intelligence.
But right now, in the USA, proper juries don’t exist. That’s the one single problem that allows all other manners of tyranny and oppression to exist. When we solve that problem, all the other problems will solve themselves.
Do you really think that if juries existed, for instance, not one in 12 people would sympathize with peaceful ownership of firearms or marijuana? The USA currently has 2.4 million people in prison, with 73% of them there for first time nonviolent drug offenses (according to former NM governor Gary Johnson, in his radio interview with Free Talk Live).
Monday, April 13, 2009
A Review of Marc Stevens' Speech "Delusions", "Opinions" Vs. "Facts"
I want to link you to the uncut truth. Go to http://marcstevens.net and watch "Delusions".
Now then, understand that I am not as critical of electoral politicians as some people are. I understand that there is good that can be done using counter-systemic psychology, among the voting masses.
To some of you who are receiving this, Marc Stevens' speech might be painful, to others, cathartic, to others, an annoyance.
I understand the idea of the Constitution, and of declaring war. I get it. Al qaeda is an external threat. But they can't get to me very well, unless it's because the internal threats to my freedom have won, making my country weak and servile.
In truth, like all anarchists, I have no country.
...The only war I can believe in is a personal war.
Nature is anarchist, human action is the best when it is libertarian and decentralized.
If you don't like Marc Stevens, it would help to read "No Treason: the constitution of no authority" at LysanderSpooner.org
and perhaps
"Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave" by Frederick Douglass.
Douglass was born into literal Southern Slavery. He taught himself to read and write, under the penalty of death. He had to pretend to be a happy slave for years, (happy to be allowed to keep some of his money, but not most of it) until he had saved enough money to escape.
Now that we are all slaves of the Federal Reserve, we are in a similar, though more
comfortable situation.
We have freedom of some choice, but not true freedom. Do we risk what we have, or press onward to find out what we've been missing?
We are allowed to keep a small piece of what we earn, and are expected to not
complain that we give the vast majority of it away. It helps to know that the
government is not stupid, and at the actual top, it is not bureaucratic and
slow-moving.
You get as much money as you can, but just as easily, your claim on that money
can be targeted, since there is no law. Or, if it appears that many slaves similar
to you have gotten the same idea, a "financial crisis" can be manufactured.
Most people only realize this when they start to try to fight the law, and see
that they are, instead, fighting a pledge of allegiance (an emotional part of the mind of a million slaves).
And that's the real battle. The battle against conformity. Libertarian anarchism
is what the nonconformist subscribes to, once the illusions and chains of irrational
belief are lifted.
Let's just imagine that the USA was free, and that there was no state.
Would it be pretty obvious that people should learn how to defend themselves?
Would "front sight" rifle and pistol training academy have more or fewer students?
More, I would guess. And they would be vastly better prepared for violence than
the average citizen is. Moreover, they would have gone through more rounds of
ammunition than even military marksmen go through. (Parasitism doesn't pay as well as the earnings of a strong host. It is always less. The tape worms in the lion's guts don't have life as good as the lion has it. And the lions --who exist by means of force-- don't have life as good as the man --who lives by his mind-- has it. The military, which is parasitic, cannot spend as much on ammunition as the individual productive humans on which it feeds ...at least not in a free market.)
Would Al-qaeda attack such a strong nation of individuals? --Not likely. And in the event that it did, it would be destroyed upon entry.
Would our politicians attack us with their courts, if we failed to use our productive efforts to prop up slave-states like China? Could they even attempt this, if we were not enslaved to a false belief in their paper?
No. We would be too wealthy for them to prevail against us in a court of law. Moreover, China and Iran would fail, and their leaders --Al qaeda among them-- would be swallowed whole, kicking and screaming by their rebelling countrymen, (who would demand to be as wealthy and happy as those they were trading with.)
By being closer in proximity to the Arabs, and mingling with them as their free superiors, we would wage psychological warfare against their irrational, emotional religious hatred of individualism. Psychological warfare is the most effective kind of warfare there is, as anyone who listens to Marc Stevens knows, or as those who have read the CIA manual on psychological warfare by Paul A. Linnebarger know.
Just as the wealthy libertarian anarchist wages a form of psychological warfare against the servile state thugs who see the superiority of his belief, and the material blessings it affords. The simplest view of this is the contrast between socially tolerant free-market Republicans and socialist Democrats. The Democrat at first feels superior for having suffered for his moral beliefs, but if the Republican is similarly moral, the Democrat can only feel stupid. (As Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov must have felt, throughout his time spent in Siberia.)
The same is true, but to a greater degree, between statists of all kinds (D or R or C or G or AI, or "weak-L") and anarchists.
The surest way we could have revenge against the middle-eastern terrorists is to eliminate our Federal Reserve bank, and reinstate the rights of US "citizens" to free speech, and due process. (Don't be so stupid as to believe there is such a thing as free speech, since effective free speech has been done away with. Frank Turney of Alaska was arrested for speaking the truth about jury rights to incoming jurors outside of a Fairbanks courthouse. He was sentenced to 160 days for "jury tampering" although his only crime was handing out general information about jury rights to incoming jurors.)
We tasted a small amount of the wealth that such a difference in policy creates during the Industrial revolution.
Plenty of nations experienced no industrial revolution, and remained in extreme poverty. Freedom is relative, and you have only as much of it as you desire.
That's why I desire a lot of it. I have enough desire for markets to give extra to thousands of my countrymen.
When I am successful, there will be such a thing as a true market.
What we have now is only a half-assed, stunted imitation of a market.
...It's not enough for me.
Now then, understand that I am not as critical of electoral politicians as some people are. I understand that there is good that can be done using counter-systemic psychology, among the voting masses.
To some of you who are receiving this, Marc Stevens' speech might be painful, to others, cathartic, to others, an annoyance.
I understand the idea of the Constitution, and of declaring war. I get it. Al qaeda is an external threat. But they can't get to me very well, unless it's because the internal threats to my freedom have won, making my country weak and servile.
In truth, like all anarchists, I have no country.
...The only war I can believe in is a personal war.
Nature is anarchist, human action is the best when it is libertarian and decentralized.
If you don't like Marc Stevens, it would help to read "No Treason: the constitution of no authority" at LysanderSpooner.org
and perhaps
"Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: an American Slave" by Frederick Douglass.
Douglass was born into literal Southern Slavery. He taught himself to read and write, under the penalty of death. He had to pretend to be a happy slave for years, (happy to be allowed to keep some of his money, but not most of it) until he had saved enough money to escape.
Now that we are all slaves of the Federal Reserve, we are in a similar, though more
comfortable situation.
We have freedom of some choice, but not true freedom. Do we risk what we have, or press onward to find out what we've been missing?
We are allowed to keep a small piece of what we earn, and are expected to not
complain that we give the vast majority of it away. It helps to know that the
government is not stupid, and at the actual top, it is not bureaucratic and
slow-moving.
You get as much money as you can, but just as easily, your claim on that money
can be targeted, since there is no law. Or, if it appears that many slaves similar
to you have gotten the same idea, a "financial crisis" can be manufactured.
Most people only realize this when they start to try to fight the law, and see
that they are, instead, fighting a pledge of allegiance (an emotional part of the mind of a million slaves).
And that's the real battle. The battle against conformity. Libertarian anarchism
is what the nonconformist subscribes to, once the illusions and chains of irrational
belief are lifted.
Let's just imagine that the USA was free, and that there was no state.
Would it be pretty obvious that people should learn how to defend themselves?
Would "front sight" rifle and pistol training academy have more or fewer students?
More, I would guess. And they would be vastly better prepared for violence than
the average citizen is. Moreover, they would have gone through more rounds of
ammunition than even military marksmen go through. (Parasitism doesn't pay as well as the earnings of a strong host. It is always less. The tape worms in the lion's guts don't have life as good as the lion has it. And the lions --who exist by means of force-- don't have life as good as the man --who lives by his mind-- has it. The military, which is parasitic, cannot spend as much on ammunition as the individual productive humans on which it feeds ...at least not in a free market.)
Would Al-qaeda attack such a strong nation of individuals? --Not likely. And in the event that it did, it would be destroyed upon entry.
Would our politicians attack us with their courts, if we failed to use our productive efforts to prop up slave-states like China? Could they even attempt this, if we were not enslaved to a false belief in their paper?
No. We would be too wealthy for them to prevail against us in a court of law. Moreover, China and Iran would fail, and their leaders --Al qaeda among them-- would be swallowed whole, kicking and screaming by their rebelling countrymen, (who would demand to be as wealthy and happy as those they were trading with.)
By being closer in proximity to the Arabs, and mingling with them as their free superiors, we would wage psychological warfare against their irrational, emotional religious hatred of individualism. Psychological warfare is the most effective kind of warfare there is, as anyone who listens to Marc Stevens knows, or as those who have read the CIA manual on psychological warfare by Paul A. Linnebarger know.
Just as the wealthy libertarian anarchist wages a form of psychological warfare against the servile state thugs who see the superiority of his belief, and the material blessings it affords. The simplest view of this is the contrast between socially tolerant free-market Republicans and socialist Democrats. The Democrat at first feels superior for having suffered for his moral beliefs, but if the Republican is similarly moral, the Democrat can only feel stupid. (As Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov must have felt, throughout his time spent in Siberia.)
The same is true, but to a greater degree, between statists of all kinds (D or R or C or G or AI, or "weak-L") and anarchists.
The surest way we could have revenge against the middle-eastern terrorists is to eliminate our Federal Reserve bank, and reinstate the rights of US "citizens" to free speech, and due process. (Don't be so stupid as to believe there is such a thing as free speech, since effective free speech has been done away with. Frank Turney of Alaska was arrested for speaking the truth about jury rights to incoming jurors outside of a Fairbanks courthouse. He was sentenced to 160 days for "jury tampering" although his only crime was handing out general information about jury rights to incoming jurors.)
We tasted a small amount of the wealth that such a difference in policy creates during the Industrial revolution.
Plenty of nations experienced no industrial revolution, and remained in extreme poverty. Freedom is relative, and you have only as much of it as you desire.
That's why I desire a lot of it. I have enough desire for markets to give extra to thousands of my countrymen.
When I am successful, there will be such a thing as a true market.
What we have now is only a half-assed, stunted imitation of a market.
...It's not enough for me.
Friday, October 24, 2008
A Libertarian Critique of McCain
Matt Welch sums up why libertarians (true capitalists, true levellers) believe that McCain is an unphilosophical old douchebag, here. The link was brought to you by FORA TV, an often excellent online media source. http://fora.tv/
Sarah Palin endorses jury rights here, and is in turn endorsed by Frank Turney, Alaska's foremost jury rights activist. This, along with Palin's support of gun rights as an individual right, makes her the most libertarian mainstream candidate, although she still sucks (and is totally inconsistent) compared to Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate.
The Libertarian Party's candidate Bob Barr unfortunately has long opposed jury rights, as a drug warrior, prosecutor, and ex-congressman. As recently as 2007, he wrote in philosophical opposition to jury rights, regarding the Yates Jury. (if you follow the link to the Yates jury article, the part to pay close attention to is in the 4th paragraph. Juries are not constitutionally bound to obey judge's instructions if it violates their own conscience or code of morality. Noone is legitimately asked to give up their morality by any judge, according to the US Constitution, but that is exactly what judges who ask jurors to enforce unjust laws, or enforce laws unjustly are demanding. Note that all US juries --according to Kriho Vs. the State of Colorado-- still retain the legal authority to ignore the judge's instructions.)
Sarah Palin endorses jury rights here, and is in turn endorsed by Frank Turney, Alaska's foremost jury rights activist. This, along with Palin's support of gun rights as an individual right, makes her the most libertarian mainstream candidate, although she still sucks (and is totally inconsistent) compared to Wayne Allyn Root, the Libertarian Party's Vice Presidential candidate.
The Libertarian Party's candidate Bob Barr unfortunately has long opposed jury rights, as a drug warrior, prosecutor, and ex-congressman. As recently as 2007, he wrote in philosophical opposition to jury rights, regarding the Yates Jury. (if you follow the link to the Yates jury article, the part to pay close attention to is in the 4th paragraph. Juries are not constitutionally bound to obey judge's instructions if it violates their own conscience or code of morality. Noone is legitimately asked to give up their morality by any judge, according to the US Constitution, but that is exactly what judges who ask jurors to enforce unjust laws, or enforce laws unjustly are demanding. Note that all US juries --according to Kriho Vs. the State of Colorado-- still retain the legal authority to ignore the judge's instructions.)
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Freedom Ballot Access
The Ten primary things that contributing to Freedom Ballot Access (online at: http://www.freedomballotaccess.org/ ) accomplishes:
1) It places the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and other nationwide minor parties on the ballot more cheaply than they could otherwise hope for, if they were acting alone. This way, they basically split the cost of overcoming State ballot access obstacles with one another. It will be done for less than $3.00 total cost per civilian stop, (including all fundraising and petitioner expenses), as opposed to a cost that is typically above $6.50 per signature for the Libertarian Party alone.
2) All third parties that ballot access helps out will be listed on the ballot under their official party name, not as "independent candidates" (In Alabama alone, this allows 20+ additional candidates per party to be listed, in addition to their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates).
3) The people who are signing the petitions will be plugged into the ballot access movement, and will be a part of the fundraising base of all the third parties they helped onto the ballot. This is because our ballot access workers will ask them for their email addresses and phone numbers, and will solicit funds from those who volunteer these pieces of information in the future.
4) We will be putting the third parties on the ballot for 2010 and 2012 concurrently, so our candidates will have a longer time to campaign, meaning there is a realistical chance that some of the down-ticket candidates will actually win election.
5) Since all of the parties will have a longer time to campaign, it means that a down ticket candidate will have a realistic chance to surpass the State's requirement of 20% for a statewide race to retain "major party" ballot access for future elections.
6) The down-ticket candidates will have a chance to run, whereas they previously would not, for minor offices that are more easily winnable.
7) The people will be told which parties they have signed for, as opposed to simply being told that they are signing to "put another choice on the ballot". This means more free advertising for the various parties, as well as a chance for people to ask questions from the petitioners (who are all idealists who support open ballot access, and will happily answer questions from the signers).
8) We will be handing each signer a card with information about their rights as jurors, with the Fully Informed Jury Association's web address on them http://www.fija.org/ . This card will also state "Jurors have the right to render a "not guilty" verdict based on disagreement with the law, no matter what the judge's instructions are, and no matter the votes of their fellow jury members." 60,000 people will receive this card, making people accused of victimless crimes safer, overnight!
9) The decreased cost of accessing the ballot will mean that the parties have more money to campaign with, instead of overcoming meaningless obstacles to ballot access. In addition, it will mean that the various parties will all succeed on obtaining ballot access in all 50 States, and will not fail where another party has succeeded (Like how the Libertarian Party failed in West Virginia in 2008, where the Constitution Party succeeded, or vice versa in Montana).
10) The size and scope of this project will result in additional media attention for the various minor parties.
Thanks for your interest and support,
Jake Witmer
cell: 907-250-5503
1) It places the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and other nationwide minor parties on the ballot more cheaply than they could otherwise hope for, if they were acting alone. This way, they basically split the cost of overcoming State ballot access obstacles with one another. It will be done for less than $3.00 total cost per civilian stop, (including all fundraising and petitioner expenses), as opposed to a cost that is typically above $6.50 per signature for the Libertarian Party alone.
2) All third parties that ballot access helps out will be listed on the ballot under their official party name, not as "independent candidates" (In Alabama alone, this allows 20+ additional candidates per party to be listed, in addition to their Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates).
3) The people who are signing the petitions will be plugged into the ballot access movement, and will be a part of the fundraising base of all the third parties they helped onto the ballot. This is because our ballot access workers will ask them for their email addresses and phone numbers, and will solicit funds from those who volunteer these pieces of information in the future.
4) We will be putting the third parties on the ballot for 2010 and 2012 concurrently, so our candidates will have a longer time to campaign, meaning there is a realistical chance that some of the down-ticket candidates will actually win election.
5) Since all of the parties will have a longer time to campaign, it means that a down ticket candidate will have a realistic chance to surpass the State's requirement of 20% for a statewide race to retain "major party" ballot access for future elections.
6) The down-ticket candidates will have a chance to run, whereas they previously would not, for minor offices that are more easily winnable.
7) The people will be told which parties they have signed for, as opposed to simply being told that they are signing to "put another choice on the ballot". This means more free advertising for the various parties, as well as a chance for people to ask questions from the petitioners (who are all idealists who support open ballot access, and will happily answer questions from the signers).
8) We will be handing each signer a card with information about their rights as jurors, with the Fully Informed Jury Association's web address on them http://www.fija.org/ . This card will also state "Jurors have the right to render a "not guilty" verdict based on disagreement with the law, no matter what the judge's instructions are, and no matter the votes of their fellow jury members." 60,000 people will receive this card, making people accused of victimless crimes safer, overnight!
9) The decreased cost of accessing the ballot will mean that the parties have more money to campaign with, instead of overcoming meaningless obstacles to ballot access. In addition, it will mean that the various parties will all succeed on obtaining ballot access in all 50 States, and will not fail where another party has succeeded (Like how the Libertarian Party failed in West Virginia in 2008, where the Constitution Party succeeded, or vice versa in Montana).
10) The size and scope of this project will result in additional media attention for the various minor parties.
Thanks for your interest and support,
Jake Witmer
cell: 907-250-5503
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
