The Jury: Our Last (peaceful) Hope

Do you know what a jury's true duty is? It is to judge the case according to the law, and to judge the law according to common sense (and each juror's conscience). That means if a law seems to you to be unfair, you have a right and a duty to refuse to convict, regardless of the judge's instructions to the contrary. This is known as "jury nullification". Up until a generation or so ago, judges would even remind the juries of this responsibility. In today's police-state mentality, that kind of independent thinking would spell the end of counterfeit "laws", or at least the end of jury trials. The drug warriors, vice squads, and gun-banners would watch helplessly as juries released innocents who had "violated" counterfeit "laws".

Knowing your responsibilities comes at a price, though. Jurors have been jailed in recent years for refusing to convict in direct defiance of a crooked judge's orders. For more information on jury nullification, I encourage you to check out The Fully Informed Jury Association. I think that jury nullification is the last chance for a peaceful end to the downhill slide we are on toward a full-blown police state.

The REAL Jury Duty: the Duty of a Juror

The duty of a juror is to protect his community; both from dangerous criminals and from dangerous laws. The jury is the highest authority in the courtroom; towering above the judge. Judges don't like for the juries to recognize the pecking order, so they try to frighten jurors into complying with their demands. Judges lie and tell jurors to only consider the facts of the case, which is only half- the weaker half, of the jury's historical duty. You hold the power of jury nullification of counterfeit "laws". It is an awesome power and responsibility and one that causes judges (and corrupt government at every level) to tremble in fear. The time to understand the power and authority of the jury is before you get called for jury duty. If you find yourself sitting on a jury, remember: if the law that was violated is counterfeit (attempts to regulate something other than initiated, actual force or fraud) you must find the defendant innocent, even if you don't like the person. Even if you are sure the person is a scum who has committed real crimes in the past and probably will again. That will be dealt with at a later date. Your bigger responsibility at that point is to protect your neighbors from a "law" that has much greater potential for harm that any two-bit thug could ever hope to have. Then you can go on to warn your neighbors of your suspicions about the defendant.

Become acquainted with the Fully Informed Jury Association and go to www.fija.org to read more about the job of a juror.

Liberty Lines 2-7-2013

(Published in the State Line Tribune, Feb 7, 2013)

I have really been enjoying the articles on nullification that Will Anderson has done such a fine job on.  Nullification is an issue dear to my heart- not just nullification on a state by state basis, but down to the individual nullifying "laws" that he or she knows are wrong (which is most of them).

There is a one-thousand year-old right and duty of jurors to refuse to convict people who are charged under "laws" that the juror believes are overreaching their authority, no matter what the judge may instruct them to do.  Judges used to inform people of this duty- now they generally hide it.  Look up "jury nullification" or check out fija.org for more information.

I am not as optimistic about the chances of a state government doing the right thing, so I don't hold out much hope for Texas or New Mexico nullifying unconstitutional anti-gun "laws".  After all, they have been enthusiastically enforcing these anti-constitutional edicts regulating guns for the federal government since 1934.  Plus they have dreamed up plenty of their own- such as the Texas prohibition on "open carry"- that even the feds haven't yet managed to impose.

The Bill of Rights says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" (that means to own and to carry guns, swords, and Bowie knives) "shall not be infringed".  That means every single anti-gun "law" that has been enforced since 1934, and especially since 1968, is unconstitutional, illegal, and null and void.  It means that anyone enforcing even the most "reasonable" anti-gun "law" is a criminal.  It means there is no authority to issue permits, do background checks, or to ever arrest anyone on "weapons charges".

Don't try to excuse anti-liberty positions by quoting the part about a "well-regulated militia", either.  It doesn't mean what the "gun control" advocates want it to mean- "well-regulated" means "fine-tuned" and well-practiced, and the militia is everyone capable of handling a weapon in defense of self, territory, life, and liberty.  That is YOU.

The power of nullification lies in each of us.  It's time we start using it again.

.

Laws also deserve to be scrutinized

Laws also deserve to be scrutinized

(This one was totally neutered and declawed to make it acceptable to the publisher. I offer the original, offensive version here.)

Just about everyone wants justice. One of the most powerful tools you and I have available to keep government honest is the jury. The trick is you can't count on the government informing you of your power; you must usually hear of this from a libertarian activist instead.

Did you realize that when you are serving on a jury, it is your duty to not only judge the facts of the case (in other words, to decide if the accused person actually did what they are accused of), but also whether the law the person is accused of violating is a good law or not? It is true.

Most people are not aware of this fact, and most judges today will actually tell jurors they are not allowed to decide whether the law is a good law or not. However, this has been the cornerstone at the foundation of the legal system which America inherited, for close to a thousand years, whether judges like it or not. This practice is called "jury nullification" and is still completely legal (and right) in spite of what judges may claim.

A jury which is tricked into giving up this power is not a real jury; it is just there to rubber-stamp the government's agenda.

The other way the justice system can be used to strengthen liberty is to realize when a case does not belong in the justice system at all, and act accordingly if you are on the jury.

Today most people think of a "crime" as something that the government has seen fit to forbid and punish through "laws". However, a real crime must include an intent to cause harm. Accidents can not be crimes and do not belong in the justice system.

Suppose a person is accused of having an accident that injures an innocent person; that accusation leads to a criminal trial, and you are chosen to sit on the jury. In a case such as this, you need to carefully consider whether any crime has really occurred- whether there was an intent to harm- before considering anything else.

This doesn't mean that accidents are without costs. If you cause harm you owe restitution. Any real system of justice must be centered on the concept of restitution to the victim or their survivors.

However, the government is not the victim and has no horse in the race. It shouldn't even be involved in the arbitration at all. Imprisonment doesn't provide restitution, and as implemented now only costs taxpayers the huge overhead of maintaining prisoners.

The same goes for "fines". They are not paid to the victim, but to the government which was not harmed. They are simply another tax.

In order for real justice to be served, there needs to be a separation of court and State. Until then, use the tools you have been given to advance real justice and liberty for all.

*
Donate?

What is this official-ish envelope? UPDATED

Guess who got a jury summons (on October 9th).

Me.

Yeah, I know that even if they don't extort a plea deal, and the case actually goes to trial, I have zero chance of being seated on a jury. Probably not anywhere, but definitely not around here. I've been told some of these government people read my newspaper columns. They will not risk having me on a jury-- any jury. Not if they want the near-guarantee of a conviction that they seek. I would do the right thing, not the political thing.

I'd love the chance to participate, but that bridge has been burned. Honestly, I'm surprised they even left my name in the rotation. The list must be "untouched by human hands" and unseen by human eyes.

The last time I got one of these I was picked in the initial selection, but kicked out of the pool in the first round of jury stacking. That was over 20 years ago and in another state.

If you haven't been as visible as I have, you may still have a chance to monkeywrench the plans of the US police state through jury nullification when appropriate. Please exercise it when you get the opportunity.


UPDATE: Trial canceled-- settled before it went to court.

-

This blog is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.

For what it's worth- Bill of Rights Day

For what it's worth- Bill of Rights Day

Today is Bill of Rights Day, an actual, real, holiday. December 15th is Bill of Rights Day every year. Everyone needs to realize that while the Bill of Rights gives people zero rights, what it does is list things that no government in the world can legitimately meddle with. It doesn't matter if the government faces this fact or not. The Bill of Rights is a list of grievances against criminal governments everywhere. It is a shame it wasn't backed up with a penalty clause, telling government employees exactly why they would be twisting in the wind the first time they proposed a "law" that infringed on even one of these listed (and unlisted) rights. How much does the US Fe(de)ral government abide by the law that gave it the only inkling of legitimacy? Lets look at the rights protected by each amendment.

• 1. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, right to assemble peaceably, right to petition the government about grievances. -violated by the Patriot act, violated by "free speech zones" around the president, violated by "laws" against "vices", violated by the FCC's very existence, violated by many "laws" being proposed that will be rubber-stamped by the ignorant authoritarians of the Supreme Court.
  
• 2. Right to form militias and the right to own and carry arms. - violated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and by the Gun Control Act of 1968, and by every other "reasonable gun law".
  
• 3. Citizens do not have to quarter soldiers during peacetime.- No, we just have our money stolen by government to pay for their quarters. Is there really that much of a difference? I mean, if they were "quartering" in our homes against our wishes, we would at least have the option of slipping the trespassers rat poison.
  
• 4. No unreasonable searches and seizures.- violated by "sobriety checkpoints" and by the "TSA", and by wiretaps on "terrorist suspects".
  
• 5. Rights of the accused. violated, once again, by the patriot act. Violated every time a person is deceived into confessing in order to "plea bargain". Violated each time some testoster-stoned "drug warriors" kick in a door in the middle of the night.
  
• 6. Right to a fair trial.- violated every time a judge fails to inform the jury about their right and duty of jury nullification- judging the "law" as well as the accused. Violated by the process of making sure anyone with more than a tiny handful of functioning neurons is kept off the jury. Wouldn't want any actual thinking going on in court, you know.
  
• 7. Right to a trial by jury in civil cases also.- What is the point to having a right to have a jury trial when the trial will not be permitted to be "fair"?
  
• 8. No cruel and unusual punishments. - violated when people are killed, kidnapped, or ruined for not caving in to the extortion of the IRS. No government "function" is worth stealing and killing to finance. Violated when people are kidnapped or killed for having done nothing but acted in some way the government doesn't like- for exercising their individual sovereignty in voluntary interactions.
  
• 9. Unenumerated rights go to the people. - violated by almost every "law", especially those "enabled" by the "interstate commerce" lie, and anything justified by "the common good".
  
• 10. Reserves all powers not given to the national government to the states or the people.- Once again, violated by almost everything the federal government does, with the complicity of the equally corrupt state governments.
  

So, there you have it. This is by no means a comprehensive list of all the ways government violates its charter daily. IF the US government was ever "legitimate", which it wasn't, and if the Constitution was ever a protector of freedom, which it wasn't, the evidence of the transgressions are there for all to see. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are most useful as an illustration of why government, even "limited government", is a really bad idea.

Your freedom is yours to take responsibility for. Don't depend on governments or documents to do your job for you.

*****************

That divisive trial

I'm torn.

Yes, I believe that woman murdered her children. 

I'm also aware that government lies to get the verdict it wants. My belief that she did it, based on hearing that she confessed and that there's plenty of evidence, is only that: a belief. I wasn't there, so I can't know for certain- and I never will.

I still believe she did it, for what that's worth.

Yes, I believe she is/was insane. Insane, but guilty. I don't believe insanity or hormonal issues absolve a person of responsibility for their archation. 

If that were the case, a lot of convicted and admitted rapists should get a new trial since testosterone is sometimes called the violence hormone.

I'm in favor of jury nullification. I think it applies when you believe the person did what they are accused of, but "laws" prohibiting the action are illegitimately prohibiting something every individual has a natural right to do. I don't believe that fits in this case because no one has a right to kill their defenseless offspring.

I also believe a government court is the least credible place to seek justice. They are designed to punish, not to provide justice. Those children will never receive justice by caging ot killing the woman who killed them. Justice is out of reach; it's not an option here.

I wouldn't mind too much if every jury trial resulted in a mistrial to demonstrate the absurdity of the ritual. Of course, if government can't get the outcome it seeks through a jury trial, I expect they'll dispense with that in the small percentage of cases that still go that route. They'll skip right to the punishment phase. Maybe a jury trial complicates this.

As always, I'm against imprisonment, partly because it is funded by theft, thus leaving the victim victimized twice. Also, because it is Crime University. Third, because it is too easy to use for political purposes. Plus, it doesn't provide restitution, but punishment.

I would much rather leave bad guys out among the general population, who are completely aware of what they did. Don't attack them to punish them, but watch them (not with government spyware, though, since that isn't public), and if they try to violate anyone else, they (like the others who do the same) would likely be Darwinized from a free society. That's usually the best outcome, even if some think it's harsh. Otherwise, as long as they never archate again, leave them alone. 

As always, there's a possibility that I'm completely wrong in my views on this case and everything else.

-

Thank you for reading.
Would you care to subscribe or donate?

Power in courtroom belongs to you

(My Clovis News Journal column for March 18, 2016)

Picture yourself on a jury, realizing that even though the defendant broke the law, the law is wrong.

Must you obey the judge's commands to consider only whether the law was broken? Or can you do more.

Actually you can, and should, do more. You have hundreds of years of legal history behind you, empowering you to do the right thing.

You should judge whether the violated law should exist, and whether the potential penalties-- even when the judge tells you to not consider them-- are too severe.

In the courtroom, all power and authority is yours.

Most judges no longer want you to know this fact. They will hide it and make you believe they are the authority. At most they are a referee, making sure the dance follows the established steps. When judges hide this law from you it is your responsibility to know it yourself. The only purpose of the courtroom is to find justice. You can't do that if someone is being prosecuted for violating a law which should not exist, or is facing a penalty out of proportion to what they did.

A jury doing the right thing and setting free the accused in spite of the State's wishes is called "jury nullification". Unjust laws in the past have evaporated because of juries refusing to punish people for breaking them.

If one person violates another-- through theft, physical attack, or trespass-- you can uphold the law he broke without guilt. These crimes are known as "mala in se" crimes; wrong because they violate life, liberty, or property.

However if you find yourself deciding the fate of a runaway slave or bootlegger, remember that the pretense of wrong in these cases lies upon someone dreaming up a law which prohibits the act. This law is counterfeit-- it imagines a "mala prohibitum" crime. "Wrong" only because it is prohibited, without an ethical foundation of respect for human rights and liberty. In other words, not wrong at all.

Of course, runaway slaves aren't quite as common as they once were-- unless you count truancy "laws". But there are a great many counterfeit "laws" being enforced. Such as all gun regulations, the War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, "vice laws", licensing requirements for business and piloting a vehicle, tax laws-- most of the laws enforced today.

Stand up for what's right. Refuse to punish people for imaginary "crimes" which have no individual victim. Nullify bad "laws". For more information visit fija.org

.

TSA trial comes to ABQ

TSA trial comes to ABQ


Come January, Albuquerque gets the dubious distinction of being the site of the nation's first TSA-defiance trial- against a man who defied the professional molesters and became the target of the molesters' gang. And, no, this isn't the "Don't touch my junk" guy.

If there were ever a good time for jury nullification, this is it! The man did nothing wrong and should be set free. His accusers should then be required to personally pay all his legal expenses out of their own pockets- by selling their homes and vehicles if necessary- as well as any lost income and travel expenses that resulted from this kidnapping. This is the only possible outcome that serves justice.

So, in case you or anyone you know gets called for jury duty anytime soon, please educate yourself and everyone you know, and don't be a useful idiot to be used as the terrorists of the TSA/federal government would like to use you. Make sure there is NO ONE left in Albuquerque who is ignorant of the right and THE DUTY of a jury to void counterfeit "laws".

For more information, visit http://www.fija.org/
*
Donate?

Let's make them all convicted felons

(My Eastern New Mexico News column for June 9, 2024)

The precedent is set. As of May 30, 2024, every presidential administration can expect to be convicted of felonies by the next administration from the other party. Congressional members of the opposition party could be convicted, as well. They all commit felonies, most far more real and serious than the ones Donald Trump was convicted of.

Democratic former presidents and members of Congress should be convicted of felonies as soon as there's a Republican administration. Nor should the Democratic Party stop with Trump and those who represented him; there's low-hanging fruit in Congressional Republicans. This presents an opportunity to bring the federal government to a grinding halt.

Why do I say "convicted" rather than simply "charged"?

As has been pointed out by author Harvey A. Silverglate, we all commit an average of three felonies per day. This isn't because we're bad people, it's because legislation is out of control-- Congress and the President are to blame.

If an ambitious prosecutor decides to get you, you'll be gotten. As the Soviets said, "Show me the man and I'll find the crime." A carefully chosen venue, judge, hostile jury pool, and instructions from the judge to find the defendant guilty, however you have to do it, and a conviction is in the bag.

It's up to juries to put a stop to this, but most are unaware of their duty to judge the law as well as the facts of the case. If the defendant is accused of violating a law which has no victim (other than government), it is the responsibility of the jury to return a "not guilty" verdict even if they believe the defendant did what he or she was charged with. Even if Hunter Biden lied on the form when he bought a gun. This is called jury nullification. Judges used to inform juries of this duty but stopped doing so when they began acting as agents of the state rather than of justice.

No one has a right to govern another, nor to impose a politician on anyone else. I think there should be consequences for attempting to govern other people, but I think those consequences should be based on real crimes where an individual's life, liberty, or property was harmed, not a victimless "crime" where the only thing harmed is something which can't be victimized: government.

If this precedent makes it too risky to enter politics, it would be a good change.

-

Consider subscribing or donating.

I couldn't do this without your support.

Judges shouldn't have final say

Judges shouldn't have final say  (and they don't!)

(My Clovis News Journal column for February 22, 2013)

I am frequently amazed that more people don't see the fundamental folly in permitting a branch of the government- the Supreme Court- to claim to have the final say in whether or not a particular law is constitutional. That power wasn't granted them- they grabbed it for themselves in the early nineteenth century. In the year 1803 in the "Marbury v. Madison" decision, to be exact.

The Constitution has one main purpose: to outline what the US government can do, and conversely to outline what it may not do- by not being given the authority, specifically, in writing. This shows that a primary purpose for the Constitution is to limit the government; to prevent it from getting too powerful.

Self-policing bureaucracies never police themselves very well, if at all.

Therefore, no one working for the government can legitimately have the authority to decide "constitutionality" for the same exact reason rapists don't get to decide what laws against rape "really mean".

The final say was intended to lie with you and with me; the Constitution means what it says. It was not written for lawyers, but for regular people of average intelligence. Give yourself more credit.

Fortunately we have the authority to individually nullify laws that go against the Constitution or our conscience even when the Supreme Court rules against "We the People". This authority has always existed, and has been a legal barrier against state corruption for over a thousand years. Up until the past couple of generations, honest judges actually informed people of their right and duty to judge not only the facts of the case, but whether the law being used against the accused was a legitimate law.

Nowadays even uttering the phrase "jury nullification" can get you barred from serving on a jury, or in severe cases, can get you charged with contempt by an angry judge who seeks to serve his gang at the expense of justice.

You also have the ultimate power to nullify bad "laws" by refusing to comply. Even the Supreme Court agrees, and said so in the otherwise flawed "Marbury v. Madison" decision: "A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." There is no obligation to obey it and enforcing it is wrong.

And, the kicker is that you don't ethically have to wait for the Supreme Court to agree with you. You have a mind, can read and reason, and you can tell right from wrong. Nullify away, with the full understanding that being right when the government is wrong can be dangerous.

--

Bonus video:

.

Overwhelmed

Somedays it seems like the police state is overwhelming us. You read about cases like Cory Maye, Hollis Wayne Fincher, Kathryn Johnston, Sean Bell, Peyton Strickland, and Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, and it just feels that "they" have us outnumbered. There is hope, though. At least these stories are not being totally ignored. Even the average American is hearing about some of these people. Perhaps a few of them are beginning to see the United States for what it is: a grave threat to America. Don't forget any of these victims of US tyranny.

Remember your duty to use the power of the jury box to judge the legitimacy of the law that someone is being accused of violating; if the law is nonsense or if you believe it is unconstitutional, then find the defendant not-guilty. Regardless of what the judge tells you to do. It is your right and duty, and has been for around a thousand years. No corrupt puppet of the police state can order you to do otherwise. Support and practice jury nullification.

Statist "flaggotry"- no, not Trump's

As a little bonus, for amusement purposes, (if you have Facebook, check this out: link)

Here is all that has been posted so far. I may or may not update- you get the gist:

My original post was this...

If I'm dumb enough to waste money on a Holy Pole Quilt, it is mine and I can burn it or bury road kill wrapped in it or do whatever I want with it.
In the same way, you are free to worship any Holy Pole Quilt you own, in any way you wish to worship it.
You are NOT free to dictate what others do with their pole quilts, and if you archate against anyone because of what they do with their pole quilts, you are the bad guy. And, if you get grumpy over what people do with their own pole quilts, you have upside-down priorities.

D B: I totally disagree that just anyone should be allowed to own an American Flag... and at one time this was true....

Me: "Allowed"?

D B: Right...the American Flag should not be 'for sale'...so that any PUNK can buy it and desecrate it... I am FOR severe PENalties levied for any PUNK that desecrates our Flag...

Me: Who would you have enforce that prohibition, and what sorts of aggression would you use to back it up?
(Plus, it isn't the "American flag", it is "the US flag")

D B: Schematics... and who in the hell do you think enFORCEs our laws?

Me:  "Our laws"? I have no "laws" other than the laws of physics which don't need to be enforced.
I do follow the Zero Aggression Principle, which is simply a promise from me to you that I will not initiate force or violate your property- and may defend myself from those who violate me or my property- but it isn't something like a "law" that I can impose on you and force you to follow.

D B: In 1968, Congress approved the Federal Flag Desecration Law after a Vietnam War protest. The law made it illegal to “knowingly” cast “contempt” upon “any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning or trampling upon it.”

D B: I don't know who the hell you think you are but if you live and work in These United States, you must follow our laws or PAY the consequences...

Me: Human invented legislation isn't law. And writing up some counterfeit rules doesn't make them legitimate.(Also, I believe you meant "semantics" above... but maybe not.)

D B:  It IS law, violate it and you are a CRIMINAL that needs to be PENalized....
Me: Everything has consequences. If I don't comply with the rapist, there will be consequences. Your "laws" are just the demands of a gang of rapists writ large.

D B: When I don't agree with a law, I work to get it changed..I don't just IGNORE it and do what I want...that is the mindset of a criminal.....

Me: I am proud to be an outlaw, because the "law" is counterfeit. You would be one to insist that the "Black" slaves stay slaves until the "law" changed. That is evil.

D B:  Think whatever you want but burn our flag in public and you will go to prison and I for one will be on board with it. BTW, if you want to burn the flag inside your own home...go for it...just don't do it in PUBLIC...

D B:  You have the mindset of a criminal and I bet your pipe is full of whacky weed.. lol

Me: You would be wrong. I guess to you anyone who is able to tell the difference between "Legal" and "right" is a criminal. That's the mindset of a slave.

___________________________

Then, under a different thread:

D B:  Btw, Kent....if I see anyone burn our Flag, I will not ALLOW them to get away with it... understand me, boy??

Me: You and I don't own a flag in common, but OK.Yep. Threats of violence- just what I expect from statists.

D B:  Shove your labels where the sun don't shine and I don't make threats, I speak FACTS...

Me: A statist is a person who believes that governing others is a legitimate human endeavor. If that doesn't apply to you, then please say so, clearly.
And, yes, apparently you do make threats- and then lie about it. If what you say above doesn't qualify as a threat, then nothing does. I guess you are lucky I don't believe in "laws", or I'd be using them against you right now. LOL

D B: Like it or not, whilst on American Soil, you will follow OUR laws or be arrested, prosecuted and hopefully put away where you belong.. I like to see the accused make their case to a jury and get a Jury Nullification on bad laws but a law against our national flag burning is one I stand for.. for all the men and women who spilled their blood so our flag can still stand...

Me: There is so much nonsense in that I don't even know where to begin. You are deep into the cult.

D B: YOU are the non-sensible one who beLIEves you can pick and choose what laws you want to follow or not... grow up, boy... actually, I don't care what you do, you are destined for a cage IF you practice what you preach which I doubt...a computer warrior who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk... or you would be in jail.. lol

D B: A threat is a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger.....Your own actions create the damage or danger ...but so typical of a criminal mindset to blame others...

Me: So, you believe you are "law abiding"? (You aren't.)
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-you-commit-three-felonies-a-day-2009-9
A threat is also a statement of intention to harm someone- which you did. You are a criminal- in the worst sense of the word- in more ways than one.

D B: I am law abiding to the best of my ability... I do not go about with the INTENT to break laws... understand the difference, boy? You have a very juvenile way of thinking...and as I said, if I don't like a law, I work to get it changed whilst lazy azz punks like yourself just go about violating our laws and spew Freeman on the land, Natural Man, sovereign citizen BS... lol

Me: You're silly. But it's amusing to watch you try to wiggle out of the pit you have dug for yourself.

D B:  LOL You call this 'wiggling'?? I've danced with far more nefarious punks than you...

Me: See what I mean? LOL

D B:  NO... you and I are on the same page but we have far different ways of achieving our goals..

Murderers get a freebie

So, the enforcers who murdered Kelly Thomas were found "not guilty".  Meh.  Jury nullification (since this was an obvious, overt, and very public murder) goes both ways.

I have zero faith in the "justice system", and as I've said before, I don't think it's the proper place for justice anyway.

Nope.  The justice should come now.

I'm not saying these murderers should be given the same treatment that left Kelly Thomas comatose, and then dead, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop anyone who did.  Karma, and all that.

What I am saying is that if these murderers were in my local area I would shun them, totally and completely.  They would be invisible to me as former humans.  I wouldn't employ them, nor do business with anyone who did.  I wouldn't sell to them for any price, and would complain to (and publicize) any business which did.  I would do everything I could to ensure these murderers died- cold, hungry, and utterly alone.  Sooner rather than later.  And I would never stop pointing out that they ARE murderers, and had they not been enforcers, they would be sitting in a cage by now.

This quote from the article linked above tells you the new rules of the game:

Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, told reporters: "These peace officers were doing their jobs...they did what they were trained to do."

So "peace" means beating you or me to death, and murder is what enforcers are trained to do to you and me. It's their "job".  Use that information as you will.

.

Trump, the outlaw candidate?

Here's an uncomfortable admission: The Trump convictions don't sit well with me.

I've always been in favor of jury nullification, saying I would have a hard time convicting even in the case of archation, just because it feels like handing government a win. Doing what The Ancestral Enemy wants is the wrong thing to do, except in extraordinary circumstances. This isn't that.

When it's a counterfeit "law" I wouldn't convict my worst enemy. Liberty is more important than personal feelings.

And this seems to be the case in this trial.

It's not even about Trump. I liked Donald Trump when he used to appear on David Letterman's show. That ended when he entered politics. Politics makes people stupid and usually a bit evil, too. Although I never supported him, I never suffered from TDS, and never thought he was a unique danger like so many others seem to be hallucinating he is. I think this allows me to think more clearly where he is concerned.

I don't need or want a president and I don't need or want to be governed. By anyone. Particularly not by an anti-gun bigot (like all presidents turn out to be).

Part of me thinks "The shoe's on the other foot now", but part of me sees this as a bogus trial, politically arranged and rigged to take out an apparent enemy of the current party in power. (Even though he used to belong to their party and still follows their dogma on many important issues.)  If they imprison him, it will make him a political prisoner, and I am completely against governments and the holding of political prisoners. Even if I disagree with the prisoners on everything of importance. I oppose all political prosecutions.

This has caused me to have some sympathy for Trump-- not support, but sympathy for someone I don't generally find to be a very sympathetic character. I don't like it, but there it is. That was an amazing accomplishment, Democratic Party. Congrats. 

If they had gone after him for his actual crimes-- the bump stock ban, continuing the Stupid and Evil War on Politically Incorrect Drugs, not pardoning Snowden, Ulbricht, and Assange (and others), supporting police, and other evil things he did-- similar to the evil things every other president does-- then I wouldn't care. Get him. But to go after him on the things they chose? Things they'd ignore if he wasn't Donald Trump? Nope. Not gonna buy it. It was a sham.

Trump is now an outlaw. Not a Liberty Outlaw, but the other kind. Yet definitely no worse than the kriminals-- the serial archators-- who are out to get him. 

So, my feelings are definitely mixed.

Will it backfire? I wouldn't mind seeing it happen. And I don't really mind seeing Leviathan eating itself. Anything that shatters government's illusion of legitimacy is a good thing. 

Just like having Biden as a president has shown how utterly inconsequential having a president is. If he can do the "job", anything could. The "job" could be abolished without problems, as long as you didn't change the rules and eliminate the requirement that the president sign bills that the congressvermin pass to make them enforceable "laws". No signature; no new legislation, which would be a good start.

Having a president is a terrible idea, as is having any kind of political government... which can decide to "get" its enemies. Maybe even you or me.

-

Thank you for reading.  

Show your support?

So, How Do We Fix It?

What would I do to "fix" America? I would force the government to stay within the bounds of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. I would eliminate every agency, bureaucracy, program, "entitlement", cabinet position, or post in the government that is not in absolute, complete and strict compliance with those documents, as written, not as "interpreted". The Supreme Court's "authority" to judge "Constitutionality" must be challenged and eliminated. No more weasel-words will be permitted when judging whether something is Constitutional or not. If the average, government-educated person on the street can see that a given government law or agency does not specifically have a Constitutional mandate to exist, then it is gone. A president will not have that kind of authority, so it is up to Americans to demand this action, and not be appeased in any lesser way. People need to be shown that it is really in their best interest to rein in government instead of continuing to allow it to overreach its authority. This is something that a president can do. I would blog and speak at every opportunity reminding Americans that they run America; the US government does not. I would remind them of their duty to refuse to convict, through jury nullification, defendants who have been arrested for violating counterfeit laws. I, as president, would encourage every American to own and to carry, any type of weapon they see fit, in any way they choose, anywhere they desire, in any way they wish, without seeking anyone's approval. And I would give immediate presidential pardons to anyone in the criminal "justice system" whose only "crime" is violating one of these abhorrent victim disarmament "laws". I would also hand out pardons for drug offenses, tax abstainers, and anyone else who I feel is a victim of "law pollution" in America.