Corruption and the need for jury nullification, and kicking the bastards out of office.

While many people who have been through the system have heard of nolo contender/no contests, and alfred pleas which all result in a guilty verdict. And a few states may allow people to plead guilty while preserving their right to challenge the constitutionality of a law (bad idea) through appeal which is high risk-a court has a duty to try to protect a statute, and words of legal art can vary state per state. A statute against annoying conduct in general is unconstitutional per Coates v Cincinatti, and protected speech can include speech that as naacp v clairborne hardware shows us is embrassing ( Speech does not lose its protected character, however, simply because it may embarrass others or coerce them into action)and as snyder v phelps shows us ( " It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." It doesn't mean that all speech that does this is protected, but protected speech doesn't lose its protection because it does these things. Instead a statute upon speech much either fall upon a certain category of speech, or reflect some type of hazard (such as road construction)in which there still remains an adequate channel of communication, or the captive audience. But the legislature is rarely satisfied by that, and create words of legal art that plays mind games even upon attorneys. That is a particularly dangerous game when the legal standard is often raise it or waive it, especially upon appeal. A legislature could define the word annoying to be limited to include true threats or fighting words in a statute that proscribes annoying speech. So if someone was sending harmless but what an ordinary person would see as an annoying email and they plead guilty but preserve the right to appeal to challenge the constitutionality of a statute, and the state managed to carve out a savings clause on the word annoying, they are unlikely to prevail on appeal and their conviction would stick. Generally that type of plea, albeit rare, shouldn't be taken. Instead, a motion to dismiss of demurrer should be filed, and if necessary seek interlocutory appeal. There are rare circumstances where the federal courts can intervene and issue an injunction against an illegal speech based prosecution, see Dombroski v Pfister, but generally the younger v Harris Standard applies.

The first amendment isn't a difficult topic to learn, but our judges violated it, and thus federal law, millions of times a year from the bench-often without jurisdiction, without due process, and without a jury being present. There is a war against the freedom of speech, which is a governmental war upon the individual and our very personhood and we can be selectively destroyed. Too often activist want to try limit speech by applying labels: Harrassing, annoying, alarms, emotional distress,offensive, stalking, discrimination. The left likes to use labels of "racism", "sexism", "islamophobic", "homophobic", "mysogyny", "transphobic". And the looney liberals have caught on well and on top of applying these labels to shut down discourse of public matters they make loud noises and physical attacks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . And in the past, it used to be the police who used these kind of tactics on the liberals. From the various labor union massacres in the early 20th century, or the kent state massacre and jackson state killings, to the US davis macing. One troubling aspect in many of the prosecutions that did happen in the labour union incidents, many of the accused were sentenced to death on fabricated evidence and false testimony. In another words, they were executed by the state for their speech activities. Anyways, the liberals use the code words to say the ideas they don't like not free speech because of these vague labels that by themselves have no right to be restricted upon except for this new speak legal art. It is sad when our judges do not even know what even the first amendment is, how can we expect a person stuck behind bars where they have a right o an attorney or a law library-not both. How can get passed qualified immunity when even our judges are dumber than a door nail when it comes to clearly established constitutional rights. And what happens when the accused gets a plea lawyer? People can be completely innocent and per lack of legal education take a guilty plea-when the standard for a statute is supposed to be an ordinary person standard. If the judges don't know the law, if the cops don't know the law, how is an ordinary person? So they learn their free speech wasn't so free at all: attorney fees, bond, fines, court cost, probation costs, and some states even charge people for being stuck in jail. Since we live in a nation with police and state prosecutors, what this often translates into are people being prosecuted to extort money out of, or people being prosecuted for ideas and speech the officials didn't like. The officials are already acting outside of the law. What else would they do...as they always done, lie under oath and fabricate evidence.
A defendant has a right to all exculpable evidence. Brady v Maryland, and prosecutors are not allowed to suppress this information. When I was arrested, I noticed that the so called evidence was tampered with. My attorneys-as incompetent as they were-advised that I say nothing of it of it, or in another words don't admit to anything in it. There method wasn't the first amendment, their method was to deny that I sent it. When they finally abandoned me (they committed fraud and stole my parents money) the first thing i did was inform the courts and the prosecutor that the evidence was tampered with, but before I could get a hearing on the matter the judge already appointed another plea lawyer so my notice and my motion to produce fell on deaf ears. The prosecutor of course did nothing to obtain the exculpable evidence, and knowingly left me in there to rot trying to do everything he could to force a conviction on me. The charge was essentially speech that would cause a reasonable person to fear for a person's safety. There was nothing unprocteted in the writing. The warrant itself contradicted itself-a obvious false swearing-as the officer swore that it was to help the other person overcome their paranoia. And to make matters worse, he removed a page that explicitly said the other person would be safe and the reasons why-and he admitted in federal court that he had that page sent to him from an unopened envelop-and so he's responsible for that page not appearing in evidence and was aware of that its existace was the exact opposite of the legal standard for an arrest. That police officer falsely arrested me exploiting the counties no bond policies as personal favors for the women he liked. Now county police also required that all communication between a police officer in his division and a "victim" be kept in the case file. There were emails missing too that per county policy he had a duty to preserve, and he also had a facebook page where he dedicated his time to demand dates and nude pictures from these women....That was deleted too, but he was caught and said under oath that he was destroying it for good. He knew they were damning for the federal case, but he chose to destroy them prior to discovery and spoliated evidence. All your interests in life rots away, and you just are up against a prosecutor, a corrupt court, a judge who doesn't know the law, but you are also at war with your own attorney who would rather railroad you for quick revenue recognition than defend you. And then when you finally beat your charge, everything you had in life is gone and you have to rebuild from nothing with nothing. I still haven't recovered and my student loans continue to capitalize. Hell, they'll probably be forgiven by the time I am done prosecuting these thugs.
The legal system by permitting civil suits is supposed to allow people to be made whole for the torts committed by others; to provide a non-violent remedy. And it can take years, and guess what? You get the same type of retarded judges who will do anything to protect law enforcement by granting them qualified immunity. So then it is many more years exhausting appeals, if they even take them. To be honest, this isn't justice. This is just being reinjured after the injury. The purpose of a civil trial is to allow a peaceful remedy. If the court refuses to let the people have jurisdiction in their courts against governmental officials, the courts shouldn't forget that the jurisdiction falls back upon we the people in our own individual capacities. And when they violate our life, liberty, or estate, and there is no higher authority on earth left to appeal to, I am saddened to say that we have a duty to kill them. There are some people who are naturally non-violent and can't break out of their shell, and I am one of those people. I can defend myself non-volently, but will often take the other cheek understanding that sometimes people just need to release some negative energy. There is a big difference between being physically attacked by an unarmed fool, and being falsely arrested and forced to lose everything. And of course the feminists want men locked away for months or years just for saying hello to a woman on a side walk. I don't see that as proportional. If saying hello on a sidewalk is somehow evil, perhaps the proportional punishment should be that the women says hello back to the guy and sees how he likes it. Yeah, I am sure he'll find out it's not say bad. You never hear a woman complain when another woman says hello to them; feminist don't support gender equality.
In the bundy case. The bundys to are natural law too, but their interpretation on the government is archaic beliving the constitution forbids the federal government should own any land outside of DC, absent limited circumstances. It is an originalist view that is no longer valid. It used to be that the government would sell its land to those who wanted to buy, and you could only vote if you were a home owner. You used to be able to claim about 640 acres of land up until 1976 through the homestead acts. I suppose this is something those arguing for civil war reparations forgot about. Suddenly all this public land fell under the authority of the BLM. Now the federal government still does sell land, but they are mostly buildings they no longer use and the sales are through the GSA. So anyways they don't believe the federal government should charge them grazing fees when their cows eat on federal land. Now this isn't about tax evasion, they witnessed what these fees have done to so many ranchers in their area and for 20+ years they have been petitioning the government for a redress of grievances. They also observed the FWS flood many ranchers off their property and forced them to sell...to the federal government. One of the leaders of the BLM was a Dan Love and he was on the enforcement arm of it. Unlike me, that guy is a complete out of control monster. He had a kill book, listing the number of people he reportedly drove to kill themselves-and he also stole some indian artifacts from evidence and began giving them away. Thee are reports that love had a kill list, and that Dan Love was planning to kill the entire Bundy family. On top of those abuses, the FBI also sent in a fake documentary group, to try to phish out statements without the presence of their attorneys. A blatant violation of the 5th amendment. Luckily for the defendants, the judge who had refused to grant them a bond, had to throw out the case for due process violations. Even something that could have resulted in a conviction was thrown out because the prosecution refused to give them due process and ultimately a fair trial. There is chatter that the government could move to retry the case, unfortunately. Their supports are being being harassed and prosecuted by lawn enforcement-one has even become an ex patrioate after he was arrested for questioning a police officer whom he previously filmed. Anyways, in the bundy case, The prosecution wasn't just withholding evidence, they were knowingly and willingly lying about it too (denying the BLM had snipers) and denying them their due process rights. And there were legitimate concerns about the lack of professionalism from the BLM agents. I think I read Wooten described the BLMs conduct as middle school bullies. And given that there was a kill list, let us not forget Levoy Finicum where it is reported he was shot with a foam bullet, causing him to reach for his chest in pain, which the fbi then gunned down.
And then we get to the FBI and mueller's witch hunt against Trump. Two [former] members of Mueller's teams were anti-trump and pro-hillary and were conspiring against Trump. Most people are partisan, let's be honest, but most people can put aside their politics when it comes to doing their job. 5 months worth of emails just conveniently disappeared. Hmm, maybe they should see if the NSA has a copy. But it is enough to spark conspiracy theories about secret societies in the FBI and CIA advocated by Lou Dobbs and Limbaugh. While I am open to the idea of a conspiracy to impeach trump, calling it a secret society is a stretch to me. But then, i read this; that idea of a secret society out to get trump was touted by the two fbi agents themselves in the conspiracy. So if it is in their own words, maybe it isn't a stretch afterall. As we see in the previous link, through forensics, experts were able to obtain the lost emails. Were they merely lost in a database, or did they have to be unerased while also decrypting whatever methods and filesystems the fbi use? If it was anyone else, not many people would go the extra step to get the original documents. It wasn't until I mailed the judge-threatening 1983 action against my own lawyer if she didn't remove him-that she demanded an original copy be produced. it was brought it, the discrepancies found, an admission as to what was the original by the fake victim. Case dismissed.
It doesn't matter if you are a poor college student, a black person, a rancher, or the president of the united states-law enforcement hates just about everyone and they will try to make examples of of them whenever they see it fit. There is a great deal of trust in government officials that they will do the right thing, but they repeatedly violate that trust. And if they don't like you, if you being harmed is advantageous for them, if your voice challenges their authority, depending on the level of government they have either millions or billions of dollars to seek your destruction. If you are in jail, you don't have access to your money, you can't look online to shop around for lawyers or see if they are any good, your access to evidence depends upon your lawyer, your ability raise arguments depends on your lawyer. And your lawyer would just assume send you into a jury trial with nothing as punishment for refusing to please guilty, as mine attempted to do. Hell, many of these plea lawyers will just leave you rotting in Jail hoping that by accumulating time that it will make a plea deal more likely. A 6 month plead deal doesn't sound so bad when yo have 5 months served. Or your could be like me, when offered a plead deal to get out just by pleading guilty, you refuse, stand your ground, and let them know that not only you are innocent but that can't do that to people.
I would encourage readers that if they ever sit on a jury to nullify just about every criminal case they can, save for a few exceptions. Jury nullification basically is the ability of the jury to decide the laws and the facts, as well as the proportionality of a crime. It is something governments hate, and in the past governments have prosecuted a jury for refusing to convict. hell, they will even arrest people for handing out pamphlets on jury nullification. But it is a piece of Americana, the most notable example being William Penn-the future governor of Pennsylvania. Anyways, These exceptions should be when the victims are children, the elderly, Actual violence, or repeat offenders, or a defendant admits it. I hate to say it, but even as the Julian Assange case shows us, but people should be weary of convicting people for rape too. That is a horrible crime, and those committing it should be locked away. But absent other acts of physical violence, audio or video, or forensics, too much is he said v she said and that should never be the basis for sending someone to prison or jail. Even lab based evidence isn't compelling. In massachusettes, an estimated 20000 drug convictions will likely be reversed. Why? a scientist was committing fraud. Innocent lives, families were destroyed, people lots their jobs, their cars, their homes, their credit, their friends, their reputation, many lost years of their lives. Some likely were guilty. But who knows how many of these people were targetted for political reasons, after all it isn't unheard of for cops to plant actual drugs on innocent people. Of course, in that case we see the officer is claiming to re-enact the discovery of drugs. Law enforcement is the equivalent of being a professional liar.
That said, if a judge actually allows a cop to stand trial, that means the judge has already decided a prudent officer violated someone's clearly established constitutionally protected rights, and found that no prudent officer would have done the same thing. If you are given the rare opportunity to sit on a jury in any case where a cop is a defendant, you make sure that you find him guilty, and if you have any say for sentencing or damages, request that he be hurt as hard as the law allows. If not for the screening of jurors, all it takes is a mere 8.3% (assuming 12 man jury-not always the case) of the population to authorize a full scale slaughter of our lawless judges, police, and prosecutors. If the judges want to immunize the cops when the kill or destroy us, we can immunize those who use deadly force against them. Not only would that send a chill up their spines, but they would instantly realize how fragile they really are when just "8.3%" of the population is enough to declare it open cop/judge hunting season.

And of course before then. If you have the opportunity to vote for a judge, be sure to vote the cop lovers out of office. Best to get rid of them peacefully.