Some Truth About War (with video)

I have decided to share this video, for the purpose of information sharing. I believe it is important to get all perspectives, in order to formulate your own opinions.

It is important to keep in mind here, that this piece is brought to us by Russia Today, and is clear anti-American propaganda. But what is most chilling, what scares me more than anything is, that it is true. Not that this is a clear look at the overall mindset of all troops, or the conditions under which they fight, or even the reasons why they fight. This is only a small sampling of the reality of what happened there. Nevertheless, this is a ture look at the grim face of war.

It is also important to keep in mind here, that while foreign nations may pose propaganda against us, they too are guilty of horrendous crimes as bad as these, maybe worse, not as if that were any excuse though. 

I am sharing this today not as an anti-American sentiment, but as an anti-war sentiment. This is what you unleash, when you vote for war. The most depraved spirit of humanity, this is LEGION, and the demon is beholden to no nation...

Double-Fatal Crash Raises Questions

At about 4:30 pm on Wednesday, tragedy struck suddenly as two people were killed in a horrific car-crash. The wreck occurred where Worrall Avenue intersects with the Eastbound Arterial highway (Baker Street section) in Poughkeepsie, New York.

What we know at this time, is that police were in pursuit of a Chevrolet Malibu when the crash occurred. According to a police statement, the vehicle was driving aggressively and failed to stop for a red light when it struck another car, a Kia Optima.The driver of the Kia, and the man's wife riding in the front passenger seat, were both killed. Two children in the backseat of the Kia were injured and taken to a local hospital. There were also two passengers in the suspect vehicle who sustained injuries.

Initial reports indicated that police had either seen the suspect vehicle driving erratically and/or that they had received 911 calls from other motorists. This has not yet been substantiated however, and others have stated that the pursuit was actually initiated because of an outstanding warrant against the driver which then led to his aggressive driving as he fled police. News reports confirm that the suspect has two outstanding warrants, but do not specify what the warrants are for. The 22 year-old suspect-driver was also on parole for an attempted armed robbery in the city. It seems plausible that police cruiser unit camera system may have gotten a "hit" on the license plate of the suspect vehicle, which then led the officer to attempt a traffic stop.

The local news paper also reports that the suspect vehicle ran a red-light at the intersection, while trying to flee from police, causing the crash. This report, apparently based on a police statement, conflicts with another account however. A woman claiming to have been in the suspect vehicle, who then commented at the Poughkeepsie Journal via Facebook, indicates that police attempted a P.I.T. maneuver, causing the suspect vehicle to go careening out of control through the intersection at high speed. Other commenters there also make that claim and state that there are dozens of witnesses to corroborate that account.

The suspect has since been arraigned on manslaughter charges, with bail set at $250,000 ($500k bond.) The suspect appeared teary-eyed and quivering according to news reports. At the arraignment, the judge declared that the suspect's actions were ""a gross deviation from the standard of conduct."

Whoa, wait just a second here. I can't say I have much sympathy at all for this asshole who decided it was okay to run from the cops and got two people killed in the process. But at the same time, we do have a standard of justice in this country, and for good reason. Courts are not supposed to be justified lynch-mob arenas. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Was the judge there? Did the judge see what happened, from start to finish? I don't think so. So what gives this judge the right to pass judgement before the facts of the case have been presented. Is that not what a trial is for?

And again, not that I have much sympathy for the suspect here at all, but if some of these claims are true, then the police must share in the culpability here. If it was the officer's PIT maneuver that actually caused the wreck, then he is just as guilty as the suspect driver.

Also, if all of this was over some bullshit warrant for failing to appear at court or something minor like that, then one has to seriously ask, was it really worth it? Granted, it was the suspect himself who chose to flee, putting lives in danger, for whatever reason. But there are better ways to handle a warrant, there are better tactics to catch a fleeing suspect in a city during rush-hour traffic.

For those that are not familiar with the area, the Arterial highway is a 3-lane highway but has a speed limit of 30-mph with heavy traffic, and well-traveled cross streets every few hundred yards. This is not like some California freeway where cops will spin-out a suspect that goes careening out into some field. This was in the middle of rush-hour in the middle of a city.

"A" marks the intersection
Now after having said all of that, I believe that the suspect should face the MAXIMUM penalty for manslaughter, two counts, no parole. Whether the sentences for both counts should run consecutively or concurrently, I would say should be based on whether a PIT maneuver were actually performed. Of course, that is not the legal standard, just my own personal opinion, trying to weigh and balance culpability in a general manner.

If it does turn out that the officer pulled a PIT maneuver, he too should face charges, but I would agree with lenient sentencing. The department should also be sued, and their policies changed. All of that of course, if, reiterate, if, that is what happened there.

All in all, this is a terrible tragedy for all involved. May the departed rest in peace, may those left behind be comforted by loved ones, may time heal all wounds, and may justice be served accurately.

More details at : YNN NEWS


Press Freedom May Hinge on 'Jury Nullification' as Journalist is Put On Trial

If you don't know what Jury Nullification is, please start by checking out...

What is Jury Nullification?

A trial date has been set for August 13th in the case of a journalist, and public-official accountability advocate, who now faces  a stiff prison term for alleged "wire-tapping." Three felony charges against CopBlock founder Ademo Mueller stem from his public report which covered the story of alleged excessive force by a police detective who slammed a high-school student's face into a cafeteria table.

Be sure to check out the full story in our previous article...

Reporter Faces 21 Years After Airing Excessive Force Complaint

It does not appear that the prosecutors have a valid case, but the fact that he has been sitting in jail since the grand-jury indictment was handed down does not bode well for the prospects of true justice. Unfortunately, the journalist's activism pointing out instances of abusive authority have set powerful enemies against him, who are no doubt willing to go to almost any length in order to silence him and punish him for the embarrassment he has caused the establishment. In the past, he was penalized with maximum sentences for misdemeanor crimes that he clearly did not commit, or that could only be seen as crimes through the most totalitarian interpretations of the law.

The seriousness of this case cannot be understated at this point. It is no exaggeration to say that the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, are on trial in New Hampshire. The precedent set in this case will have implications across the nation. Especially as the proliferation of technology runs head-on into antiquated legal codes meant to protect privacy. Laws which were authored in a time when privacy was not monopolized by police and public officials.

Technology and Police Hypocrisy

While most folks would see this prosecution as a witch-hunt, or the work of an overzealous prosecutor misinterpreting the "spirit" of wiretapping laws, the very real possibility exists that a jury might find the jailed reporter to be "technically" in violation of the statute, and therefore feel obligated to render a guilty verdict. Even if they don't believe that the wire-tapping laws were authored with the purpose of silencing the freedom of the press, the prosecutor might be able to make the case that the facts still show Ademo Mueller did violate the penal code, regardless of the context or other interpretive meaning of the codified law.

If the prosecutor can make the case, will jurors still feel a moral dilemma in returning a guilty verdict? Perhaps based on the idea, that while technically guilty, the felonious characterization is far too harsh? Or more importantly, based on their own beliefs in traditional American values of free speech are violated by this specific prosecutorial application of the law?

This case stands to set another important precedent, as it may be the first trial of an activist before a fully informed jury. New Hampshire just became the only state in the 50 which will allow a defense attorney to present the principle of Jury Nullification. In other words, Ademo Mueller's attorney could, theoretically and in essence, tell the jury that they have the right to return a verdict of not-guilty if they believe the law is unjust or being applied unfairly.

New Hampshire Adopts Jury Nullification Law

Sadly however, the Governor's act allowing for informed juries does not take effect until January 1, 2013. This means another six months in jail for the reporter, as his attorneys stall for time, or that he might have to rely on an appeal to secure his physical freedom and restore the freedom of press for everyone. The only other hope, is that potential jurors have kept up on their state's news, and realize for themselves that they have the right to return a not-guilty verdict no matter what the law says. This is how important Jury Nullification really is, that freedom of the press may rely on an informed jury.

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve
AN ACT relative to the right of a jury to judge the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
243:1 Findings and Intent of the General Court. Under the decisions of both the New Hampshire supreme court and the United States Supreme Court, the jury has the right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. The jury system functions at its best when it is fully informed of the jury’s prerogatives. The general court wishes to perpetuate and reiterate the rights of the jury, as ordained under common law and recognized in the American jurisprudence, while preserving the rights of a criminal defendant, as enumerated in part 1, articles 15 and 20, New Hampshire Bill of Rights.
243:2 New Section; Right of Accused; Jury Instruction. Amend RSA 519 by inserting after section 23 the following new section:
519:23-a Right of Accused. In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.
243:3 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.
Approved: June 18, 2012
Effective Date: January 1, 2013

Get updates at CopBlock.org

What is Jury Nullification?

What is Jury Nullification? You won't find it defined in your dictionary or described in your encyclopedia. You weren't taught about it in school, and indeed it is even considered a crime to tell other people about it in some circumstances. Imagine that for a moment, a crime to inform a citizen as to their right, even the scope of their duty while serving on a jury.

According to the Wikipedia entry:
Jury nullification is a constitutional doctrine which allows juries to acquit criminal defendants who are technically guilty, but who do not deserve punishment. It occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the judge's instructions as to the law. 

A jury verdict contrary to the letter of the law pertains only to the particular case before it. If a pattern of acquittals develops, however, in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offence, this can have the de facto effect of invalidating the statute. A pattern of jury nullification may indicate public opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment...
Most Americans have never even heard of such a doctrine. Thanks to numerous TV shows and real-life judges telling us that the only function of the jury is to render a decision based strictly upon the facts of the case, a key tenet of the justice system envisioned by the Founding Fathers has been lost. You see, it is not only the job of the jury to weigh guilt or innocence against the letter of the law, but also to judge the just nature of the statutes themselves. In this way, The People ultimately retain power over the government, rather than the government dictating to The People what is and what is not justice. This tenet is instrumental in protecting ourselves, as The People, from tyrannical laws and cronyism. This is why we have a jury system in the first place, not simply to act as a cog in the wheel of the justice system, but to be the justice in the system.

Let us imagine for a moment, that you live in a city where the Mayor makes soda-pop illegal. So illegal that he actually signs into law a criminal statute that makes it a jailable offense to dispense soda-pop. He makes a public campaign to warn about the evils of soda-pop, how detrimental it is to your health, while being crowned king of national doughnut day, and holding a vast amount stock in the city's number-one importer of iced-tea.

Fascist Food and Nutrition Nazis

Now let us imagine that you are sitting on the jury for a criminal trial of a single-mom arrested for selling soda-pop to her neighbor, which had been "smuggled" in from outside of the city limits, and that the transaction was captured on an audio-video recording by police. You see that she is plainly guilty of violating the law, technically, but can't in good-conscience send her off to jail for a year. You, and other jury members voice that dilemma to the judge, who then instructs you to render a verdict based strictly on the facts of the case, the evidence presented, and that all other considerations have no bearing on your duty to render a verdict. What do you do? It appears that you have no choice, and you find her guilty.

But if you had actually been a FULLY INFORMED JUROR, rather than just listening to the instructions of the judge who owed his career to the Mayor, you would have known that you did have an alternative. That it was not actually illegal for you to ignore the judge's instructions, and that you could have rendered a verdict based on your conscience rather than a law in a bool. You would have known that Jury Nullification not only gives you this right, but that it is your duty as a juror to render your verdict in such a manner. In this way, you see, not only have you protected the accused from overzealous and tyrannical prosecution, but you have also struck a blow against cronyism. Cronyism by the Mayor who stands to make a profit from the law he made, in relation to the company stocks he owns and the companies that own him. Cronyism by police and prosecutors who turn a profit on the backs of the taxpayers for every arrest and prosecution they make, maintaining their job security and giving the United States the largest prison population in the world in the process.

Imagine how many ridiculous laws would be suddenly rendered obsolete. Imagine how many frivolous prosecutions would be avoided. Imagine how many people would not be sitting in prison today for victimless crimes. Imagine how much lower your taxes would be if you didn't have to pay for all this nonsense. Imagine how powerless the government would suddenly find itself, in the face of a population that was no longer going to take any of their shit.

Maybe that's why the principle of Jury Nullification is the most taboo subject in our justice system today, and has been continually eroded in landmark decisions by the courts since 1895, as time has distanced us from the core principles of liberty on which this nation was founded. 

In 1794, the case of Georgia v. Brailsford was being heard before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The court's first Chief Justice, John Jay, established precedent that the Common Law practice of Jury Nullification was valid in the United States. He wrote, in part...
"It may not be amiss, here, Gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law, it is the province of the court to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt, you will pay that respect, which is due to the opinion of the court: For, as on the one hand, it is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumbable, that the court are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully, within your power of decision."
That precedent held, unmolested, for 99 years. Prior to the Civil War, the Fugitive Slave Act made it a Federal Crime to help escaped slaves, but jury nullification was instrumental in undermining that law and bringing an end to slavery America. Jurors refused to render a guilty verdict against those who had helped escaped slaves. But in 1895, the Supreme Court of the United States struck it's first blow against the Common Law principle of Jury Nullification. In Sparf v United States SCOTUS held in a 5-4 decision that federal judges were not required to inform jurors of their inherent right to judge the law in a case.

In the 1969, the Fourth Circuit upheld in the case of U.S. v. Moylan that a court could refuse to allow instruction to a jury regarding nullification, yet hypocritically upheld the jurors inherent right to nullify. In other words, they were denying the right of the juror to be informed of their right, while still maintaining the validity of Jury Nullification stating...
“If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit.”
In the 1972 case of United States v Dougherty  the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit maintained that the courts could deny the defense the chance to instruct a jury on their right to nullify.

In 1988, in U.S. v. Krzyske, the jury asked the judge about jury nullification. The judge responded “There is no such thing as valid jury nullification.” The jury convicted the defendant, and the judge’s answer was upheld on appeal. Another judge did dissent however, and cited United States v. Wilson, 629 F. 2d 439 - Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit 1980, that the panel had unanimously decided "In criminal cases, a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position."

In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b). There have even been instances of jurors being removed and mistrials declared after informed-jury activists distributed literature near courthouses.

Now here's one final gut-check for the uninformed public. We often assume that it is the job of the defense attorney to defend their client to the best of their ability, with all of the knowledge at their disposal. This is not true, however. Attorneys, including defense attorneys, are an Officer of the Court. This means that their first duty is to the law, and not their client. With a sworn oath to uphold the law, they are forbidden from advocating jury nullification. You lawyer works for the court, not you.

If you ever sit on a jury, remember one important fact. You do not work for the court.


A History of Jury Nullification

The Straight Dope


Reporter Faces 21 Years After Airing Excessive Force Complaint

Ademo Mueller, reporter and founder of police accountability network CopBlock, is facing 21 years in prison after broadcasting a story of a relatively minor excessive force complaint against police by a high-school student.

In that incident, a police detective on duty at West High School in Manchester, New Hampshire, slammed a teenager's head into a cafeteria table after the teen muttered an expletive. The act was caught on a digital-video recording, by another student.

Three months later, the reporter was indicted on three felony counts of wiretapping stemming from his coverage of the high-school incident, which included calls to police and school officials seeking information. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison. (Unfortunately, Ademo is likely to be sentenced to the maximum if convicted, as he was in a seperate incident where he was sentnced to the maximum of 12-months in jail for resisting arrest, when in fact he did not resist arrest at all, and his right to a jury-trial was denied through a bureaucratic sleight-of-hand.)

Sorting through the page of legal-speak in the New Hampshire Public Justice statute, it seems that the wiretapping laws there break down to whether or not another party has reasonable expectation that their communications are not subject to interception. As public officials of course, they should have no such expectation, especially when being interviewed by a reporter calling for public accountability.


“A public official who is on duty and in a public space has no expectation of privacy, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled on this in Glik vs. Cunniffe. The person who should face consequences is the officer who threw that poor kid into a table during lunch at the school cafeteria, not the journalist who reported about it." ~Ian Freeman, co-host of Free-Talk Live Radio

That seems to sum it up pretty well, but of course this is not how these public officials see it. In fact, the officer in question from the original incident was back to work the next day and faced no disciplinary action whatsoever for his violent assault, while now this reporter is facing 21 years in prison for merely showing you what is happening in America's schools today. Not only the violence at the hands of police, but also the trampling of rights rather than the teaching of rights by school officials. What are our children actually being taught in school?

My personal opinion is that the officer/detective in question has no business being assigned to duty in a high-school with that temperament, and that his act was indeed an unprovoked act of violence. Certainly not the worst act of violence I have ever seen though. I would have been happy just to see him face a departmental fine, a demerit on his record, and most importantly would liked to have seen him re-assigned outside of a public school setting.

Outside of that relatively minor incident though, anyone with a shred of common sense can see that this reporter should not be facing any sort of legal penalty whatsoever for reporting on a public news event in a free country, even if one believes that the confrontational officer acted correctly. What sort of convoluted sense of justice must public officials have to even level these charges against the reporter in the first place, and then for a grand-jury to have to return on indictment on these charges? It seems quite clear that this case is not about justice at all, but rather an unfounded and malicious misuse of the criminal justice system by those who are threatened by Ademo Mueller's demands for fairness and accountability from our own public officials. The fact that he was charged at all only validates the very premise of anti-police activism in the first place.

Let us be clear though, pro-accountability is not necessarily anti-police. There are officers out there who have no problem at all being filmed, and carry out their duties with the integrity and skill we would expect from a public authority. Unfortunately, I could only find one such example in the law-enforcement-only commentary on the related article at PoliceOne.
"I welcome anyone to record me anytime." - Posted by jcboston69 on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 01:53 PM Pacific
The much more common theme there in the commentary is to make juvenile comments about prison-rape and celebrating the arrest. And then we have this blurb, which is actually pretty insightful as to the mindset all-too-common to law-enforcement.
"First off, there's no reasonable expectation of freedom for a minor in school..." -Posted by ponydude94 on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 02:34 PM Pacific 
In other words, this law-enforcement professional believes that there are people and places in this this country where the Constitution does not apply. That a child in school is, essentially, bound by the same standard as a convicted felon in a prison, rather than as a free citizen acquiring an education. Also note his attempted psychological ploy at deflection of the case at hand, with his use of the words "reasonable expectation" which were used in the article to describe the wiretapping statute. The commenter then goes on to say...
"...Second, it looks to me like resisting arrest for misdemeanor theft..." 
So here we see that this law-enforcement professional will twist the law and actually lie about what he saw in order to defend his fellow officer. For the crime of misdemeanor theft to be valid, you would first need a victim to corroborate such a charge. In other words, unless the boy's sister told the detective that her purse had been stolen, no such grounds for arrest existed. Secondly, even if such grounds did exist, I saw no resistance occur. The boy was sitting peacefully, made no threatening gestures of any kind, and was violently attacked by the detective without clear provocation or cause. The purse had already been returned, and the officer began to walk away, disengaging himself from the matter. This corroborates the account of the student, that he was attacked after he muttered an expletive when the principal told him he was being suspended, and that the utterance was in fact the only provocation for the sudden assault.

Finally, this law-enforcement official finishes his commentary on the story with this blurb...
...Third, the video caught none of the conversation between the arrestee and the detective, only from the d-wad filming. Therefore, any explanation at a later time is hearsay, as these self-righteous turds can ultimately narrate the event however they wish. Teenagers will lie to their dying grandmother if it got them out of doing the dishes. Let's get the detective's story.
Well yes, that is a good idea, let's go ahead and get the Detective's story...

At this time it is not known what the disposition of the teen's case is. One would hope that at the very least he was cleared of any wrongdoing, and that a civil suit against the department for wrongful arrest is proceeding.

All in all though, this story is not really about one fairly minor incident of one law-enforcement official overstepping his bounds a little with a wise-ass teenager. This story is about an open attack on the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech in this country. This is YOUR freedom that is on trial, not just the journalist himself. The precedent that will be set by this case will define the future of freedom in New Hampshire, and the nation.

Free Ademo: An Overview (Video Link)

Free Ademo Page

Journalist Striving for Accountability Faces Two Decades in Prison (UPDATES HERE)

Stay tuned for an additional article later on jury nullification and the role it may play in this trial!

Sadly, this is how the case was finally concluded:

Freedom of Press Now a Felony in America



IDF 'Cleanse' Gaza

While this video is obviously oriented toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these tactics are be no means localized. This is the same propaganda tactics used to get YOU, and our young men, to go kill people they have never met, anywhere in the world.

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog