Month: December 2011

Jury Nullification Becoming More Mainstream

When Julian Heicklen was arrested for informing jurors of their rights I gave a brief overview of jury nullification. Nullification is a power juries have that the government has been trying to keep secret because not doing so would allow the people to effectively reign in government power. Information regarding jury nullification has been creeping out after the arrest of Mr. Heicklen and is now hitting the New York Times:

IF you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty” — even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.

One thing to note is the right of jury nullification doesn’t come from the Bill of Rights but from the fact juries aren’t punished for their verdict. If you’re a juror and find somebody not guilty you are not required to justify your ruling nor can you be punished for voting “the wrong way.” Besides that point the article is a good read. Unfortunately if you don’t inform yourself about jury powers you’ll never hear about them thanks to the Supreme Court:

In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that jurors had no right, during trials, to be told about nullification. The court did not say that jurors didn’t have the power, or that they couldn’t be told about it, but only that judges were not required to instruct them on it during a trial. Since then, it’s been up to scholars like me, and activists like Mr. Heicklen, to get the word out.

When the Supreme Court said judges were not required to inform juries of their rights it was interpreted as judges being able to make up any line of bullshit they want while never informing jurors what they can and can’t do. Judges usually inform juries that they’re required to uphold the letter of the law, an idea that’s entirely false. This is irrelevant because judges, like police officers, can legally lie to you all they want (but it’s a crime if you lie to them).

Lawsuit Over the Assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki Filed

Charlie Savage and The New York Times have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DoJ) over their unwillingness to release the memo authorization the assassination of Anwar al-Awalki:

That story has become, in part, the basis for a lawsuit Savage and the Times have filed against the DOJ for not disclosing the memo that justifies al-Awlaki’s assassination. The lawsuit, which Savage posted online today, “seek[s] the production of agency records improperly withheld by the United States Department of Justice in response to requests properly made by Plaintiffs.” While Savage and the Times don’t know how many documents exist, Savage’s contact in the administration revealed to him that “there exists at least one legal memorandum detailing the legal analysis justifying the government’s use of targeted killing.”

Good on them. Unfortunately in this country the president is above the law has history demonstrates:

Even if The New York Times and Savage win their suit, there is a chance the Obama administration will not comply with the ruling. In spring 2009 Obama refused to comply with a U.S. Court of Appeals decision ordering the Pentagon to release photos of detainees captured in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Regardless of the fact we have a kind instead of a president I’m glad somebody has finally brought attention to this mess. Anwar al-Awalki may have been a terrible person but we’ll never know because no trial was every held, he was an American citizen killed by simple decree for the king. What makes matters worse is nobody besides the king’s men have even seen this decree.

In a country supposedly built upon equality under the law al-Awalki should have been captured and brought to trial to face is accusers. Instead we flew a drone over to his hiding place and sent a missile in to blow him apare.

The Censorship War Against Terror

I’m getting very sick of this fear mongering performed by our government. United States authorities decided two papers published about bird flu were in need of revision, and when the government says revision they mean censorship:

US authorities have asked the authors of two controversial bird flu studies to redact key details after a government advisory panel suggested the data could be used by terrorists.

The papers show how a bird flu variant can pass easily between ferrets.

Holy shit, the terrorists may learn that bird flu can be used against ferrets! Not ferrets! We love those mischievous cute little critters! Quick demand the report be censored!

Let’s look at this under a more serious light. The United States government must believe Al Qaeda has a team of crack biologists who specialized in virology. That’s the only possible way that they could be in the least bit worried about this information spreading. Were I to read the report my brain would probably collapse in on itself due to complete stupidity regarding viruses. You can just read a research paper and gain a complete understanding of the material unless you also have the requisite prior knowledge on which the paper is based. Does the United States government believe real life is like Fallout where you can pick up a book, use it, and gain an instant +2% to a related stat? If Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other such entity had leading virologists I would think we’d have been attacked by some kind of super plague by now. Unfortunately for Al Qaeda and fortunately for us extremely intelligent researchers usually aren’t violent psychopaths.

You can just ignore everything I’ve said though because the government has a solution:

Editors at the journals Science and Nature say they will not agree to the redactions until they are assured the data will be accessible to researchers.

A spokesman for US health authorities said such a system was being prepared.

I’m sure anybody who passes a government background check, meets the government mandated qualifications to be a researcher, and pays an exorbitant licensing fee will have access to this new database system. On the other hand top level researchers in other countries (especially terrorist countries like not American) can just go fuck themselves along with the amateurs. We can completely ignore the fact that some of the world’s greatest scientific breakthroughs were done by amateur researchers who would likely not meed the government’s requirement of the title.

What this censorship will do is make finding a cure or vaccine much more difficult because only those blessed by the divinity of government will be allowed to participate in such research. In other words the potential number of researchers trying to find a cure or create a vaccine will be greatly reduced.

Explain to Me Again How Cell Phone Bans Will Improve Automobile Safety

I’ve already explained that the increased use in cellular phones is not responsible for automobile accident rates in the United States as cellular phone usage has increased drastically while the rate of accidents has decreased. Now the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety are brining up the fact cell phone bans accomplish nothing (except increase revenue for police departments of course):

Cell phone bans, such as those recently recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board, have so far proven useless when it comes to actually reducing car crashes, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The Insurance Institute is a private group financed by auto insurers. The National Transportation Safety Board recently recommended that states adopt strict rules banning all non-driving-related use of hand-held devices such as cell phones — even hands-free — while driving.

Many states already have bans on hand-held cell phone use and on texting while driving. The Insurance Institute has studied crash rates before and after bans were enacted in various states and also compared them to crash rates in nearby states with no such bans.

While the bans have resulted in actual reductions in phone use, they have not resulted in any reduction in crash rates, according to the Institute.

Since insurance companies are the ones who end up paying out when automobile crashes occur I would say their best interest lies in advocating any restriction that reduces the rate of crashes. In other words it would be in their best interest to find the exact opposite of these results so any accusations about these results being skewed because of the “evil greedy corporations” need to be backed by some pretty hard evidence.

Seeing these results we’re forced to consider there is a different cause for auto accidents. Perhaps some people are just bad drivers and if they’re not distracted by their phone they’ll find something else to distract themselves with. Of course this study will be entirely ignored by various state government and our overreaching federal government because, damn it, we have to do something!

Remind Me Again How We Don’t Live in a Police State

While many still refer to the United States as the land of the free in truth we’re a police state. The incarceration rate is astounding with 2,292,133 adults in prison and 86,927 children in juvenile detention (not to mention those on probation or otherwise under surveillance). A new study shows that one in three people will have been arrested by the age of 23:

Parents and non-parents alike might be shocked to learn a new study estimates that roughly 1 in 3 U.S. youths will be arrested for a non-traffic offense by age 23 – a “substantively higher” proportion than predicted in the 1960s.

The study, posted online by the journal Pediatrics, shows that between about 25% to 41% of 23-year-olds have been arrested or taken into police custody at least once for a non-traffic offense. If you factor in missing cases, that percentage could lie between about 30% and 41%.

While I haven’t read the study yet (I am being provided the PDF by a friend though, expect more on this after I’ve read it) I’m not at all surprised by this number. The Justice Policy Institute has a report [PDF] that explains how many students in public schools are not being arrested for absolutely trivial matters. It’s true, when you criminalize everything everybody becomes a criminal.

Honestly I’m still shocked that anybody can deny the fact that this is the United Police State of America.

Televising Supreme Court Hearings

C-SPAN televises a great number of congressional hearings and other political shenanigans but they do not broadcast Supreme Court hearings. A number of people have been advocating that Supreme Court hearings also be televised on C-SPAN and I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortuneatly these things aren’t up to me and some opponents believe televising these hearings will have negative side effects:

Senators from both parties have been pushing for decades to allow cameras into the Supreme Court’s chambers. But many of the justices fear their dense, aggressive questioning would be taken out of context, and that cameras would foster the public grandstanding often seen in Congress and the executive branch.

First of all this is bullshit. Why would the justices change the way they do their hearings? Who cares if anything they say is taken out of context? Claims that adding cameras will foster public grandstanding is also stupid because people already grandstand in the Supreme Court, just read through some of the rulings.

I think the Supreme Courts wants to keep its hearings as secret as possible because they don’t want to be caught doing anything naughty. The history of the Supreme Court as a defender of the Constitution (their job) is not very voluminous, they mostly work to advance the statist agenda. Were their hearings televised people would be able to see this and criticize their attempts to gain the government further control.

Many people believe the separation of powers in our government help protect us from tyranny. Unfortunately for us this isn’t the case because all three branches of our government work together to further empower themselves. Even though they each compose separate divisions they realize that they’re all in the game together and what grants additional power to on branch very likely grants additional power to the other two branches as well.

The ongoings of our government as supposed to be transparent because ultimately the government can only govern an overall consenting population. We the people are supposed to be the final judges of government action and that can only be properly accomplished if we know everything they’re doing. Members of our government also know this and thus fight tooth and nail against every attempt to further pull back the curtan concealing their doings.

We need to televise Supreme Court hearings because not doing so forces us to rely on the transcripts provided to use by government employees. I don’t trust any government employee to be honest or keep me property informed.

Government Bans Importation of Several HTC Phones

Via Engadget I found some very depressing news, The International Trade Commission sided with Apple in a recent patent dispute case. This means that several phones manufactured by HTC are no longer legal to import into the United States:

So what Apple has won is a formal import ban scheduled to commence on April 19, 2012, but relating only to HTC Android phones implementing one of two claims of a “data tapping patent”: a patent on an invention that marks up phone numbers and other types of formatted data in an unstructured document, such as an email, in order to enable users to bring up other programs (such as a dialer app) that process such data. The import ban won’t relate to HTC Android products that don’t implement that feature, or that implement it in ways not covered by those patent claims.

I’m not sure what HTC phones this will affect, but I know this patent describes behavior found in my Evo 4G. Regardless of what phones this affects one thing is for certain, this ruling perfectly demonstrations how businesses use the government to force competition out of their market.

While many HTC fans have been quick to jump on Apple as the culprit here I disagree. Apple simply used tools made available to cause problems for a competitor. The real culprit here is the International Trade Commission (ITC) who hold a monopoly on making such rulings and have the ability to initiate violence in order to enforce the decision. Were it not for these two things the matter would be entirely between Apple and HTC. Unfortunately our federal government maintains monopoly power over what can and can’t be imported into this country so this matter is now between Apple, HTC, and consumers who wish to purchase HTC phones. What should have been a ruling consisting entirely of monetary compensation has turned into a series of devices being added to the verboten list.

Another problem that has lead to this ruling are software patents. Software patents are one of the dumbest ideas our government has ever decided to allow. I’m not sure how algorithms are treated the same as physical inventions but alas I didn’t make the stupid laws. All I know is when a product can be banned from importation because of the way an application link is formatted that something is horribly wrong with our legal system.

AT&T Ends Bid for T-Mobile

AT&T and finally decided its attempted merger with T-Mobile was just not going to be allowed by the United States government:

US telecoms giant AT&T has said it will not pursue its $39bn bid to buy T-Mobile USA after running into fierce government objections.

[…]

AT&T has said it would include a $4bn charge in its fourth-quarter accounts to cover any potential compensation due if the deal does not go ahead.

AT&T agreed to buy T-Mobile USA from Deutsche Telekom in March, aiming to create the largest US wireless network.

While many T-Mobile customers are cheering I question whether or not this will allow T-Mobile to continue exiting. The bottom line is Deutsche Telekom is no longer interested in T-Mobile and is willing to break the subsidiary up and sell it in pieces if necessary. Likewise the $4 billion AT&T just payed for the failed merger goes to Deutsche Telekom, who may or may not invest it back into T-Mobile.

The merger also caused a great deal of damage to T-Mobile as it basically froze them in place. During the merger they did little or no network expansion that I’m aware of, obtained relatively few new phones, and now sit as the only carrier who doesn’t have the iPhone. If T-Mobile wants to remain relevant they have to play catchup for the last several months they did nothing while AT&T attempted to purchase the company. Overall the attempted merger may have caused irreversible damage to the fourth major carrier in the United States.

Again With the Race Card

Attorney General Eric Holder decided to take a card, a very specific card, from the Obama debate strategy book. With all the heat coming down on the Attorney general over Fast and Furious he’s now decided to play the race card:

Holder said some unspecified faction — what he refers to as the “more extreme segment” — is driven to criticize both him and President Barack Obama due to the color of their skin. Holder did not appear to elaborate on who he considered to make up the “more extreme segment.”

“This is a way to get at the president because of the way I can be identified with him,” Holder said, according to the Times. “Both due to the nature of our relationship and, you know, the fact that we’re both African-American.”

Right, because none of the criticism or the demands you resign have anything to do with your little false flag operation that involved smuggling guns into Mexico and arming the cartels. I have bad news Holder, your little game to advance gun control in this country failed miserably and many of us our a wee bit upset about the entire thing.

Honestly Holder should be grateful that members of Congress are only asking him to resign, I’d be demanding criminal charges if I was in Washington.

Too Many Idiots

The Brady Campaign has been trying to build up hype for their next failed attempt to create a movement of victim disarmament. You may not have heard anything about it as nobody pays much attention to the Brady Campaign anymore but Miguel over at Gun Free Zone had his ear to the ground and found the Brady Campaign’s new site, Too Many Victims (of Gun Violence, people killed by other violent crimes need not apply). Here’s a link you can copy and paste to visit the site:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/

Yeah I know it’s kind of petty to not link directly to their site, but I don’t link directly to sites of white supremacists either. If you’re advocating the creation of victims you’re not getting any link love from me.

Basically it’s a site created so people can go post memorials of people killed by guns. As Miguel pointed out the Brady Campaign doesn’t give two shits about victims of other violent crimes. If your family member was stabbed to death that’s just too bad, find somewhere else to post his memory.

The other thing the Brady folks are doing is encouraging people to host vigils for the victims of violent crimes involving firearms (if you were a victim of rape you can just take your sob story right over there with the rest of the people who were victimized in other violent crimes). Conveniently they have a very sparse list of planned vigils (which can be visited at the following link):

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/local-vigils/

Notice how most of the planned vigils don’t even have a date or location set yet, I’m guessing they never will. Sadly the only one going on in Minnesota is why the fuck up in Duluth so I’ll not be able to verify if five or six people attended.

I’m going to find it difficult to surpress me desire to troll this site. Miguel brought up the idea of posting “memorials” for criminals who were shot by their would be victims. My question is whether or not these vigils are open carry events. There is also the question regarding whether or not the Brady Bunch are so cold and calloused as to remove memorials of victims of violent crimes not involving firearms. Do Brady shills employees verify the memorials are for real people? There is certainly the potential of creating some very funny memorials for non-existant or fictional individuals (some James Bond villains would be good candidates).

Now that I’ve given you all these bad ideas I want to urge you to take the high road and do your best to resist trolling this site. Ff we don’t give it any traffic nobody will (seriously, we’re the only people who visit anti-gun websites and we do is just to laugh).

Either way the lack of factual evidence to back up their claims has lead to the anti-gunners to rely entirely on emotional manipulation. This new initiative by the Brady Bunch is a sickening demonstration of their selectiveness in opposing violence. They don’t care about violent crime, only gun crime.