Help the Border Patrol agents imprisoned
- Thread starter BlindFaith
- Start date
Osborn F. Enready
Moderator
Pick a right, and I will show you my argument, and links to support it.
So, you believe the judge in any trial should fully inform the jury of their rights, and obligations as jury members, correct?
Have you ever heard of FIJA? (Fully Informed Jury Institute)
http://www.fija.org/
I am assuming not, since you think the system is still working.
If the jury is not informed of their right to nullification of law, is the jury fully informed?
Is a trial valid, and the findings legal, if the jury was not informed?
Don't bet on it.
Have you seen the National Press Club Coverage of Whitey Harold case?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6716929127738729234
That verdict was a result of an INFORMED jury.
There are those of us that would rather stand by a brother in arms, than stand by a code that is empty, baseless and tyrannical.
Really? Care to describe the process of challenging a law without being on trial, or petition for redress of grievance? I am all ears sir.
Answer the above reply please, before I go into detail.
The fact is, the method used to create the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the methods used to illegalize drugs, as well as the "claimed" factual basis were all proven to be false, and illegal.
Are you ignoring the multiple states that have attempted to invoke states right to legalize marijuana, only to be crushed by Federal LEO's at the behest of the Federal Governemnt?
It has to do with the fact that I have no problem with laws where rights are respected, as intended. It shows how even men such as I, who respect law, justice and the system AS DESIGNED, are pushed to thought of revolt over the littany of evidence provided by FOIA requests, released documents, and congressional hearings that state we are no longer a Constitutional system.
We are quickly nearing the times when people like myself are ready to risk great personal loss in support of our rights, as enumerated and unalienable, against the very people WE put in place to PROTECT them.
I would have no qualms of aiding the tax protester in New Hampshire, regardless of the personal cost, if the system drew down on him as they did on Randy Weaver, David Koresh. Time will tell, won't it.
That doesn't concern me if they don't present it before entering.
I am not about to lower my weapon, or "not fire" simply because the person is wearing a uniform. If they have a warrant, they serve it. If they want entry, they show the warrant and identify themselves.
If they barge in to my home, on any "reasoning" without ID before entry, or warrant served, they are targets. I will not risk my life, or my loved ones lives in the trust of a uniform, or idiot police who can't observe rights while trying to do their job, regardless of the claims. This is common sense.
Do you deny the "trend" we are seeing of people imitating police officers to committ crime? That is all the reason I need to justify my action at the time, and the jury can figure out the rest if anything is left to put on trial.
This is a BASIC rights issue.
I would appreciate a link to that source, if you have one, specificly on that issue.
You are ASSUMING I would conscent to the search, because I have nothing to hide? Kind of like stealing peoples conversations with illegal wiretaps, nothing to hide, nothing to worry about, right? RIGHT!!!!... :barf:
I am not stuck on any point, except rights, and how they are being abused by law enforcement, law makers, and the system that is in place to PROTECT them.
What is hard to understand about that?
Nice attempt at demonization by association though.
Osborn F. Enready
Moderator
You can count yourself out, but as I said already about the "lie" comment, don't speak for me.
I am not ready to close down the patent agency yet, there are still inventions out there left undiscovered.
I focus on drug prohibition for many reasons, the main one being that it is the most obviously corrupt, ill-founded, baseless laws on the books.
Did you know hemp was a national crop at one time?
Did you know Ford had an automobile designed of hemp parts, and actually ran on hemp fuel? (in the 1940's, they had alternate fuel already, but were squashed by big gubbmint and its industrial supporters like Hearst Paper, Dupont, and others of their ilk who had staked intrest in wood pulp paper, which hemp paper would naturally replace, with less enviromental damage due to no use of bleach as with wood pulp paper.)
Do you think the "risk of drug use" was the motivation for the illegalization of hemp and marijuana?
I am sensing that you think drug laws, as they are, stand legal and formed via constitutional methods?
I read how many times the "BP AGENTS" shot the guy.
No love lost as they rot in prison, among others they helped put there for no legal reason. They lost my compassion by supporting laws that have no legal basis.
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this."
Albert Einstein
"My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Upton Sinclair
Author of "The Jungle"
"Since you [US "drug tsar" McCaffrey] control a federal budget that has just been increased from $17.8 billion last year to $19.2 billion this year, is asking people like you if we should continue with our nation's current drug policy like a person asking a barber if one needs a haircut?"
Judge James P. Gray
Orange Country, California
Los Angeles Times
29 March 2000
"You're asking the government to control individual morality.
This is a government that can't buy a toilet seat for under $600."
Peter McWilliams
Author of "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do"
"Our youth can not understand why society chooses to criminalize a behavior with so little visible ill effect or adverse social impact... These young people have jumped the fence and found no cliff. And the disrespect for the possession laws fosters a disrespect for laws and the system in general... On top of this is the distinct impression among the youth that some police may use the marihuana laws to arrest people they don't like for other reasons, whether it be their politics, their hair style or their ethnic background."
"Federal and state laws (should) be changed to no longer make it a crime to possess marijuana for private use."
"State laws should make the public use of marijuana a criminal offense punishable by a $100 fine. Under federal law, marijuana smoked in public would merely be subject to seizure."
President Richard M. Nixon's
National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
"Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding"
March 1972
"Criminal penalties have clearly failed to prevent widespread use of marijuana... Law and health are two entirely separate issues."
Bob DuPont
Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse
President Nixon's 'drug czar'
1974 NORML annual conference
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan
U.S. President
"In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. It is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."
Francis L. Young
Administrative Law Judge of the US drug police DEA,
September 6, 1988:
You said it all right there. You support the Neo-system, not the Constitutional system.
You dismiss right to privacy, the fact I OWN my own body, and still ask why I could not legally consume a plant I can grow in my own yard?
Do you consider yourself a Neocon? (honest question)
When they are still earning a check, by doing the opposite of what they are in place to do, why should that matter?
Should we have let the King of England keep his job, instead of revolt in the name of our inherant rights, which we take to be self-evident?
And again, your point? Do you think this is justification for being an enemy of the people, while being PAID by the people?
Then don't be suprised when you charge through a door somewhere and get popped, if you are an LEO and hold that notion.
Reap what thee sow.
Capt. Charlie
Moderator Emeritus
Gentlemen, I believe this thread is about whether or not Agents Ramos and Compean got a raw deal.
It is NOT about the war on (certain) drugs. That one's been beat to death here, but if you must, take it to another thread. Don't hijack this one.
Back on topic..... please!
It is NOT about the war on (certain) drugs. That one's been beat to death here, but if you must, take it to another thread. Don't hijack this one.
Back on topic..... please!
You are correct Charlie. I am going to withdraw from this specific argument with this final point.
From the fija website.
As I am sure you know, the highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens guilty of breaking the law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical prosecutions and bad laws imposed by a power-hungry government.
Not in any law school, or any courtroom, or any judges chambers, or anywhere else where the right to trial by jury is discussed will you read this. In fact, in most jury charges you will find a paragraph specifically stating the jury is not to consider the validity or wisdom behind the law.
You may think you are correct, but you're not playing in the same system as everyone else.
From the fija website.
As I am sure you know, the highest and best function of the jury is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens guilty of breaking the law, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical prosecutions and bad laws imposed by a power-hungry government.
Not in any law school, or any courtroom, or any judges chambers, or anywhere else where the right to trial by jury is discussed will you read this. In fact, in most jury charges you will find a paragraph specifically stating the jury is not to consider the validity or wisdom behind the law.
You may think you are correct, but you're not playing in the same system as everyone else.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
The poster child statement for adverse consequences of Zero Tolerance and Mandatory Minimums. And the response: "Let's revisit those laws in cases where the defendant is an Agent of the State. As to the rest, 'let them eat cake'"
Rich
Osborn F. Enready
Moderator
I apologize for any derailment, as it was not intended.
I saw relevant cross analysis, and offered it.
Thanks for the respect and courtesy, sir.
Yes, it's unrolling right into prison...........The prosecution has proven their case already.
I see alot of media "personalities" deciding they know what's what on this one and there is no mention of the facts brought out in trial.
Knee jerk and emotional and pandering are the words that come to mind.
I'm for law enforcement, I'm for control of the borders, I'm against drug smugglers, these men were just doing their jobs, blah, blah, blah.......
good ol' lip service and posturing.
And those facts would be what? I ask in all sincerity since I am one of the posters that is questioning the prosecutions case (note questioning, not dismissing). Perhaps if you, or somebody of the same mind, were to list out the facts, a more specific rebuttal could be provided.
You want information on the trial? Look it up, do the work. Don't let others influence you or form an opinion for you.
That's alot of the problem with misguided, misplaced, emotional appeals for things like a presidential pardon, mistrial, dismissal of charges, saying that the agents were railroaded, they're rallying cries for "getting tough on the border" etc..........
How can you speak on a topic that you don't know the facts about?
Someone says/hears that BP agents shot a drug smuggler and everyone goes "yay, at a boy", but if you dig a little deeper then you begin to see a different picture.
Hell one of the agents has been arrested for domestic violence not once, not twice but three times, if that was your neighbor you'd probably refer to him as a wife beater.
Get off the bandwagon and think for yourself.
Hell one of the agents has been arrested for domestic violence not once, not twice but three times, if that was your neighbor you'd probably refer to him as a wife beater.
Give us the facts on this "domestic violence" arrest.
You had better check, what can now be considered "violence" in many states before you flatulate about domestic violence.
In Minnesota, it is like child abuse, you are GUILTY until proven innocent, and then it NEVER leaves your record.
A wife can get a restraining order for asinine "verbal abuse" BS, which if she is a real bitch, and one hell of a lot are, is a way of getting the husband's right to bear arms eliminated, without, ANYONE, lifting a finger.
Give us the facts on this "domestic violence" arrest.
You had better check, what can now be considered "violence" in many states before you flatulate about domestic violence.
In Minnesota, it is like child abuse, you are GUILTY until proven innocent, and then it NEVER leaves your record.
A wife can get a restraining order for asinine "verbal abuse" BS, which if she is a real bitch, and one hell of a lot are, is a way of getting the husband's right to bear arms eliminated, without, ANYONE, lifting a finger.
You have no idea how much research I have done. Believe you me, it is far more than you think. I’d wager it is far more than you have. I didn’t ask you to convince me of your opinion, I asked you (or others) to state the reasons you feel the conviction was completely valid. I want to get down real issue here, but until one of you can put forth the substantiation for your views, it is sort of difficult for me to do so.
Amnest letter on agents.
I read that 48 members of congress wrote a letter to Pres. Bush voicing their displeasure on the Ramos/Campeon imprisonment.
Only 8 names were mentioned.
They were all Republicans.
What party affiliation were the other 40?
How does support for these agents break down according to party lines?
I read that 48 members of congress wrote a letter to Pres. Bush voicing their displeasure on the Ramos/Campeon imprisonment.
Only 8 names were mentioned.
They were all Republicans.
What party affiliation were the other 40?
How does support for these agents break down according to party lines?
Well today there was even an article by AP in my local paper.
It pointed out some of the incosistencies in the testimony of the two agents
Funny how that stuff never makes it onto the errornet
Now that a left-wing group like the Associated Press thinks they are guilty it should quiet down some of the conspiracy theorists
"inadmissible in court"...you mean like the part about the "victim of the shooting" being a drug smuggler
But I thought that was important...because it shows the shootee is a bad guy
So we can only discuss the character of the shootee...not the shooters
It pointed out some of the incosistencies in the testimony of the two agents
Funny how that stuff never makes it onto the errornet
Now that a left-wing group like the Associated Press thinks they are guilty it should quiet down some of the conspiracy theorists
"inadmissible in court"...you mean like the part about the "victim of the shooting" being a drug smuggler
But I thought that was important...because it shows the shootee is a bad guy
So we can only discuss the character of the shootee...not the shooters
Baloney. From the FRE...
For the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a witness,
(1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted, subject to Rule 403, if the crime was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which the witness was convicted, and evidence that an accused has been convicted of such a crime shall be admitted if the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused;
As a result, assuming the perp has priors for drug trafficking, that would be admissible since it is punishable by imprisonment over a year.
The agents domestic violence charges were 1 not a conviction, and 2 not probative of his character for truthfulness. So unless the agent himself opened the door to this line of questioning, which I don't believe he did, its inadmissible.
Its not some big conspiracy, its simply the rules that were set down long before this case ever saw the inside of a courtroom.
Osborn F. Enready
Moderator
Never mind that the laws all put together en masse, equal dictatorship AKA: conspiracy.