Tuesday, June 29, 2010

'Fine', like 'taxation', is another word for theft

'Fine', like 'taxation', is another word for theft

Something absolutely has to be done about the "justice system". Seriously. From the Supreme Court "affirming a right" while pretending it is merely a privilege which can be tailored to suit the wishes of the corrupt and frightened Rulers (Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. There is no wiggle-room, you black-robed taterheads!), to the most "piddlin'" municipal court, the system is completely broken. Courts must not be owned and run by one side (an extremely biased side) in the conflict. It wouldn't work in a private system and it doesn't work in a coercive system either.

I know someone who was on a municipal jury very recently. Through negligence (or possibly a third party's mischief) a city ordinance was violated and harm was caused to the property of another. This juror I speak of was under the impression that she was required to agree with the other jurors just because "we had to all agree on something; one person couldn't disagree or we wouldn't reach a verdict".

The defendant was obviously responsible for the damages. Not even he really claimed otherwise. He should have paid restitution and that should have been the end of it. However, that was not among the options the jury was presented with. "Guilty" or "not guilty" were the choices, and, if guilty, how big a "fine" must he pay?- and "zero" was not allowed. The "city" suffered no harm and was due no restitution, and certainly wasn't owed any loot because of someone else's misfortune. Restitution to the actual injured party wasn't on the table and was "a separate issue", sayeth the judge. The injured party will have to sue this man for restitution, according to the judge, if they wish to be compensated.

In this case, and under the rules as they were set forth, obviously I would have had to judge the man "not guilty" even if it would have made it more difficult for the actual injured party to collect restitution later. The city would have lost out had I been on the jury. Which is probably why, as I have been told, no one would ever allow me on a jury.


Please, become intimately familiar with the Fully Informed Jury Association and tell everyone you know, especially if they are up for jury duty, about their right to judge the "law" regardless of the judge's biased instructions.


Albuquerque authoriturds have once again stuck their noses where they could get bit. This time, rather than "too many cats" it is "too many" snakes. Yes, the mother probably should take better care of her kids. It is probably dumb to send you kids into a government indoctrination center smelling like urine (or like roses, for that matter) unless you want to attract "official attention". But "too many snakes" is not a decision for anyone but the people living under the roof to make.

No comments:

Post a Comment