FIJA Challenge to Liberty Activists Outside the Keene Area
I believe AnAmazedReader when he says he's not a cop. He's probably just another unenlightened Republican.
It's not necessary to measure your success rate. Do it because you're defending your freedom. When people say, "Freedom Isn't Free," they are usually trying to justify our endless foreign wars, but for the ordinary citizen, it ought to mean participating in peaceful activities such as FIJA leafleting that contribute to maintaining our heritage of Liberty. Liberty isn't guaranteed to us; each generation has to earn it. The enemies of Liberty aren't always "over there" as Neocons would have us believe. Bravo to you guys!
That's the one we use. I think I explain the process fully in the video. You can also read this article for details:
I've considering doing FIJA before, though I've never really taken a close look at it - until just a few minutes ago. I had assumed there was a standard one-page brochure that you download, print out, and then basically hang out in front of the court and hand out copies to jurors.
I've just poked around the FIJA site, and there's actually quite a lot of media items for various purposes, rather than a clear "this is the main one, download it" sign on the front page. I looked through all of them, and my best guest is that the primary one is the one-page brochure titled "True or False". Is that correct? And am I right about it really being as simple as printing copies and handing them out in front of the court, or is there more to it I should know about?
Dear Anamazedreader: I take issue with your statement: "Actually, I am a local citizen with no connection to law enforcement with a strong aversion to cant, empty rhetoric, and grandstanding, particularly when they are employed to harass people who have been elected/or legally selected to do jobs deemed necessary by a majority of voting local citizens." Allow me to point out the influence that politicians have over your mind. I will assume that you know the difference between right and wrong and that you avoid doing the wrong thing most of the time. Using the ballot box to get the "necessary" jobs done is always wrong. The "vote" as a result of the ballot box merely determines a political majority which means which side is the mightiest. The majority is able to impose its will on the minority, which is tyranny. It is never right. You believe in "democracy". Democracy results in the majority imposing its will on the minority. It doesn't determine what is right. You are not a "citizen". A citizen has an obligation of allegiance to a government in exchange for protection. Did you ever agree to this relationship? Did you ever sign a contract that stated this relationship? Did your parents agree to this for you? "Constitutions" (U.S., NH, etc.) are not binding on you or anybody else. You never agreed to it. Does someone long since dead "voting" for a "constitution" obligate you in any way? You might ask "Well how will we have protection from other "countries" or how will the roads get built? Have you examined the non-political ways these services have been provided for in the past? Please look into undoing the effect politicians have had on your life.
Let's assume that there have indeed been zero cases of Jury Nullification being employed in Keene:
1. What percentage of the trials have been over victimless crimes (i.e. appropriate for JN)? My guess is that in Keene they are a small minority.
2. Can you reasonably expect someone to internalize any new concept (e.g. an advertisement or a public service message like Jury Nullification) immediately after the first contact? Obviously not. Messages have to be repeated, in different formats.
3. Maybe the current flyer is weak. By getting out there and experimenting, these activists can improve their approach. Why would anyone expect reform to be immediately successful?
"appallingly simple-minded, childish, two-dimensional notions"... a facile charge. Indeed, we are all sadly limited in our analyses. Let's try to be the sum of our modest individual insights. At the very least these activists are to be commended for contributing their time and energy to make the world slightly more just. They are not being paid. Certainly there are worse people out there, more deserving of your abuse.
Good point - we don't know for sure how many read them, but the odds are good:
1. When you ask someone if they want info and they choose to take it, they are more likely to read it than if you are just trying to shove info into hands.
2. Jury selection involves lots of waiting. People will find the brochures handy to pass the time with.
3. We have been thanked by people later on for giving them the info.
How do you know how many read the pamphlets? If I voted to acquit because the law was immoral I doubt I would admit it for fear the judge would throw out the verdict and punish me.
"If what you assert was true, then there wouldn’t be a single case of jury nullification of which we’d be aware."
How would you find out that the acquittal was by jury nullification rather than simply by the facts of the case?
Ideas take time to develop into action. Besides, how would you have heard about it? The newspaper doesn't follow all the court cases.
Your yardstick for success is impossible to measure (as jurors don’t report why they voted to acquit), so it’s useless."
Nonsense. If what you assert was true, then there wouldn't be a single case of jury nullification of which we'd be aware. And of course we know of many such cases. For example, during the days of segregation, some all-white juries acquitted white defendants accused of murdering blacks. During Prohibition, juries often acquitted supposed violators of alcohol control laws due to disagreement with those laws. There are all sorts of examples that could be provided. So it's fair to say that the pamphleteering has, thus far, had no actual effect. Believe me, if (for example) a guy was put on trial before a jury for growing acres of pot on the basis of incontrovertible evidence, and the jury voted to acquit, we'd hear about it.
FreeKeene Incorporated: "Not. One. Stitch. Of. Progress. Yet."
(unless you consider harassing people and undertaking myriad "man bites dog"-level stunts to be progress)
Your yardstick for success is impossible to measure (as jurors don't report why they voted to acquit), so it's useless.
"childish, two-dimensional notion of what constitutes liberty. " In that case, how do you define liberty?
@ANAMAZEDREADER IS A COP
"Yeah, we all get it. You obviously have some stake in the system to prattle on everyday against freedom activists as you do. The cops in Keene have as well as the guards at Westmoreland jail, can’t seem to stay away from freekeene.com.
So are you a cop or a jail guard?"
Jeez, you folks are quite the paranoiacs, aren't you? Actually, I'm a local citizen with absolutely no connection to law enforcement with a strong aversion to cant, empty rhetoric and grandstanding, particularly when they are employed to harass people who have been elected and/or legally selected to do jobs deemed necessary by a majority of voting local citizens. In fact, my feelings about law enforcement are ambivalent. I've met many policemen and women who are quite decent, intelligent people; I've also met a number who are arrogant and seem to be on a power trip, which is a bit of a scary thing in light of the power invested in these officers. And I think that some people are drawn to the profession because of an unhealthy urge to dominate other people; while it is said that officers have to undergo all sorts of psychological testing that would expose such unhealthy attitudes, I'm not completely confident that these tests (and the vetting process in general) are as effective as they should be. I also think that the job of being a cop is so difficult and stressful that it can be truly damaging to the psyche; they end up seeing so many examples of the human animal at its most depraved and barbaric that their sensibilities must often be under assault.
On the other hand, I think that cops perform a necessary function in a society that seeks to be functional. And so, if I was stopped by a cop because I was driving 80mph in a 35mph zone, I wouldn't go into an absurd rant about how I wasn't hurting anyone and the cop had no right to impede my (supposedly) natural-rights-derived "liberty". Or refuse to show him my car registration because I've come up with some bizarre fantasy that it is immoral for the state of New Hampshire to require me to register my vehicle.
Limitations are an inherent part of existence. Even a hypothetical society without "limitations on freedom" would, by its very nature create limits; for instance, my ability to drive a car with a reasonable degree of safety would be greatly limited in a society where there were absolutely no traffic laws and/or enforcement of those laws.
Unfortunately, one of the common features of posts on this site is an appallingly simple-minded, childish, two-dimensional notion of what constitutes liberty. Solace for the poorly-educated, I guess.
Thanks for the challenge Ian.
A Free Stater told me on the phone last week that the superior court in Manchester is moving its operation to Nashua but the district court is ripe for this.
I agree. This should be a no brainer so hopefully some Manchester folks will help me out. If it's just me, so be it.
Monday night's just around the corner. I'm so excited to get there I caught myself pacing today.
OMG, Dale's not wearing a T-shirt! Is it really Dale?
Good idea Ian for the challendge. It's been on my back burner for something I want to do in Portsmouth.
But it is what is, and right now Keene rules on the FIJA front; great job guys and girls of Keene!
Yeah, we all get it. You obviously have some stake in the system to prattle on everyday against freedom activists as you do.
The cops in Keene have as well as the guards at Westmoreland jail, can't seem to stay away from freekeene.com.
So are you a cop or a jail guard?
"Any examples over the past year of Keene Jurors actually employing jury nullification in a trial? There must be; after all, you stated that the pamphleteering was “effective”."
"80+% of people take and read the fliers – that’s a success. We don’t monitor trial outcomes, so nothing conclusive there".
Translation of answer to actual question posed:
NO. Not one instance of jury nullification occurring.
At least it keeps the rate of efficacy intact.
80+% of people take and read the fliers - that's a success. We don't monitor trial outcomes, so nothing conclusive there.
Any examples over the past year of Keene Jurors actually employing jury nullification in a trial? There must be; after all, you stated that the pamphleteering was "effective".