Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
I stands by my statement. You're of a brain dead state worse than paine.
The writer writes. His words are cast in the stone of history for anyone who cares to read them. Of all the people to compare writings with I welcome a juxtaposition of yours and mine on this forum. In fact, that has become the major reason why I even respond to your posts anymore. If you haven't noticed over the past few months, I've hardly give you the time of day.
What's unjust about telling a court you think a law is wrong?
If you don't think like that, then seek to get on a jury and nullify away.
Do you defend such an unjust legal system?
sinkspur has got a couple dozen posts on this thread alone defending such an unjust system.
Poohbah wrote: You can vote for the people who will impeach those judges and replace them with those more in line with your beliefs.
Here's what I wrote:
Zon responded: And who might those candidates be? The last time I checked the inmates throughout government are guarding the cellblocks. Who do you trust or respect or think would impeach judges now? That asked in light of the long track-record wherein the inmates have permitted them to remain on the bench.
Poohbah wrote: So elect somebody else.
WHO?! How about you answer the questions highlighted in red.
Poohbah wrote: Oh, that's RIGHT! (Snaps fingers.) That's just too much like that dreaded four-letter word W-O-R-K.
So now you just make up a mind-spun fabrication and proclaim that I'm lazy. I notice that it was too much work for you to answer the questions.
Or is that also too much like work?
Perhaps it says something of the tax system if everyone is willing to nullify tax laws.
I don't know about you but I would never convict somebody for non-payment of taxes. That would be akin to punishing somebody for refusing to hand over their wallet to a thief.
If everyone were logical, you'd be correct. But alas, I know a large number of people here inside the Beltway who pay taxes through the nose, and actually don't want their taxes to be lowered! I believe it's a mental condition, but that's an entirely different issue from the one discussed here.
I don't know how Colorado's constitution reads on the RKBA, but for a Second Amendment defense a relevant 'fact' would be whether the weapon in question was of a type suitable for use in a well-functioning militia (see Miller--the decision, not the syllabus).
Perpahs you're familiar with the case involving farmer Taung Min Lin and a Kangaroo Rat. He ran over it with his tractor and violated the Endagered Species Act. He faced $200,000 fine and prison time. His $50,000 tractor was confiscated. If you were on the jury would you convict?
With the same broad brush, I could say that, because the libertarians want to see the death of the system, libertarians should be culled from the jury pool.
Why you think that a city employee couldn't be impartial, and you, Alan Chapman, could, is beyond me.
Sure it is. It's about Stanley being physically and legally able to defend himself as equally as law enforcement officers or government officials defend themselves.
Or better able to defend himself than government agents are able to defend themselves. If government wants its agents to abide by the idiocy of not carrying guns let them be the targets of cowardly criminals that prey on defenseless innocents. Stanley's' RKBA is not measured by the number or quality of weaponry the government has. While the STATE has more weaponry, some of which is higher quality than what Rick owns, it is not a valid measure of what Rick may own.
There's a high probability that in small towns there is at least one citizen that is better armed than the local police and some may be better armed than their Sheriffs.
More to the point, one of the parties in the case has direct control over their payroll, promotions, etc. I really don't think there would be any question of whether anyone working for a private employer should be allowed on a jury of any case where their employer was an interested party; why should government workers be treated differently?
Of course. Royalty doens't like to have their power questioned
With the same broad brush, I could say that, because the libertarians want to see the death of the system, libertarians should be culled from the jury pool.
It's easy to show that city employees have a vested interest -- their paychecks attest to that fact. What evidence will you use to back up your assertion that Libertarians want, as you wrote, "libertarians want to see the death of the system"?
Why you think that a city employee couldn't be impartial, and you, Alan Chapman, could, is beyond me.
Ahh, feigning ignorance again. Not becoming of you even though you chose to wear it often. One thing is clear, you want the present, unjust system to perpetuate.
Mabey is state tax courts it's different, but I'm almost positive that if the IRS goes after you in court, you're guilty until you prove yourself innocent. There is no jury.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.