Author Topic: DR  (Read 164 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,944
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
DR
« on: September 21, 2023, 07:54:27 AM »
Quote from: 19 September 20:27 original post
Quote from: 20 September 17:29
Jury nullification is inadmissible in US Courts and 95% of criminal cases never make it to trial but rather are resolved through plea bargains
Quote from: 20 September 18:22
if the courts don’t hear that the jury is nullifying the prosecution, there’s not a thing the courts can do. And the plea bargain is government terrorism. They threaten the defendants with a trial tax of a hell of a lot more years in prison if the defendant takes their case to trial. FTG.
Quote from: 20 September 20:27
you realize a bailiff is supervising the jury while they deliberate? The court will know. If the prosecution believes a null took place they can appeal the jury verdict on those grounds.

Jury nullification is not a streamed line way to hold the government accountable and voice opinions on laws you don’t like.

Trials are expensive and the state has endless money to throw at any case. The average death penalty case costs 1.3 mil to prosecute. And most people being accused can’t afford an attorney. The public defenders office is overwhelmed as we speak. Their attorneys are advising them to take the deal.

I agree that system is broken but you cant fight it from within.
Quote
https://fija.org/
FULLY INFORMED JURY ASSOCIATION
Quote from: 20 September 18:34
Dale Eastman still illegal…
Quote from: 21 September 08:53
What exactly do you mean by YOUR use of the word "illegal"?

I wish to drill down on ALL the minutia of what that word means.

What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of illegal?
Quote from: 21 September 13:07
Dale Eastman by “illegal” I mean not allowed within the context a circumstance is being presented. In the same way holding is illegal in American football.
Quote from: 21 September 15:32
by “illegal” I mean not allowed within the context a circumstance is being presented.

Not allowed by who?
Quote from: 21 September 15:40
Dale Eastman the officials regulating the activity? In the example of football, it would be the NFL.
Quote from: 21 September 18:29
Can you skip the pedantic questioning to get straight to your point?

It's called Socratic Method. My purpose in asking my questions is to get you to answer, on the record. Too many people have refused to stipulate any agreement as to what words and terms mean. Hence my pedantic assholiness questions.

I did tell you my intent is to drill down on this concept of "illegal", so moving on from where we are at...

I asked you, "Not allowed by who?"
You answered:
the officials regulating the activity

Officials doing the regulating by what authority. By that, I mean specifically: "Officials doing the regulating by what right-to-rule?"
Quote from: 22 September 09:07
I'm going to assume that you missed the notification of my last reply. Fecalbook has helped me miss notifications, So until proven otherwise, I will assume that you are not ignoring me.

Repeating my post from 21 September 18:29:
❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃
Can you skip the pedantic questioning to get straight to your point?

It's called Socratic Method. My purpose in asking my questions is to get you to answer, on the record. Too many people have refused to stipulate any agreement as to what words and terms mean. Hence my pedantic assholiness questions.

I did tell you my intent is to drill down on this concept of "illegal", so moving on from where we are at...

I asked you, "Not allowed by who?"
You answered:
the officials regulating the activity

Officials doing the regulating by what authority. By that, I mean specifically: "Officials doing the regulating by what right-to-rule?"
❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃❃
Your 21 September 18:32 post identified "WHO" the officials are regulating the activity:

➽  [JS] do you know how the law works? Congress writes the law, judges interpret the law.

My question to you still stands but modified by your additional info:
Congress writing law by what right-to-rule?"
Quote from: 22 September 09:49
Dale Eastman congress is irrelevant here. Someone we asking for legislation when I offered case law.

Case law (and the rules of civil and criminal procedure) are the laws that govern the courts, in which jury nullification is to take place. The law and or rights of a individual have no barring on the court proceedings.

We have freedom of speech but if you speak out of turn in a courtroom, the judge will hold you in contempt of court.

Authority is given through consent but taken through violence. Try to go to a court and declare yourself a sovereign citizen. They will laugh in your face and do what they want anyway. We are all at the mercy of those who are stronger than us.
Quote from: 22 September 10:41
I find your self-conflicting statements to be intriguing. Your Statist indoctrination runs so deep that I see you are not aware of the indoctrination you are repeating. You have partially described your limited understanding of what "government" is. Failing to understand what "government" is; you fail to accurately describe the problem to be repaired. Failing to accurately articulate the problem to be solved/repaired, you also fail to state what will be required to fix the problem.

I am not willing to go back through your replies to the others at this time. I will admit that I read every one of your replies/ opinions.

➽  Case law (and the rules of civil and criminal procedure) are the laws that govern the courts,

What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "law"?
(Unnumbered as a rhetorical guidance at this time.)

1. Is not "law" a set of rules?

2. Are not the rule makers regulating what goes on in the court room?
(Yes, I am a pedantic asshole. I'm numbering my questions to assist me in knowing when questions get ignored.)

3. The rule makers are regulating what goes on in the court room by what right-to-rule?"

We have freedom of speech but if you speak out of turn in a courtroom, the judge will hold you in contempt of court.

BTDT. I refused and refuse to pay the fine. Perhaps I'll show you the letter I wrote to two county sheriffs and two county circuit courts. Tyranny will not end until cowardice ends.
Quote from: 22 September 10:57
Dale Eastman no the contradiction is you believing that the government will save you from the government. Unless you have documentation that they have absolved you of the fine you owe, it’s still in the books and if the don’t collect now they will collect later.

The idea that you can fight a corrupted system within a corrupted system is delusional.

Your pseudo analysis and idealistic philosophy of concepts I have clearly and consistently explained don’t stand a chance against the realities of the court system.

I’m not a statist, I just frankly could not care less about how things “should be”. Because people don’t suffer from ideals they suffer from reality.

Moreover, nothing entitles you to a response from me. So “making sure you aren’t ignored” is a waste of time. Because ignoring you bares no consequences
Quote from: 22 September 11:08
I'm sorry. I missed the text where you articulated precisely what the solution to the government scourge is.
Quote from: 22 September 11:28
Dale Eastman, you were probably distracted by your Socratic method. But change the laws. Not the application or interpretation of them. If you don’t want people to charged with drug crimes, do away with laws that create drug crimes. Start locally. And prepare yourself to fight the industry prison complex in the course of your effort. Because this isn’t about freedom or right vs wrong. This is about making money.
Quote from: 22 September 13:03
Am I correct in my interpretation that you just precisely articulated what the solution to the government scourge is for a second time?

Have I correctly quoted your precisely articulated solution to the government scourge to be,
and I quote:➽  change the laws?
Quote from: 22 September 13:58
Dale Eastman yes change the laws, but the key focus and probably the most difficult is to prepare to fight the industry prison complex. That is the source of corruption. When you remove the financial influence of the IPC, your government will naturally change.

And after that it is our responsibility to be vigilant to ensure another complex does not rise to power again.
Quote from: 22 September 14:39
I'm calling you out on your ➽ "Yes, But" denial and retraction that you think changing the law is the solution to the government scourge. I've called you out on that subtle fact. Now I will ignore it.

How, exactly, do you propose to get the laws of government changed?
Quote from: 22 September 15:22
Dale Eastman it’s not a “yes, but…” it’s the most basic reasonings of “if A then B”

If you want to change the law(B), then get rid of the pressures that structure the law the way it is (A).

Without the pressures (A), the law will naturally change (B). “Government” is really just a collection of people and people naturally change under the correct circumstances and pressures.

So to change people, we should change pressures.

In this specific case, to change the government (B), you need to attack the industrial prison complex (A).

In conclusion, if A then B, if the industry prison complex is changed, then the laws will change.

But to answer your question: how do we get the laws of government changed (B), we must change the pressures that make the law the way it is (A). I.e the industrial prison complex.

To further help you, the next logical question you should pose is how do you change the industrial prison complex?
Quote from: 22 September 17:53
I asked you: How, exactly, do you propose to get the laws of government changed?

If you want to change the law(B), then get rid of the pressures that structure the law the way it is (A).

How, exactly, do you propose to get rid of the pressures that structure the law?

In this specific case, to change the government (B), you need to attack the industrial prison complex (A).

How, exactly, do you propose to to attack the industrial prison complex?
Quote from: 22 September 18:46
Great questions!!

In general terms, to change pressures that structure laws, we must look at what causing the pressure and solve that issue. Laws are responses to what is perceived as bad behavior.

For example, laws against littering were enacted because people were throwing their trash on the ground. If we want to no longer need this law, we have to stop people from throwing their trash on the ground. Humans are simple creatures who will naturally follow the path of least resistance, such as stop them from littering we should provide more public trash cans. There are so many laws that aren’t enforced simply because they aren’t applicable anymore.

To fight the industrial prison complex, I would personally examine the crime rate in the area. Most crimes committed against a victim are crimes of opportunity or passion (ie theft, murder, assault etc). These are naturally unacceptable behaviors. Those behaviors are also coupled with socially unacceptable behaviors or victimless crimes.

So to attack the industry prison complex, we must stop the behaviors that allow them to incarcerate citizen.

To do this I would invest in mental health and education. I think there would be a benefit to re-introduce  apprenticeships of sort. Everyone should graduate high school with a trade or skill of some sort. Not only does this boost self esteem it fosters self reliance. Adults enter the market with passion direct and experience, this way the likelihood of someone being in a position where they need to steal or fight to survive.

With mental health, we teach people to regulate their emotions, to process their traumas, to understand themselves and their identity. We give them the tools they need to regulate themselves then we don’t see them in position where they fall deeply into drugs to cope and then steal to feed an addiction. Or not able to process their feelings and turn to violence when in conflict.

With less of these behaviors there are less people behind bars. If prisons are not incarcerating people they won’t have money and if they aren’t making money they will close. With less of these behaviors there will be less police. With less of these behaviors there will be less judges. With less of these behaviors there’s less interaction with the system and less chance to be hurt by it.
Quote
First things first. I almost did not find and read your post. Clicking the [reply] button automatically will tag the person being replied to. Sometimes the reply button has needed to be clicked again to have the tag placed in the text entry box.

Another way to tag non-friends is to use the "@" symbol (no-space) and the name of the person. That doesn't always work so the account name is used. In my case the "@" symbol (no-space) and dale.eastman.75 does the trick. In your case the @ symbol, no-space sb.toubiaii will do the trick.

In order to find your actual FB ID to use in the above paragraph I had to look at your status wall. I've seen enough to force me to being conflicted. I don't know if I should conclude you are Friend or Foe when it comes to liberty or slavery. I am intrigued by the contradictions I see.

I am still processing this puzzle. I didn't want you to think I'm ignoring your post(s).  As the attached image shows...

Quote from: 25 September 15:11
Dale Eastman In the time it took you to write this out and find a meme you could have just found my response right under your last response.
This overwhelming need for handholding is why we have such an oppressive government.
And I’ll reiterate, I am not entitled to a response so I really don’t care if you ignore me.
But the fact that you know I responded but you just didn’t get tagged tells me you already found my response and you are again being pedantic, which at this point, might border on autism. Something to be aware of when interacting with someone in the future.
Quote from: 25 September 18:46
The points presented are Self-Evident Facts.
Failure to deny is admission of the points presented.
I don't care if these Self-Evident Facts hurt your feelings, pop your delusional bubble, or give you Cognitive Dissonance.
My purpose in writing these facts in this manner is to make you choke on your stupidity.

At some point of time in your life you were made to believe you are required to obey humans called "government."
1. Admit or deny?

You don't own me. (YDOM)
2. Admit or deny?

I don't own you. (IDOY)
3. Admit or deny?

No person, corporate or human, owns any human.
4. Admit or deny?

This includes any human in "government."
5. Admit or deny?

Lack of ownership means: No Right-To-Enslave; No Right-To-Govern; No Right-To-Control; No Right-To-Rule.
6. Admit or deny?

The prior statement directly and correctly contradicts any belief that any human in government has a Right-To-Rule any other human.
7. Admit or deny?

Thank you for taking this intelligence test.


Quote
➽  [JR]nothing roundabout here. I speaking very clearly and literally. As I have previously stated, trying to effect change through the jury nullification is a waste of time and inadmissible. The jury is instructed to change to examine the law as it is written. But crimes are symptoms of bigger issues and laws are band aid solution.



Quote
21 September 19:38➽ I don’t consent to the system. I just survive it.
Quote
Your "Change the law" obsession betrays you for the Statist you actually are.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2023, 08:04:48 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters