Verizon Fires Hunter

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:00:00 GMT
From kaba:
"There are just two rules of governance in a free society: Mind your own business. Keep your hands to yourself." -- P.J. O'Rourke

# Carl Bussjaeger - Verizon fires Hunter - retroactive to January 7. Bastards. His union is "spitting nails". [lrtdiscuss]

# Kenneth Prazak at Strike the Root - A Closing Argument - a rousing request, over the objections of the judge, that a jury find the defendent not guitly of not wearing his seatbelt, because it's not the government's place to demand that. Jury nullification is one of our last peaceful methods of throwing off the yolk of tyrannical oppression. Openly advocating it during a trial will get you a contempt of court charge most places.

An objection is heard from the other side: Your honor, the defendant here is wasting the court's time. What may have happened in the past is irrelevant. The only question here, is if Mr. Prazak wore a seat belt.

Excuse me, Judge, but what could be more relevant? Is it not instructive for this jury to hear a bit of history of why they are here. Are they jurors or are they rubber stamps? This is America after all. For freedom, is not that why we are waging war in the Middle East--to establish freedom. Freedom is an empty concept if one can not exercise his or her free speech when it is most important-- when a defendant's very liberty is on trial. Judge, don't make a mockery of what is the foundation of this country. Don't turn my peers, my fellow citizens, my free American jurors in to rubber stamps of an oppressive system. Let them exercise their natural, God-given right guaranteed by the Constitution.q

Mr. Prazak, I am warning you . . . (Prazak turns back to the jury, ignoring the warning)

Getting back to Chief Judge John Jay, he charged the jury in the Brailsford case this way, "It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule, that on the question of fact, it is the province of the jury, and on the question of law, it is the province of the court to decide . . . . it is presumed , that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that the courts are the best judges of law. But, it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy . . . both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."

The judge interrupts: Mr. Prazak, are you trying to show your contempt for this court?

Am I trying to show my contempt for this court? No, your honor, to quote the late, great Mae West and Mickey Mouse (or was it Donald Duck?), "I am trying my best to conceal it."

# Paul Craig Roberts at - 911 Incongruities - Richard Clarke apologized to the families of people killed in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, but so far nobody has apologized to the families of U.S. soldiers killed or maimed in Iraq. The former was arguably unexpected, but those soldiers were pushed into Iraq. [lew]

The question for the 911 Commission is not whether the Clinton administration missed chances to assassinate bin Laden or whether the Bush administration's loose immigration controls and interagency communication failures ensured the terrorists' success. The only question is: why does the US persist with a foreign policy that breeds terrorism?

# Charley Reese at - Jefferson - a review of a new book by Eric S. Petersen containing essays assembled from Thomas Jefferson's words. [lew]

# Carl F. Worden at The Price of Liberty - The Chicken Chronicles: Whatever Happened To The U. S.? - take in an abandoned chicken, get arrested for theft and injured by sheriff's deputies. Mr. Worden's Southern Oregon Militia is taking care of the matter, apparently in the legal, not military, arena. [price]

# Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk - March (Budget) Madness - why Dr. Paul will be voting against the budget again this year, and why we need to eliminate non-discretionary spending and stop playing world policeman.

Neither political party wants to address the fundamental yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the proper role for government in our society? Are these ever-growing social services and military expenditures really proper in a free country? We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the budget should exist at all. My Republican colleagues especially ought to know this. Unfortunately, however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the entitlements crowd. But this approach will backfire, because Democrats always offer to spend even more than Republicans. When congressional Republicans offer to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion, and why not? It's all funny money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.

# Dr. William Campbell Douglass - Real Health Breakthroughs - this is an ad for an expensive newsletter, but it has some interesting information in it that is probably worth trying out. <flame>That's right. Trying out. Nobody, and I mean nobody, can tell you the best diet or exercise for you. They can give you some ideas to try, but you have to try them and find out how they work. Your ideal diet and ideal exercise regimen is unique in all the world and only you can discover it.</flame> [madogre]

# Declan McCullagh at Politechbot - Judge dismisses John Gilmore's ID-required lawsuit - Susan Illston, United States District Judge, has granted Ashcroft et al's motion to dismiss Mr. Gilmore's lawsuit. No notice about this yet at the FreeToTravel site. I hope he appeals, though if the Supremems deign to rule on it, they're likely to make it crystal clear that Amerikans no longer enjoy the right to unmolested travel. [smith2004]

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that as a result of the requirement that passengers traveling on planes show identification and his unwillingness to comply with this requirement, he has been unable to travel by air since September 11, 2001. Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action challenging the apparent government policy that requires travelers either to show identification or to consent to a search which involves wanding, walking through a magnetometer or a light pat-down. Whether this is actually the government's policy is unclear, as the policy, if it exists, is unpublished. However, this Court for the purpose [*6] of evaluating plaintiff's complaint, assumes such a policy does exist, and reviews plaintiff's complaint accordingly.

Plaintiff asserts the unconstitutionality of this policy on the following grounds: vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause; violation of the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; violation of the right to freedom of association; and violation of the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The federal defendants and airline defendant both brought motions to dismiss. As plaintiffs' claims are common to both sets of defendants, this Court treats them collectively. While there are questions about the private defendant's liability as a state actor and about the federal defendants' liability for the private defendant's actions, as this Court has not found plaintiff's complaint to have alleged a constitutional violation, those issues need not be addressed at this time.

# I received, unsolicited, in the mail a catalog from Guns-N-Stuff, a "monthly discount shopper". It's sort of a mixture of Shotgun News and Cheaper Than Dirt. Nice. Costs $9.95 for twelve monthly issues. Or, use Ad code 304GS for a free subscription. I couldn't find the on-line subscription form, just a place to order a single copy. But you can call 1-800-486-5971, according to the small print in the upper-right-hand corner of the rag I received in the mail.

Add comment Edit post Add post