HERE IS "ANOTHER PERSON" & THE "PERSON OF ANOTHER."
NOW IF YOU ARE CHARGED WITH TRANSMITTING, "A THREAT TO INJURE THE PERSON OF ANOTHER," WHICH ONE ABOVE ARE WE DISCUSSING, AS THE VICTIM OF SAID CRIME OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH?
"This lovely image graced the home page of the Sacramento County Republican Party. As Andrew Sullivan describes it: "Not a lone protestor or crowd member. Not a fringe nut on Free Republic" on the official Republican website in the state capitol of the most populous state in the Union.
His name is Hector Barajas, and he actually picked up his phone and I spoke to him. I told him that this bit was far from the only over-the-top material on the site. Surprisingly, he agreed that there was other objectionable material on the site, and said that it was being reviewed right now and would be taken down in about thirty minutes. "
The reference to a “reasonableperson” makes clear that we were describing a negligence standard, with no requirement of actual intent to threaten. We subsequently reaffirmed Roy’s holding in United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002), and stated clearly that “Roy’s ‘reasonable speaker’ standard does not violate the First Amendment.” Id. at 1084. In United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1990), we upheld the defendant’s conviction for threatening a federal law enforcement officer under 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B). We were not primarily concerned with constitutional questions, but we observed that “[a] ‘true’ threat, where a reasonable person would foresee that the listener will believe he will be subjected to physical violence upon his person, is unprotected by the first amendment.” Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d at 1266. Again, our reference to a “reasonable person” seems to suggest that the First Amendment permits punishing a threat made with only negligence as to the statement’s threatening character.
A statute making it a criminal act to utter threats as to citizens generally might well be open to constitutional challenge. Assuming arguendo that a statute might not be sustained if applied to any threat toward any one of 200 million Americans(1), the statute here in question [871] must be judged by different standards(2), limited as it is to the Chief Magistrate of the nation and his constitutional successors.
1 Such as the one’s charged in the instant case.
2 This is the core-issue why 875(c) is unconstitutional, it provides no "intelligible” or “clear " standard to guide citizens, officers, prosecutors or judges as to how to define the statute as to a threat. Furthermore, the statue makes no mention of a “false” threat or “true” threat. This turns it into an “I’ll know it when I see it” subjective standard. In 1964, Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "This quote, and the intent behind it, is well known as summarizing the irony and difficulty in trying to define obscenity. For at least fifty years, the Supreme Court has been struggling with defining what speech is "obscene". The same goes for the definition of a “true” threat.
Judge A. Howard Matz never once examined whether the First Amendment prohibited the prosecution of an individual for the charged acts, given that pure speech was involved. Instead he assisted the prosecutor to create conduct.
WRONG: DID YOU NOTICE THE "SECRET" ELEMENTS KNOWN ONLY TO HIM? BESIDES, THERE WAS NEVER ANY VIOLENCE "COUPLED" IN MY CASE.
"So I want the lawyers to understand that without reciting everything that's already clearly Ninth Circuit precedent that's at page 1075, I am applying the Ninth Circuit's test and, in a nutshell, the only intent requirement for a true threat is that the defendant intentionally and knowingly communicate the threat once it's been defined to be a threat."
WRONG: WHAT IS A THREAT HAS NEVER BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE LAW. AND THAT IS A FACT! AND THE TEST HE APPLIED IS WRONG, TOO. IBID.
A statement that "I will kill you," a statement to "keep your dogs at bay now I'm armed," a statement that "I'm
coming to collect from you personally" when coupled with
pictures of the recipients, of their children, information
about their homes and addresses, is a direct threat that a
reasonable person would perceive to be likely to be perceived
by the recipient -- and these were specific recipients as well
as the public generally -- to provide a risk of violence and a
risk of injury."
A RISK??? TO A SPECIFIC PERSON, OR THE PERSON OF ANOTHER SPECIFIC PERSON?
NOTICE HOW HE REVERTS BACK TO THE LISTENER [RECIPIENT] TEST?
"These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot." ~From a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches:
Saying that a great genius is mad, while at the same time recognizing his artistic worth, is like saying that he had rheumatism or suffered from diabetes. Madness, in fact, is a medical term that can claim no more notice from the objective critic than he grants the charge of heresy raised by the theologian, or the charge of immorality raised by the police.
"The establishment of this website tells me
two things. One, that your client is extraordinarily
talented. That's a brilliantly conceived and put
together website. But it's scary. I don't know
whether therE's a screw loose with your client or not,
and that's where I am at. I asked you first thing this morning.
To my mind that's what makes him dangerous.
MR. SAXE: I can tell you the more that I
work with him, the less I think so.
THE COURT: Well, that's because both minds
work together.
MR SAXE: Well, that's possible.
THE COURT: You are the perfect lawyer to
understand that.
"what would be the capacity of law enforcement
and of the courts to SUPRESS this kind of SPEECH?" -Judge A. Howard Matz, PRE-TRIAL HEARING OF KILLERCOP.COM
I'm all a Twitter waiting to see your reaction, to my reaction, to your Treatment and the promised Restoration. You'll just die when you see what I have in store for everyone involved in the story in 2010.
In fact, don't even think about it, especially the cowards and babies! But always remember, children, evil only triumphs when good men or women do nothing.
THE END.
"A statute making it a criminal act to utter threats as to citizens generally might well be open to constitutional challenge."
875(c) is unconstitutional, since it allows "false" threats. Not to mention selective threats. Or that it is used as a political tool to attack pure speech when used out of it's context. It was meant to protect babies and children from retards kidnapping them and calling another person and threatening to kill the person of another. The speech must be directed to "another person," speaking about "the person of the other."
If anyone in America wishes to argue the point, beyond my experience, I would say then that your arguement falls on its on weight, in that it is, again, unconstitutionally Vague.
"I am going to come and burn the f**king house down... but you will blow me first. You look like a f***ing pig in heat, and if you get raped by a pack of n***ers, it will be your fault." ~Mel Gibson to his wife, Oksana, July 01, 2010
“If it is true that Mel threatened to burn her house down, that could be considered a criminal terrorist threat. A terrorist threat can be anything designed to induce harm or kill another individual, it doesn’t have to come from Al-Qaeda to be classified as terrorism,” explained Santa Monica-based Criminal Defense Attorney, Steve Cron. “There is a real possibility that the police department or a prosecuting agency could take action.”
"Michael Moore and I actually have a
lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's
free expression," Clint Eastwood was quoted as telling the
National Board of Review awards dinner in New York Tuesday night.
With a cold glare Eastwood took notice of Moore sitting in the
audience and said bluntly and without a smile: "But, Michael,
if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill
you."
Beginning in February, a San Francisco man made at least 48 threatening, obscene and harassing phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi over her support for a healthcare reform bill, according to federal court records unsealed Thursday.
Gregory Lee Giusti, 48, was charged in federal court Thursday in San Francisco with making harassing phone calls to a government official.
He appeared before Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman in a gray T-shirt and khakis, looking disheveled, according to the Associated Press. Zimmerman said Giusti may have a bipolar disorder and should be treated.
An amended criminal complaint, along with a supporting affidavit by an FBI agent, allege that Giusti made many of the calls to Pelosi's homes in San Francisco and Washington, D.C. He is charged with using a VOIP, or voice over Internet provider service, to make calls using a non-San Francisco area code, the records show.
Nine calls made to Pelosi's Washington residence were recorded, according to the court records, which contain excerpts of some of the messages that warned the congresswoman not to act on the bill.
"If you pass this freaking healthcare plan don't bother coming back to California cause you ain't gonna have a place to live," Giusti said on March 25, according to the court records.
Zimmerman told the U.S. attorney's office to interview Giusti to determine if he was mentally competent enough to be released to a halfway house or if he should continue to be detained, the Associated Press reported. A detention hearing was scheduled for Monday.
"The First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits," Roberts wrote. "The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs. Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter.
[T]his Court has long recognized the“basic principle that a criminal statute must give fair warning of the conduct that it makes a crime.” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 350 (1964). There is a serious argument that §1346 is nothing more than an invitation for federal courts to develop a common-law crime of unethical conduct. But "the notion of a common-law crime is utterly anathema today," Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U. S. 451, 476 (2001) (SCALIA, J., dissenting), and for good reason. It is simply not fair to prosecute someone for a crime that has not been defined until the judicial decision that sends him to jail. “How can the public be expected to know what the statute means when the judges and prosecutors themselves do not know, or must make it up as they go along?” Rybicki, supra, at 160 (Jacobs, J., dissenting).
Henry Louis Gates' Contempt Of Cop Emptywheel - At tonight's nationally televised press conference, a reporter asked President Obama a question about the July 16 arrest of famed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates. Obama set off...
Contempt of Cop' by William Norman Grigg - The police are to the government as the edge is to the knife, insists sociologist David Bayley, who apparently couldn't explain why the typical...
Welcome to America Now step inside the jail cell - The audio exchange in this video was apparently recorded at the U.S. Canada border after a Canadian displayed contempt-of-cop towards the American law enforcement officer asking questions.
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.
My radio interview with Katherine Albrecht - Carlos Miller Photography is Not a Crime is interviewed by Katherine Albrecht, activist, radio host and privacy advocate, Tuesday afternoon where they discussed his blog, his arrests, the situation in the United Kingdom and the spread of contempt of cop cases that are popping up on the internet on a regular basis.
