This Court has never interpreted § 875 to require proof that a threat was objectively threatening. See United States v. Sutcliffe, 505 F.3d 944, 953 (9th Cir. 2007);
In the original Watts decision, in the Watts Supreme Court Case, the judges used quotation marks around the word ”threat,” when attempting to define a [true] threat.
"The majority below seemed to agree. Perhaps this interpretation is correct, although we have grave doubts about it. See the dissenting opinion below, 131 U.S. App. D.C., at 135-142, 402 F.2d, at 686-693 (Wright, J.). But whatever the "willfullness" requirement implies, the statute initially requires the Government to prove a true "threat.""WATTS v. UNITED STATES, 394 U.S. 705 (1969)
Okay readers, so please tell me who moved the quotation to the left? And why? What was their "true" intent. And why were they not held to be "required" to prove in my case?
This case emphasizes the "fundamental assumptions" and "personal predilections" of certain trial court judges as to what is a true "threat." Note I did not say a "true threat" but, a true "threat." Tell me, who moved the quotation left?
Since no one has ever been able to define “absolute true” in the history of the world, except Jesus, this makes me wonder who really is the Omnipotent One, God, or someone within the government, playing God?
NEW FOR 2011!! ASK "SPECIAL" AGENT JEFFREY CUGNO A QUESTION!!
Q: Agent Cugno, what is the duty of government regarding a threat to itself?
Instead of including these specific terms of art in § 1038(a),
Congress crafted this statute using the language “under circumstances
where” and “may reasonably be believed.” 18
U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1). This is a noticeable difference, and we
have read statutes with language similar to § 1038(a)(1) as
containing an objective reasonableness standard. See Roy v.
United States, 416 F.2d 874, 877-78 (9th Cir. 1969) (holding
that the crime of “knowingly and willfully” threatening the
President required only that the threat be made under circumstances
where “a reasonable person would foresee that the
statement would be "interpreted by those to whom” it is
addressed as a serious threat and not be the result of mistake,
duress or coercion); see also United States v. Hanna, 293 F.3d
1080, 1084-85 (9th Cir. 2002) (applying objective reasonableness
standard to presidential threat statute, 18 U.S.C. § 871,
and re-affirming Roy).
See United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding that an "intent to threaten" requires "a showing of specific intent"); United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2000)
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.
![no duty or authority to protect [and serve]](../images/2010/wi.jpg)
