U.S. v. Heicklen: The Nullification of Free Speech

(Hat-Tip James W. for the forward. Thanks, James!)

Joe Luppino-Esposito

May 1, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Prosecution for exercising one’s free speech rights is becoming a trend in the current Administration and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In April, the Legal Center highlighted the DOJ’s outrageous prosecution of Mary Susan Pine, a pro-life advocate. Thankfully, when the rubber hit the road, the DOJ lawyers had nowhere to go, and the suit was dropped. Pine is able to continue her ministry of standing near an abortion clinic to talk to women about abortion.

Julian P. Heicklen, an 80-year-old retired chemistry professor and advocate of jury nullification, found himself in a similar situation. Heicklen, as part of his activism, would stand in front of courthouses with a “Jury Info” sign, handing out pamphlets and explaining jury nullification to anyone who would approach him.

Advocates of jury nullification believe that jurors can use their de facto power to effectively change the law by refusing to convict a defendant under a law that the juror disagrees with. Heicklen specifically advocated against the enforcement of federal drug laws.

So what was the charge? Heicklen was accused of jury tampering, a federal criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months imprisonment (which, ironically, means that the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial). The law, 18 U.S.C. 1504, prescribes the conviction of anyone who “attempts to influence the action or decision of any grand or petit juror of any court of the United States upon any issue or matter pending before such juror, or before the jury of which he is a member, or pertaining to his duties, by writing or sending to him any written communication, in relation to such issue or matter.” An FBI agent posing as a juror approached Heicklen, received a pamphlet, and asked Heicklen to explain what jury nullification was all about. Heicklen was indicted based on a recording of that conversation.

The case, United States v. Heicklen, resulted in a dismissal of the indictment. In a 27-page opinion, Judge Kimba Wood of the Southern District of New York dissected the construction of the law and also considered Heicklen’s constitutional claims. Wood determined that the language of the statute requires that the jury tampering be done with a specific case in mind. Although Heicklen, through his activism, wanted to influence the “duties” of a juror, he did not also intend to affect an “issue or matter” that came before the jurors.

The DOJ, on the other hand, encouraged the court to accept a broader definition of “issue or matter” that included speech to a juror on any subject that he might be considering. Judge Wood stated that such an expansive interpretation “would arguably chill protected speech” and “would at most render [the law] facially ambiguous.”

Clearly, Heicklen’s opinion on jury nullification is a viewpoint that the DOJ and other law enforcement officials do not want to be widely publicized. Even a man filming Heicklen, photographer Antonio Musumeci, was arrested for doing so. (Charges against Musumeci were dismissed, and his subsequent lawsuit against Homeland Security was also successful.) But as Professor Paul Butler notes, he and many others have been advocating for jury nullification and have been published extensively, so that any potential citizen/juror could have heard and been influenced by him. If Heicklen was found guilty of jury tampering, could the same be done to Musumeci and Butler for further publicizing Heicklen’s message?

No matter what your stance may be on the issues of drug decriminalization or jury nullification, the right to peaceably and reasonably discuss either matter in public should be allowed without question. To arrest someone for discussing a matter of public concern peaceably in a public place—that’s a crime against free speech.

Posted in Rule of Law

 

Source: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/01/u-s-v-heicklen-the-nullification-of-free-speech/

Posse Comitatus Act kicked to the roadside by feds, say critics

{TWG Note: This is a nightmare that has become a very real and dangerous  threat.  You can learn more about the “Posse Comitatus Act” HERE ]

 

Jim Kouri

Law Enforcement Examiner

The new defense authorization act all but erases decades of U.S. government compliance with the letter and the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act 1878,  a law that prohibits the use of the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions within the United States, according to police officials and others opposed to the militarizing of American law enforcement. 

Provisions in the new authorization act allow military reservists – Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines – to be called to duty and deployed in the event of a natural disaster or other emergency within the homeland, as well as mobilization of reserve units to support counterterrorism and security missions overseas, according to the American Forces Press Service’s Donna Miles.

“Except for a crisis involving a weapon of mass destruction, the reserves historically have been prohibited from providing a homeland disaster response,” Army Lt. General Jack C. Stultz, the Army Reserve chief, told reporters on Friday. …(Con’t)

 

CONTINUE READING: http://www.examiner.com/article/posse-comitatus-act-kicked-to-the-roadside-by-feds-say-critics

Obama to cut healthcare benefits for active duty and retired US military

[TWG Note: This is no surprise to me anymore. obama and his thugs continue to threaten, demonize and ridicule our Veterans while so many of our Veterans don't even pay attention to it.  Watching the leaders of Veterans groups such as the VFW and American Legion pressing palms, swigging champagne and slapping backs with that marxist pig while he continues to stab them in the back at every turn.   Will our Veterans ever wake up?  I'm not counting on that anymore.]

 

 

Posted by jo on May 19th, 2012

TRASHING TRICARE

Bill Gertz
The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention…(Con’t)

 

CONTINUE READING: http://www.inthrutheoutdoor.com/?p=4011

 

S. 2205 The “Second Amendment Sovereignty Act” Protection From UN Gun Grabbing Schemes

By now, every gun owner concerned about the future of our right to keep and bear arms is aware that the international gun eradication movement has been working for more than a decade to achieve a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that would cover not only tanks, helicopters, and other heavy weapons, but also rifles, shotguns and handguns.

As called for by a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2009, a conference will be held in July 2012, in New York City, to draft the treaty’s language. On a parallel track, the ridiculously named Preparatory Committee for the United Nations Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects–held its most recent Preparatory Conference in New York earlier this year.

NRA has tracked the Programme and the Arms Trade Treaty process since their inceptions, with NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action even acquiring “non-governmental organization” status to give it greater ability to monitor the progress and direction of these insidious efforts.

In March of this year, U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kans.) introduced legislation to prevent any arms treaty from infringing the right to keep and bear arms in the United States.  The “Second Amendment Sovereignty Act,” S. 2205, would prohibit the administration from using “the voice, vote, and influence of the United States, in connection with negotiations for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, to restrict in any way the rights of United States citizens under the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or to otherwise regulate domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, use, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, or related items, including  small arms, light weapons, or related materials.”

Last year, Sen. Moran and 57 other senators signed a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reminding them that the Senate has final say on treaties, and stating their unequivocal opposition to any treaty that would affect civilian ownership of firearms, challenge the authority of Congress to regulate firearms within the United States, or call for an international gun registry.

This week, Sen. Moran spoke to his colleagues in the Senate about S. 2205, saying:

“More than two centuries ago, our founding fathers wisely amended the United States Constitution to guarantee a Bill of Rights for its citizens. Since then, our democracy has stood strong as Americans have enjoyed liberties unparalleled in the world – including the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

“Today, our freedoms and our country’s sovereignty are in danger of being undermined by the United Nations. To ensure our liberties remain for our generation and future generations, I am offering legislation to protect the rights of American gun owners from the effects of a U.N. arms treaty.”

“Given where the process stands today, I am gravely concerned this treaty will infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners. I am also concerned it will be used by other countries who do not share our freedoms, to wrongly place the burden of controlling international crime and terrorism on law-abiding American citizens.”

“Mr. President, I urge my colleagues in the Senate to adopt this commonsense legislation. On July 22 of last year, fifty-seven U.S. Senators joined me in reminding the Obama Administration that our firearm freedoms are not negotiable. We notified President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of our intent to oppose ratification of a treaty that in any way restricts Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Our opposition is strong enough to block the treaty from passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require two-thirds approval to be ratified.”

“As the treaty process continues, the Second Amendment Sovereignty Act seeks to further reinforce to the Administration that our country’s sovereignty and firearm freedoms must not be infringed upon by an international organization made up of many countries with little respect for gun rights. America leads the world in export standards to ensure arms are transferred for legitimate purposes and my bill will make certain that law-abiding Americans are not wrongfully punished.”

“In the days ahead, I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure an Arms Trade Treaty that undermines the Constitutional rights of American gun owners is dead on arrival in the Senate.”

To listen to the full speech, please click here.

The purpose of the Programme’s most recent PrepCom was to lay the groundwork for a “Review Conference” scheduled to begin in August, by which time we should know what will have come out of the treaty drafting conference to be held in July.  In the meantime, please contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to sponsor and support Sen. Moran’s bill.

You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators by using the “Write Your Representatives” tool at www.NRAILA.org.  You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121.

Restriction on Funding U.N. Gun Ban Treaty

In a related and very significant development this week, U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg’s (R-Mont.) amendment to restrict the use of federal funds for advocating or lobbying for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty passed the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations by a bi-partisan vote of 30 to 20.  This important amendment mandates that no taxpayer funds may be used to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that would restrict the Second Amendment rights of any United States citizen or regulate firearms or ammunition.

“Taxpayer funds should not be used to lobby against our constitutional rights.  Law-abiding Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.  The scope of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty could drastically undermine this constitutional right.  The NRA firmly believes that the U.N. should never be allowed to be the arbiter of American freedom,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.  “The NRA would like to thank Congressman Rehberg for his leadership and for offering this vital amendment in support of the Second Amendment.”

 

Source: NRAILA

Rehberg Amendment to Restrict Funds Used for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty Passes in U.S. House Committee on Appropriations

Source: NRAILA

 

Fairfax, Va. – Congressman Denny Rehberg’s (Mont.) amendment to restrict the use of federal funds for advocating or lobbying for a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has passed the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations by a bi-partisan vote of 30 to 20.  The amendment mandates that no taxpayer funds may be used to negotiate a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that would restrict the Second Amendment rights of any United States citizen or regulate firearms or ammunition.

“Taxpayer funds should not be used to lobby against our constitutional rights.  Law-abiding Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.  The scope of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty could drastically undermine this constitutional right.  The NRA firmly believes that the U.N. should never be allowed to be the arbiter of American freedom,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.  “The NRA would like to thank Congressman Rehberg for his leadership and for offering this vital amendment in support of the Second Amendment.”

What End of Bush Tax Cuts Means for You

 

Unless Congress takes action, it’s not just the “rich” who will see higher tax bills

 

The so-called Bush tax cuts are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. While you may already know that, you may not fully understand what’s in store for you and your family. Here’s what to expect.

Higher Tax Rates for All

You may think only individuals in the top two brackets will face higher federal income taxes if the Bush cuts go bye-bye as scheduled on Jan. 1, 2013. Not true. Unless Congress takes action and the president goes along (whoever that is), rates will go up for everyone — not just “the rich.” Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest “new” bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the new 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the 36% bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the 39.6% bracket.

[Related: Facebook Co-Founder: America is OK. It’s the Rules That Are a Pain]

Bottom line: We’ll all see higher taxes.

Higher Capital Gains and Dividends Taxes for All

Right now, the maximum federal rate on long-term capital gains and dividends is only 15%. Starting next year, the maximum rate on long-term gains is scheduled to increase to 20% (or 18% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years), and the maximum rate on dividends will skyrocket to a whopping 39.6%.

Right now, an unbeatable 0% rate applies to long-term gains and dividends collected by folks in lowest two rate brackets of 10% and 15%. Starting next year, folks in the lowest two brackets will pay 10% on long-term gains (or 8% on gains from assets acquired after Dec. 31, 2000, and held for over five years) and 15% and 28% on dividends (compared to 0% now).

Bottom line: taxes on long-term gains and dividends will go up for everyone.

Harsher Marriage Penalty

The Bush tax cuts included several provisions to ease the so-called marriage penalty. The penalty can cause a married couple to pay more in taxes than when they were single, which is nuts.

Right now, the bottom two tax brackets for married joint-filing couples are exactly twice as wide as for singles. This helps keep the marriage penalty from biting lower and middle-income couples. Starting next year, the joint-filer tax brackets will contract, causing higher tax bills for many folks.

Currently, the standard deduction for married joint-filing couples is double the amount for singles. Starting next year, the joint-filer standard deduction will fall back to about 167% of the amount for singles.

Bottom line: lots of lower and middle-income income couples will face higher tax bills due to a harsher marriage penalty.

[Related: Watchdog calls foul on IRS whistleblower office]

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Itemized Deductions

Before the Bush tax cuts, a nasty phase-out rule could eliminate up to 80% of a higher-income individual’s itemized deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and charitable donations. The rule was gradually eased and finally eliminated in 2010. Next year, however, the phase-out will be back in full force unless Congress takes action and the president approves. So if you itemize and have 2013 adjusted gross income above about $175,000 (or about $87,500 if you use married filing separate status), get ready for this phase-out rule to take a bite out of your wallet.

Return of Phase-Out Rule for Personal Exemptions

Before the Bush tax cuts, another nasty phase-out rule could eliminate some or all of a higher-income individual’s personal exemption deductions (for 2012, personal exemption deductions are $3,800 each). The rule was gradually cut back and finally eliminated in 2010. But it will be back with a vengeance next year unless Congress takes action and the president approves. So you need to be ready for yet another bite out of your wallet if you are a married joint-filer with 2013 adjusted gross income above about $265,000. If you’re single, the magic number will be about $175,000. If you use head of household filing status, watch out if your 2013 adjusted gross income exceeds about $220,000.

[Related: American Tax Havens]

Some Bush Tax Cuts Are Likely to Be Continued

Some elements of the Bush tax cuts have gained bipartisan support and will probably be continued beyond this year. Examples include inflation-indexed alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts, the ability to use nonrefundable personal tax credits to offset your AMT bill, and the deduction for qualified higher education tuition and fees. The current versions of the child tax credit, earned income credit, dependent care credit, and adoption credit are also more-likely-than-not to be continued. The Bush tax cut legislation liberalized these credits, and later legislation liberalized them even more.

 

Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-end-of-bush-tax-cuts-means-for-you.html

obama’s democrats Revive Legislation To Strip Sheriffs Of Powers

Delaware State Bill 325 moved through the State House quietly and with no publicity from any of the so called main stream media.  What was so important about this Bill and why it should have had people in every state in the union shouting from the roof tops, was that it was a Bill aimed at removing…YES, REMOVING…the powers of arrest from the County Sheriff.  If this Bill had passed you have got to believe that a similar Bill would have been enacted in all other states. 

To put this into perspective, the County Sheriff is the constitutionally elected chief law officer in a county, with say over all that happens in their county, including as to if federal troops and agencies can operate there or not. The Obama Regime has been fighting this very issue since the attacks on the president by Maricopa County Sheriff, Joe Arpaio and others who are doing the jobs that they are paid to do, whether it be on fighting at the county level illegal immigration to fighting other crime and corruption like operation fast and furious, or doing what their citizens ask for in investigating the eligibility of Mr Obama to be President due to his birth status.  All the above and other crime fighting jobs done by the Sheriffs have caused this administration problems and embarrasment and the attacks have been ongoing.  This Bill, however, is a full frontal attack on a constitutionally elected official and their duties…(Con’t)

CONTINUE READING: http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2012/05/08/urgent-news-attacks-on-county-sheriffs-is-beginning-in-delaware-by-fred-brownbill/

 

MORE INFORMATION AT OATHKEEPERS.ORG: http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/05/13/democrats-revive-bill-to-strip-sheriffs-of-power/

 

READ “SHERIFFS FIRST” INFORMATION HERE:  http://www.countysheriffproject.org

 

FEDS CONTINUE PUSH TO USURP OUR SHERIFFS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/feds-continue-stealth-push-to-usurp-our-sheriffs-and-constitutional-laws/

 

NEVADA SHERIFF INTERVENES AGAINST FEDERAL INTRUSIONS http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/nevada-sheriff-tony-demeos-swat-team-stops-federal-government-feds-engaging-in-illegal-confiscation-of-cattle-and-water-rights-of-county-property-owner/

 

NEW MEXICO RESIDENTS STANDING AGAINST FEDERAL INTRUSIONS: http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/12/05/armed-and-ready-new-mexico-residents-defy-federal-government/

 

Read more information about the Sheriff’s First Movement and Sheriff Mack’s organization, County Sheriff Project

 

US SHERIFFS RISE UP AGAINST FEDERAL INTRUSIONS: http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/u-s-sheriffs-rise-up-against-federal-government-threatens-feds-with-swat-teams/

BREAKING NEWS: US Judge Blocks NDAA Indefinite Detention of Americans!!!

 

A US federal judge has temporarily blocked a section of the controversial National Defense Authorization Act that allows for the indefinite military detention of US citizens.

­In a 68-page ruling, US District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed on Wednesday that the statute failed to “pass constitutional muster” because its language could be interpreted quite broadly and eventually be used to suppress political dissent.

“There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,” Forrest wrote, according to CourtHouseNews.Com. “There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention.”

The Manhattan judge therefore ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued US officials, including President Barack Obama. They claimed that the act, which was signed into law on December 31, makes them fear possible arrest by US armed forces.

Among those who filed the complaint, Bloomberg reports, was former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. According to the journalist, NDAA would allow federal authorities to hold him in custody just for interviewing individuals who were detained on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the US.

The order by Judge Forrest prevents the enforcement of the statute provision, pending further order of the court or an amendment to the statute by the US Congress.

 

SOURCE: http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-judge-blocked-detention-437/

Investigation Reveals Solyndra Just The Tip Of The Iceberg With obama Regime’s “Green” Schemes…

A House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee dug further into the $90 billion directed toward green-energy initiatives in President Obama’s 2009 stimulus, noting questions not only about whether the programs have wasted taxpayer money but whether the White House pulled strings for some firms.

“When taxpayers lost over a half-billion dollars on Solyndra, the Obama Administration said that it was just one bad apple and that the rest of the portfolio was strong,” said subcommittee chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “It is becoming increasingly clear that Solyndra was just the tip of the iceberg in a sea of taxpayer risk.”

The Regulatory Affairs hearing was made even better by the chairman of the full committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), dropping in to question the six CEOs of alternative-energy companies lined up at the witness table.

 

Four of those companies together received $5 billion in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy…(Con’t)

CONTINUE READING: http://pjmedia.com/blog/solyndra-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg-new-obama-solar-loan-links/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

Marxists obama and lisa jackson’s RAMPANT EPA Abuse – Threatening World Food Supply

During a famine, Chairman Mao was told the people were starving.  His response was, “Teach them to eat less“. 

10 million died that year.

Several marxists within the obama regime have professed their admiration, respect for and alignment with beliefs and actions of Chairman Mao.  

Does this not concern you?

Today’s EPA, led by another of obama’s marxist thugs, Lisa ”FAT-FINGERED, DOUBLE-WIDE SLOB”  Jackson, has done more to destroy food security and safety in this Nation than any other individual or entity in the history of the world. 

Does this not concern you?

EPA Regulations Threaten World Food Security

EPA biotech food regulations will undermine food security worldwide.

Sixty members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, comprising many of America’s most eminent biological scientists, and including Nobel Laureates Dr. James Watson and Dr. Gunter Blobel, have written to the US Environmental Protection Agency expressing  their concerns about recent EPA moves to change biotech crop regulations.

Professor Nina Fedoroff of the Pennsylvania State University is the lead protest letter signatory.

The biotech crop regulation changes mooted by the EPA were announced March 2011 in the Federal Register here (pdf).

Food Supply Threatened!
Scientist co-signatories on the Fedoroff Letter say that the EPA is going down a troublesome path that is not based on science, and which will frustrate and delay innovations needed to provide farmers with better cropping methods.  Because of the delays and unneeded extra cost burdens such a  policy shift would create, it would surely undermine global food security.

Read more at Biofortified …

READ MORE ABOUT LISA JACKSON’S EPA ABUSE