* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Before, I quote from an article about this nun, I will tell you what I would have done had I been on that jury - I would have voted "not guilty." To be sure, Sister Megan Rice and her two co-defendants were guilty of "something." But I am not one of those people who would blindly follow a judge's instructions to the jury. I don't believe in giving any judge the kind of discretion in sentencing this judge enjoys.
In fact, I advocate that anyone serving on a jury consider my example. But do be careful. When sitting with the other members of a jury in deliberation, don't participate. If asked why you're being silent, just say, "I will listen to your deliberations and make my decision from there." Note: I didn't say, "...and base my decision on your deliberations." I'm not sure how the jury process works, but don't expose yourself to any danger by trying to convince the Sheeple on your jury to vote as you'll vote. Word might get back to the judge who would all too happy to slap you with a contempt of court citation and make you pay for a new trial with a new jury.
I'm not sure if it's against the law for me to advocate this form of jury tampering, but I don't care. There are a lot of things against the law that are just plain unfair, and I feel someone must speak out against them. The judiciary in this country has way too much power, and the unfairness of minimum sentencing guidelines - though not a factor in this case - makes justice a difficult outcome in a USA courtroom.
Details of the case
I can't do better than to quote from a January 27, 2014 article concerning this case, so here goes:
QUOTE [Note the sections I highlighted in yellow]:
[source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-security-nuclear-20140128,0,4144945.story ]
An elderly nun and two other activists were ordered to pay about $53,000 restitution for breaking into a Tennessee defense facility, but must wait [until Feb. 18] to hear how much prison time they could face after a judge [on Jan. 27, 2014] suspended sentencing due to bad weather.
Sister Megan Rice, Michael Walli, and Greg Boertje-Obed admitted cutting fences and making their way across the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in July 2012, embarrassing U.S. officials and prompting security changes.
U.S. District Judge Amul Thapar in Knoxville on Tuesday ordered the protesters to pay $52,953 to cover repairs to the facility where enriched uranium for nuclear bombs is stored...
Rice and the others admitted cutting fences and making their way across the expansive grounds of the complex to spray-paint peace slogans and hammer on exterior walls. When a guard confronted them, they offered him food and began singing.
The three were convicted by a federal jury last May of damaging national defense premises under the sabotage act, which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years, and of causing more than $1,000 of damage to U.S. government property.
Federal sentencing guidelines call for Rice, 83, to receive up to a little more than seven years in prison; Walli, 65, more than nine years; and Boertje-Obed, 58, more than eight years. The defendants have been in custody since their conviction.
...
Prosecutors have asked that the defendants receive sentences in line with federal guidelines. The defendants have asked for lesser sentences [which could include "time served," since there is no minimum sentence required].
Bill Quigley, one of the attorneys of the defendants, said in an interview last- week all three are in good health, but Rice, who turns 84 January 31, is "freezing cold in jail."
Defense attorneys argued in court documents that the three were "completely nonviolent" when they were arrested.
"They used the occasion to present symbolically their passion for nuclear disarmament," defense lawyers wrote.
...
Prosecutors contended the break-in at Y-12, the primary U.S. site for processing and storage of enriched uranium, disrupted operations, endangered U.S. national security, and caused physical damage.
:UNQUOTE.
My reaction to this article
No, they didn't endanger U.S. national security. If anything, they enhanced it by bringing to the attention of the authorities (and the voting public) how easily this secure site could be compromised. I'm sure the resulting measures to increase security will make it impossible for any terrorists out there to duplicate or surpass their feat.
A possible 20-year sentence for cutting fences and spray-painting slogans? Are you kidding me? That might be how the law reads and how the Sheeple on the jury ruled, but where's the justice? If any kind of additional jail time is ordered by the judge, I would see that as his agreement that there must be payback for this hippie-scum having embarrassed the authorities. It bothers me that the prosecutors added a charge of sabotage against these defendants. It bothers me even more that a compliant jury went along with this. And it bothers me most of all that this judge has this kind of latitude in deciding how much jail time must be served - ranging from time served to 20-years.
If I would have been on that jury, I would have turned a deaf ear to even making these defendants pay for damages. Instead, they should be given a medal for their service to humanity.
More on judicial arrogance
I'll close by citing two stories illustrating how our judiciary has become less of a force for justice and more of a force for oppression.
The President's Power to Pardon
This is an example of an increase in power by means of an "interpretation" of the law:
QUOTE:
[source: http://people.howstuffworks.com/presidential-pardon4.htm ]
When it was established that the pardon is to be used solely to grant reprieve from affronts committed against the United States, a loophole was opened. Pardons have been demonstrated to not legally have an effect on contempt of court charges since, like a civil case, a contempt charge isn't considered an affront to the United States; instead, it's considered an affront to the court.
:UNQUOTE.
Since when is "the court" (or at least, any of the federal courts) not considered part of the United States? The courts must obey rules set down by the United States - in the form of guidelines legislated by Congress. So the Courts don't stand alone, to be regarded as outside of the United States. Article II of the US Constitution makes this clear when it says:
"...and [the President] shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."
Nothing is mentioned about sparing the federal courts from the President's power to "grant reprieves and pardons." Besides, who cares if the court is affronted? The entire nation was affronted when the Confederacy sought to secede from the Union, yet the President granted pardons to thousands of that union's officials. How does the Court rate (what basically boils down to) a created exemption from the Constitutionally-granted power of the President?
Answer? It doesn't.
Bonanza
I was in a courtroom once, as a defendant in a case. I chose not to stand when the judge entered the courtoom and the deputy announced, "All rise, court is now in session." I knew I was risking a contempt of court citation even though I had my reasons for not standing, including: "It's against my religion." Fat lot of good that would have done me if the judge had felt offended. But she chose to ignore my seated self.
That made me think of an episode of an old TV series from the 1960's, which had run for 14-seasons - Bonanza. Anyone USAer growing up in the era would remember the Cartwright family. They owned a ranch in Nevada (bordering Lake Tahoe) called The Ponderosa in the 1860's. That particular episode showed a trial with a very unusual aspect - at least "unusual" to my modern eyes. After the trial was over and the judge read the verdict, he gaveled the session to a close BUT...nobody said, "Please rise." The pounded gavel indicated the session was over, so court was no longer in session. Hence, no "need" to rise at the conclusion of this trial.
In fact, those present stood up and engaged each other (including the judge) in casual conversation.
I didn't see the beginning of this trial, so I don't know if a deputy had said, "All rise..." But my sense of what I remember led me to conclude: If the judge bangs the gavel, that alone should start the proceedings without any necessity to rise in the presence of an authority.
How times have changed!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Today, I'll close with: Meanwhile, an 83-year-old nun shivers from the cold while waiting to be sentenced - bail denied.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment