Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:14 | #

Guest, jury nullification will become increasingly important as:

1) The new media educate more of the population of their power, as lone jurors to prevent convictions.

2) The Obamanation expands its unconstitutional legislation against free speech.

Posted by Daveg on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:46 | #

Is this the guy who “supported” ron paul by putting pictures of him getting an autograph with Mr. Paul?

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:35 | #

Yes.

Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:50 | #

The jury system of reaching a verdict through one’s peers is a White system for White people and is useless for any other. As usual, American Jewish defence lawyers and jurisprudence professors, those honest proponents of legal impartiality, will defend the expensive jury system vehemently because of its relatively favourable 20% acquittal rate .  Of course, in their true country of citizenship, Israel, no jury system obtains and the acquittal rate is a nugatory 2%.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 24 Oct 2008 03:54 | #

Naïve Ian Jobling feels absolutely satisfied that someone named David Lieberman has got Kevin MacDonald completely debunked, blown out of the water, transformed into toast:  someone stick a fork in MacDonald, quick, he’s done, Lieberman’s cooked him, take him out of the oven. 

Or, so gloats Ian (in so many words):

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/blog/blog/anti_semites_stink_up_another_discussion_thread/

What The Derb wrote about Kevin MacDonald can surely be written instead about Ian Jobling:  he needs to get out more.  Led a pretty sheltered life, Ian?

Posted by Al Ross on Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:14 | #

True, Fred. The irony is that Jobling’s defence of the Jews’ conduct dominates his blog, the name of which was inspired by his anger at that mad Jewess Susan Sontag’s “Whites as cancer” obloquy.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:52 | #

Fred, I’m not sure which MR post you meant this to be in response to, but I did encounter Leiberman’s paper last September at which time I tried to read it and posted the following to a private email list:

James A. Bowery wrote:
> > http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

Quoting the paper:

“So there is little common ground between MacDonald?s warm embrace of
authoritarian values and Altemeyer?s urgent warnings against them. In
the end, of course, these are really matters of data interpretation;
MacDonald can certainly make use of Altemeyer?s statistical findings
concerning authoritarian personalities without finding them the cause
for alarm Altemeyer himself does. The problem, however, is that
MacDonald?s transparent desire to render tendencies toward
authoritarianism among members of his own ethnicity palatable requires
him to do some fancy rhetorical dancing around Altemeyer?s terms as well
as his data. Ultimately, this will lead us to the real issue of interest
here: yet another example of MacDonald suppressing information that does
not conform to his theory.”

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but much of it seems to boil down to
such arguments:

“Those who MacDonald cites on particulars would object to his use of
their data for his thesis.”

In the above paragraph, Lieberman goes so far as to admit that this
isn’t really a valid criticism of MacDonald’s scholarship but then turns
right around and calls MacDonald’s omission of possible what Lieberman
_admits are irrelevancies as “suppressing information that does not
conform to his theory”.

It is hard to get motivated to read such a paper.

Posted by Frank McGuckin on Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:53 | #

How mant times do I have to tell you. It’s not Jobling, it’s Jewbling,Jewblingwitz.Jobberger,Jobfinkel and Jewblingstien!!!!

Posted by Diamed on Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:21 | #

I’m trying to read this Lieberman paper but it is disgustingly ignorant and irrelevant.

He uses attacks like, “macdonald didn’t research anything for himself but only cited other sources.”  How does that make what he says any less true?

Or “the people he quoted had environmental explanations while he has biological explanations.”  So what?  He quoted the results and input his own belief in the cause, he wasn’t quoting their interpretations.

He also spends enormous amounts of time simply attacking macdonald without making any points at all, like saying he’s a crypto-anti-semite or that caring about the coming demise of the white race is so absurd that it immediately disqualifies him as a scholar.  How much more of this garbage must I read and how can this be so convincing to Ian Jobling to negate the visible evidence in front of all our eyes?

Israel—A ethnic nationalist state.
America—More ‘jewish organization of X’ groups than you can shake a stick at.
Jews Voting as a block massively democrat every election.
American jews constantly lobbying for Israeli jews or spying for Israel.  The same when American jews were supporting and funding the Russian Bolshevik jews during the revolution.  Schiff-Lenin anyone?
The Bible’s and Talmud’s constant treat jews one way, treat gentiles another racism.  Slavery and genocide approved towards non-jews by even their perfect holy God.

Looks to me like you don’t need much ‘research’ to realize jews only care about their own ethnic interests.  Nor is there any amount of research that could disprove these obvious facts on the ground.  So why even read these hatchet pieces?  Let them debate honestly about these points or just stop running their mouths about irrelevancies.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:07 | #

Too bad the jury in the Walter Abbott trial just ended didn’t read this log entry beforehand, the part about jury nullification — in deliberating for more than an hour they showed that they really didn’t want to convict and their final decision to convict anyway was the result of their taking “the judge’s instructions to the jury” as gospel.  It isn’t gospel.  It would be a lot closer to gospel if we lived in a normal country during normal times.  But we don’t.  So it isn’t gospel.

Posted by Riley The Wiley on Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:29 | #

Is this the guy who “supported” ron paul by putting pictures of him getting an autograph with Mr. Paul?

Yes. It’s also the guy who “educated” the public on the hazards of miscegenation by making up fliers showing women in sexual congress with animals, and then handing them out at the local junior high school. In front of the TV cameras.

Swell fella! So glad he’s on our side. Not.

Riley

Posted by daveg on Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:07 | #

Can you explain how it fits this definition:

An animal’s behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes “for” that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it.[2]

Thanks

Posted by Mia on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:27 | #

James Bowery: “When Bill White goes after a jury foreman, he is creating a situation in which going after jurors who stand with white nationalists is simply “tit for tat”.  After all, if “white nationalists” don’t respect the foundation of common law citizen sovereignty—the jury—then they don’t deserve the protection of the jury via jury nullification, right? ”
(trimmed)
>>

It is unlikely many jurors would outwardly ‘stand with white nationalists’ , but rather go after weaknesses in the case itself. No WN is going to be out about it and get selected or retained on a jury. It would be automaticlaly be assumed the person is either prejudiced for or against defendant. We have all heard stories of people getting out of jury duty saying they were prejudiced against some aspect of a defendant, but rarely we have heard stories of people getting thrown off a jury being ‘for’ some aspect of defendant for which people usually would remain closed-mouthed if it didn’t come out that said juror is a longshoreman or the son of one, and so is defendant.  Nor would they say “hey, I post on X board, or believe in border control” or anything to do with racial stuff.

The idea that is was rude, foolish, etc to post ex-jurors name (the indictment shows this as being posted this year, when trial was some 6 years ago?)  is a separate thing than arguing if WN can or cannot or do or don’t post private info, whether they deserve ‘protection’ via nullification. As I understand it, nullification is not a ‘protection’ but rather a description of something that happens, not anything in place to protect anyone, least of all the defendant. It appears to be more a result that comes from the charge itself and the facts not being answerable to a quick and dirty guilty or not-guilty.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question.  Once a jury returns a verdict of “Not Guilty,” that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the “double jeopardy” clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:07 | #

If jurors have a legal power in what way might they not have the associated legal right?  Moreover, jury nullification is not merely a de facto consequence of trial by jury, as is so often asserted.  It is a corner stone of common law.

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.  ”  —Thomas Jefferson, 1789 letter to Thomas Paine

“The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.” —John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States

The fact that “jury selection” packs juries in ways friendly to the government is merely an artifact of tyranny.  Jurors cannot be selected except on the basis that they are “peers” of the defendant.  The lawlessness of the current court system merely demands one of two responses:  Say anything necessary to the inquisitors during jury selection to get on the jury or take up arms against the the lawless courts.

Posted by Lurker on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:07 | #

Riley - who are you talking about?