Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (4765)	5/10/2001 8:44:33 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

Hi Don - the quote is consistent with a book I've got on gun control, written by a couple of Jews, who argue that Hitler deliberately disarmed the populace to make them easier to control. They demonstrate that similar actions were taken in other totalitarian states prior to seizing absolute power, including Cambodia and Uganda. But I don't know where the book is, so I can't tell you who wrote it. I doubt that the Israelis believe in gun control. They, at least, learned their lesson.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (4765)	5/10/2001 11:47:38 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13062

California Supreme Court Throws Out Jury Nullification By Matt Sebastian msebastian@cctimes.com Contra Costa Times Staff Writer contracostatimes.com 5-10-1 * High court throws out 'conscience.' * Jurors may no longer refuse to convict a person on the basis of a law they believe is unjust. SACRAMENTO - California jurors must follow the law, and not their consciences, when deliberating, the state Supreme Court ruled Monday, dismissing the historic doctrine of jury nullification as "contrary to our ideal of equal justice for all." The justices unanimously upheld a Santa Clara County judge's decision to remove a juror who refused, on principle, to consider convicting an 18-year-old defendant of statutory rape. The ruling, the court's first on nullification, is a blow to proponents of the unwritten, but time-tested, principle that jurors are the "conscience of the community" and should reject unjust laws by refusing to convict. "Judges have systematically refused to grapple with what nullification really means," said Alan Scheflin, a Santa Clara University law professor. "They've erected this bogeyman that they take great delight in destroying." Nullification "may sound lofty," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote, "but such unchecked and unreviewable power can lead to verdicts based on bigotry and racism." The court, in its 28-page opinion, also warned that nullification would leave the fate of defendants to the "whims of a particular jury" which could disregard the presumption of innocence or even convict "by the flip of a coin." Jury nullification dates back hundreds of years, but rose to prominence during the Revolutionary War period. Juries have since used the principle to acquit those who helped free slaves during the 1800s, as well as bootleggers prosecuted during Prohibition. "There's no constitutional basis for jury nullification, yet it does exist," said Rita Simon, a law professor at American University. "De Toqueville even mentioned it when he praised the American jury system." Monday's opinion stems from the 1995 conviction of Arasheik W. Williams by a Santa Clara jury on charges of torture, false imprisonment, assault and statutory rape. During closing arguments, Williams' attorney told the jurors that "a jury may, at times, afford a higher justice by refusing to enforce harsh laws." Hours into deliberation, the jury foreman reported to the judge that juror James Kelly refused to discuss the statutory rape charge because "he believes the law is wrong." Kelly told Judge Paul Teilh he couldn't consider the rape charge: "I simply cannot see staining a man, a young man, for the rest of his life for what I believe to be the wrong reason." Under the American legal system, juries need not explain how they arrived at their verdicts. But judges can, and do, remove jurors who make it known they will practice nullification. In the Williams case, the judge removed Kelly from the jury, saying he had violated his oath of service that required the juror to follow the judge's instructions. The jury, with an alternate in place, voted the next day to convict Williams, who was later sentenced to six years in prison. "This ruling will only encourage jurors to lie," Scheflin said.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (4765)	5/16/2001 10:57:52 AM
From: augustus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13062

The "Hitler" Quote That Wouldn't Die: "1935 Will Go Down In History!" -- "This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" --falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler, "Abschied vom Hessenland!" ["Farewell to Hessia!"], ['Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)], April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [Introduction by Eberhard Beckmann] This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date given (*in alternate versions, the words "This year..." are replaced by "1935...") has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been a need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government were already in effect. The Nazi Weapons Law (or_Waffengesetz_) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938. The citation usually given for this quote is a jumbled mess, and has only three major clues from which to work. The first is the date, which does not correspond (even approximately) to a date on which Hitler made a public speech, and a check of the texts of Hitler's speeches does not reveal a quotation resembling this (which is easily understandable when you realize that "Hitler" is commenting on a non-existent law). The second clue is the newspaper reference, which if translated into German resembles the title of a newspaper called _Berliner Tageblatt,_ and a check of the issue for that date reveals that the page and column references given are to the arts and culture page! No Hitler speech appears in the pages of _Berliner Tageblatt_ on that date, or dates close to it, because there was no such speech to report. Finally, the citation includes a proper name "Eberhard Beckmann," which is sometimes cited as "by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann," which is an important clue itself, because it reveals that the citation was fabricated by someone who had so little knowledge of the German language that they were unaware that "Einleitung" isn't the fellow's first name! The only "Eberhard Beckmann" which has been uncovered thus far did indeed write introductions, but he was a journalist for a German broadcasting company after WWII, and he wrote several introductions to_photography books,_ one of which was photos of the German state of Hesse (or Hessia), which may be the source of the curious phrase "Abschied vom Hessenland!" which appears in the citation. This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud.