They'll toss you...best to keep it to yourself and work it from the
inside.
Mike
I agree with Mike. If my own case goes to trial, I will certainly hope there's someone like yourself on my jury, Derek. Jury duty is a potential chance to strike a serious blow for someone's individual liberty. Under the circumstances, I think it's perfectly morally acceptable to lie, either by omission or commission, because screening people likely to judge the law off a jury is both unconstitutional and immoral. It would be like failing to tell the Gestapo you are hiding a Jew in your house if they come around asking -- not quite as serious perhaps, but same principle. You could be saving an innocent person years in jail. If you can at all spare the time and/or loss of income, I seriously encourage you to try to get on that jury.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
They’ll toss you…best to keep it to yourself and work it from the inside.
Mike
<image.tiff>
From:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfDerek Jensen
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:03 AM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] jury dutyI've been summoned for jury duty in late February.
How do you think they will react when I say "I believe it's the responsibility of a jury to not only judge the facts of the case, but also to judge the morality and legality of the law itself."?
--
View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.comSPONSORED LINKS
<image.tiff>
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
You've convinced me. I will do my best to get on.
Right on Derek, glad to hear it! Do please also be careful about what you say and do even if you get on a jury. I was selected for a jury a few years ago, in a case which turned out to be a landlord-tenant dispute. One of the minor points at issue was the landlord's failure to provide heat, as required by statute. I argued that we shouldn't find him guilty of that because it was wrong to legally require a landlord to provide heat if it was not in the rental agreement (which it wasn't), and that we had the right to judge the validity of the law as well as the facts of the case. I gave the other jurors copies of the FIJA pamphlet about jury rights and the history of jury nullification.
I figured that once we were impaneled it was safe to be candid, but I was wrong. First thing the next morning (the second day of deliberations), the bailiff came by the jury room and called me out to see the judge. When I entered the courtroom, the attorneys for both sides were there, and the bailiff, and the judge, and that was it. The judge directed me to the witness box, and I was sworn in (previously we had been asked questions as jurors, but never individually sworn in as bound to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc.). The judge then held up one of the pamphlets I'd handed out and asked me if I had given these pamphlets to members of the jury. When I said I had, he started sternly lecturing me, saying I had violated my oath as a juror. I said he had violated his oath as a judge by trying to deny jurors their rights to judge the law. He got very angry, ordered me removed from the jury, and had the bailiff physically escort me from the building!
I'm pretty sure I know which juror ratted me out. If I had to do it again, I think I would still talk about jury nullification and maybe even hand out the pamphlets, but only if I first got the other jurors to promise on their word of honor to keep whatever we talked about in the jury room. It's pretty hard to simply argue "X isn't guilty" on the basis of the facts, when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that X *is* guilty just going by the facts. And if you look like an idiot, or like you're being blatantly prejudiced without any justification, then the other jurors are less likely to take other arguments you might make seriously, and might even complain that you are just being obstructionist. So how much to disclose at that point can be a real dilemma.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
One small thing about what you did and why the judge got so hopping mad. RULES OF EVIDENCE. The jury may consider what is presented as evidence and testimony by both sides in their deliberations. You brought in outside evidence which had not been presented. That's a big no no no.
What you could have done is to get copies of the overlying law and the tenants lease agreement and if it could have been shown the law requiremenst for heat were unreasonable and unattainable then find for the defendant. If the landlord used his agreement as a means to circumvent the law by NOT STATING he had to provide heat then the landlord was at fault.
The thing here is if there was some law a landlord did not agree with he could simply leave it out of the lease agreement and not have to obey. What's wrong with that picture???
If there was some law a teneant had to comply with and they tried to strike it from the lease agreement then they are at fault.
Unfortunately your choice of trials to use jury nullifiaction was not the bestest.
Save jury nullification for drug laws - then watch what happens - real fireworks.
Like that guy from Oakland who grew medical pot and was tried in federal court in SF. He was tried on the basis of fed law and the judge delibrately blocked the jury from hearing the guy was growing on the basis of Oakland law.
Jury Nullification was warranted there.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Right on Derek, glad to hear it! Do please also be careful about what
you say and do even if you get on a jury. I was selected for a jury a
few years ago, in a case which turned out to be a landlord-tenant
dispute. One of the minor points at issue was the landlord's failure to
provide heat, as required by statute. I argued that we shouldn't find
him guilty of that because it was wrong to legally require a landlord
to provide heat if it was not in the rental agreement (which it
wasn't), and that we had the right to judge the validity of the law as
well as the facts of the case. I gave the other jurors copies of the
FIJA pamphlet about jury rights and the history of jury nullification.
I figured that once we were impaneled it was safe to be candid, but I
was wrong. First thing the next morning (the second day of
deliberations), the bailiff came by the jury room and called me out to
see the judge. When I entered the courtroom, the attorneys for both
sides were there, and the bailiff, and the judge, and that was it. The
judge directed me to the witness box, and I was sworn in (previously we
had been asked questions as jurors, but never individually sworn in as
bound to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc.). The judge then held up
one of the pamphlets I'd handed out and asked me if I had given these
pamphlets to members of the jury. When I said I had, he started sternly
lecturing me, saying I had violated my oath as a juror. I said he had
violated his oath as a judge by trying to deny jurors their rights to
judge the law. He got very angry, ordered me removed from the jury, and
had the bailiff physically escort me from the building!
I'm pretty sure I know which juror ratted me out. If I had to do it
again, I think I would still talk about jury nullification and maybe
even hand out the pamphlets, but only if I first got the other jurors
to promise on their word of honor to keep whatever we talked about in
the jury room. It's pretty hard to simply argue "X isn't guilty" on the
basis of the facts, when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that X
*is* guilty just going by the facts. And if you look like an idiot, or
like you're being blatantly prejudiced without any justification, then
the other jurors are less likely to take other arguments you might make
seriously, and might even complain that you are just being
obstructionist. So how much to disclose at that point can be a real
dilemma.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
One small thing about what you did and why the judge got so hopping mad. RULES OF EVIDENCE. The jury may consider what is presented as evidence and testimony by both sides in their deliberations. You brought in outside evidence which had not been presented. That's a big no no no.
That could have been a factor, but I don't recall anything being mentioned about that. I think he was mostly pissed off because I not only wasn't contrite, but dared to respond to his morality lecture by questioning the legitimacy of his own conduct.
What you could have done is to get copies of the overlying law and the tenants lease agreement and if it could have been shown the law requiremenst for heat were unreasonable and unattainable then find for the defendant. If the landlord used his agreement as a means to circumvent the law by NOT STATING he had to provide heat then the landlord was at fault.
The thing here is if there was some law a landlord did not agree with he could simply leave it out of the lease agreement and not have to obey. What's wrong with that picture???
By libertarian legal standards, nothing. Morally there may be something wrong with it, but that's not a question for the law. Of course I'm presuming here that you're referring to legal obligations on a landlord that are not part of an implied contract and are not things that would normally apply whether or not a landlord-tenant relationship existed. For instance a landlord shouldn't be able to snoop through your things when he comes in to make repairs, whether or not such conduct is specifically forbidden in the rental agreement.
If there was some law a teneant had to comply with and they tried to strike it from the lease agreement then they are at fault.
I'd say that depends on the law. For example, if a lease agreement had a standard clause saying the premises could not be used for "illegal" activity, and a tenant used "illegal" drugs on the premises, or lied on his income taxes, or baked cookies intended for sale without a health permit, or whatever, I would side with the tenant.
Unfortunately your choice of trials to use jury nullifiaction was not the bestest.
Save jury nullification for drug laws - then watch what happens - real fireworks.
It wasn't an ideal case for it, but one takes opportunities as they come.
Like that guy from Oakland who grew medical pot and was tried in federal court in SF. He was tried on the basis of fed law and the judge delibrately blocked the jury from hearing the guy was growing on the basis of Oakland law.
Jury Nullification was warranted there.
In my opinion it's warranted any time drug cultivation, possession or sales charges are brought.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Dear Starchild;
Then let's nullify the judge...... yeah!!!
And while at it nullfy all laws as :
Libertarianism is my bread and radical is my butter and anarchos is my jam.
Or is it: Radical is my bread and Libertarianism my butter and Anarchos my jam
Wait wait wait: it's Anarchos is my bread and radical is my butter and Libertariansim is my jam.
Okay okay okay: Let's try it this way: If A is to B as C is to A then B is the hypotenuse of the triangle as B is to A or maybe........
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Dear Starchild;
One small thing about what you did and why the judge got so hopping
mad. RULES OF EVIDENCE. The jury may consider what is presented as
evidence and testimony by both sides in their deliberations. You
brought in outside evidence which had not been presented. That's a big
no no no.
That could have been a factor, but I don't recall anything being
mentioned about that. I think he was mostly pissed off because I not
only wasn't contrite, but dared to respond to his morality lecture by
questioning the legitimacy of his own conduct.
What you could have done is to get copies of the overlying law and the
tenants lease agreement and if it could have been shown the law
requiremenst for heat were unreasonable and unattainable then find for
the defendant. If the landlord used his agreement as a means to
circumvent the law by NOT STATING he had to provide heat then the
landlord was at fault.The thing here is if there was some law a landlord did not agree with
he could simply leave it out of the lease agreement and not have to
obey. What's wrong with that picture???
By libertarian legal standards, nothing. Morally there may be
something wrong with it, but that's not a question for the law. Of
course I'm presuming here that you're referring to legal obligations on
a landlord that are not part of an implied contract and are not things
that would normally apply whether or not a landlord-tenant relationship
existed. For instance a landlord shouldn't be able to snoop through
your things when he comes in to make repairs, whether or not such
conduct is specifically forbidden in the rental agreement.
If there was some law a teneant had to comply with and they tried to
strike it from the lease agreement then they are at fault.
I'd say that depends on the law. For example, if a lease agreement had
a standard clause saying the premises could not be used for "illegal"
activity, and a tenant used "illegal" drugs on the premises, or lied on
his income taxes, or baked cookies intended for sale without a health
permit, or whatever, I would side with the tenant.
Unfortunately your choice of trials to use jury nullifiaction was not
the bestest.Save jury nullification for drug laws - then watch what happens - real
fireworks.
It wasn't an ideal case for it, but one takes opportunities as they
come.
Like that guy from Oakland who grew medical pot and was tried in
federal court in SF. He was tried on the basis of fed law and the
judge delibrately blocked the jury from hearing the guy was growing on
the basis of Oakland law.Jury Nullification was warranted there.
In my opinion it's warranted any time drug cultivation, possession or
sales charges are brought.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>
Starchild wrote:
By libertarian legal standards, nothing. Morally there may be
something wrong with it, but that's not a question for the law. Of
course I'm presuming here that you're referring to legal obligations on
a landlord that are not part of an implied contract and are not things
that would normally apply whether or not a landlord-tenant relationship
existed.
I think that contract law is a different beast from criminal law. I have
never explicitly given consent to be bound by criminal law (except for
signing my driver license, arguably done under duress). However, when I
sign a contract with another party, I am doing so under the framework of
current law. If the law requires the landlord to provide heat, then the
contract doesn't need to repeat that, because the contract is a contract
under the current law. If we agree that that's a bad law, then we can
explicitly waive it - if we want to be rebels, we can waive it in defiance
of the law, and if we want to be good boys and girls, we can stipulate
that it will not be an obligation of the landlord should the law ever
change. But as Ron points out, a party to a contract shouldn't be able to
say, "well, I didn't follow law X because it wasn't reiterated in the
contract", because otherwise contracts would be huge, containing good
portions of the US and California legal codes in each one.
I am in the habit of notifying landlords that I disagree with San
Francisco's adversarial system, and that I will negotiate with them like a
grown-up if I have any problems, rather than taking them to the Rent
Stabilization and Arbitration Board.
For instance a landlord shouldn't be able to snoop through
your things when he comes in to make repairs, whether or not such
conduct is specifically forbidden in the rental agreement.
That doesn't at all follow from your prior arguments. It's the landlord's
property. If he isn't required to provide heat unless specified in the
lease, then he isn't required to provide privacy unless specified in the
lease. In both cases, the law requires it, and all parties know (or
should know) that when signing the lease.
You can't have it both ways. A contract could spell out all of the
obligations and responsibilities, but even in an anarchy, contracts would
almost always refer to common external documents (e.g., "'Arbitration',
herein, shall have the meaning as defined in the Interagency Arbitration
Agreement of 2015"). Every contract signed under law is understood by all
parties to refer to that law. Exceptions must be spelled out explicitly.
I'd say that depends on the law. For example, if a lease agreement had
a standard clause saying the premises could not be used for "illegal"
activity, and a tenant used "illegal" drugs on the premises, or lied on
his income taxes, or baked cookies intended for sale without a health
permit, or whatever, I would side with the tenant.
That's an interesting case - I feel that drug usage isn't illegal, because
the laws against it are unconstitutional, and therefore (per US Code) not
actually in effect. On the other hand, if the lease forbade smoking, then
I would side with the landlord.
I am a big fan of jury nullification. But I worry a little that some of
us may be too eager to use it; a contract dispute is really not the place.
IMO,
Chris
Interesting.
My take:
1) Don't the jury lists come from the voter rolls? If so, then
they'll know you are Libertarian, and they might also know that some
Libertarians believe in JN.
2) If so, then an astute prosecutor will ask if you believe in JN.
If you answer no, but do, then you have perjured yourself, and are
liable to punishment by the Court if you practice it later. If you
answer yes, then you'll be excused.
3) If the prosecutor fails to ask, then at some point (nor sure if
it's before or after the prosecutor does his questioning), the judge
will certainly talk about how the court works, advise you that you
are to decide upon the basis of the evidence presented in court, and
that you are NOT to decide the validity of the law. Then you'll be
asked if you can live with that, and the yes/no decision comes into
play again.
4) If you never get asked the question, then by all means, stand by
your own _personal_ perspective, that the law can be nullified, and
vote accordingly, perhaps hanging the jury. But doing more than
that, such as attempting to convert the jury to the JN position,
does seem like the improper introduction of evidence.
Regards,
Allen Rice
Right on Derek, glad to hear it! Do please also be careful
about what
you say and do even if you get on a jury. I was selected for a
jury a
few years ago, in a case which turned out to be a landlord-tenant
dispute. One of the minor points at issue was the landlord's
failure to
provide heat, as required by statute. I argued that we shouldn't
find
him guilty of that because it was wrong to legally require a
landlord
to provide heat if it was not in the rental agreement (which it
wasn't), and that we had the right to judge the validity of the
law as
well as the facts of the case. I gave the other jurors copies of
the
FIJA pamphlet about jury rights and the history of jury
nullification.
I figured that once we were impaneled it was safe to be
candid, but I
was wrong. First thing the next morning (the second day of
deliberations), the bailiff came by the jury room and called me
out to
see the judge. When I entered the courtroom, the attorneys for
both
sides were there, and the bailiff, and the judge, and that was it.
The
judge directed me to the witness box, and I was sworn in
(previously we
had been asked questions as jurors, but never individually sworn
in as
bound to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc.). The judge then
held up
one of the pamphlets I'd handed out and asked me if I had given
these
pamphlets to members of the jury. When I said I had, he started
sternly
lecturing me, saying I had violated my oath as a juror. I said he
had
violated his oath as a judge by trying to deny jurors their rights
to
judge the law. He got very angry, ordered me removed from the
jury, and
had the bailiff physically escort me from the building!
I'm pretty sure I know which juror ratted me out. If I had
to do it
again, I think I would still talk about jury nullification and
maybe
even hand out the pamphlets, but only if I first got the other
jurors
to promise on their word of honor to keep whatever we talked about
in
the jury room. It's pretty hard to simply argue "X isn't guilty"
on the
basis of the facts, when it's obvious to anyone with a brain that
X
*is* guilty just going by the facts. And if you look like an
idiot, or
like you're being blatantly prejudiced without any justification,
then
the other jurors are less likely to take other arguments you might
make
seriously, and might even complain that you are just being
obstructionist. So how much to disclose at that point can be a
real
dilemma.
Yours in liberty,
<<< starchild >>>> You've convinced me. I will do my best to get on.
>
>> I agree with Mike. If my own case goes to trial, I will
certainly
>> hope
>> there's someone like yourself on my jury, Derek. Jury duty is a
>> potential chance to strike a serious blow for someone's
individual
>> liberty. Under the circumstances, I think it's perfectly morally
>> acceptable to lie, either by omission or commission, because
screening
>> people likely to judge the law off a jury is both
unconstitutional and
>> immoral. It would be like failing to tell the Gestapo you are
hiding a
>> Jew in your house if they come around asking -- not quite as
serious
>> perhaps, but same principle. You could be saving an innocent
person
>> years in jail. If you can at all spare the time and/or loss of
income,
>> I seriously encourage you to try to get on that jury.
>>
>> Yours in liberty,
>> <<< starchild >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> They'll toss you best to keep it to yourself and work it from
the
>>> inside.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> <image.tiff>
>>>
>>>
>>> From:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfDerek Jensen
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:03 AM
>>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
>>> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] jury duty
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been summoned for jury duty in late February.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How do you think they will react when I say "I believe it's the
>>> responsibility of a jury to not only judge the facts of the
case, but
This is one of the arguments we hear about when trying to register
voters to sign petitions. They think registering to vote will flag them
as targets for jury duty. In fact, the jury roll call is culled from
several government databases, not exclusively the voter registration
lists. Because so few eligible voters are registered (probably for this
very reason), the courts now depend almost entirely on the DMV database
to get jurors.
The only real way to avoid jury duty these days is to never get a
drivers license or a California ID card.
Terry Floyd
Thanks, Terry, I accept the correction.
I guest the DMV would NOT know that one is a Libertarian, which
would decreast the chances of sharp questioning about one's stand on
JN.
Regards,
Allen
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Floyd" <tlfloyd3@...>
wrote:
This is one of the arguments we hear about when trying to register
voters to sign petitions. They think registering to vote will
flag them
as targets for jury duty. In fact, the jury roll call is culled
from
several government databases, not exclusively the voter
registration
lists. Because so few eligible voters are registered (probably
for this
very reason), the courts now depend almost entirely on the DMV
database
to get jurors.
The only real way to avoid jury duty these days is to never get a
drivers license or a California ID card.Terry Floyd
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-
On Behalf Of Allen Rice
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 10:34 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: jury dutyInteresting.
My take:
1) Don't the jury lists come from the voter rolls? If so, then
they'll know you are Libertarian, and they might also know that
some
Libertarians believe in JN.
2) If so, then an astute prosecutor will ask if you believe in
JN.
If you answer no, but do, then you have perjured yourself, and are
liable to punishment by the Court if you practice it later. If
you
answer yes, then you'll be excused.
3) If the prosecutor fails to ask, then at some point (nor sure if
it's before or after the prosecutor does his questioning), the
judge
will certainly talk about how the court works, advise you that you
are to decide upon the basis of the evidence presented in court,
and
that you are NOT to decide the validity of the law. Then you'll
be
asked if you can live with that, and the yes/no decision comes
into
play again.
4) If you never get asked the question, then by all means, stand
by
your own _personal_ perspective, that the law can be nullified,
and
vote accordingly, perhaps hanging the jury. But doing more than
that, such as attempting to convert the jury to the JN position,
does seem like the improper introduction of evidence.Regards,
Allen Rice>
> Right on Derek, glad to hear it! Do please also be careful
about what
> you say and do even if you get on a jury. I was selected for a
jury a
> few years ago, in a case which turned out to be a landlord-
tenant
> dispute. One of the minor points at issue was the landlord's
failure to
> provide heat, as required by statute. I argued that we shouldn't
find
> him guilty of that because it was wrong to legally require a
landlord
> to provide heat if it was not in the rental agreement (which it
> wasn't), and that we had the right to judge the validity of the
law as
> well as the facts of the case. I gave the other jurors copies of
the
> FIJA pamphlet about jury rights and the history of jury
nullification.
>
> I figured that once we were impaneled it was safe to be
candid, but I
> was wrong. First thing the next morning (the second day of
> deliberations), the bailiff came by the jury room and called me
out to
> see the judge. When I entered the courtroom, the attorneys for
both
> sides were there, and the bailiff, and the judge, and that was
it.
The
> judge directed me to the witness box, and I was sworn in
(previously we
> had been asked questions as jurors, but never individually sworn
in as
> bound to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc.). The judge then
held up
> one of the pamphlets I'd handed out and asked me if I had given
these
> pamphlets to members of the jury. When I said I had, he started
sternly
> lecturing me, saying I had violated my oath as a juror. I said
he
had
> violated his oath as a judge by trying to deny jurors their
rights
to
> judge the law. He got very angry, ordered me removed from the
jury, and
> had the bailiff physically escort me from the building!
>
> I'm pretty sure I know which juror ratted me out. If I had
to do it
> again, I think I would still talk about jury nullification and
maybe
> even hand out the pamphlets, but only if I first got the other
jurors
> to promise on their word of honor to keep whatever we talked
about
in
> the jury room. It's pretty hard to simply argue "X isn't guilty"
on the
> basis of the facts, when it's obvious to anyone with a brain
that
X
> *is* guilty just going by the facts. And if you look like an
idiot, or
> like you're being blatantly prejudiced without any
justification,
then
> the other jurors are less likely to take other arguments you
might
make
> seriously, and might even complain that you are just being
> obstructionist. So how much to disclose at that point can be a
real
> dilemma.
>
> Yours in liberty,
> <<< starchild >>>
>
>
>
> > You've convinced me. I will do my best to get on.
> >
> >> I agree with Mike. If my own case goes to trial, I will
certainly
> >> hope
> >> there's someone like yourself on my jury, Derek. Jury duty is
a
> >> potential chance to strike a serious blow for someone's
individual
> >> liberty. Under the circumstances, I think it's perfectly
morally
> >> acceptable to lie, either by omission or commission, because
screening
> >> people likely to judge the law off a jury is both
unconstitutional and
> >> immoral. It would be like failing to tell the Gestapo you are
hiding a
> >> Jew in your house if they come around asking -- not quite as
serious
> >> perhaps, but same principle. You could be saving an innocent
person
> >> years in jail. If you can at all spare the time and/or loss
of
income,
> >> I seriously encourage you to try to get on that jury.
> >>
> >> Yours in liberty,
> >> <<< starchild >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> They'll toss you.best to keep it to yourself and work it
from
the
> >>> inside.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> <image.tiff>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> >>> [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf OfDerek
Jensen
> >>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:03 AM
> >>> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> >>> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] jury duty
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I've been summoned for jury duty in late February.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> How do you think they will react when I say "I believe it's
the
> >>> responsibility of a jury to not only judge the facts of the
case, but
> >>> also to judge the morality and legality of the law itself."?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> SPONSORED LINKS
> >> <image.tiff>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> <image.tiff>
> >>>
> >>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >>>
> >>> + Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
> >>>
> >>> + To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >>> lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>>
> >>> + Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> >>> Service.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> <image.tiff>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > View my blog at http://derekj72.blogspot.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>SPONSORED LINKS
t=ms&k=U+s+government+grant&w1=U+s+governm
ent+grant&w2=Libertarian+party&w3=California+politics&c=3&s=74&.sig=5
K3E
1g4nmGAVDNRdiNIwSg> s government grant
Libertarian
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Libertarian+party&w1=U+s+government
+grant&w2=Libertarian+party&w3=California+politics&c=3&s=74&.sig=GvNX
evq
D3Tr1DNuuPmVv5w> party
California
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=California+politics&w1=U+s+governme
nt+grant&w2=Libertarian+party&w3=California+politics&c=3&s=74&.sig=e8
Qvi
IvjQi9cnDhgMOSVng> politics
_____
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
* Visit your group "lpsf-discuss
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss> " on the web.
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?
subject=Unsubscribe>