Man convicted of making online threats to Obama

imported post

Here's the link:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/28/obama-threat-conviction-la-mesa/

imported post

Unnecessary, wrong, unjust.

Disgusting, ludicrous.

What the man wrote is quite obviously the ranting of an e-thug, and nothing more. For the government to be willing to put him in prison for years, potentially, is proof positive that this country's downward spiral has no intentions of slowing down.

imported post

Making threats against a major candidate is a crime??? So it's ok to make threats against minor candidates then? And what threshold amount of support is required to qualify as "major"?

-ljp

imported post

:cuss:

wow... this country is doomed. With people like Judge Marilyn Huff and Obama and many, MANY others in such high positions, the only options are revolution or doom...:banghead:

imported post

jrwalker wrote:

With people like Judge Marilyn Huff and Obama and many, MANY others in such high positions, the only options are revolution or doom...

Click to expand...

Oh, come on.

There have to be at least a few other options....

imported post

Be careful what you say on the internet, be very careful.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!

imported post

rodbender wrote:

Be careful what you say on the internet, be very careful.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!!!

Click to expand...

I haven't even read the e-thug's rant, but I'll second it just for the hell of it...

Where are you, Big Brother?

imported post

HankT wrote:

jrwalker wrote:

With people like Judge Marilyn Huff and Obama and many, MANY others in such high positions, the only options are revolution or doom...

Click to expand...

Oh, come on.

There have to be at least a few other options....

Click to expand...

Yes there is its to get people to be less apathetic and voice and vote all the yahoos in office out, of course then we are considered extremist for wanting what is rightfully ours......freedom.

imported post

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move. Not sure how the law works in California, but I thought to make a threat valid, there has to be either means, or plans to carry through with the threat. But then again... I'm not a lawyer.

imported post

If you fear the system that you live under, then you might as well be in North Korea Dude! Try OC in NK. Educate yourself on the system, and they can't touch you! Use what they use against youback atcha against them and they cannot compete!

REMEMBER YOUR'E FEAR IS WHAT GIVESYOUR OPPONENT THEPOWER

Freedom of Speech ANDU.S. CONSTITUTION forever!

imported post

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years. I'd rather not mention the name, because I've already been locked up for Opposing Obama... I like being a thorn in their side, but push too much and you're just another missing person.

imported post

ixtow wrote:

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been before this judge you're describing?

For what charge(s)?

imported post

HankT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been before this judge you're describing?

For what charge(s)?

Click to expand...

Just once. I'd prefer to keep the details private tho. It was a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor that a reasonable person wouldn't even think of as a crime... But that's Florida for ya...

imported post

ixtow wrote:

HankT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been before this judge you're describing?

For what charge(s)?

Click to expand...

Just once. I'd prefer to keep the details private tho. It was a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor that a reasonable person wouldn't even think of as a crime... But that's Florida for ya...

Click to expand...

Well, sorry to hear about your incident.

I find it hard to believe that Judge X has "NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.'"

Are you sure about that? Never?

imported post

HankT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

HankT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been before this judge you're describing?

For what charge(s)?

Click to expand...

Just once. I'd prefer to keep the details private tho. It was a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor that a reasonable person wouldn't even think of as a crime... But that's Florida for ya...

Click to expand...

Well, sorry to hear about your incident.

I find it hard to believe that Judge X has "NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.'"

Are you sure about that? Never?

Click to expand...

I've yet to find such with his name attached.

But 'round here, so much goes on with the local gov't that 'never happened' and all documentation destroyed, etc, there is really no way to be 100% certain. You can sort out the locale I'm referring to by the fact that this county has bounced back and forth with Polk county as the World Leader in Meth production. And it's NOT due to a lack of LE...... Connect the dots.

imported post

Great. Well, try this on for size. I WILL SAY WHATEVER I DAMN WELL PLEASE. i DO NOT LIKE THIS PRESIDENT AND THINK HE GOT INTO THE WHITE HOUSE BY FRAUD AND LIES. I WILL OPPOSE HIM UNTIL HE IS FORCED OUT, AND I HOPE WE CAN IMPEACH HIS COMMUNIST ASS.

Now arrest me. I f*&king DARE YOU.

imported post

gutshot wrote:

ixtow wrote:

HankT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

HankT wrote:

ixtow wrote:

Armed wrote:

I noticed he waived his right to jury trial. I would think that was a bad move.

Click to expand...

Depends... In the particular County in FL that I live, I have witnessed plenty of circumstances where the defendant has no choice. sure, the technicality of law exists that says you have a right to a trial, etc... but One Judge in particular around here, is quite bold in stating that if you choose to go to trial, then his mind is already made up that you are guilty and if you waive your right, at least you'll see the light of day again someday. This man also forbids any public viewing, monitoring, or recording of any of his proceedings (no public trials) not even other defendants ('the guilty' as he calls them) are allowed in the room. His SOP is that if you have been charged with a misdemeanor, you'll get the maximum allowable for it if you waive your right. But if you choose to fight the charge, he'll find any way possible to make the most serious felony of it that he can imagine, and you are guilty no matter what evidence (or lack of it) is presented in your defense. This man has NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.' Most of his 'trials' have no minutes available to review.

Been this way for almost 15 years.

Click to expand...

Have you ever been before this judge you're describing?

For what charge(s)?

Click to expand...

Just once. I'd prefer to keep the details private tho. It was a 2nd Degree Misdemeanor that a reasonable person wouldn't even think of as a crime... But that's Florida for ya...

Click to expand...

Well, sorry to hear about your incident.

I find it hard to believe that Judge X has "NEVER, not even once, determined that a defendant was 'not guilty.'"

Are you sure about that? Never?

Click to expand...

I've yet to find such with his name attached.

But 'round here, so much goes on with the local gov't that 'never happened' and all documentation destroyed, etc, there is really no way to be 100% certain. You can sort out the locale I'm referring to by the fact that this county has bounced back and forth with Polk county as the World Leader in Meth production. And it's NOT due to a lack of LE...... Connect the dots.

Click to expand...

If this is true, and I doubt that is, it happens for only one reason. You and your fellow citizens allow it to happen.

Click to expand...

Doubt away.

You're right, but the citizens BEG for it, they want to be safe from the bad people...

imported post

While I wish NO one any physical harm, I personally think that we as a country need to demand the impeachment of this current administrartion, and for that matter the entire House of Representatives and Senate. They have allowed the appointment of these "Czars" and NO where in the Constitution have I read of any such thing. We as a country need to let this government know that we will no longer allow this total mismanagement of our beloved country that my forefathers and friends fought and bled for. WE again must pledge our fortunes, our sacred honor, and our lives to ensure freedom for ourselves and our progeny.
Our founding fathers are turning over in their graves. This country with the advent of the takeover of financial institutions, and the auto industry is now 47% socialist. WE need to turn this country back around and put it back on the road to the representative Republic that it was.
Keep your powder dry!

imported post

In fairness, nothing in the constitution says "There shall be no czars"

imported post

KS_to_CA wrote:

Here's the link:

http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/28/obama-threat-conviction-la-mesa/

Click to expand...

I think it's important that we all support our President.