Song for Tommy Robinson: Owen Benjamin with “How We Rule Ya”
Brilliant—to the tune of Leonard Cohen’s, “Hallelujah”. I don’t think it’s funny at all, but that’s just me. It’s tragic, really. May Tommy Robinson be safe, and may the Brits realize what’s really happening and rise up. ~ BP
There was a time the press let ya know,
who’s really coming to your shores,
but now they don’t tell the story ever true, yeah.
The state tries to say Tommy has racial hate,
but really, it’s a fear of the caliphate,
And the state says no, take it,
This is how we rule ya.
The decision reverses the conviction of Timothy Turner, who was found guilty of criminal defamation after he posted sexually explicit Internet ads in 2013 that appeared to be posted by his ex-girlfriend and her underage daughter. The ads led multiple men to contact both females for sex; some sent pornographic images to the girl.
Turner admitted he posted the ads because he was angry.
The judges found Minnesota’s criminal defamation law violates the First Amendment because it allows for the prosecution of true statements, which are protected speech, as well as false statements. They also found it doesn’t require the state to prove “actual malice,” knowledge that a statement is false or made with reckless disregard for the truth.
The appeals court said that “although the appellant’s conduct was reprehensible and defamatory, we cannot uphold his conviction under an unconstitutional statute.”
Isanti County Attorney Jeff Edblad said prosecutors respect the court’s decision but they are disappointed on behalf of the victims. Assistant County Attorney Deanna Natoli said prosecutors don’t know if they will appeal.
Turner’s attorney, John Arechigo, said the appeals court made the right decision based on legal issues presented.
“This type of challenge, it wasn’t necessarily advocating for the type of behavior that the defendant engaged in,” he said.
The Court agreed with our argument in several areas. Our primary argument all along had been that the Minnesota criminal defamation statute punishes true statements. True statements are absolutely protected. This is not up for debate. The Court of Appeals agreed and was clear in its opinion when it stated the statute’s “requirement that the truth be communicated with good motives and justifiable ends violates First Amendment protections,” “because it penalizes protected speech — true statements — in addition to unprotected speech — false statements.”
The other major shortcoming of the Minnesota criminal defamation statute was that it punished statements on matters of public concern without requiring a showing that the speaker knew the statement was false.
KNOWLEDGE OF FALSITY (OR RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE LIKELIHOOD OF FALSITY) IS A REQUIRED ELEMENT OF A CIVIL DEFAMATION CLAIM.
A civil plaintiff must make this showing in order to collect punitive damages. The Minnesota criminal defamation statute failed to contain this required element. This argument was excellently addressed by Eugene Volokh. The Court agreed with Volokh’s argument that it is not “permissible to jail people under a lesser showing than that required to collect punitive damages from them.”
Our final argument convinced the Court that the statute would have to be re-written in order to be constitutional. In some very limited circumstances, a court can declare a statute unconstitutional but can save it from ultimately holding the statute unconstitutional by narrowly applying it to reach only a very specific action. However, if a court would be required to essentially rewrite the statute or strike language from a statute, then the court must declare the statute unconstitutional. The Court disagreed with the State’s argument that the criminal defamation statute could be narrowly tailored to survive our challenge. The Court noted doing so “would require a rewrite” of the statute, which is the job of the legislature.
THE FACT THAT THE COURT ISSUED A PUBLISHED OPINION IN THIS CASE IS ENCOURAGING.
Opinions from the Court of Appeals are either unpublished or published. The majority of opinions are unpublished. Unpublished opinions are not binding on the lower courts, meaning district court judges are not bound to follow an unpublished opinion from the Court of Appeals. Published opinions, however, are binding. District court judges throughout Minnesota are bound to follow a published opinion from the Court of Appeals. Our win effectively means that all pending criminal defamation charges in Minnesota must be dismissed.
At this point, the Minnesota criminal defamation statute is dead.
By Walter Olson Few American critics of the legal profession have made as big an impression as Fred Rodell, perhaps best known as the author of Woe Unto You, Lawyers (1939, and reprinted since then) and of the funny and still much-read attack on the stylistic failings of law scholarship, “Goodbye to Law Reviews” (Virginia Law Review, 1936, published when he was just 29). Rodell went on to teach at Yale Law where he was one of the school’s best-liked teachers, noted especially for his course on persuasive legal writing, which trained many leading legal journalists; as Charles Alan Wright notes in his obituary appreciation, Rodell was never admitted to the bar and never practiced law.
“Sixty-nine years ago, a young Yale law professor rocked the legal establishment with a scathing indictment of the American civil justice system entitled Woe unto You, Lawyers! Almost overnight Fred Rodell became the nation’s leading debunker of legal myths, and the target of untold ire from thin-skinned lawyers. And his provocative observations are as accurate today as they were seven decades ago.” HALT
Fred Rodell, 73, a retired professor of law at Yale University who became known for his scathing attacks on the legal profession and its members, died Wednesday at the Yale-New Haven Hospital after a heart attack.
Considered one of the deans of iconoclasts, he, at the same time, won esteem for his knowledge of the U.S. Constitution and as a civil libertarian.
Mr. Rodell served at Yale from 1933 until his retirement in 1973 because of poor health. He had spent his time quietly since then at his home in Bethany, not far from New Haven.
But his impact remained, mostly through his books and the many articles he produced over the years for various legal and other publications.
The best known of his books were “Woe Unto You Lawyers,” published in 1939, in which he took off on lawyers and the legal language, and “Nine Men,” a political history of the Supreme Court from 1790 to 1955, in which he analyzed court decisions. It was published in 1955.
“He was and is a debunker and an iconoclast, a fellow who liked to sweep away cant and mumbo jumbo and self-importance and pretentiousness, (but) I think a good many of our present-day perceptions reflect pretty much what he was saying more than 40 years ago,” Justice Potter Stewart, a Yale Law School graduate, said recently in an interview for the National Law Journal.
At the time of Mr. Rodell’s retirement, former Justice Abe Fortas, wrote to his former teacher:
“Here’s to Give ’em Hell Fred Rodell. Irresponsible, irreplaceable, irrecusable, irrefragable, irrefutable, irreversible, irrevocable, irremovable and totally irresistable.”
Not everybody felt as kindly toward Mr. Rodell, certainly not one of his favorite targets, Justice Felix Frankfurter, nor the Harvard Law School faculty which he considered open game.
Even the Yale Law School faculty did not escape his jabs. And for that, he and his friends believed, he paid a price.
Most tenured faculty members are named to an endowed faculty chair. Mr. Rodell badly wanted that honor, but he never received it. The late Justice William O. Douglas, who was a friend, once explained it this way:
“He was always true to the nonconformist mold in which he was cast, and some of those prized fringe benefits passed him by because the status quo represents almost every campus.”
Mr. Rodell did not prick, he slashed the pomposity of the legal profession and the gobbledygook of the language its members used. He was brutal when it came to attacking footnotes, which he called “the flaunted Phi Beta Kappa keys of legal writing.'”
There was nothing personal in his reference to that key. He had earned one, himself, at Haverford College. A native of Philadelphia, he graduated from Haverford in 1926. After attending the University of London for a year, he entered Yale Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1931.
Mr. Rodell was a special legal adviser to Gov. Gifford Pinchot of Pennsylvania for two years before returning to the Yale Law School as an assistant professor.
In the recent interview with the National Law Journal, Mr. Rodell acknowledged that he had not “followed legal stuff for the last five years.. I can’t keep my mind on one thing for very long.”
He said then he took pride in some of his accomplishments, “his legal writing course which had been copied by other law schools, his continued emphasis on plain English, his support for the (Justice) Warren Court,” the Journal reported.
There were other things he had done over the years. He had been a contributing editor to The Progressive and to Scanlan’s Magazine.
He had served on the board of directors of Cooperative consumer’s Inc. in New Haven. He had been a consultant to the Council for Democracy and State Defense Council.
He also had been a member of the Bethany Zoning Board and the Bethany Town Commission.
Mr. Rodell’s first two marriages, to Geraldine Watt and then to Katherine Clay Cowin, ended in divorce. He married the former Janet Learned in 1954.
In addition to his third wife, he is survived by a son, Michael, of his second marriage, of New Canaan, Conn., and two grandchildren..
Last week, a warrant was issued and I was falsely arrested and imprisoned for 4 days. My crime? Blogging on this very site. I challenge readers to find another person that has actually had a warrant and been arrested at their home for blog posts. I was also arrested on a Sunday and according to MN Rule 3.03 Execution or Service of Warrant or Summons: A warrant is executed by the defendant’s arrest. If the offense charged is a misdemeanor, the defendant must not be arrested on Sunday or, on any other day of the week, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. except, when exigent circumstances exist, by direction of the judge, stated on the warrant.
What are exigent circumstances? Circumstances which require the need to engage in a search or seizure immediately due to an emergency situation where life and/or safety is at risk. Apparently this met the requirements.
Backstory: I was ordered to remove public documents and posts that were authored by myself and other writers on Red Herring Alert due to a harassment restraining order filed against me in July of 2017.
I complied with the unconstitutional purge conditions, and then received an affidavit of noncompliance with approximately 50 more posts to be removed. The deadline was 9:00 am on March 9th and at 9:09 am, I received the email with the unsigned Affidavit and Request for Arrest Warrant. This was signed by a Judge on March 14th. I filed my own Affidavit of Compliance and Motion to Vacate the Constructive Civil Contempt on March 17th. Excerpt Below:
“Respondent has complied with the purge conditions contained in the Court’s March 1, 2018 Order as well as the March 14th Affidavit of Non-Compliance, even though the validity of the original order has not been determined and the contempt was approved without specific findings of fact.
The civil contempt no longer continues as Respondent has cleared the contempt to avoid the sanctions imposed by the court. Please vacate the arrest warrant as well as attorney fee sanctions imposed due to full compliance.”
2017 Minnesota Statutes
CHAPTER 588. CONTEMPTS OF COURT
588.12 IMPRISONMENT UNTIL PERFORMANCE.
When the contempt consists in the omission to perform an act which is yet in the power of the person to perform, the person may be imprisoned until the person performs it, and in such case the act shall be specified in the warrant of commitment.
I was arrested on March 18th and did not have a hearing on the matter until Wednesday, March 21st. I have had to remove 200+ posts from Red Herring Alert including other writers work without due process and a compelling government interest.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ~George Washington~
Disciplinary difficulties prompt suspension of Michelle MacDonald’s law license
The former state Supreme Court candidate will also be on probation for two years, when many restrictions will be in place.
By Paul Walsh Star Tribune JANUARY 17, 2018 — 9:28PM
Attorney and former state Supreme Court candidate Michelle MacDonald has had her license to practice law in Minnesota suspended for 60 days, state regulators announced Wednesday.
The suspension by the same court MacDonald wished to join includes a two-year probationary period.
The Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility, which oversees attorney licensing in the state, had sought to have the 56-year-old MacDonald, of Rosemount, undergo a mental health evaluation, but the court denied that request.
The Supreme Court’s suspension pointed to many instances of professional misconduct by MacDonald, including in 2013 when she interrupted a Dakota County judge in open court dozens of times, questioned the judge’s ability to be objective, failed to properly prepare for a court appearance, took photographs in court and other disruptive behavior that led to her arrest.
Justice Anne McKeig wrote: “MacDonald’s obstructionist behavior has undoubtedly delayed resolution for families in crisis…We fail to adequately protect the public by imposing discipline that does not fully account for the significant harms caused by MacDonald’s misconduct.”
The continued blatant demonization and discrediting of Attorney Michelle MacDonald is necessary as she is considered a threat to The Establishment’s status quo. The current court system translates into fraud and state sponsored corruption which is financially devastating individuals and families, harming children, and fleecing taxpayers.
Unless you are willing to act with impunity, indifference, and without shame and violate procedural rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, you will be marginalized or eliminated.
“If you would know who controls you see who you may not criticise.”
Lol 47:03 I never try and send innocent people to jail. At the start he saying, everyone breaks the law. So maybe true he not trying to send innocent people to jail. Seeing noone is innocent, he trys to send everyone to jail.
The 5th amendment affords us the right to NOT incriminate our self. Police however, use the person’s 5th amendment right to mean, if they are not talking they must then be guilty. “To protect and to serve” this has been posted on most cop cars until recently. The problem is: who are they protecting and who are they serving? That answer is. They protect sand serve the government, not the citizen. The Miranda right…anything you say can and will be used against you!!! Why is there no protection for YOU? It is onesided, designed only to help convict you. Why does it not read: can be used for or against you. Last but not least… When entering a plea the courts documents have guilty or not guilty… Innocent is not an acceptable plea and so, even this subtle insinuation is designed to adversely effect you!
SAEXTAZYPREZ. I’m not sure where you got this video but it was awesome, except that guy talked fast as shit….. I will have to watch it again several more times to catch all he was saying but I took away a lot of great info from it… I see in your videos where the cops come up to you asking if they can help you with anything , you say no and they keep digging to get you talking. And when you say I’m taking the 5th and they say you can’t because you are not under arrest yet. You have to be arrested to plead the 5th. People fall for that line too. Great video hope you put out more or at least share where you got it for those of us that can’t afford to donate.
My granddaughter found out the police are major liers. I understand it is the SYSTEM. But it creates so many problems even for normal law abiding citizens. My father was a military officer. It took him decades to fully realize how corrupt this system is. I can’t blame the individual officers, they are victims of the system too.
Good way to get arrested for nothing. Someone walked out in front of my car, he fell to the ground, I was going very slowly. When the police arrived I told them what happened, he was taken away with a broken hip in an ambulance. If I had refused to talk, would I have just driven home?. I don’t think so. I went to see this poor old guy in hospital that evening. He told me I had stopped really fast, had not hit him, but he lost his balance and fell against my car and then the ground braking his hip. Lucky for me he turned out to be a really nice honest guy.
Yep, happened to me! A little noisy confrontation with my wife inside my house about a notebook that needed to be returned to the shop (was a loaner) was misunderstand by a Spanish speaking nurse who called police. I was questioned in my store because I left my house to go to work (without the notebook loaner). I was very nice to police and told them the story but he arrested me for home-violence! All cleared up after some days and I was NOT charged with anything – I will NEVER volunteer information anymore! I cannot think what can happen in a serious case!
A new type of court case is slowly but steadily emerging within the American legal system: alleged crimes being detected from data supplied by smart devices.
Several cases over the last few years have focused on data transmitted within the modern smart home, while a couple of others add an extra dimension of police completely reconstructing a crime scene based upon data collected from the home as well as the various Internet-connected devices that we wear.
The very nature of the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution appears to be at stake.
In December of last year an Arkansas murder case made headlines not so much for the death itself, but how a suspect was brought into custody. James Bates hosted a party at his Bentonville home on the night of November 21st, 2015. At some point during the event a man drowned in a hot tub on the property. Bates claimed to have found the victim the next morning when he awoke, stating that it was a tragic accident, but Arkansas police obtained smart water meter readings that showed an anomaly between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m. Based solely on this data – and obtained without a warrant – Bates was arrested and charged with 1st degree murder.
A second case followed wherein we saw a police narrative emerge that a crime had been prevented by a home’s smart system. A domestic dispute resulted in Eduardo Barros allegedly wielding a firearmagainst his girlfriend and threatening to kill her. However, during the argument he exclaimed, “Did you call the sherrifs?” This activated a voice-controlled sound system in his home and dialed 911. After an hours-long standoff, the suspect was taken into custody and charged. Law enforcement was quick to hail the smart technology as having “saved a life.” But it was the presiding judge who shook privacy advocates by accepting the evidence regardless of how it was obtained, saying that there was indeed probable cause for the arrest without a warrant.