|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 05, @11:24AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Yesterday I went to do jury duty. After just a few minutes it became clear that the majority of the jurors were female feminist (80%). They were clearly there to hang a man, and they were motivated by hate. When I looked in their eyes it was clear that my presense bothered them because I had a Warren Farrell book on display.
As part of my activism, I will now do jury duty as often as possible. During deliberations I will make myself known and refuse to convict any man untill the feminist stop this war.
I suggest others do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should point out that while at jury duty, that there appeared to be an organized group of feminist. They were clearly operating an informal command center at a Federal Court. One was making calls on her cell phone and giving directions to each woman that approached for instructions.
This was over the top for me. I'd like to know how they could be so organized to show up as a group like that. When I asked the woman who was the leader if she worked for the court she became embarrassed. In about 2 minutes she was gone. The other woman just glared at me with hate.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As part of my activism, I will now do jury duty as often as possible.
Great, profound idea, AU! I hadn't thought about what an impact this could make before. It's definitely worth making a principle in the men's movement.
During deliberations I will make myself known and refuse to convict any man until the feminist stop this war.
I'm not so sure about this part, though. First, it's probably counter-productive to use it as a soapbox, though. That will just keep you from ever being picked to sit on a jury.
Second, my goal would be to correct the absence of "reasonable men" in the process, not inject more ideology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Warble Writes] During deliberations I will make myself known and refuse to convict any man until the feminist stop this war.
[Larry Writes] I'm not so sure about this part, though. First, it's probably counter-productive to use it as a soapbox, though. That will just keep you from ever being picked to sit on a jury.
Good point. One of the things that are necessary is that I be picked to sit on the jury. The feminists know exactly what to say because they are being coached.
However, we need to remember that feminism has as its number one goal the destruction of the patriarchy. They believe that to do this they must destroy the family unit.
Today we know the fallout of that strategy. The vast majority of criminals are males that come from destroyed homes. They had no father in their lives so they never had a chance of becoming responsible citizens. Putting them in jail will not resolve this issue that feminist intentionally created. There is a reason that America has the highest rate of male criminalization in the free world.
If women can claim learned helplessness and legally kill a man in his sleep, it is most certainly just to hold men innocent when they are victims of 30+ years of feminism. I will not play a part in sending a single man to jail until I know they have stopped this attack on men.
Finally, you are right, I probably shouldn't reveal myself as a male activist. I should follow their lead, learn the questions, and answer them in a PC fashion. Then I will silently activate after being chosen just like the feminist do.
So long as feminist are actively taking over juries, there cannot be fair trials for men. Word on this must get out.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So long as feminist are actively taking over juries, there cannot be fair trials for men. Word on this must get out."
This stuff should be told to Defence Lawyers and Appeal lawyers, as well as these "feminists" should be charged with obstruction of Justice. Man of them are pissed because men are found not guilty, that is why they are there, to convict period. Talk about organized hate groups. District Attornies love filling juries with mostly women when it suits their needs. Fairness has nothing to do with it.
Start taking names.
First of all, don't these women have jobs?
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 05, @04:53PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, don't these women have jobs?
Yes. They have government jobs that compensate them for their jury duty. That is why they can be there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See, this is clearly a violation of the Constitution. In fact, it might well be possible to overturn a conviction or two based on proof that this is taking place. And it might well be possible for the accused to sue for damages.
I offer this:
If you find yourself in a position where this is taking place, do whatever you can to record it. Take notes, pictures, tape recordings, anything. Then after the trial is over, go see the defense attorney with your evidence. Then call the media with your findings.
Be advised: prosecutors WANT these women on juries. They WANT convictions regardless of the guilt of the accused.
Finally, these women are able to do this because someone is taking care of them: either the nanny government or their husbands.
It would be interesting to find out the source of the coaching these women appear to be getting. Could it be possible that NOW could be investigated for jury tampering? WOW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you find yourself in a position where this is taking place, do whatever you can to record it. Take notes, pictures, tape recordings, anything. Then after the trial is over, go see the defense attorney with your evidence. Then call the media with your findings.
This is not as easy as it sounds. The instant I started questioning the woman about what was happing, the activity ceased. I was very friendly mind you when asking her if she worked for the court. However, the look of guilt was clear. It didn't take long for the group to dissipate and for the leader to disappear.
Most importantly however, I disagree with your truth, justice, and the American way approach. We have a serious problem in the country. Thirty years of feminism has created a system that clearly criminalizes men without just cause.
The social controls that are causing this crisis are deeply ingrained into the culture. These social controls are acting at the subconscious level, so they are literally built into the social structure. With such a systemic problem, men have very little chance. That is why America has the highest rate of male incarceration. More than even China or Japan.
So, why should I stand by and allow these feminists to send this man back to jail, and then complain afterwards to the defense attorney? All that will happen is that the man will continue sitting in jail with no relief. It is literally a very cruel thing to do.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"So, why should I stand by and allow these feminists to send this man back to jail, and then complain afterwards to the defense attorney? "
I take your point that a more militant approach may be advised. But the problem I see is that even if you are successful in getting one man freed who should be (noble and correct as that may be)you may inadvertently allow: 1) the practice to continue elsewhere; and 2) the poor slob to be convicted in another trial in which you have no part.
So if you think justice is served by blowing the whistle at the earlier juncture, then perhaps you are right. But what I'm thinking about is a bigger picture. Imagine if there was a federal investigation of NOW and it's legal arm for a nation-wide jury-tampering conspiracy.
I almost hesitate to mention it because I know they read what's going on here, and they'll probably duck and cover as soon as they see us coming. On the other hand, these bitches are so arrogant, they probably will continue to think they can get away with it.
You know, Warble, they make some pretty damn sensitive and small directional microphones, and it's not all that unusal for a juror to bring a walk-man or a cd player with headphones into the waiting room.
Just a thought. :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone mentioned this feminist coven in the jury to Wendy? I mean, she is a journalist and she might very well have resources to investigate this and report it to the public. I think the idea of reporting it to the defense attorney is a good one, but the courts sometimes cover their own ass and the female supremacists have made themselves a part of the system now, so they get covered and protected to a large extent. Not that I'm saying the defense attorney would not use the information. Just that the press is there for a reason and if Wendy takes an interest we could greatly benefit from using it. Let the general public hear about this. That is the fastest way to make things change for male victims of this hate movement. Contact Wendy and give her absolutely every single piece of information you've got. And definitely gather evidence. Jurors talking about a case and getting outside direction is clearly illegal and will result in a mistrial at minimum, a full investigation and total exposure at best.
Tell Wendy. Expose this thing. Remember the all female grand jury in Cincinatti that let the woman who shot a man in the genitals go, saying no crime had been committed? And all her legal bills were covered by a feminist legal defense fund? How much more of this are we going to take? TELL WENDY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, Warble, they make some pretty damn sensitive and small directional microphones, and it's not all that unusal for a juror to bring a walk-man or a cd player with headphones into the waiting room.
Just a thought. :-)
Yes. I happen to have one of those. Unfortunately, it is a felony to use it. I can just see the headlines now. Radical masculist is caught taping trial using hidden microphone! J Not good.
Frank, I really do not like the idea of allowing a real criminal to go free. However, I believe the justice system and our culture is so corrupt that few men have a chance to learn right from wrong.
We have a condition where the majority of male children are raised without a father. Such male children have little or no chance to be contributing citizens. In such a corrupt environment, which was intentionally wrought by feminism, I cannot, with a clean conscious, convict a male criminal.
First the feminist war against men must stop. Then the damage must be reversed or repaired. After that, I'll consider convicting a male criminal because they will have had a chance to be good citizens.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We have a condition where the majority of male children are raised without a father. Such male children have little or no chance to be contributing citizens. In such a corrupt environment, which was intentionally wrought by feminism, I cannot, with a clean conscious, convict a male criminal. "
Doesnt look like the girls or feminists are much of a descent contributing factoring to our society either. I mean, giving people fair trials? gee quite a stretch in morality.
Anyways, no if you suspect in proper jury tampering waiting for a conviction is wrong, and may be difficult to overturn or appeal if you new before hand. Tell everyone immediatly that you can. Be careful you can be attacked if you are wrong or can't prove it.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be careful you can be attacked if you are wrong or can't prove it.
That's just it. They knew exactly what to say and not to say. They knew their nonverbal cues and how to get a message out. It was just too damn organized to catch them easily.
When I pointed out to another male what was happening, he was also shocked and agreed that the behavior was too damn organized. But it wasn't something we could outright prove.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When I pointed out to another male what was happening, he was also shocked and agreed that the behavior was too damn organized. But it wasn't something we could outright prove."
Mentioning this to defence attornies or to accused won't hurt, all you have to say is, "I think something stinks about this" tell then why you think it and tell them you felt it necessary to warn them. I am not a big fan of all defence attornies, many of them I felt are flunkies (sorry marc) not all and Im sure marc isnt one of them, but if it were me, telling all accused and all defence attornies would be my goal. And its true, you dont have to decide on guilt, you can say you werent convinced at all. Especially in a "he said she said " situation. If the evidence is quite blatent, well, thats up to you. Juries dont have to give reasons why either. I think the best way to handle this is just to blow it out of proportion. Make it seem like its happening all over the place, and critizise all DAs for trying to rig juries. Take away their credibility. DAs are widely connected and have coalitions I am really surprised Defence attornies are not more organized like this?
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The other thing you can do is, if you're empaneled and you believe that the guy is innocent, just stand your ground. When a mistrial is declared, there is rarely a retrial.
I guess the trick is to be empaneled. What ARE the right answers to get empaneled?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Unfortunately, it is a felony to use it. "
I'm naive when it comes to surveillance laws, but I have to question this. Investigative reporters use them all the time, along with tiny cameras stuffed into everything from inflatible bras to baseball caps.
But I really think this is something that MUST be exposed. Just breaking up the party doesn't really solve much. The conversation just gets a little more covert. And we can't be everywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 06, @12:57PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect I believe that you guys are missing the point. We have a culture that has created a set of social controls that place men at an inherit disadvantage from the onset. I believe that until that issue is corrected that only a few men can even get a free chance at life.
Do you guys understand what I mean by social controls? It is like standing in an elevator. Everybody turns to the front. There is no law to enforce this standard. Yet if you stand with your back to the door and stare at the crowd somebody will object. You will be embarrassed and made to feel like an idiot.
Currently, our culture is saturated with social control mechanisms that work against men. Until that is corrected, I no longer believe that men can get a fair trial except in a few rare circumstances.
When I sit on a jury, I want to know if the man was a victim of such bigoted controls. If yes than the man never had a chance to be a contributing citizen. The fact that feminist can spontaneously organize at a trial is an example of this phenomena. Nobody is going to stop them from organizing. That is just a pipe dream.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When I sit on a jury, I want to know if the man was a victim of such bigoted controls. If yes than the man never had a chance to be a contributing citizen. The fact that feminist can spontaneously organize at a trial is an example of this phenomena. Nobody is going to stop them from organizing. That is just a pipe dream.
Warble "
YOu are so right Warble, right from the beginning of investigations everything is tainted against the accused, right from the beginning to the ending. This is not fair and objective investigation. And men specifically are the target of this, benifits of the doubt are overlooked, things are purposely left behind that could exonerate someone. And thes immoral people denying a fair and objective disscusion in jury chambers simply because of sexism. Honestly Men period is the "nigger" (dont mean to offend) but this is how it is. Just like in To Kill a Mockingbird the convicted the guy for one reason and one reason only, he was black.
You know how Nelson Mandelha got most of his clients off of rape? He would ask the white girls (alledgidly raped by black men) if they raped her. In a brilliant amount of times the white women would respond with a "No" because socially they would be ostracised for being with a black man regardless. My suggestion is, many of these women were simply caught screwing around with a black man and needed a cop-out. And it was to her advantage either way in regards to her reputation and remember how important a woman's reputation is to her. Her reputation is so important (to many) that sending a man to jail for 90 years is an okay deal. Her words are her weapons but her reputation is her weakness.
These women know that by banding together pushes up the stats that give them more funding, its more than just a team it has been cultivated into our society. Dissent and firm dissent is definately needed.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I am not a big fan of all defence attornies, many of them I felt are flunkies (sorry marc) not all and Im sure marc isnt one of them"
Alot of defense attorneys are much better attorneys than people realize but they're usually overloaded and its hard to do a quality job on each case. BTW no problem but I don't do criminal law. Presently I represent mentally disabled people in health insurance matters, disputes with HMOs, expunging criminal records, dealing with child support obligations, and other things.
"but if it were me, telling all accused and all defence attornies would be my goal."
I agree. This should definitely be done, no matter what else is done. And yes document everything. There can be mistrials for this. And when they ask questions related to gender, take mental note of people's answers in case something later comes up in the jury room. Remember that throughout the trial the jury is not supposed to talk amongst themselves about the case. That means they talk amongst themselves about other things, and their gender beliefs can easily come up. Watch for their biases and note it if they say things that conflict with what they said in questioning.
This whole thing is very serious. Did this appear to be directed at a certain gender-related trial?
On the one hand I'm uneasy about jury nullification except as a very last resort, since it can be unfair and isn't really impactful unless it's made known. I also happen to think women jurors on average are harder on women than men are. On the other hand if feminists are doing this then that is jury tampering, and if they do it to get women off it IS jury nullification. If that's going on then by all means *something* has to be done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEDAW has alot of biased, misandrist anti-male trash language in it and the above quotes don't capture that to me. I oppose CEDAW for its discriminatory rhetoric against men but not because of the things quoted above. I don't care if a nation wants to agree, for instance, to make prostitution legal. I think it should be legal anyway. There are far worse things to worry about CEDAW than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are far worse things to worry about CEDAW than that.
I'd love to hear them, but it's probably best not to confuse politicians with issues and facts. In my emails I kept it simple and pointed out that "A vote for CEDAW is a vote to eliminate Mother's Day."
I don't know if it worked, but I am happily sitting here imagining two senators wetting themselves at the thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wrote to one of my senators and my U.S. rep in the House. My other senator voted in favor of increased funding for VAWA and doesn't even have a form letter epxressing any opposition to it. So we had a bit of an argument. He had to write a special letter for me because I wouldn't stop bugging his office over it. Anyway, he is retiring. I can't decide whether to bother contacting him or not. He used to be really sharp, but he's changed. I don't know what he'll do.
The fact that the female supremacists are able to go into their offices for face-to-face discussion is a real problem for us. They've been there for a long time and they know how to play the men as well as the women. We are really handicapped by not having people physically there. But we have to do what we can. We have to send letters and make calls. I don't know that they'll notice if we do both that its the same people. Especially the Republicans seem disorganized in dealing with the public so they'll probably never figure out that the guy who called is the same guy who wrote them 5 or 6 letters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 05, @10:15PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
They've been there for a long time and they know how to play the men as well as the women.
Yes. Their skill at this is really quite astonishing.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
