|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| Had the feds not been on the case, it's clear we would have read more horrifying headlines like Oklahoma City. |
Actually, the Oklahoma City bombing was largely a result of the lack of democracy in the US, and the terrible ballot access laws that are designed to keep alternative parties and viewpoints off the ballot.
Timothy McVeigh was ideologically committed to the Populist Party. That party was destroyed by the highly restrictive ballot access laws that are prevalent in the US. His radical political ambitions being thwarted, McVeigh saw few options left except the violent overthrow of the US government. He imagined himself the leader at the vanguard of a revolution and thought his "shot heard round the world" would bring forth all the militia groups to follow him. The would-be genius messiah of his own revolution was caught only a few hours later driving with no license plate. Had he remained free to lead further attacks, other radical individuals and militia groups (which actually peaked in the late 80s) would have likely followed.
If we want to maintain a peacuful nation ruled by laws and governed by candidates elected by the people, we MUST act to allow all parties and candidates on the ballot if they can demonstrate a very minimal level of support.
Right now, the laws keep nearly everyone off the ballot in some states and seem designed to promote revolution.
It you keep the candidates supported by people like Adam Koresh off the ballot, you will foster revolution.
Every party and individual, from the Communist Party, various Socialists, and Populist Party, to the Constitution Party, Libertarian Party and the Boston Tea Party should be allowed on the ballot.
If we do not open up US elections soon, there will be more Oklahoma cities, weather undergrounds, and unibombers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| So, ba, are you saying we should not trust the FBI to protect us from the radicals--that some of them could be in on it themselves? |
| Gopher wrote: |
| Sorry, I find what you propose -- that rather than the FBI's infiltrating them, they have infiltrated the FBI -- utterly lacking in plausibility. |
Please do not read anything more into what I write.
I am simply saying that the ideologies of some groups and some agents might have more similarities than differences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Interesting. Your notes show the only intent that matters is the intent to establish the conspiracy. I thought that one had to prove that not only did the conspirators establish a conspiracy, but that they also took "steps" to make it real and perpetrate it.
Conspirators must do a little more than talk about and agree on it, no? |
Yes, in most cases they must.
But acts in furtherance of the conspiracy? What are those? Almost completely up to Federal courts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| But acts in furtherance of the conspiracy? What are those? Almost completely up to Federal courts. |
How do they typically measure it then? "Reasonable person?"
The only one I recall being involved in went something like this: surveillance investigated and then moved against a roulette floorman at a major casino who was stealing from the roulette tables. At this point: theft.
The floorman then returned to the casino, recruited a pit clerk and a security officer, and planned a much larger theft: half a million dollars. At this point: nothing but talk.
Then the floorman and his agents ran dress rehearsals of their planned theft. The pit clerk had a guilty conscience and contacted us, confessing all. We controlled the clerk from this point forward and let them run their rehearsals. We filmed the rehearsals as evidence for two days or so. At this point: conspiracy to commit theft, and if that did not unfold as planned, armed robbery (we filmed the floorman carrying a revolver). Things did not go as planned for the floorman, various SNAFUs occurred in his plan, and he ended up pointing his revolver at a cashier in the cage, demanding $500K.
We had prepositioned security and simply picked him up just after this. I understand that DA prosecuted him for, among other things, "conspiracy."
I think you have a point. But it is not so arbitrary in my experience on the ground as you may be reading in class at the moment. Seems easy enough to link the militia groups to conspiracy as well, at least in the right cases. (Also, I must admit I have no idea what happened after my event, whether the conspiracy charge stuck, etc.)
Any issues with this interpretation? This feels like a free refresher course, so please explain where I err, above. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am simply saying that the ideologies of some groups and some agents might have more similarities than differences. |
Based on.....?
If you have valid reason to make that claim, then fine. Without that, you are just using slimey character assassination tactics. Cynicism is not proof. The X Files is not an accurate depiction of reality. Suspicion is not proof of guilt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually, the Oklahoma City bombing was largely a result of the lack of democracy in the US, and the terrible ballot access laws that are designed to keep alternative parties and viewpoints off the ballot.
|
Have you ever taken part in a presidential election where there were not multiple candidates listed? I haven't and I've been voting since '72. In addition, most if not all, states allow write-in candidates. I don't think you can make a very good case for a passionate supporter of Candidate X failing to vote for his guy because he forgot the guy's name because it wasn't printed on the ballot.
I'm all for offering as wide a selection as practical in the polling booth, but in the end, voting should not be viewed as an exercise in free mental health services for the alienated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| But acts in furtherance of the conspiracy? What are those? Almost completely up to Federal courts. |
How do they typically measure it then? "Reasonable person?"
The only one I recall being involved in went something like this: surveillance investigated and then moved against a roulette floorman at a major casino who was stealing from the roulette tables. At this point: theft.
The floorman then returned to the casino, recruited a pit clerk and a security officer, and planned a much larger theft: half a million dollars. At this point: nothing but talk.
Then the floorman and his agents ran dress rehearsals of their planned theft. The pit clerk had a guilty conscience and contacted us, confessing all. We controlled the clerk from this point forward and let them run their rehearsals. We filmed the rehearsals as evidence for two days or so. At this point: conspiracy to commit theft, and if that did not unfold as planned, armed robbery (we filmed the floorman carrying a revolver). Things did not go as planned for the floorman, various SNAFUs occurred in his plan, and he ended up pointing his revolver at a cashier in the cage, demanding $500K.
We had prepositioned security and simply picked him up just after this. I understand that DA prosecuted him for, among other things, "conspiracy."
I think you have a point. But it is not so arbitrary in my experience on the ground as you may be reading in class at the moment. Seems easy enough to link the militia groups to conspiracy as well, at least in the right cases. (Also, I must admit I have no idea what happened after my event, whether the conspiracy charge stuck, etc.)
Any issues with this interpretation? This feels like a free refresher course, so please explain where I err, above. |
I'm not a specialist on conspiracy, Gopher. My guess is that besides conspiracy, the floorman was also charged with attempt to commit theft. Which would have easily been enough. The difference between attempt to do X and conspiracy to do X is that conspiracy is its own crime. With attempt, you must have made a A) substantial step that is B) strongly corroborative or criminal purpose.
But looking back at the case law on conspiracy, I view an expansive theme.
Krulewitch
� Hearsay made in fulfillment of conspiracy is admissible
In Pinkerton, the accused was actually in jail at the time of the conspiracy, but since he was found to have the requisite intent, he was convicted.
Interstate
� Inferences may be drawn to establish evidence of a conspiracy(!)
� Conspiracy may be established on a tacit agreement(!)
Lauria
� When a supplier knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies,
○ Intent may be established by:
(1) Direct evidence that he intends to participate
(2) OR Through an inference that he intends to participate based on:
(a) His special interest in the activity, analyzed by:
1) Excessive price
2) Services w/o legit use
3) Unusual quantity of business
(b) OR the aggravated nature of the crime itself (i.e., is a felony)
McDermott
� Liability for conspiracy with a third unknown party (C) may only be established when:
(a) A's agreement with B was broad enough to include dealing with C
(b) The ramifications of A & B's plans would have reasonably foreseen involvement of C as a natural consequence
(c) A must at least have known of B & C's relationship
What upsets me most about conspiracy is that its hard to abandon the conspiracy. Let's say an 18-year-old is in a gang. He decides to conspire to sell drugs.
Well, that agreement alone is a crime; actual participation in the conspiracy is not necessary. So if the 18-year-old wants to free himself of criminal culpability, he has to pursue a renunciation.
Renunciation
� Renunciation is a defense to conspiracy
○ When objection is made
� Abandonment is a defense offered against substantive offenses
○ Conspirator must make affirmation action to announce withdrawal to other conspirators
○ And then conspiracy commits another substantive crime,
○ Then person who abandoned the conspiracy is not liable for the substantive crime
� MPC, Affirmative acts inconsistent with the object of the conspiracy and communicated in a manner reasonably calculated to reach co-conspirators have generally been regarded as sufficient to establish withdrawal or abandonment
I think in theory its more controversial than in practice. And it also serves an important purpose: one does not have to wait until the moment before the execution of a crime to pounce and charge with attempt. But, as in the case with your floorman, it was deemed better to wait to pounce, because they wanted to put him away for a longer time. So, in many cases, conspiracy may not serve as the lifeguard its supposed to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Does the Lehman Bros. CEO getting punched out at the gym count as the beginning of the (un)armed insurrection? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I am simply saying that the ideologies of some groups and some agents might have more similarities than differences. |
Based on.....?
If you have valid reason to make that claim, then fine. Without that, you are just using slimey character assassination tactics. |
How about directly from the mouths of agents Ralph McGeehee (CIA) and Mike Levine (FBI/DEA) and many guest agents Levine has had on his radio program on listener-supported, non-commercial WBAI?
Slimy enough for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I doubt any armed insurrection will get past the planning-in-the-outhouse stages at this point.
Why? H.R. 1955.
Need I say more? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
Actually, the Oklahoma City bombing was largely a result of the lack of democracy in the US, and the terrible ballot access laws that are designed to keep alternative parties and viewpoints off the ballot.
|
Have you ever taken part in a presidential election where there were not multiple candidates listed? I haven't and I've been voting since '72. In addition, most if not all, states allow write-in candidates. I don't think you can make a very good case for a passionate supporter of Candidate X failing to vote for his guy because he forgot the guy's name because it wasn't printed on the ballot.
I'm all for offering as wide a selection as practical in the polling booth, but in the end, voting should not be viewed as an exercise in free mental health services for the alienated. |
Yata, it is obvious that your experience with elections ends at the Iowa border.
You did not read any of the state threads post here.
Just look at Oklahoma, where the bombing occurred:
In Oklahoma, petitioning is not allowed for all Americans except registered OK voters. Obviously unconstitutional, but they refuse to change. In court now.
In Oklahoma, almost no candidate other than Ds and Rs ever gets on the ballot. Currently, 2008, zero candidates. It's a worse record than in Communist Russia, which had more candidates per office running in every election than Oklahoma ever has.
In Oklahoma, as in many other states, write-in voting is illegal.
Ever wonder why McVeigh picked Oklahoma? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Internet Advice to Oklahoma Citizens:
Oklahoma voters who desire to vote for Barr, or Nader, or Baldwin, or McKinney, or any other presidential candidate besides Obama and McCain, ought to consider setting up a �freedom ballot�, as was done in Mississippi in 1964. Many adult black citizens in Mississippi were not permitted to register in 1964, so they set up alternate voting sites, with their own ballots and their own registration procedures. With the existence of the internet, such activity ought to be easier than it was in 1964.
Another alternative for people who are really unhappy about losing their free vote, would be to sit in at the polls. This was done in Indiana in 1988. One particular voter refused to leave the polls until he was permitted to cast a write-in vote. Indiana banned write-ins at the time, and Indiana was one of four states which kept Ron Paul off the November 1988 ballot as the Libertarian nominee for president. The voter was arrested and taken to jail, but Indiana�s ban on write-ins was struck down shortly afterwards in Paul�s lawsuit.
Yata. You should wake up. The evil election laws you are supporting were supported by and often created by the KKK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's plenty of room in the Democratic party for all the moderate to left leaning factions to participate.
Clinton was a self professed liberal does that mean he belonged to the liberal party or should have run under the liberal party heading?
Dukakis was a self proclaimed progressive.
We all know Bush is a Neo-Con, Ron Paul is a libertarian, Reagan a Conservative Bush(1) a Moderate, McCain a Maverick(I think that may be Bull Moose Progressive).
All politics is local (Tip O'Neil), it starts at the grass roots, that's why you can see communists from Chicago seated in congress as Democrats, socialist in Vermont seated as Independent.
If your are communist and your district has communist base you can run on the Dem ticket, the socialists will probably support you if there isn't a socialist running against you, even the progressives may support you, then most of the other various Dems will support you.
Breaking up the ballot with factions doesn't really help acheive anything if the factions participate from the grassroots the support will frow within the party.
Go to a town meeting or schoolboard meeting these are where the most extreme views are voiced in the USA anyway, check it out sometime.
Grassroots politics is the most exciting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
