Trial Update: Max Found Guilty on 10 Counts

THAT'S COMPLETE NONSENSE!

The jurors did what they did because they were (and are) uninformed about their rights as jurors (Max Hardcore, himself, is utterly ignorant about juror rights, as well):

Fact # 1: When you are a jury member at a courtroom trial, you ARE the law. While deliberating and deciding which way to vote (Guilty or Not Guilty), you are perfectly free and within your rights as a juror to totally disregard any law, statute, or regulation for any reason whatsoever, nor do you have to explain or justify your decision to ANYONE.

Fact # 2: When you are a jury member at a courtroom trial, you ARE NOT OBLIGATED to follow a judge's instructions (or anyone else's, for that matter).

Max Hardcore's jury convicted him because they were totally unaware of the two FACTS stated above.

The reason that this is a sad day for Americans is not because Max was convicted and not because the First Amendment to the Constitution was trampled upon, but BECAUSE THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS NO CLUE WHAT HIS/HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE. And the reason that they don't know is BECAUSE THEY WON'T READ IT and THE GOVERNMENT WON'T TELL THEM! But then, very few people in government have read the constitution, either.

I freely admit that I was as clueless as the next person about these matters until one day I received a little pamphlet entitled "Citizens Rule Book/Jury Handbook" by Alex Jones

Before I proceed, I would like for you to copy (or copy, paste, and print) this message from this sentence on down and pass it on to everyone you know and ask them to repeat the process.

Below are some quotes from "Citizens Rule Book/Jury Handbook" (by Alex Jones):

"The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.

"As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American citizens have not been informed of their other two votes.

"Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have ever had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government.

"The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in March 27, 1987, edition noted a purpose of the Grand Jury this way: 'A grand jury's purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor.'

"The third is the most powerful vote: this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, 'the buck stops' with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges can instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting 'Not Guilty!' Any Juror can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce the law.

"As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS."

The pamphlet goes on to state that jurors are actually ABOVE the law (while acting in the capacity of a jury member during a courtroom trial). It also mentions some very important quotes in a section entitled JURY RIGHTS:

JURY RIGHTS

"'The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.' John Jay, 1st Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

'The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.' Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of The Unanimous Declaration.

'The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.' Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1902

'The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.' Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

'The pages of history shine on instances of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge...' U.S. vs. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)"

And one last thing. In a section entitled "Law of the Land," the aforementioned pamphlet states the following:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for a law which violates the Constitution to be valid. This is succinctly stated as follows:

'All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.' Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

'Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.' Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491."

As should be painfully aware to all of us by now, the Federal government is becoming increasingly tyrannical. But if each U.S. citizen were fully aware of all three of their votes, we could collectively go a long way in balancing the power between government and We the People.

The following previous quote bears repeating (and with emphasis):

"The third is the most powerful vote: this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, 'the buck stops' with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined!"

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER!

Pass this information on in as many ways as you can think of. Make copies and distribute it to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. Post this information on as many websites as you can. Write to editors of newspapers and magazines and try to get them to publish this information in their editorial section. Blog this information if you are a blogger. Send this information out via your e-mail contacts list. Do your part to get this information out to as many people as possible, as fast as possible.

Most important of all: Read the Constitution to become fully aware of your rights as a U.S. citizen! (The Constitution is available free online--just Google it.)

PASS THIS INFORMATION ON FAR AND WIDE!

Post Extras:

Will Max Case Be The One to Go to The US Supreme Court?

---Tampa Tribune via Gene Ross

TAMPA - Over several hours last week and this, seven men and five women on a federal jury have watched some of the most extreme pornography commercially available today.

Some lawyers and academics wonder why.

Critics of obscenity cases question the federal government's decision to file these charges, especially considering the defining case law is 35 years old and was on shaky legal ground to begin with.

Federal obscenity law requires jurors to determine whether the material is patently offensive to the average person based on community standards. In the age of the Internet, however, a community's standards have become more difficult, if not impossible, to define.

Still, as vocally as some question the government's role in deciding what is obscene, others are egging on federal prosecutors to stop the progression of the pornography industry as it becomes increasingly bizarre.

"There's been no real prosecution regarding adult obscenity and it's gotten totally out of hand," said David Caton, executive director of the Tampa-based Florida Family Association. "Where in society do we say enough is enough?"

The videos that jurors watched in Tampa, produced by and starring California resident Paul Little, feature scenes of violence and humiliation, urination and vomiting. Little, who goes by the name Max Hardcore, was convicted Thursday on five charges of distributing obscene material over the Internet and five counts of distributing obscene material through the U.S. mail.

As the attorneys prepare an inevitable appeal, some experts wonder whether this will become the case that prompts the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the country's obscenity laws.

Miller V. California

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a controversial opinion in the case Miller v. California.

The opinion developed a test to determine whether material is obscene. In part, it asks a jury to decide if the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the material is intended to sexually arouse in a patently offensive way.

Eric M. Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University in New York, said that concept is constitutionally flawed. The First Amendment, Freedman said, is intended to protect unpopular speech from those who would gather together to quash it.

The Miller decision, Freedman said, skirts the First Amendment. It allows a community to determine what can be expressed by minority groups within that community. The problem in modern times, Freedman said, is that there are no average people who can apply the standards of their community.

"The idea of local standards, which was deeply problematic when it originated, has now become thoroughly obsolete in the Internet age," Freedman said.

The current Supreme Court has avoided making judgments on the Miller decision but, with cases such as Little's, it might not be able to dodge the question much longer.

Assuming Little's attorneys have laid the foundation for a constitutional appeal, this case could head to the Supreme Court someday and result in a new challenge to the validity of local community standards and obscenity, Freedman said.

Still, several factors could stand in the way.

"I wouldn't overestimate the chances," Freedman said. "Even if the issue is there, the Supreme Court may not take it. Those reasons could be tactical or political."

Clearwater lawyer Luke Lirot, who acknowledges that he is as much an advocate of the First Amendment as an expert on its intricacies, said he does not like Little's videos.

Lirot's client base has included strippers, pornographers and prostitutes. Still, he said, his tastes are significantly more "vanilla" than the Max Hardcore titles.

He doesn't think he's alone.

Most of the people in America would not enjoy Little's videos, Lirot said - but the material is not meant for them. Its intended audience is a small minority of people who enjoy watching consenting adults take sexual acts to an extreme. The concept is not unlike television reality shows where people eat worms and sit in vats of insects, Lirot said.

"It's like 'Fear Factor,' people watching what extremes people will subject themselves to," Lirot said.

The acts performed in Little's videos are not illegal, Lirot said, but because they are sexual, the government says it is illegal to film and distribute them.

Acts Become More Extreme

Caton said some First Amendment advocates miss the point of the Miller decision.

The Miller case determined that obscenity is not protected speech. That is why the justices in 1973 developed the test. The Internet, Caton said, is just another pipeline.

"The only difference is that the images are coming from a telephone wire or cable, not the mailbox," he said.

As in all obscenity cases, material is produced in one place and shipped to another. It doesn't matter whether it's a magazine, a video or a digital clip: If it's obscene, it is not legal, Caton said.

When the government does not prosecute obscenity charges, pornography becomes more extreme, Caton said. During the Clinton administration, he said, over-the-counter magazines such as Penthouse and Hustler went from soft-core to hard-core.

Popular stores that cater to the public are selling magazines that include urination scenes, Caton said.

"There is a certain level of degradation that goes beyond erotic art and erotic entertainment," he said. "I don't think it's any coincidence that we are seeing women abducted from universities. They have been degraded to the point of being toys."

Caton said it is encouraging that a jury in an area such as Tampa, where adult businesses flourish, found that there is a point where sexual exploitation is not tolerated.

Over the past seven years, Caton said, the family association has lobbied the U.S. Department of Justice to take a more active role in the prosecution of obscenity.

In a 2007 Senate committee meeting, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said his office asked for the resignation of a Nevada U.S. attorney in part because of the attorney's lackluster desire to prosecute obscenity, according to a transcript of the meeting published in The Washington Post.

The choice to investigate and to prosecute obscenity cases lies with the presidential administration, said law professor Freedman. If President Bush wants federal prosecutors to focus on obscenity laws, that is his right as an elected leader.

In the case of obscenity, however, the endeavor is quixotic, Freedman said. When federal prosecutors push these cases, they might ultimately force the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the Miller decision.

Freedman acknowledged, however, that the Internet obscenity issue recently came before the U.S. Supreme Court and the justices managed to sidestep the Miller issue. In 2002, the court was asked to review a lower court's ruling on the proposed Childhood Online Protection Act.

The lower court had questioned the Miller test's applications to the Internet. Under the Miller test, the judges determined, no one could post anything to the Internet unless it meets the standards of the most puritanical community in America.

The Supreme Court avoided the community standards question altogether.

"The Supreme Court is well aware that the idea of local standards is under severe pressure in the Internet age but has so far managed to avoid it squarely," Freedman said.

+ + +

I don't think the Supremes are going anywhere near this case, but anything's possible.

Post Extras:

Links

Video On Demand

Video Rentals

Video Retailers

Gossip & News

Porn Star Sites

Sponsored Links