As the left screams Trump intimidated a witness the democrats are attacking our free speech.steemCreated with Sketch.

in informationwar •  2 months ago  (edited)

" In a democratic society, one who assumes to act for the citizens in an executive, legislative, or judicial capacity must expect that his official acts will be commented upon and criticized. Such criticism cannot, in my opinion, be muzzled or deterred by the courts at the instance of public officials under the label of libel."
-New York Times v Sullivan, (Goldberg concurrence)
-https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/

Ignoring the question of what former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was a witness to, the democrats are screaming trump intimidated the witness by tweeting a disparaging opinion about her while she was being grilled by the Schiff star chamber-and there are calls for democrats to file a new article of impeachment. To many of us, intimidation is more about a negative emotional response to some kind of stimuli. In the legal sense building upon that incorrect idea, the origin would be a knowing and willing human origin of the stimuli. Somehow the ones screaming first and foremost of witness intimidation are somehow content with Schiff showing her the tweet out of context during the interrogation. Somehow it is shameful if Trump did it on his own twitter wall where visiting it is a choice, but acceptable if Schiff during the hearing itself presenting it right to the so called victim. Even most stalking (cough intimidation) based statute requires the act of getting into contact with a person; posting to your own social media page does not establish contact. So who established contact with the so called victim? Schiff.
But of course, Schiff gets her crying and blame it on Trump; get the women voters to express their empathy and ignore the facts because democrats passively view women as being nurturing, emotional, and incapable of reason. Women, aside from the politically delusional, are bright enough to see through this chicanery by the left. None the less the term intimidation many pundits are now using to spin news stories and new articles of impeachment based upon witness intimidation are completely without merit

Of course, there was no actual intimidation. Do you see it, I sure don't. When it comes to free speech, the left has been playing word games upon we the American citizens for some 25 years starting with Joe Biden. Read your own state's statutes on stalking or harassment. They will vary, but you might see words like emotional distress, embarrassment, fear for [my] safety, alarm, annoy, harass, intimidate. Many of these terms by themselves are not unlawful but it is worded in a way to charge many innocent people and scare them into pleading guilty for daring to express an idea. The schools aren't provided a formal education for people to know what their real first amendment rights are, but the feminist are receiving federal grants to teach kids ideas of what isn't acceptable to them; their understanding of what to do and what not to do is being determined by various [Marxist] social groups where one set of rules applies for everyone else but not them-and they have unconstitutional double speak statutes to back them up. It only takes one generation the ex-KGB member Yuri warned america to change our culture. It has been 25 years of this indoctrination of what is and isn't acceptable speech-and behold we have the snowflake generation. Biden and the feminists has confused enough Americans, that they are now striving to achieve a political coup...or at least trying to continue one through the political machinery when they have no case. If it were ordinary people spinning this theory then one couldn't blame certain pundits for being uninformed about what the first amendment is-we are being trained to be retarded while going tens of thousands into debt to get a certificate to declare that we are smart. A DNA test is cheaper and more accurate. Many of the people spinning this intimidating a witness theory are politicians and journalist-many with a law degree. In another words they should know better, they have a professional duty to know better. But they are banking on the American people being as stupid as Biden wanted us to become. To be quite blunt they are knowingly and willingly fraudsters and usurpers. And if I intimidated them by publishing this sentiment to my own steemit wall-well see the video at the end.

In regards to intimidation, and we'll see obviously there was none, the below is what the scotus has defined as intimidation in virginia v black.

[T]he First Amendment permits a State to ban "true threats," e. g., Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (per curiam), which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals, see, e. g., ibid. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388. Intimidation in the constitutionally proscribable sense of the word is a type of true threat, where a speaker directs a threat to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/343/#tab-opinion-1961221

In returning into libel law for a bit, it is ridiculous to claim that we cannot comment on public figures if such criticism hurts their feelings-the courts already rejected this standard for Libel as defined as false statements unless there was actual Malice (knowingly false). There is no federal criminal code against Libel. The allegation of intimidation for Trump's opinion of this woman is basically the democrats attempt to undermine truth as a defense in libel claims or other claims invoking harassment and stalking statutes. If it is a question of truthfulness of Trumps assessment of this woman, it is a matter for a civil jury trial and it must meet the burden that it was knowingly false since she is a public figure-A rather high burden to meet. The democrats haven't screamed libel; they are fixated on intimidating a witness. Still It really sets us back over 200 years for most of the US by trying to carve an intimidation exception to the defense of truth in libel, more like 300 years considering Truth as a defense started with John Peter Zenger in the early 18th century before the USA was its own country. It also undermines cases like Snyder v Phelps and NAACP v Claiborne hardware, where the SCOTUS acknowledged that speech can cause ostracism, stir people into action, cause embarrassment, pain, and drive people to tears and not erase the fact it is protected speech. But none of that matters to the democrats as they go after Trump, and if the President isn't safe from their tyranny then neither are we. The democrats are still angry about the 2016 elections, made it clear that they are still openly hostile to our freedom of speech. They seek to deprive us all of our logos, they want to be our unquestioned and unaccountable rulers. And should we dare question their wisdom, you see what they are doing to Trump. They've already destroyed our due process rights under VAWA in courts that have no jurisdiction. And when they fully take power, they'll just transmute the ex parte orders to outright kill, disappear, or re-educate anyone who disagrees with them....and they are presently disappearing us and we are witnessing a political coup against our democratic institutions. Most are banking that it will backfire on the democrats in the next election, but who is seriously defending the president from the usurpers. No one. Conservatives are making the same mistake as Germany did in the first world war. We are fighting a defensive war. Gambling on things backfiring on the Dems will likely work given the election is a year away, but it is also a good way to lose the country for good.

I wish we could just now all sit back and move on, But before the week is over we will hear 57 [57; a John kerry reference 🍅 ] other baseless theories on how the left intends to impeach Trump. Personally I don't mind the legislature being shut down; just means the democrats can't screw up this country more and Trump can't steer us further into debt spending. Just getting sick of this 3-almost 4-year effort to reverse the 2016 election. I am sure most of America is. I wish American would punish the democrats, but there are plenty of partisans hacks who will keep electing these idiots into office-even the dead will rise that one day every two years to keep them in office, and all of Mexico too. Maybe there is some dia de la muerte magic going on-I say that in jest of course. Maybe there is magical significance to commencing impeachment proceedings on Halloween-again spoken in jest.

Hopefully after the democrats attempt this on the President, Americans will start to become more supportive of free speech. But if people don't have the time to become first amendment experts as we are too busying paying for everyone else's problems, then they can learn it instantly from Milo.

Admit it, if Donald trump were to tweet this video in response to the democrats claim of intimidating a witness, he would win the internet for the year.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

These days we really can't trust democrats with protecting our free speech.

Society of Manufacturing Engineers (SME) was founded in 1932. They publish hundreds of educational books, etc. They copyright claim Infowars and Alex Jones videos. YouTube responds by terminating those channels. They also strike music that they have no relation to. Many people are talking about how their videos are removed. Comcast does it. Disney does it. Big corporations have been throwing copyright claims all over the Internet. Websites like YouTube submit to their false claims. Most of the claims are as honest as the 2019 Roger Stone trials or the Trump Impeachment trials. SME is terrible.

I've heard about false copyright problems on youtube, but it is the first time I've heard SME as an accuser. I don't particularly follow copyright issues. Youtube tends to purge infowars and Alex Jones for reasons other than copyrights, since big tech outright banned him at the same time.

I haven't made youtube videos in about a decade, and didn't deal with monetization. Last I heard users have 30 days to challenge these false accusations, although asserting defenses or ownership could prove difficult for the average person. Listening to a lawful masses video (Leonard French) on the topic, the copyright office does allow people to upload up to 500MB of data to register their own copyrighted video.

If SME is repeatedly and frivolously claiming content that is't theirs, and there isn't a plain and adequate remedy at law, and a petitioner is facing an irreparable injury (including loss of rights) or nuisance in the absence of the issuance of an injunction, it may be possible to enjoin youtube or sme in a court of chancery. Chancery dates back to the romans most for contractual matters for which there was no remedy at law, and this practice has continued to this date to protect jury trial rights-aside from the family courts that act without jurisdiction. In chancery there is generally no mechanism to recover monetary damages. Where the harm is in time and money, the matter sounds of tort (fraud most likely) and thus a plain, adequate, and complete remedy exists at law-so then chancery would not have jurisdiction and so no injunction against them. The problem with tort, unless you are say pewdiepie, is that it may cost more in attorney fees than the amount to be recovered individually, and there is always the chance a jury could side with them and you may have to pay their fees too. The only real way to be punitive [civilly] is to collect enough people who have been harmed and sick them with a class action suit.

Alternatively, there may be remedies in the criminal law (which would also invalidate chancery jurisdiction) and that would require determining what state, and ultimately what county, has jurisdiction, and the fraud statutes in that jurisdiction, and if an individual can swear out a warrant if local law enforcement refuses. It also requires identifying the person or persons behind the fraudulent conduct-which might prove be impossible unless youtube records such info (A failure of youtube to document proof, could reopen chancery jurisdiction over youtube). It could just be some guy from India being paid pennies to do some corporate bidding making a domestic prosecution less likely. Because the harm is likely interstate, the federal government may have jurisdiction also. Meaning they could be prosecuted both federally and locally. But it is up to the discretion of the USDOJ to prosecute at the federal level. But Given the last 25 years at the USDOJ, they are the very enemies of free speech corrupted with Biden [vawa] Bucks.

Perhaps there are administrative remedies available also (which must be exhausted prior to injuncti relief) also since the congress can regulate interstate commerce in which it becomes a question of how much do you want to dig through various federal agencies and their rules to try to find a needle in a haystack that may not exist at all. If an attorney charges $300+/hour, might be best to hit google yourself to try to find the needle, and research the d.c circuit for administrative rulings on any discovered legal theories to test their fitness. Then, after finding a potential match, discuss the theory with counsel.


lawful masses with Leonard french.

Thanks for the info on what people can do to counter legal corruption, etc. Now, personally speaking, YouTube terminated at least three of my YouTube channels as of 2019, this year. So, I deleted each video that would receive the copyright claims. Yet, they still terminated three of my channels. I love law. So, I didn't know about chancery. I love history. So, I love how chancery goes back to the Roman Empire. I may consider writing articles about some of these things in the future.

I am not a video content producer per se. But once youtube registers 3 strikes on your account, I guess that is their limit. Many censored people are moving over to bitchutte for a better experience, I don't know if bitchutte offers monetization. There used to be others that issued monetization, but I don't know if they still do. It is possible to store an entire video on the steem block chain spread throughout numerous 48k [after encoding] comment chunks, but that is anything but ideal at this point. Even if specialized video software engineers could load the 48k chunks individually for streaming purposes then they would still have to decode it.

You may rarely hear things about a court of chancery these days. All states except delaware have unified their court of law and chancery so they are heard in the same courts. Today, you'll often seen a state (or federal) rules of civil procedure covers the rules for chancery. "Chancery" may be seen from many different names: chancery; equity; injunction/injuncti, and: restraining order. Despite the merging of the courts there is still a jurisdictional wall that separates them, and that wall exists to protect our jury trial rights-and that is seen in the 7th amendment as to civil cases, and one can presume article 3 of the constitution for federal cases. Eugene Volokh and I [on twiiter, back when I had an account] disagreed about whether this applies to the states through the 14th amendment; I would argue it does, and he provided no authority to the contrary. It isn't to say that he wouldn't argued that position. You'll see the arguments in favor of my position inherited from the simplified rules of equity themselves.

You will often see 3 simplified, 4 at the modern federal level and in some states, to invoke chancery jurisdiction. 1& 2. That a moving party faces an irreparable injury in the absence of the issuance of equity, but is likely to succeed on the merits of it's issuance. 3. That there must be a balancing of interest. 4. And it must not to contrary to the public interest. You'll see other things not often expressed in these simplification. To invoke a constitutional challenge you often have to serve a state attorney general of the government unit. An irrepararable injury must be real, and not just the apprehension of injury. That a case can be dismissed for mootness the moment the problem has been remedies outside of court. I am sure there are many more, entire books have been written on the subject, But going back to the first two rules, when there exist a remedy in law or in many cases nature (averting the eyes to an unwanted mailing or throwing it away) then equity doesn't have jurisdiction. That said, When there exists an adequate and complete remedy at law, then, aside from petty offenses where there is no jury, the defendant is expected to have a jury trial[-less he waives it for a bench trial]. Even in a petty offense, a prosecutor would have meet a higher burden of proof to meet than a petitioner in equity. So there is also an inherent due process issue when chancery attempts to replace the criminal law as is happening in our modern family court star chambers (the original house of stuart star chamber was also a court of Chancery).


-https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=205
-with two footnotes. If you can't read the image, click the link above.

Unfortunately, our own USDOJ working for feminist/Marxist agents, are instructing trial judges to dissolve this jurisdictional wall and they also advocate for ex parte injunctions against speech-in defiance of scotus rulings as applied to the klan against ex parte injunctions against speech on due process grounds. Despite the wall being a contracts I subject, the judges (often really bad attorneys who turn to a state's welfare system by sitting on a bench) ignore the law and do the USDOJ and by extension feminist bidding. As a result, we are in the present danger of letting the courts of chancery swallow up all of our constitutional and natural rights-and people have been disappeared and tortured due to these courts for expressing political ideas just like the original house of Stuart star chamber.

Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter on equity to Phillip Mazzei in 1785 that goes into greater details about its application in England, He too warned that chancery could swallow up the then common law in England, and notes that some state legislatures have opted to do without such a court. But also noted that they would inevitably return.

Walls:

I value walls. So, I've not heard of this kind of wall before but it makes sense. I also don't know much about the 7th amendment for example. I should study them more. we make money on Steem, on this website, Steemit.

Dtube Video

So, you can upload videos to Dtube and make some money from it.

Ignoring Laws

You mentioned something and that makes me wonder how often lawyers and judges may ignore the constitution and certain laws. I'm not a lawyer and yet I do spend time thinking about the law.

Vietnam

I was teaching English in Vietnam for five years to 2017 and I spend some of my time studying Vietnamese law. While living in Saigon, I was extending my visa with no problem.

Visa Extensions

I would make new visas and extend them again and again until I was suddenly unable to extend a visa in 2015. So, I began trying to figure out what happened. So, that took me down a path of trying to understand some of their laws.

Travel Agencies

I started reading about how it seems that travel agencies are required to educate their customers as they are buying visas. However, in reality, it seems to me that a travel agency actually gave me the wrong kind of visa. I was asking for one kind and they told me that I should get a different kind.

Wrong Visa

Long story short, I believe they persuaded me to get the wrong kind of visa. At the time, I didn't really know that. I believe that they broke the law. But I didn't really want to go to court to fight that. I don't have that kind of money or time.

Trials

Well, I guess I don't enjoy courtrooms. I'm more interested in educating other people who may go to court or whatever the case might be.

In addition to the above, we the people also have the first amendment right to hear what all the speaker (Donald Trump) has to say about the matter.

The Democrats are the enemy of the people.

It is a sad day for free speech. I don't know the details of what Roger stone allegedly did, but ultimately whatever his role was regarding wikileaks and the hillary clinton email dump could land him 50 years. I hear things about false statements that obstructed linking trump to the Russians, for which the Mueller report found no such Russian interference-and finding a cell phone that held old records he once testified that he didn't have the copies of but otherwise testified to the contents of the records. I am not aware of any material harm for a charge-let alone a conviction-of false statements. The harm didn't even reach a level of speculative harm; the Mueller report debunked any such claims of harm. but i don't think it mattered if the intent was the democrats sending a message to the president and his allies through sacrificing his important allies; if you support him, if you do pro-trump journalism [we are seeing fox news increasingly anti-trump], then prepare to be disappeared. Something we seen Big tech do to his other allies through their own methods upon top conservative talent like Milo, Alex Jones, Laura Loomer, Paul Joseph Watson, Sargon of the UK, and many others. This is why you don't fight wars purely defensively, all that happens if you lose territory until you end up losing everything. Infowars, last I heard, may close in a year. Just about everyone experienced a huge lost not just in audience but also sponsorship, Loomer reported losing 90% of her income. Which begs the question, where are all these "big bad capitalist" to defend or advance these journalist?


-Winnie the pooh is owed by Disney, hated by the chicoms,and is used here without permission...and pwned by Randy Marsh.

Stone was given an Obama Judge far far away from his Florida home. The heart of D.C. which is perhaps just as bad as San Franscisco itself in terms of ideological intolerance of conservatives. The only republican was struck as a potential jurist, while Obama national security agents were ok'd by the judge. Countless unconstitutional gags were issued that prevented a fair pre-trial. If there was other judicial misconduct in the pre-trial, we'd have to assume that was gagged save for people with the money to dig through PACER. I know I am invisible out there, but the U.K. courts must not release Assange to US custody. It's basically a death sentence if he is put in our kangaroo court system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/us/politics/roger-stone-trial-guilty.html

Then planned parenthood scored a 2.2 million dollar verdict against investigative journalist in San Franscisco. The Obama Judge, a friend of planned parenthood, in the case who issued unconstitutional prior restraints, and suppressed evidence vital to the journalist defense. Clearly a freedom of the press issue, but Orrick, who refused to recuse himself, ensured that the star chamber did its thing which is to convict upon any accusation.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/15/jury-sides-with-planned-parenthood-against-undercover-video-journalists-who-exposed-alleged-fetal-trafficking/

Many, including Stone, are petitioning Trump issues a pardon for Roger Stone-it also shows that they don't have much faith in the federal appellate court. Trump personally doesn't like that Stone was convicted, but I don't think that a pardon is likely for another year due to the election cycle. As far as the civil case, that will have to be resolved in appeals. Just a few hundred thousand more in legal bills, and the end result may be to spend a few hundred thousand more for a new trial. But at least the abortionist won't get the money. Or, it might be easier for the journalists to say beep the United states and their corrupt judiciary, take their money, and leave-leaving planned parenthood to pay their own legal fees.

I've had issues with a Obama Judge too hostile to speech, she had conflicts of interest, and she refused to recuse themselves, which is now before an international Body.

We've also seen abuses in the Bundy ranch cases with Obama judges and vindictive prosecutors. Only the Bundy's beat their case, and the conduct of the government officials so bad that even the corrupt Obama judges had to dismiss the case,

These are not isolated incidences. Not all Obama judges are bad, but we are clearly seeing a pattern.There are numerous cases at the state courts of vindictive judges and government officials at Christians that follow their faith. Even the federal courts are targeting the nuns again, even after the scotus defended their rights. https://catholiccitizens.org/news/89323/federal-court-forces-little-sisters-of-the-poor-to-fund-abortions-under-obamacare-mandate/

It's getting really bad in the USA. The constitution leaves the people only one remedy to deal with crooked judges when the congress is unable to do so. At some point, especially if we lose 2020, we have to stop playing defensively. There is a war going on, and all we've (and yes I can include myself, even if I don't include my audience in the word "we") been is sacrificial animals. Conservatives and libertarians (and others erroneously labeled as such) need to wake up to the fact that we will be sacrificed the very moment we are falsely accused-that there is no such thing as beating an accusation even if we do beat it on paper. We've seen a prelude of this through the feminist movement, especially in our universities. We see it taking place in our federal courts and our state courts with no accountability. They can rinse and repeat and do it again without hesitation or consequence.

The civil war has already started, and it is pretty one sided, narrow in scope, and targeted at conservative/libertarian movers/doers, and illicitly using existing political machinery, with malicious actors hiding behind court created qualified and absolute immunity. Prepare to flight if you love peace. If you plan to stay, prepare to be put through hell.

I am not sure I remember what exactly her roll was, but I think Donna Shalala was involved in VAWA and appointing Linda Gordon to the first national advisory panel of violence against women, which ultimately was a propaganda committee depriving men of Logos, due process, and family.

Congratulations @firstamendment! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You distributed more than 10000 upvotes. Your next target is to reach 11000 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
  ·  2 months ago (edited)Reveal Comment