 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Instead of being convicted for breaking a law, Americans are being tried And Persecuted for Breaking A "Theory." I was convicted under a "theory," too. The theory is that 18 U.S.C 1028(a) was legal. It was not. The other theory is that I transmitted certain files. I did not. No matter what the Wizard's puppet, Sung Park sings.
Can you assist in over-turning my unjust and illegal and unlawful sentence by a judge who admits not following the law, and maybe take a peek at the unlawful conviction? It's basically another attorney running amok combinded with judges not following the law. Not only is that my novel theory, that's a fact!
The government has created a fiction that Lori Drew somehow caused [Megan]’s death, and it wants a long prison sentence to make its fiction seem real,” Steward wrote. “Fortunately, this is a court of law, not a television drama.” She was upset and humiliated and couldn't possibly go to class, the girl told the counselor. The night before, a classmate had posted a video on YouTube with a group of other eighth-graders bad-mouthing her, calling her "spoiled," a "brat" and a "slut." Text and instant messages had been flying since. Half the class must have seen it by now, she told Hart. Hart took the problem to the vice principal and principal, who took it to a district administrator, who asked the district's lawyers what they could do about it. In the end, citing "cyber-bullying" concerns, school officials suspended the girl who posted the video for two days. That student took the case to federal court, saying her free speech rights had been violated. Last month, a federal judge in Los Angeles sided with her, saying the school had gone too far. Amid rising concerns over cyber-bullying, and even calls for criminalization, some courts, parents and free-speech advocates are pushing back. Students, they say, have a 1st Amendment right to be nasty in cyberspace. "To allow the school to cast this wide a net and suspend a student simply because another student takes offense to their speech, without any evidence that such speech caused a substantial disruption of the school's activities, runs afoul" of the law, U.S. District Judge Stephen V. Wilson wrote in a 60-page opinion. "The court cannot uphold school discipline of student speech simply because young persons are unpredictable or immature, or because, in general, teenagers are emotionally fragile and may often fight over hurtful comments," he wrote. Schools' ability to limit student speech, from armbands protesting the Vietnam War to banners promoting marijuana use, is an age-old issue that has been repeatedly tried and tested in the courts. But with teens' social lives moving increasingly to cyberspace, where what might have previously been private bickering is reproduced, publicized and documented for all to see, school officials find themselves on unfamiliar ground in dealing with e-mails, instant messages, profile pages, videos and the like that may result in hurt feelings or something more serious. Free-speech advocates said the notoriety of recent cases, such as the Missouri girl who committed suicide after a mean-spirited MySpace message was sent, have led schools to overreact and excessively crack down on student expression when it comes to the Internet. "It's better to have a lawsuit and lose some money than have a situation where a student commits suicide," said Eugene Volokh, a 1st Amendment expert and UCLA law professor who has criticized a bill in Congress that would make cyber-bullying punishable by up to two years in prison. "People don't appreciate how much the 1st Amendment protects not only political and ideological speech, but also personal nastiness and chatter. . . . If all cruel teasing led to suicide, the human race would be extinct." The murkiness of this area of law and educational policy has resulted in legal challenges across the country over school officials' restriction of student speech or discipline meted out in such cases. Attorneys and experts said court decisions have been "all over the map," offering little clarity to confused school administrators. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to take up a case involving student speech online; the governing decision is from the 1969 Tinker vs. Des Moines School District case, which held that student speech could not be limited unless it caused substantial disruption on campus. "We're in a rapidly evolving area of law with relatively few guidelines and remarkably little that has been charted," said Robert O'Neil, director of the Virginia-based Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. O'Neil said that when a true threat is made, and when speech is made using school computers, schools have clear authority to regulate students' speech. But when something falls in the gray area between an expressed threat and mere teasing, and students are accessing the Internet outside the school's walls, administrators are faced with a tricky calculus. "Everybody is justifiably confused about what they can and cannot do," said Witold Walczak, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. In Pennsylvania, a student sued his school district after he was suspended for 10 days and placed in an alternative education program for creating what he claimed was a parody MySpace profile of the school principal. On the website, the student referred to the principal as a "big steroid freak," and a "big whore," among other things, and stated that he was "too drunk to remember" the date of his birthday. U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry found that even though the profile was unquestionably "lewd, profane and sexually inappropriate," the school did not have the right to restrict the student's speech because school officials were not able to establish that the profile caused enough of a disruption on campus. "The mere fact that the Internet may be accessed at school does not authorize school officials to become censors of the World Wide Web," he wrote. Walczak, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, said censoring is often the "easy way out" for schools that want to be able to say they did something about the situation rather than stand by and watch. "The Internet doesn't change what students say about other students or school officials, it just makes it more apparent to a larger number of people," he said. The school district has appealed to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision is pending. In Florida, the ACLU sued a principal on behalf of a student who was suspended and removed from her honors class for alleged cyber-bullying. Katie Evans had created a Facebook page criticizing an English teacher as "the worst teacher I've ever met" and invited others to express their "feelings of hatred." Her attorney, Matthew Bavaro, said the reach of the Web was irrelevant to whether students are allowed to express themselves freely. "The audience, whether it's one person or 1 billion people, doesn't change that Katie still had a 1st Amendment right," Bavaro said. In the Beverly Hills case, the student's lawsuit said her "speech" was entirely off campus and off-limits to the school administrators' regulation. The four-minute, 36-second video, in which a group of friends is chatting at a restaurant four blocks from campus, could not even be viewed at school because YouTube is blocked on the school's computers, her attorney contended. Judge Wilson ruled that school officials had the authority to investigate the matter because the student told several of her classmates to watch the video, and it was foreseeable the video, or talk of it, would quickly make its way to the campus of Beverly Vista School. The video was "designed in such a manner to reach many persons at once," making it different from earlier cases involving school newspapers or a violent drawing, he found. However, he ruled that the chatter in the video did not rise to a level that would cause enough disruption at the school to warrant the discipline. "The fear that students would 'gossip' or 'pass notes' in class simply does not rise to the level of a substantial disruption," he wrote. The plaintiff's attorney, Evan Cohen, who is also her father, said the case highlighted the school district's failure to realize the limits of its authority. "Yeah, sure, they can fall back on cyber-bullying, but when you actually ask them questions and dig down deep into their understanding, they think it's OK for them to be a super-parent," he said. "Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber." -U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975) OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
REPORT A GANG MEMBER.
Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
(c)1997-2023 TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. |
Drew’s misdemeanor convictions for the violation of MySpace’s “Terms of service” is a “Novel theory that renders millions Americans felons for their everyday conduct,”
12:13 PM | May 18, 2009 A Missouri mother convicted of committing a hoax on the social networking site MySpace that led to the suicide of a 13-year-old girl is scheduled to be sentenced this afternoon in federal court in downtown Los Angeles. A jury convicted Lori Drew, 50, of three misdemeanor computer crimes last November, but deadlocked on a felony conspiracy charge that carried a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. The mixed verdict was a blow to prosecutors in Los Angeles who indicted Drew on controversial legal grounds after prosecutors in Missouri declined to file criminal charges. Drew became the object of widespread public criticism after the death of eighth-grader Megan Meier, a friend of Drew’s daughter. Drew, her daughter, and an 18-year-old employee who worked for Drew used a fake profile of a teenage boy to flirt and communicate with Megan on-line via Beverly Hills-based MySpace. Megan hung herself with a belt after the fictitious boy sent her a message telling her “the world would be a better place without you.” In court papers this month, prosecutors asked U.S. District judge George H. Wu to impose a sentence of three years, one year for each of the misdemeanor convictions. They wrote that Drew deserved a harsher sentence than the probation office’s recommendation of probation because she knew of Megan’s history of depression and mental problems, attempted to cover up her crimes, and used minors in the crime. Defense attorneys for Drew vehemently criticized the prosecution in court filings, calling the prosecution’s argument in seeking a three-year prison term “shocking” and “utterly absurd.” Drew’s misdemeanor convictions for the violation of MySpace’s “terms of service” is a “novel theory that renders millions Americans "subject to" being felons for their everyday conduct,” attorney Dean Steward wrote.
(CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE. LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
