The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Oath Keeper Juror  (Read 4397 times)

Basil Fishbone

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2091
    • http://
The Oath Keeper Juror
« on: November 19, 2012, 02:48:00 pm »

This article originally appeared in The Oath Keeper newspaper, March 2010, and I wanted it to be available on line, since the paper is defunct now. 


The Oath Keeper Juror

By Don Doig

Modified from The Oath Keeper, March 2010

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Oath is to the Constitution, not to the government, or to any official. This has implications for persons summoned for jury duty. It has implications for judges and prosecutors too, should they be interested in obeying their oath.

Trial by jury is secured by the Constitution (Art. III Section 2) and in the Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and also in the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The power (and right and responsibility) of the jury to vote according to conscience and to judge the merits (and constitutionality) of the law as well as the facts in the case is what makes trial by jury an important bulwark of liberty. Trial by Jury places protection of the rights of the citizens in the hands of the citizens directly.

The Founders believed that trial by jury would preserve and protect our rights, and a they put a lot of emphasis on it as a bedrock principle of a free society, going back to the Magna Carta.

Thomas Jefferson said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams said of the juror, “it is not only his right, but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)

The trials of the Quaker William Penn in England for preaching an illegal religion to an unlawful assembly and the publisher John Peter Zenger for publishing unlawful (but true) criticism of the royal governor of New York colony helped establish our legal traditions of freedom of religion and speech. In both cases, rebellious, conscientious jurors voted for acquittal against the law and the instructions of the judge.

The power of the jury stems from several features. A verdict of Not Guilty in a criminal trial is final and may not be appealed. The prohibition of double jeopardy prevents a retrial.

Jurors may not be punished for their verdicts.

A verdict of Guilty must be unanimous. A hung jury stops the prosecution and that is a good thing if necessary to protect a defendant's legitimate rights. One person can and should hang a jury if conscience so dictates.

Jurors have the right and responsibility to vote according to conscience, and the defendant has the right to expect that his jurors will do that. Jurors can judge the law itself and ask themselves if it is constitutional. If it is not, a Not Guilty verdict is appropriate.

Unlike voting in an election, you vote as a juror really counts for something. Trial by jury is a crucial safeguard of the individual against bad laws and malicious prosecution. It is the only real direct power the individual citizen has over the actions of the government.

Trial by jury is under attack in America. The forces of tyranny view it as an impediment to top down control of the people. Prosecutors stack the jury with people who promise to take the law as the judges says and convict no matter whether it is the right thing to do. Judges intimidate jurors into thinking they have no choice but to convict if the evidence shows guilt, that they might even get into trouble if they vote their consciences. In fact, though, jurors can not be punished for their verdicts.

For more information, see the Juror's Handbook at http://fija.org/

In the federal system, if you are charged with a “misdemeanor” you are not granted your right to a trial by jury, and that can mean six months in federal prison – and then they multiply charges, so you can spend years in prison with no jury trial.

Prosecutors intimidate defendants into giving up their right to trial by jury by multiplying charges, then offering them a plea bargain if they will plead guilty to so-called lesser charges. Sometimes even people who are actually completely innocent will be intimidated into pleading guilty to avoid a long prison sentence.

Prosecutors and judges, acting in collusion, exclude evidence favorable to the defense. They can limit what the defense is allowed to say! How can that be?

And now, the federal government, using the Patriot Act and the NDAA and other “homeland security” laws has completely eliminated due process and trial by jury. Any American citizen can now be declared an “enemy combatant” or “terrorist”, incarcerated in secret prisons and tortured with no due process at all, no defense counsel, no trial by jury at all. Habeas corpus has been eliminated, so you can be held indefinitely and nothing can be done about it. We can even be summarily assassinated on the President's word.

It has been said that there are four boxes available to us to protect our liberty: The Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Cartridge Box. The forces of tyranny have all four boxes under attack. As an Oath Keeper, the Oath you took to the Constitution supersedes any “oath” the judge may extract from you. Any attempt by the judge to abrogate your higher oath should be seen for what it is, an illegitimate usurpation of your rights as a citizen and as an Oath Keeper. Do whatever you need to do to get yourself seated as a juror when your turn comes.

Once on the jury, Oath Keepers should reflect on whether the law which the defendant is accused of violating is in fact constitutional. If you are in state court, the same principles apply. Hold the states to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. …

“A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. “
American Jurisprudence, Vol 16, 177.

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

Don Doig is a citizen Oath Keeper who lives in Montana. An assistant editor for the Oath Keeper newspaper (now defunct), Don is a long time freedom fighter and is one of the original co-founders of the Fully Informed Jury Association.

The Fully Informed Jury Association works to preserve the right to trial by jury as it was envisioned by the Founders. P.O. Box 5570, Helena MT 59604-5570. www.fija.org Phone 406-442-7800, Fax 406-442-9332.
Logged

slidemansailor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4225
  • A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves
    • The Bitterroot Bugle
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2012, 10:36:36 pm »

That's beautiful.  I'll be re-posting that soon... probably tomorrow.
Logged
If you don't work for liberty,  you don't get it.

http://BitterrootBugle.com/

Wyomiles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2012, 09:54:14 am »

Very nice !
Logged

Rarick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7795
  • Rarick in the Gulch-O-Dome did decree.......
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2012, 12:04:02 pm »

The problem is that in any criminal trail, a lawyer may automatically eliminate any "Veterans" on the assumption they will favor the government case..........  It is a great way to frame up jury nullification and therefore educate some oathkeepers about their daily job in relation to the constitution..........and maybe get some enforcement nullification going on as well at least as far as the Mala Administratum laws go........
Logged
........Duct tape is like the force, it has a light side, a darkside and holds the universe together.  It is theoretically reinforced with strings too.  (The dome has a darkside, lightside and strings of rebar for reinforcement too!)
-------------------------------------------
Most of the time news is about the same old violations of the first principles of consent and golden rule with a dash of force thrown in........ with just enough duct tape to be believable.

Speaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
    • The United States House of Repeals
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2012, 03:10:29 pm »

Very good job, Don.

An update on the reference for the supreme court ruling:
the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256.

I do not know if there is a later edition than the 16th. There probably is; but that one is in some law libraries.

In addition to judging the constitutionality of a "law" to see if it can be enforced (if it is unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced lawfully, as it is not a law, and therefor not binding on anyone) we should also consider the context in which it is being applied at trial and judge accordingly.

If the judge and persecution (sic) counsel tamper with the jury to obtain an illegal conviction, as Don has described in his article quoted above, then major felonies are being committed against the defendant and the public at large in the courtroom at trial. These felonies corrupt the judicial process so that no one can have a fair or legal trial now or in the future; and that means you, if you consent to be tried by this system. We are now faced with balancing the severity and importance of the opposing evils, if we decide that the defendant did what he is accused of doing. Which is more important; getting one guilty person off the street, or preventing the corruption of the judicial process – so that many innocent people will not be tortured and murdered in the future? Specifically including us and our families and friends.

I consider that there is no crime that an individual can commit – specifically including the recent (yesterday, 12/14/2012) mass murder of about 28 people, 20 of them little children – that compares with the elimination of fair jury trial for the rest of the history of the current government. We cannot both convict the defendant and punish the criminal judge and state counsel. We must choose between the evils and punish the greater one.

Therefor, in my judgment, when the court (judge and persecutor) engage in jury stacking and tampering, require jurors to take an "oath" of any kind, directing the jury to judge only the facts and not the constitutionality or morality of the "law", direct the jury to return a specific verdict or obey the judges other orders, or threatening the jurors if they vote by conscience or the constitution – then we must acquit, both in the face of the court's action, and evidence that proves the defendant did what is charged.

Years ago Vin Suprynowicz < http://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/ > suggested a four-part verdict when acquiting, because, among other things, a verdict of "not guilty" is treated by government agencies as "guilty, but let off on a technicality" and the innocent defendant is punished anyway, as though convicted. I have lost the original, so I will do this from memory; items in (parentheses) are explanatory, not part of the suggested verdict.:

We the jury find and deliver this verdict in four, severable, parts:
1. We find the defendant not guilty on all charges.
2. We specifically find the defendant innocent on all charges in this trial, and in all of his past actions to date. (This acquits him of any past convictions, invariably corrupt, so that his civil rights "should" be restored, if abrogated. It gives him grounds for appeal. It should also get rid of the "guilty, but let off on a technicality" felonious bullshit.)
3. We award the defendant all costs of his defense and all losses and costs related to this charge and trial, from his arrest (or charge) to this date. (We may want to make that "treble damages" for punitive reasons, depending on the nature of the persecution.)
4. We find that this trial was held and conducted in a corrupt and illegal manner. (Insert here a list of the corruption and illegality.) We direct that the damages due to the defendant will be paid, in equal shares, by the prosecuting attorney and the judge of this trial from their personal funds or property. In the event that the personal funds and property of the guilty prosecuting attorney and judge are not sufficient to meet this judgment, the remainder that is due to the defendant, after the personal wealth of both the prosecuting attorney and the judge have been exhausted, shall be paid in equal shares from the operating budgets of the prosecuting attorney's office or department, and the operating budget of this court.

Just a Few Thoughts.



All the Best,
Speaker

P.S.
Rarick, I just LOVE your new bit of latin: "Mala Administratum"!
S.
Logged
"As much as 'sunshine soldiers' or 'summer patriots', beware an ally 'more common than you know' whose fear of the uncertainties of success moves him to surrender at the very moment of victory."

"Go straight to the heart of the enemy's greatest strength. Break that and you break him. You can always mop up the flanks and stragglers later, and they may even surrender, saving you a lot of effort."

L. Neil Smith
http://ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle605-20110130-03.html

5GW

da gooch

  • Mr. Badger? Only when need be
  • Moderator Group
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6868
  • 32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2012, 04:17:00 pm »

Well Done Don.

I, too, really admire the suggestions Vin has made towards the separation of the "facts" of the case and the legality of the statute itself.

I do hope that Someone, with the legal education to frame a bill proposal properly, will come forward and propose the suggestions that Vin and "Speaker" have offered.
If no other result occurs perhaps the Legal Profession will become aware that we the general public are becoming awake and aware of their perfidy.

Meanwhile I am Not holding my breath while waiting for it to be proposed in "Public".
Logged
"Come and Take It"  Gonzales, Texas 1835

     III

Speaker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 511
    • The United States House of Repeals
Re: The Fair Jury Trial Amendment
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2012, 05:06:29 am »

OK, gooch, I hereby "pick up your gauntlet" and present for your approval (or amusement) a proposal as specified.

It is not a bill for a legislature to pass, as that would never happen with only psychopaths voting on it. Nor is it an initiative statute, as that may be repealable or amendable by the legislature. It is a constitutional amendment for a state. If your state has the initiative process, you can put it, or something like it, before them for their approval.

If you need help with the form or strategy and tactics of the campaign, I think that I can find the campaign plan for the Second Amendment Enforcement amendment from California; that you can read at the United States House of Repeals.
< www.usrepeals.org >

This amendment fits on one (count 'em, ONE) sheet of 8.5 x11 inch paper with a 1/4" margin on the sides and .6" margin top and bottom, in 12 point Times font.

Quote
1. An initiative constitutional amendment to be placed before the electors at the next statewide election:

2. Title:
This amendment shall be known and may be cited as “The Fair Jury Trial Amendment”.

3. Body of the amendment:
In all court or administrative trials in the state of (name of state), at all levels, all criminal or administrative charges, and all civil suits in which the amount in question is more than twenty dollars, shall be tried by an impartial jury of the defendant’s peers, numbering twelve in all, not counting alternate jurors; unless waived by the fully informed defendant.

Verdicts for conviction in all criminal trials shall require proof of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. In all criminal trials or administrative actions in which a defendant may be fined, imprisoned or otherwise punished, a conviction or its equivalent shall require a unanimous vote of the jury. Verdicts for the plaintiff in all civil trials shall require proof that consists of the preponderance of the evidence and a unanimous vote of the jury. In all cases the jury shall retain its ancient right and power to judge both the law and the fact; and to render a verdict, either general or specific, in as many parts as the jury may deem necessary or desirable, according to its sole judgment and conscience. All charges for felony, capital or otherwise infamous crime, or for any offense for which the defendant could be fined more than $1,000 or imprisoned more than thirty days, shall be brought only upon the presentment of a grand jury.

Jurors may not be punished in any way for any verdict.

Potential jurors may not be examined by the court or any officer thereof for qualification to serve on the jury, beyond the determination of a familiar relationship between the potential juror and the defendant, any witness or any officer of the court, for which the potential juror may be excused by either counsel before trial. Each counsel shall retain the right of six preemptive challenges of potential jurors.

In all jury trials the presiding judge shall read this amendment to the jury before placing the case before them for their deliberation and judgment. Failure to so read this amendment to the jury shall constitute mandatory grounds for summary acquittal on appeal of any conviction or any award in civil judgment.

Violation of this amendment by any judicial officer of any court, administrative hearing officer, or other officer of any court or administrative body, shall constitute a felony against the defendant in the case being tried or heard. Upon conviction for such felony violation the convicted judicial officer, administrative hearing officer or other court officer shall pay as restitution to the victim treble damages for all of his costs, losses and other damages incurred as a result of the arrest, charge and trial or hearing.


Speaker
Logged
"As much as 'sunshine soldiers' or 'summer patriots', beware an ally 'more common than you know' whose fear of the uncertainties of success moves him to surrender at the very moment of victory."

"Go straight to the heart of the enemy's greatest strength. Break that and you break him. You can always mop up the flanks and stragglers later, and they may even surrender, saving you a lot of effort."

L. Neil Smith
http://ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle605-20110130-03.html

5GW

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6852
    • End the War on Freedom
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2012, 05:47:33 am »

Bravo, Speaker. That would put some teeth into juries. I won't hold my breath.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

da gooch

  • Mr. Badger? Only when need be
  • Moderator Group
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6868
  • 32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2012, 07:06:53 pm »

Indeed, Bravo Speaker.

Now to get this out and about for people to read and implement.

Well Done.
Logged
"Come and Take It"  Gonzales, Texas 1835

     III

tommixx

  • Guest
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2013, 08:42:54 am »

This article originally appeared in The Oath Keeper newspaper, March 2010, and I wanted it to be available on line, since the paper is defunct now. 


The Oath Keeper Juror

By Don Doig

Modified from The Oath Keeper, March 2010

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Oath is to the Constitution, not to the government, or to any official. This has implications for persons summoned for jury duty. It has implications for judges and prosecutors too, should they be interested in obeying their oath.

Trial by jury is secured by the Constitution (Art. III Section 2) and in the Sixth Amendment and Seventh Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and also in the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. The power (and right and responsibility) of the jury to vote according to conscience and to judge the merits (and constitutionality) of the law as well as the facts in the case is what makes trial by jury an important bulwark of liberty. Trial by Jury places protection of the rights of the citizens in the hands of the citizens directly.

The Founders believed that trial by jury would preserve and protect our rights, and a they put a lot of emphasis on it as a bedrock principle of a free society, going back to the Magna Carta.

Thomas Jefferson said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

John Adams said of the juror, “it is not only his right, but his duty – to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” (Yale Law Journal, 1964:173)

The trials of the Quaker William Penn in England for preaching an illegal religion to an unlawful assembly and the publisher John Peter Zenger for publishing unlawful (but true) criticism of the royal governor of New York colony helped establish our legal traditions of freedom of religion and speech. In both cases, rebellious, conscientious jurors voted for acquittal against the law and the instructions of the judge.

The power of the jury stems from several features. A verdict of Not Guilty in a criminal trial is final and may not be appealed. The prohibition of double jeopardy prevents a retrial.

Jurors may not be punished for their verdicts.

A verdict of Guilty must be unanimous. A hung jury stops the prosecution and that is a good thing if necessary to protect a defendant's legitimate rights. One person can and should hang a jury if conscience so dictates.

Jurors have the right and responsibility to vote according to conscience, and the defendant has the right to expect that his jurors will do that. Jurors can judge the law itself and ask themselves if it is constitutional. If it is not, a Not Guilty verdict is appropriate.

Unlike voting in an election, you vote as a juror really counts for something. Trial by jury is a crucial safeguard of the individual against bad laws and malicious prosecution. It is the only real direct power the individual citizen has over the actions of the government.

Trial by jury is under attack in America. The forces of tyranny view it as an impediment to top down control of the people. Prosecutors stack the jury with people who promise to take the law as the judges says and convict no matter whether it is the right thing to do. Judges intimidate jurors into thinking they have no choice but to convict if the evidence shows guilt, that they might even get into trouble if they vote their consciences. In fact, though, jurors can not be punished for their verdicts.

For more information, see the Juror's Handbook at http://fija.org/

In the federal system, if you are charged with a “misdemeanor” you are not granted your right to a trial by jury, and that can mean six months in federal prison – and then they multiply charges, so you can spend years in prison with no jury trial.

Prosecutors intimidate defendants into giving up their right to trial by jury by multiplying charges, then offering them a plea bargain if they will plead guilty to so-called lesser charges. Sometimes even people who are actually completely innocent will be intimidated into pleading guilty to avoid a long prison sentence.

Prosecutors and judges, acting in collusion, exclude evidence favorable to the defense. They can limit what the defense is allowed to say! How can that be?

And now, the federal government, using the Patriot Act and the NDAA and other “homeland security” laws has completely eliminated due process and trial by jury. Any American citizen can now be declared an “enemy combatant” or “terrorist”, incarcerated in secret prisons and tortured with no due process at all, no defense counsel, no trial by jury at all. Habeas corpus has been eliminated, so you can be held indefinitely and nothing can be done about it. We can even be summarily assassinated on the President's word.

It has been said that there are four boxes available to us to protect our liberty: The Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and the Cartridge Box. The forces of tyranny have all four boxes under attack. As an Oath Keeper, the Oath you took to the Constitution supersedes any “oath” the judge may extract from you. Any attempt by the judge to abrogate your higher oath should be seen for what it is, an illegitimate usurpation of your rights as a citizen and as an Oath Keeper. Do whatever you need to do to get yourself seated as a juror when your turn comes.

Once on the jury, Oath Keepers should reflect on whether the law which the defendant is accused of violating is in fact constitutional. If you are in state court, the same principles apply. Hold the states to the principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it. …

“A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. “
American Jurisprudence, Vol 16, 177.

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws.” Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.

Don Doig is a citizen Oath Keeper who lives in Montana. An assistant editor for the Oath Keeper newspaper (now defunct), Don is a long time freedom fighter and is one of the original co-founders of the Fully Informed Jury Association.

The Fully Informed Jury Association works to preserve the right to trial by jury as it was envisioned by the Founders. P.O. Box 5570, Helena MT 59604-5570. www.fija.org Phone 406-442-7800, Fax 406-442-9332.
Logged

MamaLiberty

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25985
  • Non aggression, self ownership
    • The Price of Liberty
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2013, 10:42:47 am »

tommixx, is there some reason you quoted this whole thing and didn't even make a comment on it? What is the purpose of the quote?
Logged
The lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil.

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6852
    • End the War on Freedom
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2013, 01:27:00 pm »

Looks like a potential bot to me. Worth keeping an eye on.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

MamaLiberty

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25985
  • Non aggression, self ownership
    • The Price of Liberty
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2013, 01:31:51 pm »

Looks like a potential bot to me. Worth keeping an eye on.

Doing so, of course. No spam on his account anywhere, so I'll just watch.  We have several new accounts something like this. Once the bots figure out our new captcha, I'll be back to the morning rat hunt, I suppose. :)
Logged
The lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil.

da gooch

  • Mr. Badger? Only when need be
  • Moderator Group
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6868
  • 32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2013, 04:35:15 pm »

And Thanks for all you do DO around here ML.

:thumbsup:
Logged
"Come and Take It"  Gonzales, Texas 1835

     III

MamaLiberty

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25985
  • Non aggression, self ownership
    • The Price of Liberty
Re: The Oath Keeper Juror
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2013, 04:53:04 pm »

And Thanks for all you do DO around here ML.

:thumbsup:

You are so welcome. I've always loved to squish bugs anyway. LOL
Logged
The lust to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil.
Pages: [1]   Go Up