VeryGoodForm has been created as a free speech site to provide a juried public commons where people can post the names, locations, and documentation of those public servants who are keeping their oath of office, maintaining their position of public trust, and recognizing the highest laws of this nation.
Whether they are politicians, bureaucrats, police or prosecutors, if they have protected an individual under colour of law, if they have used their office or authority to assist, protect, enforce justice, or otherwise validate the human rights of another person, they are commended for their VeryGoodForm.
Criteria for entries: Name, Location, link to story of protection of human rights.
Truth telling hits a high mark.
On May 17, David Laws, the new British government’s Chief Secretary to the Treasury, walked into his office. There on the desk was a note from the previous holder of this high office, Liam Byrne, who had departed along with Gordon Brown’s Labour Party cabinet. The note was brief.
“Dear chief secretary, I’m afraid there is no money. Kind regards – and good luck! Liam.”
Mr. Laws was a bit miffed. He informed the media that it is traditional for an outgoing senior office holder to leave some guidelines for the incoming office holder. This note, Laws said, was not helpful.
Note that the law protects only police officers, and only when they are identified as such. Under the law, you could publish your dentist’s address, or even Annette Garrett’s address if you omitted her occupation. The law is explicitly crafted to shield the state’s enforcers.
As deferential as the courts usually are to law-enforcement officers, the Florida law went too far for U.S. District Court Judge Richard Smoak. In his ruling (PDF), he noted that the courts have long held that the government can criminalize the publication of information only under very specific circumstances, including explicit threats.
“DETROIT Nine members of a Michigan militia will be released from jail pending trial after a federal judge on Monday harshly criticized the government’s claim they had conspired to overthrow the U.S. government.
The decision is a significant defeat for federal authorities, who spoke in tough and triumphant terms after arresting members of a southern Michigan group called the Hutaree in March and charging them with conspiracy to commit sedition and attempted use of weapons of mass destruction.
The government “need not wait until people are killed before it arrests conspirators,” U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said. “But the defendants are also correct: Their right to engage in hate-filled, venomous speech is a right that deserves First Amendment protection.”
Read Rest of Article
Anarchy in the Streets
If only! Article by Butler Shaffer.
Butler Shaffer explains why self-responsibility forces humans to interact in a civil manner, negotiate in peace, and work together cooperatively to achieve harmony and order for everyone. Without the state.
February 14, 2010 Addendum
I sent the following email to David Ellspermann & Administrative Judge, David Eddy on 2/13/10
February 13, 2010
To: Judge David Eddy, David Ellspermann
Subject: Censorship & Confiscation of information informing citizens of one of their basic rights
Sovereignty Action has distributed information on the doctrine of Jury Nullification at the Marion County Courthouse for the last two weeks.
Ms. Ruby Moore has been confiscating this information.
We would like to know under whose authority this is being done, and if the information is to continue to be confiscated in the future?
Respectfully, Dr. Robert Dreyfus
On February 13, we received an email with a PDF file from Judge Eddy’s office addressed to the State’s Attorney, Public Defender et al Marion County Judges and David Ellspermann’s office dated February 8th 2010 !!! that said in part:
“Based on principles of free speech, I believe that whoever is distributing the handouts in question has a right to do so.
Accordingly, I see no reason why the handouts must be excluded from the jury assembly room. I believe we may trust jurors to follow the law as instructed by the judge.”
“WA Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders
Authors Significant Gun Rights Ruling
March 4, 2010
by Alan M. Gottlieb
The Washington State Supreme Court has issued a precedent-setting opinion in the case of State v. Christopher William Sieyes which holds that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights “applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.”
This outstanding opinion was authored by Justice Richard B. Sanders, a Supreme Court veteran who clearly understands the history of both the state and federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps what makes the Sanders opinion so remarkable is that it places the Washington Supreme Court ahead of the United States Supreme Court in recognition that the U.S. Constitution’s recognition of the right to keep and bear arms applies to all citizens, and should also place limits on state and local governments, as it does on Congress.
Quoting Justice Sanders, “Lower courts need not wait for the Supreme Court the Constitution is the rule of all courts both state and federal judiciaries wield power to strike down unconstitutional government acts.”
The Sanders opinion was issued February 18, 2010 and its significance quickly registered with gun rights organizations and activists across the map. For example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation hailed the ruling. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane called it “a welcome development and victory for the rights of law-abiding firearms owners.”