The Cult of Victimhood

Jeffrey
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#26

Post by Jeffrey » Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:50 pm

Thanks for the video. Used to think Josh was stupid but it turns out he’s also an asshole.

User avatar
arayder
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:06 am

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#27

Post by arayder » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:10 pm

RoadScholar wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:22 pm
I don't think they're acting. 8-)
These poor fools don’t even have the sense to use the usual sovcit ruse of creating a phony news service and telling the authorities they are “journalists”.

Worse than that they usually end up recording and posting their own name calling and verbal assaults on authority figures they meet. One might wonder if the cops and guards they abuse might reasonably question their mental stability.
“Protecting our border is critical and the lack of accountability we see there is criminal. First we institute real security. We secure the border. Next we don't hand out amnesty to illegals. It's time bring order to the border.” -Gavin Seim

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22094
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#28

Post by RTH10260 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:18 pm

arayder wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:16 pm
► Show Spoiler
I have questions as to whether a federal court would hear a case of, or grant certiorari to, a 1st amendment auditor arguing that he or she has a free speech right to act an ass outside a military installation. I say "act an ass" because these folks don't seem to me to be journalists or artists.
From what I have seen on 1st Ammender videos, of the more serious sort, there was a court case, likely federal, that had determined that the property lines around the gates of military installations was often not clear. Since then, maybe four years now, the military installations have a red line marked at the gates of their installations. As for property lines along fences etc there is the general rule of right of way eg some distance to the road centerline, and can be deducted from the placement of electric or phone wires and other public works hardware at the road side. The clever 1st Ammenders will look up the true property lines in the registers online, or even visit the county offices beforehand.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#29

Post by fierceredpanda » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:27 pm

arayder wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:47 pm
fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:39 pm
arayder wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:16 pm
I have questions as to whether a federal court would hear a case of, or grant certiorari to, a 1st amendment auditor arguing that he or she has a free speech right to act an ass outside a military installation. I say "act an ass" because these folks don't seem to me to be journalists or artists.
Any defendant charged with any crime has a right to challenge the constitutional basis upon which he is charged. It isn't a matter of discretion for the federal trial court. If the defendant has a meritorious case that the statute either is being applied unconstitutionally in this case or is just plain unconstitutionally overbroad in general, a motion to dismiss will be filed and considered by the trial court in due course. And then taken up by the appellate courts and SCOTUS if appropriate.
You said it, "meritorious", "if appropriate".

But you are right cases can get before a federal appeals court where the they are often decided based on written briefs alone. Other cases are selected for an oral argument before the court. I'd love to see the brief or hear the oral argument which argues the application of military security practices are trumped because a 1st amendment auditor just wants to be a pain in the arse.

But since the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, most cases cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States as a matter of right. Anybody who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court must file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.

The courts are busy. They don't have time for these snowflakes.
If the courts are that busy, they shouldn't be hearing this case. Talk to the US Attorney. And you are broadly interpreting my statement about merit. A motion to dismiss a charge on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional is always going to be taken seriously as long as it isn't scrawled in crayon on a placemat. And the law is not so ordered that "being an asshole" and "committing a criminal offense" are the same thing. I maintain, as I did from the start, that 18 USC Sections 795 and 797 are constitutionally overbroad in their entirety. If this is the case for testing that guess on my part, so be it. But courts don't get to refuse to hear a completely legitimate challenge to the constitutionality of a crime for which someone is being charged just because it might be inconvenient.

I confess, I am having sick brain right now (yay stomach flu!), but I think you're mistaking the notion of bringing a separate case challenging the statutes versus filing a motion in a pending criminal case to dismiss charges on constitutional grounds.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
arayder
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:06 am

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#30

Post by arayder » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:43 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:27 pm
arayder wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:47 pm
fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:39 pm


Any defendant charged with any crime has a right to challenge the constitutional basis upon which he is charged. It isn't a matter of discretion for the federal trial court. If the defendant has a meritorious case that the statute either is being applied unconstitutionally in this case or is just plain unconstitutionally overbroad in general, a motion to dismiss will be filed and considered by the trial court in due course. And then taken up by the appellate courts and SCOTUS if appropriate.
You said it, "meritorious", "if appropriate".

But you are right cases can get before a federal appeals court where the they are often decided based on written briefs alone. Other cases are selected for an oral argument before the court. I'd love to see the brief or hear the oral argument which argues the application of military security practices are trumped because a 1st amendment auditor just wants to be a pain in the arse.

But since the Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988, most cases cannot be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States as a matter of right. Anybody who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court must file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.

The courts are busy. They don't have time for these snowflakes.
If the courts are that busy, they shouldn't be hearing this case. Talk to the US Attorney. And you are broadly interpreting my statement about merit. A motion to dismiss a charge on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional is always going to be taken seriously as long as it isn't scrawled in crayon on a placemat. And the law is not so ordered that "being an asshole" and "committing a criminal offense" are the same thing. I maintain, as I did from the start, that 18 USC Sections 795 and 797 are constitutionally overbroad in their entirety. If this is the case for testing that guess on my part, so be it. But courts don't get to refuse to hear a completely legitimate challenge to the constitutionality of a crime for which someone is being charged just because it might be inconvenient.

I confess, I am having sick brain right now (yay stomach flu!), but I think you're mistaking the notion of bringing a separate case challenging the statutes versus filing a motion in a pending criminal case to dismiss charges on constitutional grounds.
I could be wrong. I thought I was once, but that was a mistake. I understand what you are saying, so you ain't that sick.

Get well.
“Protecting our border is critical and the lack of accountability we see there is criminal. First we institute real security. We secure the border. Next we don't hand out amnesty to illegals. It's time bring order to the border.” -Gavin Seim

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 8107
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#31

Post by RoadScholar » Mon Mar 18, 2019 4:12 pm

I could be wrong. I thought I was once, but that was a mistake.
My grandma used to say "I only made but one grammatical error, but when I seen I done that, I tooken it back." :)
The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
kate520
Posts: 15695
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:02 pm
Location: Dark side of the Moon
Occupation: servant of cats, chicken wrangler
Contact:

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#32

Post by kate520 » Mon Mar 18, 2019 5:27 pm

:lol:
DEFEND DEMOCRACY

User avatar
Northland10
Posts: 8440
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 9:19 am
Location: Chicago area - North burbs

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#33

Post by Northland10 » Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:42 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:27 pm
A motion to dismiss a charge on the grounds that the statute is unconstitutional is always going to be taken seriously as long as it isn't scrawled in crayon on a placemat. And the law is not so ordered that "being an asshole" and "committing a criminal offense" are the same thing. I maintain, as I did from the start, that 18 USC Sections 795 and 797 are constitutionally overbroad in their entirety. If this is the case for testing that guess on my part, so be it. But courts don't get to refuse to hear a completely legitimate challenge to the constitutionality of a crime for which someone is being charged just because it might be inconvenient..
For the record, the bench trial (agreed upon by the defendant) is scheduled for April and there has been no MTD filed by his current attorney or the previous one, and the case has been delayed at least once. The most docket entries however have been regarding his pre-trial release which has almost been revoked a few times (I have not read the details on it yet). It appears that this defendant is more interested in being seen "being an asshole" then actually seeking to have a law declared unconstitutional.

Here is the arrest report for a protest he had in Texas last year.

https://s.brettabel.com/files/Russell-Z ... ./20-3.pdf
North-land: of the family 10

UCC 1-106 Plural is Singular, Singular is Plural.

User avatar
arayder
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:06 am

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#34

Post by arayder » Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:43 pm

I read Springer's incident report and I have to ask what he thought he was going to uncover with his attempt to film?

It reminds me of the time Seim went into a county office building and tried to film a bunch of office workers who were most likely processing property tax checks and logging in dog licenses. Look out, Bob Woodward, Gavvy's on the case.

Oh, here's an oldie but a goodie showing a guy who took it all too far:

“Protecting our border is critical and the lack of accountability we see there is criminal. First we institute real security. We secure the border. Next we don't hand out amnesty to illegals. It's time bring order to the border.” -Gavin Seim

User avatar
arayder
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:06 am

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#35

Post by arayder » Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:27 am

Joshua Martinez, accompanied by James Springer, makes a youtube in which he makes up law and misrepresents what is happening, right before his eyes, during a simple traffic stop.

He, in effect, claims that there should be a jury trial right there on the street. Worse then that early in the video he suggests that the cops will tow the car off or maybe even shoot the driver only to film the car leaving after, presumably, getting a citation.

Earth to Joshua: There is nothing there.

Copwatch in Las Vegas with James Freeman

“Protecting our border is critical and the lack of accountability we see there is criminal. First we institute real security. We secure the border. Next we don't hand out amnesty to illegals. It's time bring order to the border.” -Gavin Seim

Jeffrey
Posts: 1032
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#36

Post by Jeffrey » Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:25 am

I thought Josh was in jail. Are these old videos?

Grumpy Old Guy
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:24 am
Occupation: Retired, unemployed, never a lawyer

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#37

Post by Grumpy Old Guy » Sat Mar 23, 2019 12:58 pm

If they were truly free, they would have exercised their “right to travel” by ignoring the red light and running over to observe.

User avatar
scirreeve
Posts: 3488
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:51 am

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#38

Post by scirreeve » Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:25 pm

Jeffrey wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:25 am
I thought Josh was in jail. Are these old videos?
He was released on March 6. I haven't heard about him being back in jail but it is a possibility for sure.

User avatar
arayder
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:06 am

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#39

Post by arayder » Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:00 pm

It seems to me that the activities of Martinez/Springer crowd are limited to following the police around and unwittingly videoing them doing exactly what they they are supposed to be doing.

This crew doesn’t seem to realize that their videos of cops calmly and politely doing their jobs do as much to validate the police as might any blue line advocate.

I can’t figure out if these guys are just in love with their cameras and their own voices, or simply can’t find real corruption to focus on. My guess is that these boys are attention starved snowflakes who don’t feel right unless they get a youtube out every few days.

It’s not like there aren’t real, documented cases of illegal and unprofessional policing to address. I think the reality is that the crew is made up of ineffectual poot-nerds who can’t identify problems much less solve them.
“Protecting our border is critical and the lack of accountability we see there is criminal. First we institute real security. We secure the border. Next we don't hand out amnesty to illegals. It's time bring order to the border.” -Gavin Seim

User avatar
mmmirele
Posts: 2456
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:17 pm
Location: Xenu's Red Mountain Trap

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#40

Post by mmmirele » Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:07 pm

arayder wrote:
Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:43 pm
I read Springer's incident report and I have to ask what he thought he was going to uncover with his attempt to film?

It reminds me of the time Seim went into a county office building and tried to film a bunch of office workers who were most likely processing property tax checks and logging in dog licenses. Look out, Bob Woodward, Gavvy's on the case.

Oh, here's an oldie but a goodie showing a guy who took it all too far:

Yeah, P. Barnes, the avatar of r/AmIBeingDetained on Reddit.

User avatar
arayder
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 9:06 am

Re: The Cult of Victimhood

#41

Post by arayder » Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:46 pm

Here's a video of Bao (of the trio that included Josh Martinez and James Springer in the OP of this thread) getting himself arrested for interfering with the cops while they cordon off an area*. He apparently has a couple of 1st amendment auditor types with him.

During the video you a can hear him, or another kook, trying to order the cops to leave. At about 8:45 it all goes bad for Bao when he claims a female cop touched him. You may recall that in the video in the OP Bao, Martinez and Springer made jokes about handcuffing a female police officer with her own cuffs and raping her.

*Bao Arrested in Miami


If you go through Bao's Youtubes you can see several instances in which he gets into it with female figures of authority.

Could it be Bao has a mommy problem?
“Protecting our border is critical and the lack of accountability we see there is criminal. First we institute real security. We secure the border. Next we don't hand out amnesty to illegals. It's time bring order to the border.” -Gavin Seim

Post Reply

Return to “Sovereign Citizens, Private Militias, and Citizen Grand Juries”