General Categories > Information Arsenal
Internet hackers understand the 2A
GreyGeek:
Anonymous is a group of hackers whose members reside in various countries around the world. Some, by their words and actions appear to be highly trained in computers and networks, perhaps even professionally trained and holding advanced degrees. Others appear to be self-taught but bright individuals. Some are just script copiers working out of their bedroom at home or in mommy's basement. Some have been caught, and under government pressure to avoid threats of outrageous sentences and fines they turn on those other hackers whose identities they know. I suspect that eventually government hackers will infiltrate them and bring down whom they can, but others will just rise up. All in all, they are just mischief to most sites. Some of their actions are no different than those of the Journal News, which released the names and addresses of CCW permit holders.
However, their citation of "16 Am jur 2d sec 117 2d sec 256" as proof for their claim that no one has to obey unconstitutional laws is a misunderstanding of what the American Jurisprudence is. Here is an explanation:
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/tutorials/second/slides/upload/sec-sources-4.pdf
Briefly, it is an encyclopedia of American law, not the law itself. Lawyers use it to begin their overview of a case and follow the references it cites to actual case law. You can buy the latest set of volumes of Amjur from Thomas Ruters WESTLAW store:
http://store.westlaw.com/american-jurisprudence-2d/2074/13504006/productdetail
It will set you back a mere $11,888.
As far as Anonymous' claim, their citation is a reference to other laws, like the following decisions:
--- Quote ---All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803).
--- End quote ---
which is getting back to the time of the Framers of the Constitution. More recently:
--- Quote ---RELYING ON SUPREME COURT IS NOT A CRIME. Degrees of negligence give rise in the tax system to civil penalties. The requirement of an offense committed "willfully" is not met therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith on a prior decision of this court. United States vs. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263-263-264 (1927) Holmes J. .
STATES MUST OBEY CONSTITUTION. The United States Supreme Court stated further that all rights and safeguards contained in the first eight amendments to the federal constitution are equally applicable in every State criminal action, "because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law." William Malloy vs. Patrick J. Jogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S. Ct. 1489, argued Mar 5, 1964, decided June 15, 1964.
We find it intolerable that one constitutional right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another. Simmons vs. U.S. 390, U.S. 389 (1968)
The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime. Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitution rights. Sherar vs. Cullen 481 F 2D 946, (1973)
--- End quote ---
However, as far as the "Am Jur 16 2d sec 117 2d sec 256" quote is concerned I don't have a set of the AmJur and I haven't been able to find a source on the Internet so far which gives nothing more than that citation as proof of the claim that "unconstitutional laws do not have to be obeyed". IOW, no direct citation of US law. Besides, even if a law is unquestionably unconstitutional, how will you defend yourself when you are prosecuted for breaking it? The 2nd Amendment says that the Right to bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED, but over the last century at both the state and federal level it has been infringed so much as to be meaningless, and all in the name of "safety and security" but we have less of either. The 1st Amendment, for all practical purposes, is null and void.
Ronvandyn:
I'm not real comfortable with having a group of internet thugs claim to support our side of the discussion. For the most part these people are criminals and not persons I would associate with on either a personal or professional level.
OTOH, I agree in principal with what the video states. But I hold that the messenger is AS important as the messenger in this case, as it is in many cases. I feel that this group could cause our pro-gun agenda far more harm than good if they use their normal methods of "protest".
Ron
CitizenClark:
.
JimP:
--- Quote ---OTOH, I agree in principal with what the video states.
--- End quote ---
Those pesky principles so complicate life, do they not?
skydve76:
a buncha geeks without girlfriends are not going to to much to help our cause by shutting down websites.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version