[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin Methylene Blue Benefits Another Mossad War Crime 80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks Digital Prison in the Making? In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA 6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike I heard libs might block some streets. 🤣 Jimmy Dore: What’s Being Said On Israeli TV Will BLOW YOUR MIND!

All is Vanity
See other All is Vanity Articles

Title: Go See V for Vendetta - 4 stars
Source: Mehitable
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 18, 2006
Author: Mehitable Storm
Post Date: 2006-03-18 23:42:56 by mehitable
Keywords: Vendetta, stars
Views: 1271
Comments: 46

We went to see it tonight and had a split reaction - I thought it was one of the greatest, most profound movies I've seen in years. Extremely powerful and thoughtful. V depicts very clearly both how a totalitarian state comes about and what is required to bring it down - and what the stakes might be for individuals who attempt it. It's kind of like the next logical progression for the Wachowskis after the Matrix series. Once you realize you're in the Matrix, how do you break free? V tells me that the most important thing is to overcome your own fear.

There are so many memorable scenes and lines in this movie, I couldn't go through them all. One of the most striking to me was the question that the police captain asks his lieutenant about whether he'd want to know if the government was behind comitting terrible crimes against its own people. This movie may have a 20 year old graphic novel as its basis, but it's really as fresh as our daily headlines.

I said split reaction as my boyfriend (who is faily apolitical) found it too talky and repetitive. He was bored. Not his cup of tea. But for those who enjoy politics, and believe that there is no more important topic in America today, I would say - go see V and tell everyone you know to go as well.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 43.

#1. To: mehitable (#0)

Everyone whose seen it that I've read so far has really enjoyed it... I seldom go to see movies .. this might be one time I'll break the pattern.

Zipporah  posted on  2006-03-18   23:48:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I think you'll find it, if nothing else, extremely interesting. I found it very entertaining as well as meaningful, but I think it might frighten a lot of people as well. The central message is about the ability and NECESSITY for ordinary people to rebel against dictatorships. The "terrorism" that V engages in is really symbolic - no one is intentionally killed in his destruction of the 2 govt buildings - he blows them up at night. It's the beginning and end to his war against the govt that tried to destroy him, and that destoys so many innocent people daily.

Those who object to a depiction and endorsement of rebellion against tyranny would do well to remember that our own country started that way. I believe it was Jefferson who said that a little rebellion now and then was a good thing. I agree - the govt should fear the people, not the other way around.

The final revolt of the ordinary people against their govt reminds me of how the various totalitarian govts of Eastern Europe collapsed because their peope simply refused to support them any longer. It's more complicated than that, of course - it always is. But how long can any govt survive the lack of support of its citizens - including ours?

mehitable  posted on  2006-03-18   23:57:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The central message is about the ability and NECESSITY for ordinary people to rebel against dictatorships. The "terrorism" that V engages in is really symbolic - no one is intentionally killed in his destruction of the 2 govt buildings - he blows them up at night. It's the beginning and end to his war against the govt that tried to destroy him, and that destoys so many innocent people daily.

Those who object to a depiction and endorsement of rebellion against tyranny would do well to remember that our own country started that way. I believe it was Jefferson who said that a little rebellion now and then was a good thing. I agree - the govt should fear the people, not the other way around.

Agreed!

I think people need to be frightened out of their complacency.. something needs to wake them up..

Zipporah  posted on  2006-03-19   0:03:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You have to SCARE the man out of the sheep.

Quite frankly I see the "It's too late" and the "We can't do anything." attitude that even affects this and other Constitutionalist and Patriot forums as a reminder that the "Sheeple" mode can even be found amongst US occasionally.

Two boxes still remain OPEN to use and one of them, THE JURY BOX still allows for non violent action against the toatlitarian wannabees.

Coral Snake  posted on  2006-03-19   0:20:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Two boxes still remain OPEN to use and one of them, THE JURY BOX still allows for non violent action against the toatlitarian wannabees.

Wrong. Think again.

by Francis Steffan
http:// TheAmericanVoice.com
editor@theamericanvoice.com

Carol Asher is a 66-year old retired nun and school teacher who volunteers tirelessly as an assistant to Retired Phoenix, Arizona Police Officer Jack McLamb. Her energies are siphoned into the organization, Aid & Abet Police & Military organization. As a hard worker and a caring person who strives to help others, she is now facing the possibility of serving 14 years in prison.

What could a retired nun and school teacher possibly do to warrant fourteen years in prison?.

She committed what must be considered near blasphemy among American Judges these days; in the privacy and sanctity of the jury deliberation room she may have told the other jurors that ultimately, she answered to a Higher Authority than the judge.

In retribution for Carols alleged blasphemy against a wannabe god of the Idaho judiciary, she has been charged by Lawrence G. Wasden, who is the Idaho Attorney General; by Stephen A. Bywater, who is Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Criminal Division and by Justin D. Whatcott, who is Deputy Attorney General-- all of whom pretend to work for the people of the state of Idaho. They have charged her with felony perjury for doing her duty as a juror within the confidentiality of the jury deliberation room.

Am I Serious?? Sadly YES.

Here are some facts as we have them that have led to this point:.

A man was stopped for a traffic infraction while driving a company owned truck and during the stop as found to have an outstanding warrant against him. He locked the company vehicle as he was to be arrested for the warrant. The Officers decided to have the vehicle impounded and then took the keys away from him, unlocked the vehicle and conducted an "inventory search," which is a necessary device to shield the impounding department from being sued for stealing people’s things out of their car or, for less credible reasons as “safety purposes.” During the inventory search, a small amount of an illegal drug was allegedly discovered within the company vehicle.

Carol Usher was summoned for jury duty and selected to sit on the case described above. She listened to the evidence of the case and conscientiously the facts, and American jurisprudence of the accused being innocent until the State can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the prosecutor and judge must have considered this case, to be a slam- dunk, young-male-minority drug conviction. Carol conducted herself as a thinking, attentive, and conscientious juror, who did her best to pay attention to all the facts so as render a just verdict. She was one of four jurors who voted "not guilty." So why, then is she the only one being prosecuted?

It has been reported to The American Voice that during deliberation Carol had sent a note to the judge asking to clarify how the warrantless search was valid, since it had not been based on any probable cause of any crime being committed but under the pretext of inventorying the contents of the locked company vehicle could muster constitutional validity.

In reply, the judge responded that he, the prosecutor, and the defense attorney had decided in the Judge’s chambers that the search was lawful.

Deliberation continued but Carol had additional difficulties identifying any evidence that actually tied the accused to the illegal drugs. As mentioned previously, the accused was driving a company vehicle that had been driven by others within the company prior to the accused's use of it. The prosecution also failed to produce any evidence of the accused's fingerprints on the bag containing the alleged illegal drugs. As Carol discussed this lack of evidence with her fellow jurors within the supposed sanctity and privacy of the jury deliberation chamber she reportedly mentioned to her fellow jurors that she still had a problem with the constitutionality of the search in addition to the lack of evidence produced by the prosecution.

The jury foreman jumped up and told Carol that she shouldn't even think about the constitutionality of the search because the judge had already decided that it was lawful. It is further reported that Carol's reply to him was that she answers to a higher authority than the Judge.

At the end of their deliberation, Carol and three other jurors had decided that the evidence against the accused left reasonable doubt of the his guilt and, therefore, he was acquitted.

Another juror, perhaps unhappy that Carol honestly said what was on her mind, and looking for favor with the local authorities or simply possessing a hatred of God and justice, went to the prosecuting attorney and reported details of the jury deliberation.

Apparently in Idaho, and perhaps where you live also, the court requires jurors to sign, under penalty of perjury, that they will decide a case based on the facts. To some this may not read so bad at first glance; however, what this accomplishes is to make a jury impotent. For instance, it is a fact that illegal drugs were found within a vehicle, so search was conducted. But if the search was not lawful, then the evidence cannot be used; likewise, if a search is lawful, then the evidence can be used. Minus any other considerations, the guilt or innocence of the crime of illegal drugs being within the vehicle is determined by a single decision concerning the lawfulness of the search. If this single decision is only the purview of a judge and a jury must yield to the judges, well, then there is no decision left for the jury to make and they are a rubber stamp for the will of the state's judge.

This is arguably an extreme example; however, the decision to allow certain evidence to be considered by the jury and other evidence to be withheld is a common tactic used by prosecutors in league with their fellow state employees that judges use to control the facts that only they think should be presented..

The argument made and advice given by a judge who writes for "The Judges Journal," Frederic B. Rodgers, states ,"The jury oath I give to jurors selected to try the case makes them promise to respect and follow the applicable law in finding the facts. The court's job, not the jury's, is to determine what laws apply." and that "Violating the jury oath may subject you to prosecution for perjury."

One must ask where exactly have judges developed this notion that it is the "courts" -- actually meaning then, the Judge’s--prerogative to decide what a law written and defined by the legislature actually means. One would think that a law so complicated and not understandable to an average jurist would be by definition void. "Courts" have ruled that ignorance of the law is supposedly no defense; however, when ones becomes a jurist, the "court" apparently declares them incompetent and tells them what the law is. This appears to be a very self severing double standard.

Nevertheless, you have a decision to make. What kind of nation do you want to live in? What kind of nation do you want your children to inherit? Will it be one where probate judges turn disabled men and women into chattel to be destroyed at their will alone? Will it be one where members of the jury are required to sign an oath under penalties of perjury to only rule according to a judge’s OPINION of what a law means? Will it be one where judges (Judge Jose Cabranes, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) sink to the level of criticizing the decisions of Northern Juries prior to the Civil War refusing to convict slaves on escape charges that may have forced their return to their owners?

Today’s judges would have one believe that unrestrained power of the Jury will be the destruction of society and the ringing in of anarchy. Perhaps the judges of King George felt the same? The founders of this nation and our long standing Supreme Court rulings indicate otherwise. Whatever your view is of the men who founded this nation, one thing seems certain: They realized that there is a difference between being guided by "feelings" and being guided by conscience and they trusted the Jury.

"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." - John Jay, 1st Chief Justice United States supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts." -Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796, Signer of the unanimous Declaration

The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." - Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided." - Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941

"The pages of history shine on instance of the jury's exercise of its prerogative to disregard instructions of the judge..." -U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 113, 1139, (1972)

"You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy." - (State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall 1)

"The JURY has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to aquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." -U.S.vs Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139, (1972)

"The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislative and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch." -Thomas Jefferson

If every juror who serves on a jury must guard his or her tongue in the privacy of the jury deliberation room, fearful of making a statement which will be reported to the prosecutor or the defense attorney or judge by some jury snitch, then what happened to the privacy, the sanctity, and the confidentiality of jury deliberations?

Have we gone back to a time in this land where jurors will be punished by the "court" for refusing to render a verdict according to the demands of the government, when jurors will be punished if they refuse to ignore their conscience and blindly accept the orders of the judge as the supreme law of the land? Have we reached a time when to hold the moral and religious reservations held by the majority of the people in this country- those reservations which allow us all to consult our own conscience, to rely upon our own guiding principles and religious teachings - must be ignored, set aside?

In a time when there is credible evidence of widespread election rigging and blatant bribery, now called lobbying, and an unprecedented level of impropriety and influence of special interest groups within government, not always American groups either, and a frightening shift in government policy towards the good of corporate interests and away from the interests of the people of the several States of the union we as the People need to hold on to and defend our right to be impartial jurists free to decide what is just by the law, the facts and our conscience.

Jurors, as the direct representatives of the people, hold no personal agenda during any trial and most certainly not the government's agenda. Let us not forget that the prosecutors, judges, arresting officers -- and the forensic investigators in most cases -- are all a part of, and receive their paychecks from, government, with personal power bases to build and personal careers to protect through the "productivity" of successful prosecutions resulting in convictions. Jurors have no such stake in the outcome, and are in fact, the only truly objective individuals in the courtroom.

Juries were intended as the protectors against government's power-hungry, expansion, and the resultant rise of tyranny. The primary role of our jurors remains that or serving as an independent body to protect private citizens from dangerous, unconstitutional government laws and actions. Many existing laws erode and deny the rights of the people. Jurors protect against tyranny by refusing to convict harmless people. Juries are the last peaceful defense of our civil liberties.

Is this a failure of government employees of the state of Idaho to understand the role of the juror and the law? Or is our system of justice failing, which is a failing of our society as a whole?

It certainly isn't a failure on the part of Carol Asher who stood up and did her duty of legitimately exercising her rights of reason and conscience.

All thinking people should rise to her defense, in righteous indignation, and in outrage over the arrogant, despotic actions of state Attorney-General Wasden, and his staff, all of whom are complicit in an official conspiracy to deny God given rights, in defiant opposition to the clear dictates of our Constitution and long standing American jurisprudence. Because if we do not stand up for Carol Asher now….we are all NEXT.

We thank http://www.fija .org for their contributions to this effort, and encourage you to visit their website

Esso  posted on  2006-03-19   9:30:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This is an excellent example of how government tyranny actually affects ORDINARY people. The problem with telling most people that they live under an increasingly totalitarian govt is....most of them don't mind. They don't mind because they don't see that it would affect them at all. After all, if you don't do anything "wrong", nothing will happen to you..,right? This is one of the few problems I have with the movie V - the section where they show how the new dictatorship starts stamping out homosexuals. While that actually DOES happen in many dictatorships, most people don't care as they don't care for homos anyway and they don't think it affects them. I would not have chosen this group to show the effects of dictatorship, but something that affects an ordinary family like those watching the TV.

This is a good example of how governmental tyranny can affect an ordinary person through a seemingly ordinary event - serving on a jury. Who on earth would expect this juror to be facing a sentence of her own simply for questioning what a judge thinks and having her own (valid) opinion about a legal case she has been assigned to?

mehitable  posted on  2006-03-19   9:46:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Who on earth would expect this juror to be facing a sentence of her own simply for questioning what a judge thinks and having her own (valid) opinion about a legal case she has been assigned to?

I would. I came to within a hair's breadth of going to jail because during voir dire (jury selection) I told the judge and prosecutor that I refused to convict a person on the basis of a law that shouldn't be on the books.

That, of course, sent the prosecuting attorney (a snotty little bitch) into a tizzy, who ran up to the judge's bench, flailing her arms about, and loudly demanded that I be incarcerated for contempt of court.

The defense attorney argued that I should be allowed to serve.

The judge dismissed me with a warning that in the future I should learn to follow instructions or face harsh consequences.

Esso  posted on  2006-03-19   10:20:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The current legal scam is scared witless of a fully informed juror.

Good job.

Lod  posted on  2006-03-19   15:58:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Tom Laughlin's latest Billy Jack movie information. Good stuff there.

Lod  posted on  2006-03-19   16:09:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 43.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 43.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]