1 I think he should treated exactly the same way the leftists who constantly dreamed of Bush being shot were treated.

2 nitpicking but heres his quote

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. "

The fact that he says WILL makes it seem like something that he intends to happen

If he had chosen the word COULD or WOULD then he would have kept it as speculation. Id argue that because of his use of "will" then it is a threat that he hoped to carry out

3 This is one time, perhaps the only time, when I'd be interested in what noted Civil Rights attorney and former Matthew Hale attorney Glenn(s) Green(s)wald has to say.

0

4 I'm no lawyer, but common sense says this guy's WAY out of line.

I have no problem with calling his statements a threat.

5

I think he should treated exactly the same way the leftists who constantly dreamed of Bush being shot were treated.

Courted by the Democrat Party?

6 If he had said that they deserved to get cancer, and they got it, would he be arrested?  Legally, this is not a threat.  It is a WISH.

7 If not a threat, at least incitement.

8 Isn't this akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

9 6 If he had said that they deserved to get cancer, and they got it, would he be arrested?  Legally, this is not a threat.  It is a WISH.

Didn't Pat Robertson do that a few years ago with some of the SCOTUS judges?  People criticized, but no legal actions were taken.

10

It's a threat to their life and liberty.  Something this person clearly does not understand.  As such, he should be prosecuted and punished in as severe a manner as the law allows.

I don't care who these judges are, or what their views on the second amendment are or anything else on which they may have ruled.  We don't threaten people over politics.  Clear?  I sincerely hope so. 

11 Nobody got shot, so how I don't see can be charged with inciting violence when no one got incited.  I think he's a nutcase, an asshole, and a dipshit.  I also think he's probably on solid First Amendment ground.

12 If that's the new standard, there's a lot of bloggers and commenters from both ideologies that need to be arraigned.

Of course, with the highest incarceration rate on the planet, I suppose we oughta go right ahead and make the record impossible to beat...

Beyond Conspiracy: Police State America.

You're guilty before you commit the crime. ...and protesters as well as anyone else who seeks a redress of grievances from the government is a terrorist in disguise.

Of course, whether left or right, Democrat or Republican, it's only legitimate and legal free speech if it's your own ideology that's being promoted. Anything else is hate speech or unpatriotic.

13 Isn't this akin to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

Posted by: Rich at June 25, 2009 02:27 PM (1Nyhr)

Sure.  But that old saw assumes that a stampede actually happens.  In this case, no stampede.

14 So does this mean the FBI, or maybe the CIA, will arrest Iran's Ahmadinejad or NK's Kim Jong-il?

Of the three I'm not at all worried about Turner or his threats. Ahmadinejad and Il? Yeah, I'm concerned.

15 Sounds like incitement to me. It's like standing up in front of a crowd and urging it to rush the courthouse. No First Amendment issue, IMHO.

16

Saying someone deserves to be killed is a far cry from saying I'm going to kill them. I don't know who this person is but I agree that many of our political prostitutes and criminals in DC and throughout the nation have earned a spot on the gallows.

Lets not forget it is their direct dereliction of duty, which has cost thousands of American citizens their lives. I'm refering to their refusal to uphold their oath of office and protect this nations sovereignty and Constitution.

As far as I'm concerned this is a civil rights violation and the man arrested should sue every two-legged govt rodent that had any participation in this.

17

I think the words "white" "blogger" and "radio host" are perfect fodder for continued media assaults on the sensibilities.

Look at the Sanford thing.  Key word or phrase: "Republican". 

Thing is, with Sanford I think he was brought down as an object lesson for weak-kneed democrats.  Cap-and-screw and national colonoscopy care need more votes, nothing like a demonstration of what could happen to you if you don't toe the party line, eh fellow democrats?

As far as "is the arrest and are the charges valid", what Wiserbud said works for me.  Toss in the people who openly called for the assasination of President Bush too though, you gotta count them sweethearts.

18

I'm surprised this guy hasn't been lynched yet, I'm familiar w/the town he is from in north jersey. Bayonne is a very ethnically diverse city, he must barricade himself in his mother's basement on the weekends.  I think Hannity banned him from his show as well.  Total whack-job.

 

 

19 We don't threaten people over politics.

Certainly not in Philadelphia, or around Union halls.

20 Taken all of the quotes and items as a whole, I think it is quite sufficient for probable cause purposes, and that a reasonable jury *could* conclude that he meant his communications as a threat/incitement. So, I think he gets to plead his case to a jury.

21 Only leftwing playwrights and screenwriters openly advocating killing the POTUS (if he's a Republican) are allowed to say what Turner said.

22 I'm sorry, coupling those statements with publishing personal addresses and layouts of the courtroom and such goes way beyond "just talking here, Boss."

Applying the pornography standard, I know incitement to murder when I hear it, and this is it.

Separately, and here we get into much shakier ground, it is worthwhile to consider his audience. I'm going to assume that they are relatively better armed, motivated, and competent than the general population, increasing the likelihood of someone "taking the hint."

Conversely, if Hal's radio station were broadcasting to an old age home, I don't think anyone would worry.

23 What are the chances he will receive a fair shake in front of a......judge?

I suppose threats are in the mind of the threatened.  What is perceived is not always what was conveyed.  Thats what the courtroom is supposed to settle.  However, where is he going to find a totally unbiased judge to rule on a threat against judges?

24 "No bail for blogger accused of threatening judges"

25

I think he crossed the line.  At least enough to be arrested.  Arrested is not convicted.

I think appropriate action was taken and properly justified.

We've all got to play by da' Rules.  I can't bear the thought of being a hyprocrite on this.  If it was a lefty saying the same thing, I would want his ass arrested as well.

26 We're releasing terrorists but this guy gets arrested. This is such a stupid fucking nation.

27

he threatened to kill three federal appellate judges in Chicago.

It's pretty clear that he didn't threaten to kill them. By this standard half the left should be in jail for the things they said about Bush.

 

Mind you, I've noticed that judges are a lot more touchy about this sort of thing where they are concerned than they are if similar statements are made about non-judges.

28

If someone wrote that about me, I would take it as a threat.

29 He should have made hip ironic quips that A-Rod would assrape them on the pitchers mound at Yankee Stadium during the 7th inning stretch.

30

I'm not suggesting it doesn't happen, genius, just that it shouldn't. 

Go ahead and argue that the left does it all the time, or that Bush got threatened on radio shows and blogs while he was in office.  Find the people who did so, and prosecute them too. 

31

Looking at the form that was given to the judge it looks like he had little recourse because the FBI agent swore that this guy issued a death threat. If the quote is accurate though then he did NOT issue a threat and the FBI agent is guilty of a “false swearing”.  

 

He should have been charged with incitement to kill or murder.

32

There's only one solution to this dilemma.

Hang all the lawyers, every damn one!

(well except for my wife of course because what other woman would get within two miles of me naked?)

33 What is up at the AP?  This is the headline: ": "No bail for blogger accused of threatening judges" and then this is the last sentence:  "Turner's attorney, Michael Orozco, said he will still try to get Turner released on bail."

34 How come they are transferring the guy to Chicago?

35

He then posted the judges' pictures, phone numbers, work addresses, and courtroom numbers as well as a map of the courthouse with the "anti-truck-bomb" pylons highlighted.

Then the degenerates that made a movie about assassinating Bush, and Randi Rhodes that played sounds of gunshots when Bush was speaking, should all be arrested. Let fascism reign.

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

- Benito Mussolini

36 Um, how often do we talk about the tree of liberty around here?  Is making that reference now going to be a death threat and a bannable offense?  You might as well tell us now so we know to watch what we say as a particular administration containing no specific people of a completely unknown party continues driving the country into the ground.

37

 If it was a lefty saying the same thing, I would want his ass arrested as well.

I wouldn't. I never called for them to be arrested for this sort of crap when they did it/do it.

38 I'm not suggesting it doesn't happen, genius, just that it shouldn't.

While I appreciate your admiration of my intellect, you said " We don't threaten people over politics."  That statement is bullshit.  (That's a genius word).  Whether it should or shouldn't happen is a different issue.  In reality, threats are a part of politics.  Ask the Soviet General who was told by Zbigniew Brzinski that if USSR invade W. Europe in the morning, said General's atoms would be floating over the N. Pacific by mid-afternoon.

39 The 1st Amendment does not protect this kind of speech, especially where public officials are involved.  Period.  Google it.

40 I think the FBI did the right thing, this kind of talk cannot be allowed to go without action, that's exactly what stirs up loonies to do horrible things.

41 Go ahead and argue that the left does it all the time, or that Bush got threatened on radio shows and blogs while he was in office.  Find the people who did so, and prosecute them too.

Not hard to find, try the Kodak Theater in Hollywood on Oscar night, and wherever the Tony Awards in NYC are being held this year

42

The 1st Amendment does not protect this kind of speech, especially where public officials are involved.

The First Amendment says in total - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So you are full of it.

43

Crossed the line. I think the statement is exactly equivalent to Henry II's purported "Will no-one rid me of this troublesome priest?" that left Thomas Becket dead.

Yes, I know lefty twits have mused on the death of W, but I don't think any of them issued instructions and maps.

44

this kind of talk cannot be allowed to go without action

You people are in the wrong party. You want to criminalize speech, the Dems will be happy to have you.

45 He did say "be killed" which constitutes threat to me. 

If he'd said "deserve to die" it'd be different, even if he'd intended a threat in his mind. 

46 (stipulation that Turner is a piece of shit, etc)

Well, a lot of radical muslims in this country better be going to jail soon. They can start with that piece of shit in NC that My Pet Jawa outed. And let's not forget all the scumbags who have threatened Rusty, I'm pretty sure some were in the US.

BTW-I've wished in similar language that terrorists be killed (including a US citizen...Adam Gadahn). Do I face prosecution?

Turner couched it language of what he would like to see, what he thinks should happen and what he hopes happens but I didn't see where he said he would do it. It's a fine line but the law is all about fine lines.

(restipulate what a piece of shit Turner is)

47 I doubt you can get a conviction for threatening, but incitement? Oh yeah. It wasn't an offhand comment. It was followed with research and information clearly designed to enable someone to conduct an assassination.

I'd be interested in hearing our resident lawyers discuss the applicable statute and its finer points.

48 Now that you mention it, I am a bit parched.

49

I know lefty twits have mused on the death of W, but I don't think any of them issued instructions and maps.

 

Yeah, because the White House is in a secret location.

50 Given some of the statements quoted from this guy's blog, including the statements where he claims to have "warned" judges in the past, I think the complaint does state a claim that should be answered.  Had he just said that the three in Chicago "deserved to die," he'd have been in the clear.

Whether the AUSA can tie a bunch of random statements together to convince a jury that this blogger was either inciting people to kill federal judges or was conspiring to do so is a totally different (and much harder) question.

51 I doubt you can get a conviction for threatening, but incitement? Oh yeah.

Does an act have to be committed for incitement to apply or is the making of statements sufficient?

52 The First Amendment says in total - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unfortunately for you the 1st Amendment CASELAW on the subject says YOU'RE full of it.

53

I've wished in similar language that terrorists be killed (including a US citizen...Adam Gadahn). Do I face prosecution?

I'm starting to wonder how long before excerpting the Declaration of Independence gets us a vist from the FBI.

 

54 flenser, we all know the wording of the 1st Amendment here. But most of us also know that our law has a strong influence from English common law. There has never been a period in our nation where there wasn't an expectation that incitement to violence would go unpunished.

55 Unfortunately for you the 1st Amendment CASELAW on the subject says YOU'RE full of it.

Cite, please.

56 Ask the Soviet General who was told by Zbigniew Brzinski that if USSR invade W. Europe in the morning, said General's atoms would be floating over the N. Pacific by mid-afternoon.

International diplomacy and threats from an individual are not comparable. To conflate the two doesn't help your argument.

57

Like Republican govenors, white supremacists are held to a higer standard.

 

58

The FBI should loiter around bars in LA from midnight to 2 am. They'll be able to arrest hundreds each night for far more egregious real threats.

This is what a backward nation of imbeciles we've become: N. Korea threatens us with nuclear war and the govt assclowns yawn. This guy says what I would wager many Americans believe and he's arrested.

59

Stuff like this the neo-nazi leaders spouted, hoping to incite a "lone wolf" but with no direct trail from the leader to the shooter.

I think one radio talk show host was murdered and the suspicion was that it was a lone-wolf op.  Vic's name, iirc, was Berg, possibly. There were rumors that the shooter, since executed, hinted at bad stuff to follow pretty quickly.  McVeigh came along not too much later. 

It's a tricky proposition when you consider the lone-wolf angle.  But the most important thing is to either go after all of them, or none of them.  Which the last eight years shows us isn't ever going to happen.

60 Does an act have to be committed for incitement to apply or is the making of statements sufficient?

Drew, that's why I asked for input from the legal beagles.

But here's a thought, is there a conspiracy clause to the statute? If anyone helped him research the locations of the judges, wouldn't that be an act in furtherance of a conspiracy?

61

Unfortunately for you the 1st Amendment CASELAW

Fuck the 1st Amendment CASELAW. The vast majority of it is in blatant violation of the First Amendment.

At the end of the day we all have to chose whether to follow the Constitution or the courts.

62

Wait, didn't Gabe just say that this guys deserves to die from getting bashed in the noggin? What's the difference?

People publish addresses and phone numbers all the time so people can call and complain to congresspeople and judges. Obviously, this guy is a few bricks shy of a lot of bricks. But they're not going after him because anyone was actually incited to do anything or because he was even trying to incite anyone in this case. They are saying he is guilty of assault and threats. They're going after him to get him to stop saying what he's saying. The very fact that he is speaking is what is considered to be an "assault" and a "threat." But what he said is no more a threat than what Gabe said, and it's not right to do this. Political speech for me and not for thee.

63 The 1st Amendment does not protect this kind of speech, especially where public officials are involved.  Period.  Google it.

S'funny, I don't remember the trolls being so adamant and knowledgeable about the restrictions in the First Amendment when others were calling for the killing of GWB.

I certainly don't remember Randi Rhodes getting treated arrested after t his little stupid remark:

Comparing Bush and his family to the Corleones of “Godfather” fame, Air America host Randi Rhodes reportedly unleashed this zinger during her Monday night broadcast: “Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. ”

Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot.

In “Godfather II,” Fredo Corleone is executed by brother Michael at the end of the film.

Jesusland = erg?  And if not, it's sure is as stupid as erg.

64

BTW, the controlling case for this is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942.

65 So, hypothetically, what do people think is the correct response if the Federal government tries to confiscate all guns?

66 Cite please

"The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Brandenburg v Ohio

67 So, hypothetically, what do people think is the correct response if the Federal government tries to confiscate all guns?

My plan?  Give them the two they know about and keep the others.

68 Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2009 02:54 PM (xwSE0)

A case like this is built on the idea of putting a lot of little and individually legal pieces together to make something look illegal.

Helping someone research a persons address isn't a conspiracy unless there's some sort of agreement to do an illegal action.

I didn't see anything in the affidavit from the agent that Turner planned to do anything illegal.

69 and then start the purification.

70 International diplomacy and threats from an individual are not comparable. To conflate the two doesn't help your argument.

Posted by: Iskandar at June 25, 2009 02:53 PM (qk0Ux)

"War is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means." --Von Clausewitz

You're right.  Diplomacy is not politics (which was the reference if you followed thep receding comments.).  And individuals have less rights to expression than nation-states.

Oh, wait.  You're wrong.

71

Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2009 02:52 PM (xwSE0)

But Brad, they're not going after him for incitement in this case. They're going after him for making threats and assault. Not the same thing at all, and this is clearly a matter of First Amendment rights. He didn't do anything assault-y, and even they're admitting (by not charging him with it) that he didn't do anything incite-y.

72 Suppose there was a known child molester who escaped conviction by some technicality. Am I free to post on the web "someone needs to kill this guy" and include a map to his house? I don't think so. I don't care who the subject is, that kind of incitement is actionable.

73

I think one radio talk show host was murdered and the suspicion was that it was a lone-wolf op.  Vic's name, iirc, was Berg, possibly. There were rumors that the shooter, since executed, hinted at bad stuff to follow pretty quickly.  McVeigh came along not too much later. 

McVeigh came along over a decade later, and by then all the members of "the Order" that killed Alan Berg were dead or in prison.

74

 How come they are transferring the guy to Chicago?

For the deep dish pizza.

 

 

75

So, hypothetically, what do people think is the correct response if the Federal government tries to confiscate all guns?

Lock and load?

76

Fuck the 1st Amendment CASELAW. The vast majority of it is in blatant violation of the First Amendment.

At the end of the day we all have to chose whether to follow the Constitution or the courts.

Posted by: flenser at June 25, 2009 02:54 PM (GchHD)

Indeed.  When are people going to realize that John Marshall was wrong in Marbury?  The people and the States are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution.

77

Lock and load?

 

Arrest that man!

78 Try Yates v. United States. The parallel seems closer, as it deals with a challenge to the outlawing of seditious statements.

Short form: Advocating the violent overthrow of the United States /= planning or attempting the overthrow of the United States.

79 "If he had said that they deserved to get cancer, and they got it, would he be arrested?  Legally, this is not a threat.  It is a WISH."

Not a very good analogy. You can't give someone cancer but you sure can blow them up.

80 FYI-I don't think "Jesusland" is erg. The ip tracks back to someplace other than Denver which is erg's normal location.

81 Serious philosophical issue here, the classical liberal theory that the US is based upon includes that the people have an inalienable right to revolution. Keep in mind, many founding fathers believed that the republic could only be maintained by periodic revolutions (hence the "tree of liberty" quote). So, how do we reconcile that right with our political system? Do we simply say that such a right can no longer exist, and classical liberalism is dead? Is the objection here the idea that a government official who the person believes has flouted the law should be subject to vigilante justice, or is the objection that he skipped the tar and feathering stage? (personally, I side with the latter)

As more of our rights are taken away, tied up in bureaucratic red tape, or subject to the whim of Hope and Change, this issue will become more pressing. More people will feel the urge not simply to speak as Turner spoke, but to act as he spoke. So, people need answers to the above, otherwise things can get very messy indeed.

82 I know I'm going out on a limb here but had this guy been banned from LGF and then found Satan? Oh the humanity.

83 Assault doesn't necessarily include any contact. That would be battery.

84

Lets not forget that Obama's goons posted the addresses of AIG bonus recipients, some of which had to hire protection and move due to death threats. And it was Obama himself that said it is he who is standing between the torch/pitchfork crowD and the AIG employees.

Obama should be arrested for inciting violence that materialized unlike what happened with Turner.

85 I'm not "Erg".  My conservatives credentials are impeccable.  I'm a regular on Jawa Report, and I've never been referred to as a "troll" there. 

86 except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

You stepped on your dick with your own quote, Jesusland. How do that douchebag's statements meet either of those two tests? Especially given that nothing happened to the judges he "threatened."

Poor taste is not a crime, thankfully, or I'd be in jail for that bit about having a balloon full of Aleve stuffed up my ass.

87 I didn't see anything in the affidavit from the agent that Turner planned to do anything illegal.

Well, the Brandenberg v. Ohio case would make it sound like the language of incitement would be sufficient to form a crime, whether any violence occurred or not. I'm guessing the judgement of what constitutes sufficient language to be "inciting" would be some form of "reasonable man" which is almost always left to a jury to decide.

88 Unfortunately for you the 1st Amendment CASELAW

And thanks for revealing yourself as part of the problem.  Caselaw is simply the collected opinion of judges and should not be given any weight on Constitutional issues.  If you cannot prove a Constitutional point based solely on the Constitution, then your point is illegitimate and judges who make their rulings in such a flimsy manner have overstepped their authority.

To those of you who are upset at the prospect of violence against judges, I ask how else are these people with lifetime powers to be punished for their efforts to imposes tyranny?  What exactly is your plan to free Americans from the rule by liberal judges?  I suspect you have none.

I would prefer Congress remove judges who make shit up, or base their opinions on European caselaw, but they don't seem to want to bother.

89 So, how do we reconcile that right [to revolution] with our political system?

DING DING DING....  Cognitive dissonance alert!!
In short, we don't.  We're not that country anymore, and that is the problem.  It is also the cassus belli.

90 That's the other thing - "imminent lawless action." It's the difference between standing in the middle of a mob in front of Freddy's Fashion Mart, inciting them to burn it down, and then seeing it burn down immediately.

This asshole's actions don't seem to meet that standard.

91 But the real question is, is Hal Turner a Republican?

92 Poor taste is not a crime, thankfully,

Yeah, because saying a public official "deserves to die" (hint, hint ;-) is merely poor taste.  It's downright rude, I tells ya!

93

I don’t think Yates is applicable in this case since he was not advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. (IMHO)

 

He was advocating someone kill these three judges which is “incitement” and falls under the “fighting words” doctrine.

 

BTW death threats on the internet fall under a new federal law that was passed after that loony woman made all the threats the blog Protein Wisdom.

94

The right to revolution does not mean you can go calling for political assassination any old time. Petition of grievance must occur first. If it fails, all bets are off. But, hysteria aside, nothing concrete has happened-- yet-- to abrogate the Second Amendment. So do we have a legitimate grievance? Not yet.

95 Silence!! I keel you!!

96 Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2009 03:05 PM (xwSE0)
Brad,

You keep coming back to 'incitement' but that's not the charge in the complaint. Title 18, Section 115(a)(1)(b) is. That section says

(a)(1) Whoever -
(B) threatens to assault, kidnap, or murder, a United States
official, a United States judge, a Federal law enforcement
officer, or an official whose killing would be a crime under such
section,
with intent to impede, intimidate, or interfere with such official,
judge, or law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance
of official duties, or with intent to retaliate against such
official, judge, or law enforcement officer on account of the
performance of official duties, shall be punished as provided in
subsection

It's not an incitement count, it's a threat count. They are different things. He's not be accused of incitement. At least not at this point.

97 How's that race transcendence doing?

Blacks in survey say race relations no better with Obama

98 Yeah, because saying a public official "deserves to die" (hint, hint ;-) is merely poor taste. It's downright rude, I tells ya!


I tell trolls here to die in a fire almost daily. That's not a crime.

You're being pretty fucking annoying. That's also not a crime.

The only victim here is your offended sensibilities, but only because you allow it. I don't like what the guy did, either, but part of the compact is that he's allowed to say it. Tough shit for me and you.

99

I pine for the death of keith olberrman, garapaho, cheryl crow, sean penn, danny glover, susan sarandon(and her husand, whats his name), nancy pelosi, harry reed, harry belafonti, megan fox, chris mathews, bwany fwank, henry floorwaxman, al gore, david letterman, madonna, the "vile sodomite" and sponge bob square pants.  

 

100 In short, we don't.  We're not that country anymore,
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 25, 2009 03:08 PM (5aa4z)

We never were that country. Trust me.

101 It's not an incitement count, it's a threat count. They are different things. He's not be accused of incitement. At least not at this point.

Drew, I said above I didn't think a "threat" conviction was likely. It doesn't rise to that level. But I'd be surprised and disappointed if the indictment wasn't amended to include an incitement charge.

102 Yeah I don't know about this one.  He's a racist nutjob asswipe that much is clear.  It's really, really hard to stand up for this guy.  But it's always been my impression that threatening speech is no longer protected if there is some tangible threatening action accompanying said speech.  So "I'm gonna kill you mofo" - fine, but "I'm gonna kill you mofo" while whipping out a gun - not fine.  Posting maps on the Internet?  I don't think that qualifies.  Judge's addresses are public records anyway.

103 But, hysteria aside, nothing concrete has happened-- yet-- to abrogate the Second Amendment.
Reasonable people could disagree on that, but even so, other than quartering troops in my house, they've pretty much pissed on all the others in the Bill of Rights, and gone all Wite-Out on the enumerated powers provisions.

104 Empire,

every blog has a sharmuta, and I think I've already spotted Ace's.  Your tone only discredits you.

105 @8:
No. This theater is really on fire, so it's a good thing.
Also, the Oliver Wendel Holmes quote (Schenk v. US) is" FALSELY shouting fire in a crowded theater." And the act that Holmes considered as that? Publishing a pamphlet during WW I claiming that the military draft was a violation of the 13th Amendment (which it is).

That misquote gets hauled out by every censor wannabe in the US. Don't be one of those.

106 Fuckin puppet

107 It doesn't rise to that level. But I'd be surprised and disappointed if the indictment wasn't amended to include an incitement charge.
Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2009 03:14 PM (xwSE0)

Fair enough but it's still pretty craptastic that they got an arrest warrant on that complaint.

108 What this really means, though, is that happy hour can't get here fast enough.

109 I tell trolls here to die in a fire almost daily. That's not a crime.

No, but if you said they deserve to be killed by arson, and them publish information that could facilitate said arson, that would be wrong.

110 107 was me.

111 It's a threat. He should do serious jail time.

112 Your tone only discredits you.

Posted by: Jesusland at June 25, 2009 03:15 PM (khPxz)

If that's not a Charles Johnson phrase, nothing is.  Uh, you don't know Jeff, obviously.

113 Oliver Wendel Holmes...
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick at June 25, 2009 03:16 PM (g9neE)

Most over rated justice. EVAH.

114 If that's not a Charles Johnson phrase, nothing is.

The same Charles Johson that banned me months ago, you mean?

115 Publishing a pamphlet during WW I claiming that the military draft was a violation of the 13th Amendment (which it is).

I disagree, because the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to raise an army.

116

If you wanted to incite people to murder your selected targets, I don't see what Turner would have done different. 

Also it seems like some are becoming like the left and are starting to make illogical comparisons.

117 The same Charles Johson that banned me months ago, you mean?

Posted by: Jesusland at June 25, 2009 03:19 PM (khPxz)

The same.  You'll be happy to know you sounded just like him.

118 "All I know is ...we finally get to kill some judges"

119

Yes, it is a “threat” count but that is the problem. If the statements above reflect what he actually said and posted then he did not actually threaten the judges. He “advocated” that someone murder them. That is the “incitement” and what he should have been charged with. He is likely to get off on the “threat” thing.

120 The same.  You'll be happy to know you sounded just like him.

And the comments section here sounds just like Charle's too (i.e., an echo chamber).  If that's what I have to look forward to around here, consider me self-banned.

121

If you wanted to incite people to murder your selected targets, I don't see what Turner would have done different. 

Posted by: polynikes at June 25, 2009 03:19 PM (m2CN7)

Amateur.

122 And the comments section here sounds just like Charle's too (i.e., an echo chamber).  If that's what I have to look forward to around here, consider me self-banned.

Posted by: Jesusland at June 25, 2009 03:21 PM (khPxz)

Ass. Door.  All that jazz.

123 You want to criminalize speech, the Dems will be happy to have you.

Lighten up, Flenser. All liberty comes with fences, the fact that we have the right to free speech does not mean we are free to exercise that right in all places and at all times with whatever speech we choose, without any conceivable restriction. That's why we have slander and libel laws. That's why you cannot say certain things without legal action.

124 112 Your tone only discredits you.

Posted by: Jesusland at June 25, 2009 03:15 PM (khPxz)

If that's not a Charles Johnson phrase, nothing is.  Uh, you don't know Jeff, obviously.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at June 25, 2009 03:18 PM (5aa4z)

Nice catch!

125

And the comments section here sounds just like Charle's too (i.e., an echo chamber). 

 

Have you actually read the commens in this comment thread?

126 Wow. Jesusland. Astroturfing takes a new low.

127 Did you catch our world tour and appearances on all those talk shows where we proved to the world that Bush was silencing us?

128

Have you actually read the commens in this comment thread?

Posted by: flenser at June 25, 2009 03:23 PM (GchHD)

No shit.  And this thread's like a knitting circle compared to a lot.

129 I disagree, because the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to raise an army.

The Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to coerce unwilling individuals into forced servitude in the military.  Besides, the Thirteenth Amendment is an amendment to the Constitution.  It changes its original meaning.

130

That's why we have slander and libel laws.

We do?

All liberty comes with fences

It does. And those fences apply to the courts also, else there is no liberty.

131 My conservatives credentials are impeccable.  I'm a regular on Jawa Report, and I've never been referred to as a "troll" there.

I apologize then.  Your holier-than-thou smugness just had a bit of a familiar tone to it.  Like I've seen that kind of personality here many times before. 

The Jesusland didn't help either, funnyman.

132 No shit.  And this thread's like a knitting circle compared to a lot.

Knitting is for wussies!  Real men crochet!

133 104 Empire,

every blog has a sharmuta, and I think I've already spotted Ace's. Your tone only discredits you.

Now THOSE are fighting words. You deserve to have the taste smacked out of your mouth.


No, but if you said they deserve to be killed by arson, and them publish information that could facilitate said arson, that would be wrong.

Undoubtedly it would be wrong. But would it be unlawful?

Could facilitate arson or likely to facilitate arson? Is the likelihood imminent? If someone attacks these judges two years from now, can you still pin the blame on statements someone made last week?

134 125

And the comments section here sounds just like Charle's too (i.e., an echo chamber).

I've looked at Lord Chuckie's comment threads and I've never seen anything on valu-rite, hobos, boobies, zombies, Megyn Kelly, or Brian Dennedy

135 In case nobody has noticed (and they probably have),

None of these holier-than-thou advocates for prosecuting this man have answered why all the death threats, plots and "incitement" of violence by liberals like themselves isn't getting the same treatment.

The Bush death threats being the most obvious and high-profile example of threats against a "public official".

The reason is obvious:  they have no defense against the double-standard and are uncomfortable in facing up to reality.

Two things are indisputable:

One, nobody believes that this man was prone to wishing real violence to be done on his targets any more than millions of liberals all over the country who've done similar to their targets (make of that what you will).

Two, if this standard of "threat" were applied consistently by becoming "caselaw" the tactic would backfire on liberals ten-fold because the amount of mindless vitriol they spew swamps any supposed fantasy of conservative "hate-speech"...

....and, deep down, they know it too.

136 If that's what I have to look forward to around here, consider me self-banned.

Well ... bye.

137 Posted by: chemjeff at June 25, 2009 03:25 PM (sdE7F)

Chemjeff, to engage in a little intentionalism, I think it's highly unlikely that the very same Congress that instituted compulsory military service during the Civil War, turned right around and banned it. Clearly the intent was not to abrogate their powers granted under the Constitution. Now, if you want to argue that the 13th prohibits "mandatory voluntary" service such as so many on the left espouse, I'd certainly support that view.

138 Apostate!

139

Eh. As a writer, I have to come down on the crazy bastard's right to free speech. Saying someone deserves to die is not the same as telling or asking people to make them die. I see a whole lot of cranky horseshit, but no direct incitement.

And as far as the use of the word 'will' goes, his use of the word refers to his belief about the outcome of their deaths - that it will make the world a better place- not his belief that their deaths will actually take place. Saying that Helen Thomas should get smacked in the face with a frying pan 40 times and professing a strong belief that such an action will improve her looks is not the same thing as inviting and/or offering inducements for someone to do the smacking.

140 If that's what I have to look forward to around here, consider me self-banned.

Thank God he stopped by to tell us fucked we are. How ever would we have gotten along without him?

141

WTF is a “sharmuta”?

142 Undoubtedly it would be wrong. But would it be unlawful?

Like I said, that would most likely be determined under a "reasonable man" standard, ie, a jury. I certainly think it would rise to the level of indictment.

143 But it's still okay to talk about hobo hunting, right?

144 Heretic!

145 Saying that Helen Thomas should get COVERED WITH A TARP and professing a strong belief that such an action will improve her looks is not the same thing as inviting and/or offering inducements for someone to do the COVERING.


Jeff D., Shithouse Editor, at your service.

146 I only know the details that are posted here, but my initial thoughts are that this is not protected speech to make against judges, and is borderline to make against non-governing citizens.  Posting personal contact information in this context would terrorize any normal human being.  It also appears to be establishing and encouraging the means for unstable individuals to carry out his hopes.  As has been discussed in other threads, Chuck Manson sang a very similar song--though for obviously different reasons--and he was held legally liable when it was carried out by others.  I think a good case can be made to walk the principles governing his prosecution back to some of the same incitement in this instance.

147 The affidavit by the agent is an interesting read.  The nutter makes some good points but they he posted some shit that sounded like a loud-mouthed drunk in the mood to get his ass beat.

My takeaway?  I should be using an anonymizer based is some foreign country.

148 None of these holier-than-thou advocates for prosecuting this man have answered why all the death threats, plots and "incitement" of violence by liberals like themselves isn't getting the same treatment.

Few if any of the leftist turds have gone on to provide information to facilitate any violence. As I said before, Turner clearly acted to provide information, which is just about the same as providing the means. His words were clearly no mere rhetoric device, but a plainly spoken desire for a specific outcome.

149 141

WTF is a “sharmuta”?

sharmuta is a regular gold star commenter on Little Grovelling Followers who is the equivalent to Squeaky Fromme in the Cult of Charles.

It also means "whore" in Arabic

150 Prosecute this man at your peril, liberals.

I'll even stir the pot by playing to your ignorant fantasies:

When a Republican gets the reigns of power again (and the Democratic hold is not eternal), imagine how we could use these standards, this case and the possible conviction AGAINST YOU.

It's not as if we don't have a target-rich environment in foaming-at-the-mouth liberals.

151

Terry at June 25, 2009 03:29 PM (VZS2x)

If you've got a million instances of liberals doing something similar to this and not being charged I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to give me an example. 

152 thanx

153 140 If that's what I have to look forward to around here, consider me self-banned.

Thank God he stopped by to tell us fucked we are. How ever would we have gotten along without him?


If we self-ban, do we have to say three Hail Marys and two Our Fathers? Will we go blind? Will it stunt our growth? Will we develop wrinkle free skin?

154

All judges names, pictures, and residences should be part of the public record.

I am as anti-elitist as it gets.  Judges get to make decisions that affect people's lives.  They need to be aware of all possible consequences before they pull their wierd prejudices out and cram them down our throats. 

The alternative is tyranny.   

155 Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2009 03:30 PM (xwSE0)

You can believe it if you believe Congress authorized a draft in that one instance only, and only because the survival of the nation was at stake.  Sorta like firebombing Dresden or nuking Hiroshima.  We don't do these things as a matter of course, only when it is absolutely positively necessary, and then from henceforth we refrain from doing so.  This is different than having the draft as a regular tool of American policy.  You'll also note that in WW1 was the only time the draft had been used since the Civil War, and it wasn't exactly a war of survival either.  Plus Wilson was a fascist pig.

156 "White supremacist blogger "

He's not a white supremacist. If you have evidence to the contrary, let's see it. Just kidding, you don't have any. He's a nut - even I think he's way too bigoted - and considered by many white nationalists to be a false flagger/infiltrator, do a google search and you'll see, but still not a white supremacist.

"But that doesn't mean that he "threatened to assault and murder three United States judges" as alleged by the FBI."

Agreed, and I'm happy to see you say this. I keep telling you guys Obama wants to turn USA into Canada, and in Canada, or some provinces at least, the definition of a threat, legally, is whatever makes the complainant feel threatened, I swear I am not making this up.

You'll not be shocked, Gabe, to hear I speak from experience on this one; I've personally been charged under very similar circumstances. They dropped the charge and made me sign a peace bond, S.O.P. If the police don't lay a charge when a complaint, any complaint, of a threat is made, no matter how absurd, the SIU unit gets called in and the officer gets charged. That's how it goes in Canada.

If I seem a bit strident, guys, it's because I'm living America's future and boy does it ever suck. Heed my warning: fight this bullshit with everything you've got or it will be one of your fellow morons who will be next to get a bogus "threat" charge.

157 If you've got a million instances of liberals doing something similar to this and not being charged I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to give me an example.

We should go to Henry Hyde's home and stone him and his family to death!!!

158 XBradTC:  "Few if any of the leftist turds have gone on to provide information to facilitate any violence. As I said before, Turner clearly acted to provide information, which is just about the same as providing the means. His words were clearly no mere rhetoric device, but a plainly spoken desire for a specific outcome."

Your "he didn't think plan it well enough" is tired and WEAK.

The left built an entire industry and plot enacting the assasination of President Bush complete with diversion tactics, entry points, kill zones and escape routes for the assassins.

I saw entire forum topics in the democratic underground dedicating themselves to IMPROVING the assasination plan!

In short, you are lying through your teeth!

159 @137:
Maybe. The point is, our discussing it here does not constitute an imminent danger to the Republic, as Holmes implied.

160

I believe it crosses the line into a direct threat not protected by the First Amendment.

It's one thing to say "These judges deserve to die and the country would be better off if someone killed them"- that's not really a threat and I would argue it's free speech.

It's a bit different when you start with "These judges deserve to be killed", and go on to say  "Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty" and talk about how another "example" needs to be made, referring to another judge who was murdered.  That he posts information like addresses and building layouts that highlight security fixures kinda seals the deal.

It's a pretty clear threat even if he didn't explicitly say "They deserve to die and we're going to kill them".  I generally prefer to fall on the side of freedom of speech, but when someone publicly states that a specific person (or people) deserves to be murdered, will be murdered, why they should be murdered and includes helpful hints as to how to accomplish murdering them- it goes too far and shouldn't be protected.

161 If that's what I have to look forward to around here, consider me self-banned.

Awwww, DAMMIT!  Am I gonna get blamed for this one too?

162 I sure hope Sarah Palin doesn't come to New York, or else I'll get my boys from the 'hood to enjoy a few rape fantasies at her expense.

163

I dropped by Charles' place a day or two ago and read some of the comments about Ann Coulter's appearance on BOR's show the other day.  Love Ann or hate her, she makes her points.  The two singled out were “If you don’t believe in shooting abortionists, don’t shoot an abortionist.” And: “That’s why liberals are so hysterical about this, because generally they’re on the pro-death side ... in this one case, they’re finally against someone dying, a man responsible for killing 60,000 babies.” 

Now, that's bringing the funny about a serious topic, but her humor was largely unappreciated, which is one of the reasons I rarely read anything there.

164 Didn't someone put the address and pictures of Anne Coulter's home on Kos or HuffPo a little while back, with a (wink, wink) suggestion that someone should pay her a visit?

I wonder what happened to that person......

165 The trouble with the left is that they lump everything together, with none of their self-endowed "nuance". Therefore, Rush Limbaugh's joking and criticism of the Clintons somehow becomes the same as McVeigh's atrocity in OKC.

The nuanced Left and Charles Johnson equivocates Glenn Beck with the Hal Turners yet see no problem with "death to Jews" signs in the streets

166 You can believe it if you believe Congress authorized a draft in that one instance only, and only because the survival of the nation was at stake.  Sorta like firebombing Dresden or nuking Hiroshima.  We don't do these things as a matter of course, only when it is absolutely positively necessary, and then from henceforth we refrain from doing so...

We have refrained from doing so, but have always kept that option at our discretion. That actually argues against your point. I find it difficult to believe that Congress would be so short sighted as to think there might never be an existential threat to the nation.

And you seem remarkably ill informed of the history of the  draft in the US if you think that WWI was the last time we had a draft since the Civil War. The Selective Service Act of 1940 re-instituted the draft (for the first time in peacetime, at that) and the draft was in effect until the 1st of January, 1973.

167 Serious philosophical issue here, the classical liberal theory that the US is based upon includes that the people have an inalienable right to revolution. Keep in mind, many founding fathers believed that the republic could only be maintained by periodic revolutions (hence the "tree of liberty" quote). So, how do we reconcile that right with our political system?

I think it goes without saying that no government will LEGALLY sanction revolution against it. We have a moral right to revolution, but it will never be a legal or political one. Revolution is, and always will be, a risky business, and not something to be entered into on a whim.

(That said, I would not be terribly surprised to see it happen in my lifetime.)

168 Posted by: wiserbud at June 25, 2009 03:46 PM (wWwJR)

Michelle Malkin as well.

But you know those lefties, harmless little fur balls and all. Just having a good time and all.

169 164 Didn't someone put the address and pictures of Anne Coulter's home on Kos or HuffPo a little while back, with a (wink, wink) suggestion that someone should pay her a visit?

I'm on every night at 8 PM Eastern. I'll be # 1 in that slot as soon as some humanitarian blows up Bill O'Reilly's car

170

Alec Baldwin at June 25, 2009 03:42 PM (cGmnP

Once again an inability to make a logical comparison. 

Anyway, if the law does not step in to protect the target of speech like this then the target , if it were me, would be forced to take the matter into his own hands.  Mr. Turner would not have the opportunity to get his wish.  

Would my last sentence be considered a threat?  

171

polynikes: "If you've got a million instances of liberals doing something similar to this and not being charged I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to give me an example."

I just gave you the lead to a few of those millions, namely the movie "Death of a President".

There are countless other instances of course, but this is one of the more prominent because of the target and the millions of dollars in funding and support it got within the liberal establishment (and we're not talking fringe types, this hatred is mainstream and a serious component of liberalism and the Democratic Party).

I call it a "lead" because all you have to do is search the various liberal sites and blogs to see how the left discusses/treats the movie.

Google it.

And tell me that the pontifications of one man overshadows the deranged behaviour of millions of liberal Americans seriously discussing the murder of the highest elected official in America.

172 RINO!

173 Michelle Malkin as well.

That's who I was thinking of.

174 As an aside, is this Turner guy the same one that wrote the infamous "Turner Diaries"???

If it is, then it explains quite a bit.  If it's the same man, they have been trying to get him into fed court for a long while.

175 In short, you are lying through your teeth!

Terry, I may be stupid, I may be ill-informed, I may be naive, I may be deluded, I may just be a fool, or a moron picking my nose.

But one thing I'm not is a liar.

I've disagreed here with people many times. When I do, I try to do so politely. But since you've decided the worth of my character, let me summarize my response to you:

Fuck off, douchebag.

176

As an aside, is this Turner guy the same one that wrote the infamous "Turner Diaries"???

Not the same nut.

177

Alec Baldwin at June 25, 2009 03:42 PM (cGmnP

Once again an inability to make a logical comparison.

Illogical? Why, because a liberal actor screams a rant of what he's really thinking and then tries to say he was just being funny? I see, it's OK when liberals do it because they're cloaking it in "entertainment", clown nose on, clown nose off.

ACORN and other lefties on the net posting addresses and photos of the homes of AIG exec must have been uproariously funny too.

178

Two things:  First, it is most interesting that this is a Criminal Complaint (CC)and not an Grand Jury Indictment.  A CC is just a claim by an agent, and in this case, with little or no supporting evidence and it is presented to a federal judge, who is a colleauge of those threatened.

If this case were presented to a Grand Jury, it would probably not get a True Bill (majority vote for indictment).  I have literally been told by Assistant United States Attorneys that they could indict a ham sandwich with a Grand Jury.  However, I have also seen Grand Juries refuse to indict if they don't think the evidence was there.  And clearly Turner worded this well, as there is no threat.  There is just no evidence that a crime was committed.  For example, how many times have the deranged left called for or suggested killing George Bush?  Many times, but no one was investigated or arrested.

Second, this is clearly an attempt at intimidation of the blogs and talk radio.  Michael Savage comes close to things like this, as do some smaller talk show hosts.  This is the test run of for other cases against Obama's enemies on the right.  Any jokes about Obama's kidneys failing will get a call from the FBI.

179 Completely unrelated but, how long does Pixy archive the IPaddresses of posters?

180 Hmmmm.

@ wiserbud

"I think he should treated exactly the same way the leftists who constantly dreamed of Bush being shot were treated."

Given money, book deals and blowjobs?

Kinda harsh but I guess the punishment fits the crime.

181 ACORN and other lefties on the net posting addresses and photos of the homes of AIG exec must have been uproariously funny too.

They didn't specifically say the AIG execs deserved to die.

182

Wiser:

calling him funny is like calling Rosetta straight

 

183 send them to that tropical island with the Uighurs.

184

Illogical? Why, because a liberal actor screams a rant of what he's really thinking and then tries to say he was just being funny? I see, it's OK when liberals do it because they're cloaking it in "entertainment", clown nose on, clown nose off.

Yes illogical.  When Ann Coulter makes jokes of the demise of the other side I understand what she's doing.  It shouldn't make a difference  if her jokes are funny and their jokes are not because they are laced with anger.  Its an illogical comparison of those instances to a serious rant about somebody deserving death and having their blood shed to save the country and then posting all the personal information on those targets.

185
XBradTC:  "But one thing I'm not is a liar"...."Fuck off, douchebag."

That's a liberal tactic, buddy.

A denial without substance.

You said: "Few if any of the leftist turds have gone on to provide information to facilitate any violence. As I said before, Turner clearly acted to provide information, which is just about the same as providing the means. His words were clearly no mere rhetoric device, but a plainly spoken desire for a specific outcome."

I have demonstrated indisputably that those "leftist turds" were neither "few" nor did they fail to provide information to facilitate violence.  In fact, they gathered DETAILED information ranging from the President's supposed scheduled tendencies to the basic procedures of the Secret Service (the President's personal guard).

You cannot claim ignorance of these facts because this movie was widely reported in both sides of the "blogosphere", and you are clearly a well-informed man based on your previous postins.

Hence, you were fully appraised of the facts, but you decided to not only disregard them, you made statments CONTRARY to the facts.

You lied, and it was all too easy to prove.

Next time, you'll think twice before lying about liberalism.

186

if you want to argue that the 13th prohibits "mandatory voluntary" service such as so many on the left espouse, I'd certainly support that view.

I think the case being made is that it is not a violation of the First Amendment to make such arguments.

187 Take a pill, Terry.

188 Its an illogical comparison of those instances to a serious rant about somebody deserving death and having their blood shed to save the country and then posting all the personal information on those targets.

Posting the personal information is way over the top, and I'll agree that Turner should be held liable for any harm that comes as a result of it.

What I find objectionable is that Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh are lumped in with this nutjob while the lefties give a big fat pass to not only the loudmouths on their side, but the threatening nutjobs too.

189 Nope, Turner covered his bases.  As others have noted, no one cared about Hollywood making a movie about the assassination of a real live currently sitting president.

"Any jokes about Obama's kidneys failing will get a call from the FBI."

Won't happen.  Even nut cases like Turner know the result.  Joe Biden, followed by Nancy Pelosi.

190

Posting the personal information is way over the top

I object to the notion that posting the addresses of public figures somehow runs afoul of the law.

191

I found this little gem while doing some more research. This is how the U.S. Marshall’s service defines a “threat”.

 

an inappropriate interest, circumstance or event that causes, or could potentially cause, damage to a target whether it is a person, location or specific event. A threat may be communicated in writing, verbally or through a third party.

 

This perhaps explains why the FBI charged it as a “threat”. It is NOT however a ruling by a judge. If I had been on a Grand Jury for this I would not have voted it out.

192 That's a liberal tactic, buddy.
Posted by: Terry at June 25, 2009 04:09 PM (VZS2x)

I love people showing out of the blue an attacking long time commenters for acting like liberals.

You really know how to influence people. Well done.

193 The Waxman bill is coming up for a vote in the next couple of days. Be nice to see the right blogs rally oppostion against it.

194 flenser:  "Take a pill, Terry."

If you have a substantial point to make, make it.

If you're an idiot making dumb insinuations that I should "take my meds" in order to hide the fact that you don't have any intellectual ammunition, keep it to yourself.

Good Night Fellas.

195 flenser, I don't think publishing the information for purposes of protest is illegal. Certainly, it is abhorrent behavior tho. But I do think that advocating the murder of judges, then publishing the information, clearly to facilitate it, is, or should be, illegal.

196 I object to the notion that posting the addresses of public figures somehow runs afoul of the law.

So I guess next we start hauling in the people who sell the maps to stars homes in Hollywood?

Look, if someone wants to find someone, for whatever reason, it doesn't take a whole lot of effort these days.  Saying that publishing this information is an arrestable offense is getting a little carried away with the law.

197

Is there any example of a person saying a judge "deserves to be killed" and NOT being targeted?

You can 'wish' someone dead...liberals did it often with Bush-Cheney. But this seems to be different.

In any case, he deserves to be ignored forever. There are hundreds of Americans who can make a case against this court ruling without inciting violence.

198

I object to the notion that posting the addresses of public figures somehow runs afoul of the law.

Posted by: flenser at June 25, 2009 04:13 PM (HIA21

posting the addresses in combination with ranting how they deserved death is the trigger for me.  Done separately where there was in intention of a connection to each makes a big difference to me.

199 I think the case being made is that it is not a violation of the First Amendment to make such arguments.

Nah, Jeff and I got sidetracked on the draft and the 13th Amendment.

200 posting the addresses in combination with ranting how they deserved death is the trigger for me.  Done separately where there was in intention of a connection to each makes a big difference to me.
Posted by: polynikes at June 25, 2009 04:19 PM (m2CN7)

In total his actions are surely designed to skirt the law.but where did he go over it in the statute he's accused of violating?

If, "I know what this guy means even if he doesn't say it" were against the law he'd be in trouble but where does he actually make a threat?

Believe me, I'd love to see it and have the guy locked up but we don't get to charge people we crimes because 'we know what the mean or meant to do even if they didn't do it', that's just not the standard.

201

 Saying that publishing this information is an arrestable offense is getting a little carried away with the law.

Yeah, thats what I said.

202 DrewM: "I love people showing out of the blue an attacking long time commenters for acting like liberals.

You really know how to influence people. Well done."

That goes for you too DrewM.

Deflecting, misrepresentating, and hiding your personal opinions to make yourself appealing to other people (especially the wrong people) is no way make your "inlfuence" felt.

And lying/waffling, covering up for liars is definitely not part of my program no matter how long he's commented on this blog of your's.

203

As Vic posted

....could potentially cause, damage to a target whether it is a person, ....

His posting is an event that could lead to the targeting and potential damage.  His own words indicate these targets deserved death and he did not write this in a vaccum.  He wrote it so that his supporters could read his words.  Supporters that I assume he believes agree with his opinion that these judges deserved death. 

204

Well, if someone posted that aboput me, I'd take it as a threat.

Seems obvious.

Subjective, I grant you, but obvious.

205 Deflecting, misrepresentating, and hiding your personal opinions to make yourself appealing to other people (especially the wrong people) is no way make your "inlfuence" felt.
Posted by: Terry at June 25, 2009 04:23 PM (VZS2x)

Usually I get hit for attacking people who have the temerity to disagree with me since I brook no dissent or something. Perhaps this is an improvement.

Either way, the internet is filled with geniuses like you who claim to "have demonstrated indisputably" this, that or the other thing. You are the holder of The Truth and you are the greatest practitioner of logic since...well, let's be honest, ever.

Also, I do love the fact that you have a 'program'. While I gather " lying/waffling, covering up for liars" is not part off it, I'm curious what is in your program. Perhaps you have a newsletter I could subscribe to?

206

Thinking about it, I guess Pamela Smart would have gotten away without any charges if her student lover hadn't gone through with the murder and reported her to the police. Based  on the defense she raised at the murder trial she really never asked that her husband be murdered.

I guess this is one of those situations where one guilty man is let go in order not to convict a thousand innocent men.   Not exactly but you know where I'm going with it.

207

DrewM. at June 25, 2009 04:36 PM (iTt2X

pick a side and stay on it damn it!

208 Posted by: polynikes at June 25, 2009 04:41 PM (m2CN7)

Yeah, I think that's what it comes down to.

What Turner said is appalling and very well may lead to someone taking a shot at killing one of these people. The thing is we don't make that illegal because it's a dangerous road to go down. We criminalize actions, not winks, nods and hints, even if there are dangerous consequences should someone take Turner up on his rantings.

It's the price of a free society.

And yeah, it's easy for me to write that because I'm not on the list.

209 Geepers, I guess my rant every other post about the Republic of Texas is gonna get my A$$ in trouble too?

I don't know if any bloodshed will be necessary or not, so I guess I'm not specifically calling for a violent overthrow of the nation. I'm just interested in exercising the state's right to pull out in the event that the country didn't live up to it's part of the bargain.

210 And yeah, it's easy for me to write that because I'm not on the list.

I'm pretty sure you and I are on Terry's list.

211 We criminalize actions, not winks, nods and hints, even if there are dangerous consequences should someone take Turner up on his rantings.

Shouldn't you be taking care of that thing, you know, that thing with the guy.

212 Whether it is illegal or not should be decided by a judge or a jury, but the authorities should make it very uncomfortable to loudly and very publicly call for the death of authorities in our nation. And being hauled in for questioning by the FBI is a proper way of doing so.

213 Deflecting, misrepresentating, and hiding your personal opinions to make yourself appealing to other people (especially the wrong people) is no way make your "inlfuence" felt.

And lying/waffling, covering up for liars is definitely not part of my program no matter how long he's commented on this blog of your's.

Alternatively, Terry, you could go fuck yourself. You're not gaining any converts to the "Drew is a liar and Brad is a liberal" cause.

Why don't you read awhile before running your dicksucker about the motivations of the commenters here.

Even though I don't think Turner should be charged with a crime, it sure is a turnoff to see commenters I've not seen before pop in here with frantic defenses of his words and rabid attacks on people who don't have to prove their conservative bona fides to anyone, let alone you, fucknuts.

You deserve to be cockslapped by the Satan's rigid member.

214 but the authorities should make it very uncomfortable to loudly and very publicly call for the death of authorities in our nation.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 25, 2009 04:53 PM (PQY7w)

See, that's where I'm torn.

Yes, the political and judicial systems need to be free from the fear of violence to work properly. At the same time, people need to be able to express themselves for the system to work properly.

I know this is an age old conundrum and I haven't stumbled onto anything new here but I tend to come down on the side of more speech, not less.

215 Frack, 214 was me.

216

Well, I appreciate all the discussion here. The debate makes clear that this case (based on what we know--which is only what the magistrate who allowed the arrest knew) is a close question.

Where that is true, it's probably not a bad idea for it to see a jury, no?

217 Frack, 214 was me.

Great. Way to fuck up DIRECTLY after I defended you against claims of "misrepresentating" yourself.

Fucking douchebag.

218 Has it occurred to anyone that the Second Amendment is, itself, an implicit threat to blow the dogshit out of gubmint folks if they don't toe the line?  Seriously.  So how can calling for "someone" to do so be a violation of law?  Can't the argument be made, if not won?

Politics is about power, and power has as its corollaries the prerogatives of coercion and violence.  Our Constitution ensures that the right to use violence is balanced between the gubmint and the people.  So how can calling for Fed judges to be shot be a violation of law?

This is a thought exercise, more than a position, for our watchers at DHS and the Secret Service who are most assuredly taking a look-see at this here debate...

219 See, that's where I'm torn.

Well, if the point is a valid investigation, fine, but if the point is to intimidate, that obviously isn't good.

Law enforcement rightly has wide powers to investigate, but that power must be used to that end, not to effect an outcome regarding speech.

220 They arrested him too soon. If he or anyone else went after these judges, at any stage of their assault, they could be charged with conspiracy and attempt. The case would be much stronger. Now they've turned him into a 1st amendment martyr much like they did with Larry Flynt. Of course with the terrorism acts and other stuff, we don't know under what authority they're charging under or what other info they may have.

221 Making a threat is considered an assault, but only if the threat is credible.

This seems to me more of an incitement to others to kill. I don't know what the standards for incitement are. It may have to be a direct order to others to kill.

222 Scarcely a day goes by without someone wishing that someone else would meet their end.   In my opinion that wish does not in itself constitute a threat. 

223

I don't know what the standards for incitement are

 

See my post at 191. The Marshall’s service defines a threat as just about anything.

224 Where that is true, it's probably not a bad idea for it to see a jury, no?

Not necessarily.

Sometimes the process is the punishment.

You shouldn't have to go to trial because the FBI and a judge decide to stretch the meaning of the word 'threat'.

225 Farmer Joe, while you are correct that no government would explicitly make revolution legal, the founders intentionally made the <i>tools</i> of revolution an area outside of the government's control with the Bill of Rights, chiefly, the First and Second Amendments. Keep in mind, Turner was not actually engaged in revolution. If we say the First Amendment only applies so long as you don't get anywhere near revolutionary speech, then its purpose is subverted, and the amendment is useless.

#94: Forgive me if I have the facts wrong, but wasn't Turner's statement in response to a petition of grievance failing? If so, then are not all bets off, as per your post?

Now, personally, I feel that, if violence is to be done, it should a) not be of a fatal or maiming nature until the state brings such to bear that the self-defense need is palpable (hearkening back, think tar and feathering) b) should not target elected officials, as that smacks of a desire to tyrannize your fellow citizens, as opposed to escape from their tyranny, and c) should not target private citizens (see b). And yes, I think some general threat of violence against political appointees and bureaucrats can be a healthy thing. If the only way to hold them accountable is through the system that they have established and control, then accountability will not be had, and they will grow brazen in their infringement of liberties. The fundamental question I struggle with is, where is the bright line that makes such action morally permissible.

226

You shouldn't have to go to trial because the FBI and a judge decide to stretch the meaning of the word 'threat'.

There seems to be quite a bit of debate about whether the meaning of "threat" is being stretched in these circumstances.

227 It's still cool if we wish Sarah Palin would "disappear" right?

228 220 They arrested him too soon.

I doubt he himself was planning on taking any concrete actions to further the crime. That's why I say it sounds far more like incitement than a threat.

229

There seems to be quite a bit of debate about whether the meaning of "threat" is being stretched in these circumstances.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 25, 2009 05:23 PM (fKpiB)

This is a threat of violence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

230 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 25, 2009 05:23 PM (fKpiB)

Do you see anything in the agent's affidavit constitutes a threat?

Just because there's debate on a moron blog doesn't mean there's actually a legal issue in question.

231 But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government

It doesn't say violently throw off such Government. Nor does it say that King George III or his judges should be murdered.

232 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 25, 2009 05:23 PM (fKpiB)

Just as a little tweak...

There's also debate on this blog as to whether or not Obama is eligible to be President based on his 'missing' birth certificate.

Should that go before a jury?

233 I think everyone is missing the big picture here, which is that Gabe posted a "law" story not involving gay marriage.

234

There's also debate on this blog as to whether or not Obama is eligible to be President based on his 'missing' birth certificate.

Should that go before a jury?

I will end you, Sasquatch.

235

I think everyone is missing the big picture here, which is that Gabe posted a "law" story not involving gay marriage.

Weak sauce. I've posted hundreds of law stories not involving gay marriage. Get a life.

236 Posted by: Gabriel Malor at June 25, 2009 05:58 PM (fKpiB)

I can not begin to tell you how much I enjoyed posting that nor how much I would have paid to have been in the room when you read it. My guess is the cursing was rather impressive.

237 It doesn't say violently throw off such Government. Nor does it say that King George III or his judges should be murdered.

Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2009 05:32 PM (xwSE0)

So, did they mean they were going to throw off such government with well crocheted pillow coverings and rainbow skittles?

238 I hate to admit it, Gabe, but yes, you've gotten better. Not much. But some.

239 They offered me the role of Hal Turner for the TV movie.
But I turned it down 'cause I don't play racists.
Often.

240 So, did they mean they were going to throw off such government with well crocheted pillow coverings and rainbow skittles?

I guess I'm just getting to be contrarian on this thread. I'm not a liar, but I am a dick.

My point is that there's a difference between calling for the overthrow of a government, and calling for the death, by name, of individuals. We've seen peaceful revolutions, but very few peaceful murders.

241 Hal's got nothing on Ike.
When Ike made a threat, you never had to question whether he was serious.

242 "Hence, you were fully appraised of the facts, but you decided to not only disregard them, you made statments CONTRARY to the facts." -- Terry @ 185

That fucking split infinitive is ridiculous. You managed two words between "to" and "disregard" making it a double-plus-ungood split infinitive.

You're an idiot.

243 We've seen peaceful revolutions, but very few peaceful murders.

Posted by: XBradTC at June 25, 2009 06:10 PM (xwSE0)

Bullshit.  The murder of Ceaucescu brought peace to millions.  But your point is taken.

244 The murder of Ceaucescu brought peace to millions.

IIRC, they were killed after the revolution was pretty much a done deal, not as a means to instigate it. Call it retribution. And it's amazing that in the fall of all the Communist states in Eastern Europe, they were just about the only  people lined up against a wall and shot.

245 Herr Morgenholz in response to #231: "So, did they mean they were going to throw off such government with well crocheted pillow coverings and rainbow skittles?"

Exactly. And the Founders meant that so earnestly that they immediately followed up the First Amendment with the Second. The whole purpose was to define for the public the expressed and legal right to overthrow the government (which would technically be breaking the law according to those who have acquired power) when it no longer served it. When judges start deciding that the Second is to be restricted or, in practical application, rescinded, then there is nothing left but to appeal to the public via the First that the Second is at risk.

Men who just fought a revolution knew this and put to paper for us these inalienable rights. These judges by their actions on the court (it would seem) put our freedoms at risk. So, did Turner break a law? In my mind, no. Others beg to differ. However, the existential threat to our freedom is real should the paths these judges prefer continue. At some point we will inevitably have to decide if the Tree of Liberty needs watering and we'll have this debate again. Or we can hope we have this debate again because, as it stands, too many are willing to ignore those rights which we assumed were permanent. We may end up granting to the government via "case law" all of our rights to men in robes. Our hope will be lost only to be superseded with the wish that we had acted sooner... when we were able and free.

I hate being melodramatic about the whole thing, but the proof is in the pudding. There's an ongoing assault on those things that keep us free. Statism is on the rise whether it come from the Right or the Left. To me Turner is making his point clear even if clumsily or recklessly stated. Again, however, the oppressed who have had their rights slowly eroded may be expected to do the very thing Turner, in his bluntest form, suggests.

246

http://tinyurl.com/l9allk

Threats on judges / prosecutors up these days.?

Are more folks waking up to a runaway judiciary?

 

This is expected from the power structure to protect the members place in it and thier power over you. Crush dissent and make examples.

 

 

 

 

247 String the fucker up... right after you string up the HuffPo columnist who called for Bush's assassination...

248 I know this is an age old conundrum and I haven't stumbled onto anything new here but I tend to come down on the side of more speech, not less.

I can respect that, and I believe that the founding fathers would stand up beside you and agree. I just can see where sometimes they took liberty a bit too far to the detriment of society.

249 @ 120: Bingo! We have a winner.

Most of the conservative blogosphere has been an echo chamber for years, now. ...and if you don't echo what everyone else is echoing, your conservative credentials are always in doubt, thereafter.

Ideological purity is like....when it isn't powerful enough to commit genocide, that is. (Give the Democrats some time. They're already headed in that direction...)

Freedom and liberty? Well, now...that's a different kettle of fish.

(23% self-described Republicans...in the population at large. That is where ideological purity and conservative echo chambers gets ya.)

250

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 25, 2009 06:50 PM (rZ235)

Sloppy kisses would be out of order, wouldn't they?

And Brad, I hope no offense was taken by our back and forth.  I think we are all a bit testy now.  Let's face it: there was a revolution, and we lost.

251 @ 120: Bingo! We have a winner.

Most of the conservative blogosphere has been an echo chamber for years, now. ...and if you don't echo what everyone else is echoing, your conservative credentials are always in doubt, thereafter.

Ideological purity is like....when it isn't powerful enough to commit genocide, that is. (Give the Democrats some time. They're already headed in that direction...)

Freedom and liberty? Well, now...that's a different kettle of fish.

(23% self-described Republicans...in the population at large. That is where ideological purity and conservative echo chambers gets ya.)

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at June 25, 2009 07:31 PM (qrBEx)

If you were awake, you'd notice that old timers here have been engaged in a variety of pissing matches.  This ain't no echo chamber.  Who the fuck are you, and why the fuck am I supposed to care?

252 Ah. Make my point for me. Cool. Saves time.

253 Ah. Make my point for me. Cool. Saves time.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at June 25, 2009 08:06 PM (qrBEx)

Please be more specific.

254 Crap on the sockpuppet

255

Don't we still have "BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT"????

Ya good luck PROVING Turner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Word games are fun - (I DESERVE to be laid by Playboy models, who's sweat WILL invigorate the air in my house!)

Just because I DESERVE it, doesn't mean it's gonna happen. And that sweat thing can ONLY happen if the LAID thing happens, etc.

 

Now, maybe if he said  (Hey Vinnie, go push a button on those fuckin stooge judges) ...ummm nope..button has different meanings too....

Dontcha just LOVE FREEDOM!!???

I  DO!!!

256 A) They need to go after Patrick Henry as a co-conspirator, if they go after this guy.

B) They need to go after ACORN and Obama for the bus tours of executives homes.

C) They will threaten him with so many technicalities and "terrorism" laws that he will have to plead or wind up with a 200 year sentence for BS charges.

257 Is it illegal to threaten a tyrant?

Is it illegal to accuse someone of being a tyrant?

Our founding fathers were clear on what they thought should happen to tyrants.

Of course, with the "living constitution", we don't care what the founding fathers thought, Da?

258

#1 Has got it right.  So are we now to arrest those who called for Bush's death?  How about the black woman comedian who called Limbaugh a traitor and said she hoped he die.  Was this inciting violence?

If this nutjob is arrested then we had better lock up the other nutjobs as well.

 

259

Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

 

wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

260 Until the courts start treating the left and right equally, I don't give a fuck. If you want to be complicit in the grinding destruction of America's founding principles because you're a leftist shitweasel, I'm not going to get all worked up about how scared you are of some dick-waving egotist.

Though it was pointed out many times, go ahead and arrest the idiot, just arrest Randi Rhodes as well, and that filmmaker who made the Bush Assassination film, and the various bloggers (and more often commeters) who posted death threats, ad nauseum.

Keep up with the double standard, and people will stop caring, kind of like I did.

261 "Jesusland" (khPxz) is in this thread, complaining about how references to tyrants and the tree of liberty constitute death threats, and how the first amendment doesn't apply to political speech that scares him, and that anyone who disagrees with him is a Charles Johnson sycophant.

But a few days ago, "Daver" (khPxz) was over in one of the Iran threads (comments 110 and 118, here and here), confused about where Kent State is and complaining that:
The fact is tyrannical governments count on morons like you to enlist in the military, and they're the ones that open fire on their own people. .

and

You see, our gun rights not only protect us from the politicians, it also protects us from their armed protectors (i.e., the military doing their bidding). It's a sad truth, and all the name calling and mobies in the world isn't going to change that.

The day U.S. citizens are forced to take up arms against a tyrranical government, you better believe there are going to be people in uniform shooting back at us. That's human nature.

So, the question is: Daver/Jesusland, are you schizophrenic, or just a troll?

262

The law is also about intent. This is clearly a threat. The first amendment doesn't give anyone - nor did he founder intend it to give anyone - unlimited rights to say whatever the hell you want.

263 Could you help me. The first precept was never to accept a thing as true until I knew it as such without a single doubt.
I am from Estonia and learning to speak English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Our selection includes king comforter sets, queen comforter sets, down comforter sets and twin comforter sets."

With best wishes , Lizina.

264 I live in Oregon.
I am from Guyana and too poorly know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "Check the wheels of your vacuum cleaner."

Thank you so much for your future answers ;-). Vacuum cleaner dust.

265 Hey. The pain of making the necessary sacrifices always hurts more than you think it's going to. I know. It sucks. That being said, doing something seriously creative is one of the most amazing experiences one can have, in this or any other lifetime. If you can pull it off, it's worth it. Even if you don't end up pulling it off, you'll learn many incredible, magical, valuable things. It's NOT doing it when you know you full well you HAD the opportunity- that hurts FAR more than any failure.
I am from Paraguay and learning to write in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Once win a vax vacuum cleaner at john lewis free"

Thanks for the help , Vacuum cleaner sales.

266 Could you help me. If a dog jumps in your lap, it is because he is fond of you; but if a cat does the same thing, it is because your lap is warmer.
I am from Guinea-Bissau and bad know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "The shape of this deep free standing soaker tub caters to the person who wants to sit and relax as the downward sloping design results in a tv mounted in plain view just above your feet."

Thank :p Expresso bathroom furniture.

267 Badly need your help. By learning to discover and value our ordinariness, we nurture a friendliness toward ourselves and the world that is the essence of a healthy soul.
I am from Burma and learning to read in English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Beijing plays an important role in the modern economy of city and also being one of the well known hubs for transportation, therefore airline tickets for beijing are easily available."

With respect , Low airfare india.

268 Good morning. History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives.
I am from Equatorial and too poorly know English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "My read on this therefore remains as it was on august."

With respect :-D, Navarro.

269 Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots

270 discountugg boots sale
ugg shoes
tall ugg boots
ugg classic boots
nike shox
air jordan shoes
nike air max
nike air force one
bailey button ugg
rainier ugg boots
ugg classic cardy
ugg crochet boots
ugg mini
ugg classic short
classic tall ugg
ugg coquette
ugg baby boots
ugg knightsbridge
ugg lo pro
new ugg boots
ugg short boots
ugg nightfall boots
ugg skimmer
ugg sundance boots
ultra short ugg
ugg ultra tall
discount ugg slippers
ugg sandals
ugg halendi
ugg slippers
ugg layback
ugg matala sandal
ugg napoule sandal
ugg persephone
tasmina ugg
air force 1 shoes
jordan air shoes
nike shox shoes
air max nike
free shipping!

271 Your post very good,thanks for sharing!Are you also like these:ugg boots uk,buy ugg boots,australia ugg,cheap ugg boots,ugg boots,ugg boots sheepskin,womens ugg boots,ugg australia boots,cheap ugg boots

272 buy Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefrom usa

273 discount Discount Boots
Womens UGG
UGG Shoes
UGG Australia
UGG UK
UGG USA
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
air force 1 shoes
Nike air force
air force 1 mens
air force 1 boots
air force onefree shipping

274 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

275 cheap ugg
buy ugg
ugg usa
ugg boots
ugg uk
ugg australia
ugg shoes
ugg sale
womens ugg boots
discount ugg boots
cheap ugg boots
ugg shoes sale
ugg boots sale
ugg sundance
ugg 5819
ugg 5815
ugg knightsbridge
ugg 5825
ugg rainier

276 Buy discount ugg shoes
cheap ugg shoes
cheap ugg
ugg rainier
buy ugg
ugg usa
discount ugg boots
ugg 5825
ugg shoes sale
ugg sundance
ugg shoes
cheap ugg boots
ugg 5815
ugg sale
ugg uk
ugg knightsbridge
womens ugg boots
ugg boots
ugg australia
ugg 5819free shipping

277 Hi! eihLqOAr

278 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

279 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

280 Replica Cartier | Replica watches | Replica Watches | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Rolex | Wholesale Christian Dior Watch | Blancpain Replica Watches | Replica Girard Perregaux Watch | Replica Corum Watches | Wholesale Gerald Genta Watch | Bvlgari Fake Watches | Wholesale Porsche Design Watch | Chanel Replica Watches | TAG Heuer Replica Watch | Bvlgari Replica Watch

281 nike sb high
nike dunk high
nike dunk low
nike dunk sb
air force one
nike air
air force nike
six rings shoes
Jordan Six Rings
air jordan six
NBA Shoes
Nike Kobe IV Shoes
Nike LeBron VI Shoes
supra shoes
supra skytop
discount puma shoes
puma sandal
prada shoes
prada men shoes
gucci shoes
women gucci shoes
discount gucci men
obanma shoes
lacoste shoes
ATO Matsumoto Shoes

282 Replica watches | Replica Cartier | soccer jersey supplier | soccer jersey supplier | soccer jersey supplier | Audemars Piguet Fake Watches | Cartier Watches Replica | Replica Breguet Watch | Maurice Lacroix Watch | IWC Fake | Omega Watch | Cartier Replica Watches | Maurice Lacroix Fake | Ebel Watch | Tag Heuer Replica

283 Replica Breitling Watches | replica soccer jersey | Replica Rolex | replica soccer jersey | soccer jersey wholesale | Philip Stein Watches | Emporio Armani Watches | Technomarine Replica Watches | Girard Perregaux Replica | Ulysse Nardin Watches Replica | Cartier Replica Watch | Hublot Replica Watch | Maurice Lacroix Replica | Raymond Watch | Wholesale Maurice Lacroix Watch

284 Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica watches | Replica watches | Fake Watches | Replica Watches | Fake Piaget Watch | Fake Tudor | Fake Jaeger Lecoutre Watches | Titoni Fake Watch | Tag Heuer Fake Watch | Longines Watch | Fake Bell & Ross Watch | Baume & Mercier Watch Replica | Gucci Wristwatch | Tissot Replica Watches

285 Replica Omega | Fake Cheap Rolex | Replica Watches | soccer jersey wholesale | soccer jersey supplier | watches brand | replica watches | watches brand | watches brand | replica watches | replica watches | best replica watches | replica watches | replica wristwatch | watches brand