Seems to me if he is pretending to be an officer of the court then that in itself is a crime.
Here’s a picture of him handing out info. I can’t speak for everyone but I would not think he was a court official standing outside distributing pamphlets.
Would he fool you?
Certainly not, but I’m a law student, I took a dozen law classes as an undergrad, and I work for a law firm. I’m technically a layman, but I have no doubt that I’m better informed about jury nullification than 99% of Americans.
Plus, he himself admits that he’s fooled others.
The guy is standing in a place where jurors are pretty much guaranteed to go by all day, holding a nicely professionally printed sign that reads “JURY INFO”? I’ve been called to jury duty more than once, and I dare say a majority of my fellow jurors would probably think it was something that they were supposed to read before entering, and grab one on the way in.
Well, you can’t really help what other people may assume.
I see nothing to suggest he is pretending to be an officer of the court or working on the court’s behalf beyond standing on the court house steps.
He is not dressed in anything like an official looking manner. No badge. No markings on his sign such as a court seal.
A sign saying “Jury Info” hardly seems deceptive.
If he is passing himself off as a court official then yeah he should be busted but not for jury tampering.
Hence this part of my post:
I’m not saying he is holding himself out as a court official. I’m saying if he is, then I can see the court ruling against him.
Well, if he’s telling people he’s on Official Business, then he should be busted for impersonating an officer of the court, or whatever.
If he’s simply failing to clarify when people assume he’s on Official Business, then that would feed into the jury tampering charge.
Ah, a blind eye.
No reasonable person would assume that this casually dressed person is a court officer. As long as he does not lie about it, which is a crime, it’s pretty obvious that he is a local crank. Local cranks are allowed to have “professional” looking signs as long as the signs do not claim that they are governmental.
I know a lot of court officials that dress casually. Bailiffs and other uniformed folk aren’t the only ones who work around a courthouse. Furthermore, there are casually dressed people who do volunteer and other kinds of work for all kinds of governmental organizations. For example, at voting booths, libraries, schools, etc. I can believe that potential jurors would walk by this guy and without a second thought take the flyer thinking it’s some kind of court-supplied information.
If he had the funds and purchased 30 minutes of television time. . .
That is a lot of nonsense. Court clerks work in the courthouse, not outside. Utter nonsense. Look at the pictures. He’s a standard crank, not a deputy clerk. He is engaged in pure speech activity, announcing that the system is wrong. The Supreme Court has long stated that the cure to wrongheaded political speech is not to outlaw it, but to counter it with correct speech.
I’m not surprised that our government continues to try to erode speech. I am surprised at how many members of the public want to censor all kinds of speech that they don’t like. And it isn’t even arguably harmful speech here, it’s an annoying fly. I am in disbelief constantly at how much censorship Americans will argue is reasonable and over such trivial matters.
Once again: he admits that people were fooled into believing he was a court official.
The average juror doesn’t know what a court clerk does, looks like or where she/he is supposed to work. He knew this, and took advantage of this.
Not that he fooled them, but that they believed it. Anybody who came to that conclusion was wrong and he is under no obligation to disabuse them of that notion as long as what he is trying to do is political speech. He is not claiming to be an official, which is undisputedly illegal. And the answer is, so what? People will believe anything they want. Free speech is not limited to full disclosure of the truth. Politicians are allowed to actually lie. People objecting are invited to provide counter speech.
This guy O’Keefe who goes around actually lying to get interviews which he then edits to make the people being interviewed appear to say things they did not walks free. How odd.
Again the blind eye. If you have knowledge that people believe you are an official, and you take advantage of that belief, it’s no different than saying you are an official.
I seem to recall O’Keefe not walking quite so free after he was busted for impersonating a telephone repairman.
What blind eye?
If you met that guy on the court house steps and thought he was a court official you are the one who is stupid. The guy handing out pamphlets is under no obligation to disabuse you of notions you come to on your own.
It is painfully obvious to anyone who looks at this guy and thinks for about a tenth of a second that he does not work for the court.
If he was telling people he worked for the court then fine…that is illegal but I see no evidence of that.
Clearly, it’s isn’t painfully obvious.
You are advocating a “blind eye” approach to what is essentially intentional fraud.
That’s not the way law works in this country. If you intend to create an impression with the knowledge that some people are likely to believe a falsehood and you take advantage of that belief to some detriment, you are under an obligation to correct any misperceptions. Communication of falsehoods does not take place only in words.
Please spell out where the intentional fraud is here. How is he misleading people intentionally? What in his aspect or message remotely pretends to be an officer of the court?
Sort of like that common routine in fiction where the private detective lets the witnesses assume that he is with the police that are on the scene at that time. In the fictional version, the real police detective just shakes his head in disgust and lets the P.I. go. In real life that stunt will get you hauled in.
