Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 482, August 24, 2008

"Resist tyranny, or die."

  Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]

Letter from Iloilo Marguerite Jones

Letter from Susan Callaway

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Bryan Potratz

Letter from Curt Howland

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Jury Rights Day—September 5

On September 5 of this year, FIJA activists across the nation will once again celebrate the juror's right to render a verdict based on conscience by handing out literature, writing letters to the editor, appearing on interviews, and speaking to groups. For more information, go to

September 5th marks the 338th anniversary of the trial of William Penn—a trial that laid the foundation of our First Amendment Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Peaceable Public Assembly. Many Governors have signed Proclamations in recognition of Jury Rights Day.

In 1670, Quaker William Penn of London was arrested and pled guilty of violating England's Conventicle Acts, which forbade the practice of religions other than the Church of England. The Judge instructed the Jurors to find Penn guilty. The Jurors' refusal to enforce a bad law led to the Court jailing and withholding food and water from the Jurors.

On appeal, the right of Jurors to base their verdict on their best judgment and conscience, despite existing law and court instruction, was affirmed, and cemented the seldom-used but important right of "Jury Nullification of Bad Law" in all our legal systems-the ultimate right of the people to control their government.

These underlying common law concepts firmly establish the fact that Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. As well, jurors are not required to give a reason for the verdict they render. The fundamental right of Jurors to render their verdict based on conscience is basic to the preservation of Justice, and to our Lawful Society.

  • Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict.

  • Jurors cannot be required to give a reason for their verdict.

  • Jurors have both the authority and the human duty to render a verdict based on their individual sense of justice and their conscience.

Receive a free information packet by calling 1-800-TEL-JURY. Visit

Iloilo Marguerite Jones, Executive Director FIJA
aji -+at+- fija -=dot=- org

RE: "Playing the God Card" by Ann Morgan

"Would you be willing to live in a society where a large group of people could legally have sex on the front lawn of the house that belonged to one of them, in full sight of a school of gradeschool children across the street, playing outside at their 2:00 recess?"

Ah, maybe you'd like to think about this just a little bit more... In such a free society, I'm not sure there would BE a "school of grade school children" anywhere. But, even if it was a private school, I highly doubt many of the parents would welcome your little scene any more than they would want them to watch you going to the toilet.

"If you think something governmental should be done about that, you don't want an entirely free society..."

What they would or could do about it is a good question, and government interference is not the only option by far. And what's this "legally?" That implies some conferred favor or permission by a government. You can't have it both ways.

I can't imagine any sane person wanting to make their most intimate and private emotions and actions a matter of a roadside exhibition, any more than they would any other personal function or private information. You might well be free to indulge in your little outdoor sex fest, but you would also be required to deal with the inevitable consequences.

But you are quite correct when you say that most folks are not ready for true freedom, because that requires a strict combination of personal ownership AND responsibility for the consequences of that ownership.

Are you?

Susan Callaway, Editor
mamaliberty -+at+- rtconnect -=dot=- net
The Price of Liberty

RE: "Playing the God Card" by Ann Morgan

Regarding temple prostitution as a scam:
The ladies in question attempted to get around laws against prostitution by claiming it was part of their religion. In fact they had invented the religion as a way to get around the laws against prostitution. The "authorities" were able to prove this point and the attempt failed. Thus they were unable to get the exemption from existing laws against hooking. Since their goal was to make money and not to honor a deity they worshipped they were running a scam. While it was undoubtedly less harmful than those run by televangelists of the Church of Take the Money and Run, the principal remains the same.

Wandering from the title of this response:
The laws against prostitution, sacred or secular, are unjust and immoral. Two (or more) people who give competent consent to have sex with each other should be left alone. Whether their motivation is true love, simple friendship, consummating an arranged marriage, loneliness, boredom, or pecuniary gain is no one else's business. Controlling the spread of disease and preventing the rolling of Johns can best be controlled if the business is legal, as can the mistreatment of whores by their pimps, forced prostitution, and providing assistance for prostitutes trying to get out of the life or who are having psychological problems because they are in the wrong business.Those who consider prostitution inexcusably sinful are free to not frequent the company of whores and satisfy their partners' needs so that they don't need to go to pros.

Regarding the human penchant for saying that which they dislike is a sin let us consider the wise words of Hillel 'Love God above all thing and your neighbor as yourself is the sum of the law. All else is just commentary.' He then went on to add,'We are here to learn the commentary.' (I understand the context was a question about the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth.)

Obviously most of the efforts to enforce morality on others as the law of the state have nothing to do with this comment. It is the arrogance of the statist that his will is God's will, and the desperation of the immature busybody that leads him to try to get God's authority on his side.

Hopefully a Libertarian society will spare us from these buffoons.

As for my own religious beliefs, feel free to ask in private correspondence or conversation. Suffice it to say I am grateful to Someone for butterflies and rainbows.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs -+at+- hotmail -=dot=- com

Only the Gooberment would have the Brass Cajones to say that an "inspector" who damaged airplanes while "inspecting" them was a "hero" for pointing out how an terrorist (or idiot) could damage planes while inspecting them... AND the TSA is thinking about fining the airline for allowing it to happen... Typical. The TSA is obviously taking cues from the BATFE.,0,5107335.story

Bryan Potratz
bpotratz -+at+- msn -=dot=- com

[See Also "Inspector Clousseau, TSA" by Francis A Ney, Jr., this issue—Editor]

Dear TLE,

Re: "What Ever Happened To TV?" by L. Neil Smith

Looking over the L. Neil Smith classic What Ever Happened To TV?, I must agree and disagree, as preferences betwixt individuals never perfectly match up, but wonder if El Neil has any recollection of another very quickly canceled show, Quark?

Sadly, unlike Firefly, Quark had nothing going for it what so ever except that it was funny enough for me to remember 30 years later after having seen it exactly once, and seems like it might have had the same writers as When Things Were Rotten.

Just tripping over stones on a stroll down memory lane,

Curt Howland
Howland -+at+- Priss -=dot=- com

Get the Facts

The Harrold School District recently made national news. The school only has a hundred ten students. It is thirty minutes from the town's police station. It is alsoo by a major roadway that fugitives might be travelling. Apparently someone got worried their kids might be taken hostage and a policy was passed authorizing teachers to take guns to school.

Specifically the school board created a policy which stated that teachers who already had concealed carry licenses could take additional classes in crisis management and upon passing request permission to "pack Heat" on campus In effect they would be allowed to add armed security guard to their duties.

Both sides of the gun debate have published stories about this in spectacularized language, often without spelling out the special circumstances the people of Harrold were facing when they adopted this policy. The result is that everyone's cage is being rattled and people are reacting without regard for the facts.

The supporters of the right to keep and bear arms are right. Therefor keeping the debate over RKBA rational and focused on facts is to our advantage. Arguably the same demand for reason and facts favors all freedoms. so the question must be asked, whose interests are served when facts and context are disregard?

Bet you don't like the answer anymore than I do.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs -+at+- hotmail -=dot=- com

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 482, August 24, 2008

Big Head Press