Judging The George Donnelly Case

Finally, a legal travesty is over. It all started on May 11, 2010 with three activists handing out Fully Informed Jury Association literature in front of the federal courthouse in Allentown, PA. It ended on September 1, 2010 with George Donnelly being sentenced to time served and paying a $525.00 fine. All of his property was returned though the video he took of the incident was deleted from his camera.

George, while filming the outreach event, was originally arrested and charged with felony assault on a female Court Security Officer (CSO) which, according to witnesses, he didn’t do. This charge carries an eight year sentence. The conditions of his release after two days in federal custody included house arrest, wearing an ankle bracelet, turning in his passport, and his firearms. By the time of his initial appearance hearing on June 22, 2010 the charges had been reduced to misdemeanor simple assault and two Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) violations . (Legally, CFRs are somewhat equivalent to parking tickets.) In the end George was forced to "voluntarily" agree to a plea bargain in which he plead guilty to a CFR concerning disobeying a federal law enforcement officer on federal property. All other charges were dropped.

This was a travesty on many levels. The three activists were merely exercising their right to inform juries that they can judge the law as well as the facts of a case. This is commonly known as jury nullification and is a clearly established legal principle. A jury may find a defendant not guilty even though the law has been broken for whatever reason, including not agreeing that what the defendant did should be illegal. Naturally, the government doesn’t like this fact and apparently doesn’t like the information about it getting out.



During the trial several strange things were claimed. One of the oddest would have to be the government asserting that the CSOs saw George filming so they went out to investigate. Once out, they claim, he had an unknown object he was hiding in his hands held between his legs. The contradiction there needs no further comment. (It is my understanding that George did later place the camera against his body to prevent the CSOs from taking it from him.)

Continuing, George’s attorney, Paul Hetznecker, stated that they were acceding to "modification of the facts" to arrive at the agreed upon version of the event. Which brings up the question, why do the facts need to be modified in court proceedings? The naïve may think that courts seek the truth, experience teaches us the opposite.

Ignored during this whole process was the fact that the government’s story kept changing. There were two complaints filed with differing sworn statements made by the same CSO, Enrique Trevino. Both alleged that George assaulted a CSO. The final "agreed to" version of the incident makes no mention of any assault. In a rational court these facts alone would have gotten the case dismissed. After all, the prosecution presented no evidence. They deleted George’s video of the incident and even though there are surveillance cameras outside the courthouse they presented none of their own.

Later in the proceedings, the judge, Henry S. Perkin, cited the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK as a justification for the CSOs aggression. Saying that the right of the employees and visitors in the federal courthouse in Allentown, PA to be safe trumps the right to free speech. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the judge said "The system is not sensitive to your rights". Thanks for clearing that up, judge.

On a lighter note, Jim Babb, who was present in front of the courthouse when George was arrested, confronted Trevino after the trial calling him a liar. This lead to threats of arrest for harassment and got us all evicted from the fourth floor, where the courtroom is located.

We regrouped in the lobby to wait for George who was in a conference with his lawyer. As we waited our friend Trevino walked by. Jim began loudly speaking about the immorality of their lies and actions, questioning whether they had consciences, and asking how can they sleep at night. Trevino sarcastically answered "very comfortably".

After a while George appeared with his lawyer and the two of them accompanied by Jim Babb and myself went into the back room to recover his, George’s, stolen property. Raw footage of the taking out of the guns can be seen here.

George left immediately after the trial to attend to family matters. The rest of us went to a nearby restaurant to eat, drink, and go over the events of the day:



An observation about the whole affair. The people involved in the federal legal system may truly believe themselves to be standing up for what’s right. To be defending themselves, and therefore us, from evildoers. This is pure rationalization on their part. The system serves itself and those that are part of it at the expense of the rest of the world. They are driven by fear to create a situation in which they rule only by force and lies. They, not some foreign fanatics, are the true enemies of liberty.

Some insightful protester modified a sign outside the courthouse to better reflect their priorities. Your became our:

Why Philadelphia’s Licensing and Taxing of Blogs is Creeping Fascism

The recent decision by the City of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania to require a Business Privilege License (cost $300) of blogs and that the blogs be taxed on any profits has generated a well deserved outcry from free marketers across the country. Many have invoked Chief Justice John Marshall’s famous words, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." They are right, this will be the end of independent blogging in Philadelphia and around the world when this spreads across countries.

The tax is actually the least of the threats to blogging the city is creating. The major threat is the licensing. Once the precedent is established that blogs can be licensed the government’s control of the blogosphere will grow in small increments until it can shut us all down by simply requiring and then denying said license. Simply charging a high licensing fee will close the majority. There’s no doubt in this libertarian’s mind the government would love nothing more than to have the Internet as limited and controlled as it has television and radio. In other words, they will apply the corporate media model to it. All these independent bloggers have been a great source of anxiety for our rulers. Why the masses are actually getting some truth! This is a tremendous threat to their power. Much better for them if there are only a few corporate sources of information.

Does this sound far fetched? Let us consider a little history in other media namely television and radio. Back in the bad old days there where only three major television networks operating nationally. There were some local stations too, of course. Radio was and still is owned by large corporate entities. Now cable and satellite television have expanded the number of channels available, but the change has not affected the government’s control of the media. All need a license to operate. Just as important they can be easily bought off with advertising. The government controlled the flow of information to the people. It is perfect example of fascism with nominally private corporations under the government’s control and doing their bidding.

Enter the internet. Almost completely unregulated it is liberty at its best. By the dawn of the twenty-first century people were getting information and opinions that could be hidden from them before. People are networking and communicating with like-minded people from around the globe. Anyone with intelligence, a computer, and internet access can blog successfully. Independently shot videos of all manner of things the government doesn’t want exposed can be disseminated easily and at no cost. Governments and corporations are profoundly threatened by this new freedom to communicate and trade independently. To them blogging is a menace that must be stopped!

This author very much doubts that the Obama administration will be suing Philadelphia to stop their taxing and licensing scheme like they sued Arizona over their immigration law. It’s all up to us to stop this tyranny before the internet goes the way of television and radio. To this end I ask everyone to join the boycott of the City of Philadelphia until they come to their senses and leave the bloggers alone. This travesty must be stopped here before it spreads. Please show your support at our Facebook page "Boycott Philadelphia Until the Bloggers Are Free!".

An Economy On Life Support Is Not Recovering

With the economy apparently souring further without having recovered from the current recession a look at two articles written in January of 2009 on the subject seems timely. This article and Recovery Depends on Investment and Capital Accumulation were originally published at the Nolan Chart.

With the government going into overdrive with all manner of so-called stimulus to revive the sick economy many statists are trying desperately to salvage the claim that President Franklin Roosevelt's (FDR) New Deal saved the economy from the Great Depression to justify similar policies today. Despite the obvious fact that the Depression was the longest in US history, people such as David Sirota persist with articles like "Fox News: "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression". Well, Mr. Sirota, it was pretty long.

The claim that FDR engineered a recovery is based on the fact that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew and unemployment dropped from 1933 to 1936. While these statements are correct they hide the fact that during that time GDP never reached 1929 levels and that unemployment stayed in the double digit range. The key question, though, is why did unemployment go up and GDP go down in 1937 and 1938?

The answer is that the economy never really recovered. The government's massive spending was not recovery, but as John Flynn put it "a palliative". By 1938,

The country had now really reached a greater crisis than in 1933. The public debt, which was 22 billion when Roosevelt took office almost all a heritage of World War I was now 37 billion. Taxes were more than doubled. The President had a war on against the conservatives in his party and his own cabinet was split and angry. Unemployment was several thousand more than it was in October, 1932. Roosevelt knew now he was in a crisis. And he had at his disposal nothing to fight it with save a weapon government spending which had failed and
which he felt now was a palliative and not a cure.*

All of FDR's spending had failed to revive savings and business investment, without which there can be no economic growth. (See here.) To use an analogy, a patient in a coma is on life support. Machines are forcing the pumping of the heart, the inhaling and exhaling of the lungs. While this may even result in better vital signs than the patient previously had, it is far from being a recovery. Under these circumstances it should come as no surprise that the patient dies if life support is removed.

So it was for the economy during the Great Depression. When government spending slowed and taxes rose the still comatose economy took a turn for the worse. The obvious lesson for us today is that we don't want to repeat the mistakes of that era and try to spend our way to prosperity.

A better model to emulate is the recovery from the recession of 1921. President Harding cut government spending and taxes. The economy recovered quickly. Much nicer scenario, let's stick to that proven method of reviving the sick economy. We can't afford to have politicians playing pass the pork under the guise of stimulating the economy while we languish in a recession. Cut taxes and government spending now.


* "The Roosevelt Myth", pg. 122

Recovery Depends on Investment and Capital Accumulation

Some of the feedback I've received on the article "An Economy on Life Support Is Not Recovering" shows a fundamental misunderstanding my critics have about the arguments presented there. In retrospect I see that a more detailed explanation is needed.

In reply to the article there are those who state what the article acknowledges, that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew and unemployment dropped from 1933 until 1937. This is taken as proof of the success of the New Deal. Their mistake is thinking that all GDP numbers are equal. They are not, as I explain below.

GDP growth based on private investment in productive capital is the only basis for real growth. In other words companies must invest in factories and other productive facilities (capital accumulation). This investment must come from people's savings, i.e. it must be based on real production, real resources that have been produced. In this way the economy can grow in a realistic and sustainable manner.

When the government spends untold fortunes to stimulate the economy, GDP and unemployment numbers may temporarily improve, but this improvement is illusory. All one does under this scenario is put more money out chasing a stagnant or declining supply of goods and services. The resources used in such a process are not being invested in any kind of productive facilities. On the contrary, productive facilities are being run down to support the make work projects that the government is spending tax money on. (I know that governments also spend money by running deficits, but ultimately the debts must be paid out of tax revenues. Governments can also "print" money, that is paid for with inflation)

As Frank Shostak explains in "What is up with the GDP?":

The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or a reflection of capital consumption.

For instance, if a government embarks on the building of a pyramid, which adds absolutely nothing to the well-being of individuals, the GDP framework will regard this as economic growth. In reality, however, the building of the pyramid will divert real funding from wealth-generating activities, thereby stifling the production of wealth.

The whole scheme wouldn't work even if the government could spend massively forever, but, anyway, the reality is that it can't. When the day of reckoning comes and the government's spending slows the economy slows with it. This is exactly what happened in 1937.

Of course, the government could ignore the "day of reckoning" and just keep on spending, but the result then is the disaster we see in Zimbabwe today.

Hopefully, this clarifies the argument put forward in the article "An Economy On Life Support Isn't Recovering".

In closing I'd like to anticipate the counter argument that spending on infrastructure such as roads, bridges, mass transit, and schools isn't make work but needed improvement. To a very small degree this is true, however, most of the money will be spent according to political pull rather than necessity. Politicians excel at making the usually false argument that project X in their district is of vital importance and most necessary. The reality is that they just want more pork to pass around to supporters to buy votes and campaign contributions. Remember, a bridge to nowhere is not an investment, it's a waste of resources.

I would like to thank Ralph Mullinger for reviewing this article and for his feedback.

2/25/2009 update: Reinforcing the points made above is 'Economic Recovery Requires Capital Accumulation, Not Government "Stimulus Packages"' Thank you, Professor Reisman.

Liberty on Tour in Philadelphia, 8/14/2010

Philadelphia, PA - At the end of their week in Philadelphia Liberty on Tour's Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre joined local activists to do Fully Informed Jury Association outreach. All went well, no one was arrested or questioned by authorities.

The purpose of the outreach is to distribute pamphlets explaining that juries should not only judge the facts of the case but the merits of the law in question too. If they find the law objectionable they should acquit. Of course, judges often instruct juries to follow the law as they interpret it, but this is not correct.

As you can see in the videos a good time was had by all:







Earlier in their stay in Philadelphia Liberty on Tour's Adam Mueller and Pete Eyre had a run in with park rangers in, of all places, Independence Hall while filming "Is the Constitution Really So Great?" Incredible, not even in Independence Hall does the elected dictatorship that rules us allow freedom of speech!

Other coverage of their visit to Philadelphia:

Liberty on Tour enters Philly

Liberty on Tour 2010