Yahoo's email editor is FUCKED!!

      Jim Bell

From: Bill Stewart <bill.stewart@pobox.com>

At 05:02 PM 1/12/2014, Jim Bell wrote:

>>... Authorities, no doubt, would want to label this 'jury
>>tampering'.   <http:///>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_tampering
>>  However, it is likely that if no actual 'offer' is made to a
>>specific juror, and  'everybody' simply KNOWS that these payments
>>will occur (due to prior advertising and other publicity, and
>>because other jurors have always been paid in the past), this should
>>not run afoul of such laws.

>Of *course* they'd want to label it 'jury tampering', because it *is*
>jury tampering.

The exact wording of the laws is important.  A given state's law may refer to 'during a trial', a factor which need not be present in a hypothetical case. 

>It's an offer to bribe the jurors to acquit somebody they might
>otherwise convict.

Strictly speaking, it would be a statement that they WILL make a payment, NOT that they 'offer' to do so.  The exact wording of the laws is important.  Moreover, TIMING is important as well.  See the following case:     http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/federal_judge_tosses_tampering_charge_against_nullification_protester/

That was a jury-nullification leafletting case.    

"U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood said the tampering statute was aimed at people who try to influence a decision in a specific case, the New York Times reports. The defendant, 80-year-old Julian Heicklen, was arrested for passing out brochures advocating the idea that jurors can acquit defendants if they disagree with the laws used to prosecute them.According to the Times, Wood avoided a First Amendment ruling by basing her decision on the reach of the statute. But an Associated Press story says Wood mentioned the First Amendment in her decision, saying it protects speech concerning judicial proceedings as long as the speech doesn’t prevent fair and impartial justice".

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/jury-issues-2.htm

I have read some jury tampering decisions which quote laws which prohibit such offers DURING a trial, not days, weeks, months, or even years ahead of time.  What I was referring to was a practice where it would become generally know, months or even years in advance, that such a payment would be made.  This is NOT the heartland of a 'jury tampering' case.  Also,  http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/jury-issues-2.htm

>It directly runs afoul of jury tampering laws, and the only difference from
>traditional jury tampering is that it *might* be easier not to get caught.

Also, see the 1969 Supreme Court case, Brandenburg v. Ohio.    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._ohio

The SC ruled that mere advocacy of a future criminal action (not 'imminent lawless action', as in a riot situation) is 'protected speech' under the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

See also:   http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/JuryTampering.htm

>I do prefer it to some other traditional kinds of jury tampering,
>including the one where the government only allows prosecution-friendly jurors,
>and the one where the payment for acquittal is "not getting your legs broken".
>(The latter, btw, also has some anonymity built into the payment mechanism,
>since it's easy to deliver the payment anonymously to jurors who accept.)
>But they're all perversions of justice.

I view existing 'justice' as being entirely perverted, already.  See   http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/jury-tampering/

In any case, I did not publicize these actions with the intent that somebody rush out and do it, without further legal research.  Obviously, individual states' laws should be checked.  And, if necessary, a lawsuit can be brought, alleging that the complainant wishes to commence a given course of action, and challenging the government to prove that this action is necessarily illegal.  I suspect that if no direct contact with individual jurors occurs, and this is part of a long-standing campaign over a period of months or years, this cannot be described as 'jury tampering' within the meaning of current laws. 

             Jim Bell