Background: The stated purpose of the Fully Informed
Jury Association is to
see that all potential jurors are informed of their legal right
to judge
the law as well as the guilt of the accused -- a powerful way for
'the
people' to nullify abusive laws, as it takes only one juror to
block a
guilty verdict. In particular, FIJA has attempted to get the
courts to
return to the custom -- abandoned almost a century ago -- of
judges
informing juries of this right as a matter of practice. Birdman
has been a
long-time supporter of FIJA in the past, but is no longer. This
correspondence tells why.
> >----- Original Message -----
> > From: John Bryant
> > To: fijamail@earthlink.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:18 PM
> > Subject: Racial/cultural bias?
> >
> >
> > To: Don Doig [FIJA founder]
> > From: John 'Birdman' Bryant (www.thebirdman.org)
> >
> > Iloilo M Jones, in his/her/its capacity as Executive
Director, says
>on p
> >5 of the Summer issue of the FIJActivist that "our
issue focus will be
> >medical marijuana and the war on drugs, Second Amendment
cases, and the
> >racial/cultural bias of the judicial system."
> >
> > Now that is most interesting. For one thing, this issue
has nothing
>to
> >do with fully informed juries. Cases which are tried in
court do not
> >concern 'racial/cultural bias in the judicial system'
(altho some cases
> >are appealed on the theory that there was such a thing
in a specific
> >trial). Which means that this issue is simply not within
the province
>of
> >FIJA.
> >
> > So how then did it emerge as a 'focus'. The most likely
reason is
>that
> >someone -- or ones -- are trying to turn the very
politically INcorrect
> >FIJA into a politically CORRECT organization which would
stymie -- or at
> >least prevent any help being given to -- racially
conscious white people
> >who are resisting multiculturalism and particularly
antiwhite
> >discrimination. That is, if FIJA gets turned into an
instrument of
>making
> >sure that juries are sufficiently 'multicultural', then
it is much less
> >likely that white men who are accused of being
politically incorrect are
> >going to find any help in the courts.
> >
> > The problem here may be as simple as the fact that the
Executive
> >Director is Ilo-ilo, a name which somehow doesn't have
quite the
> >Anglo-Saxon ring that one might hope from a person in
charge of
>defending
> >Anglo-Saxon law from the depredations of the anti-Anglo
multicult. Or
>to
> >put it another way, it sounds like you have bowed to
liberal pressure
>and
> >put the fox in charge of the henhouse.
> >
> > May I suggest, therefore, that you send Ilo-ilo back to
Boonga-Boonga
> >land. Or if not, kindly remove me from your mailing
list.
> >
> PS: I run a popular website where this letter will be posted
in the
Daily Reads section after 4 Aug. If you have a response, kindly
get it to
me before then and I will post it along with my letter.
> *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
>
> On 7/30/03 at 6:39 PM fijamail@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >Permission only to Publish in full or not at all. No
editing allowed.
> >
> >This should be in plenty of time for your August 4th
posting. Enjoy!
> >
> >John Bryant:
> >My full name is Iloilo Marguerite Jones, you blockhead,
as you would
>know
> >if you'd read much of the newsletter, and I'm mainly a
rather stubborn
> >Scot female, whose ancestors are from up near Nairn, and
whose
>grandfather
> >happened to be in the diplomatic corps in the
Philippines, and steamed
> >into Iloilo City with Dewey. You may call me Dr. Jones,
although I'd
> >prefer my name not escape from your tarnished lips ever
again, nor from
> >your vile keyboard.
> >
> >So there, and so much for that. You ought to check your
facts a little
> >better before you throw around stupid invectives. Please
publish this
> >letter in full, with no edits, on your web site,
preferably right after
> >the one you wrote to which this is a response.
> >
> >Racial bias in the make up of juries isn't a FIJA issue?
> >When you have three white guys on trial for allegedly
running drugs or
> >guns across the border, and the entire jury is
non-English-speaking
> >Hispanics, you don't think there is a racial/cultural
issue here with
>the
> >jury not even understanding the defendants, much less
the information
>that
> >they can nullify bad laws? And that is a simple example!
Boy, those
> >government-supported prosecutors love to get those
functionally non-
> >English people on the juries, because they don't
understand a thing!
>And
> >now, we don't even make people who come to our country
learn English any
> >more, so they can still get picked to be on your jury,
and not even
>speak
> >the language of the land! I don't know about you, but I
find this
> >irresponsible and tacky: if you want to come here, and
if you live here,
> >speak the language! Or at least have the decency to stay
off a jury
>when
> >you don't understand what is going on.
> >
> >And in some areas, the federal prosecutors love to get
all-white juries
>to
> >try the Indians for peyote, because the ranchers sure
don't have a clue
> >about peyote. Racial/cultural bias in the selection and
seating of
>JURIES
> >of this country is a highly-visible issue. It is not
only well within
>the
> >province of FIJA, it is a serious problem in the United
States today, so
> >get your head out of the sand. Do you think Waco was
about anything
>but
> >taking out, for practice and as a test of the level of
the resultant
> >public protest, a group of innocent (white) people,
including lots of
> >women and children, who happened to have a different
religion and
>culture
> >from the main-stream government jack boots? Color and
culture are
> >important, and if people can be killed this casually
within the United
> >States, the I don't care what color or culture they are,
I want everyone
> >who can effectively shoot a six-foot target on my side
of the
>discussion.
> >But I don't think I want you, no matter what color you
are.
> >
> >And I don't care if the people getting a less-than
informed jury are
>red,
> >white, yellow or black: equal treatment is still equal
treatment, or are
> >you going to be all right with racial bias in all cases
except yours?
>Has
> >your brain been baked in the sun, John, or were you born
this backward?
> >
> >Oh, wait, I get it: you are for equal rights, just so
they aren't too
> >equal, right? I hate reverse discrimination, all racial
bias no matter
> >which way it is directed, and all the rest of that
government-imposed
> >stupidity, but I hate it just as much from all sides.
Free markets,
>and a
> >strict Libertarian policy of individual freedom work
just fine for me,
>but
> >somehow, I think you might find all this a bit scary.
The only things
> >you'd be left to use in fair, open-market competition
for your
>livelihood
> >and your acquisition of property would be your hands and
your brain,
>and I
> >think the latter is a bit on the short side for you.
(Yes, I know you
>are
> >in Mensa, big deal: I'm in Intertel, so what? That has
nothing to do
>with
> >native smarts or being able to figure out many things!)
But if you are
> >able to make a good living off of hate-mongering against
other people
>and
> >throwing half-informed and misplaced invectives against
your betters
> >(among whom I include me), then good for you -- I hope
you get rich in
> >your own way.
> >
> >And if juries are not a part of the judicial system, in
which system
>would
> >you include them? Do you live on MARS????
> >
> >And did you know that the jury system traces its roots
back to ancient
> >Greece? Hardly a hot bed of Anglo-Saxon sentimentality
or culture.
>But
> >perhaps you have not traced the classical roots of
Western Civilization
> >back that far, for fear of upsetting your dearly-loved
personal pet
> >theories.
> >
> >This is the United States of American [sic!], where we
are all endowed by our
> >creator with certain unalienable rights, and I don't
remember that they
> >were only for white Anglo Saxon males, or only for any
one group, so if
> >you are "one of those" who has a strong need
to find a sense of
> >superiority through the biological fact of your
skin/eye/hair color
>(mine
> >happen to be white/ blue/brown), or through your
plumbing because you
>are
> >a stander and not a sitter, then have fun with your
illusions.
> >
> >My very own personal most important issue is full
protection of and
> >restoration of the absolute, unquestioned exercise of my
Second
>Amendment
> >-- and even before that document was written-- my
God-given rights to
>own,
> >keep, use and carry as many weapons of as many kinds as
I please. My
> >father was one of the engineering team who designed the
M-1, and I know
> >how to use them, too. I hope to make FIJA more radical,
subversive and
> >liberty-loving than it has ever been. I consider myself
to be,
> >politically, slightly to the right of Barry Goldwater,
bless his name.
> >
> >And I suppose you have a problem with women owning and
using firearms,
> >from the way you sound. Tough. I'm beautiful, free and
over 21, and
>I'll
> >own as many guns as I please. Besides, I have two
children to protect.
> >But you'd probably vote to disarm me because I am a
sitter and not a
> >stander.
> >
> >Even so, I hope you have a happy life being nasty,
ignorant,
>narrow-minded
> >and pretty damned stupid, old John. Your name is being
expunged from
>the
> >FIJA list as requested, because I'm not leaving, so you
are.
> >
> >Iloilo Marguerite Jones, for herself, who also happens
to be the
> >Executive Director
> >Fully Informed Jury Association
> >Post Office Box 5570
> >Helena, Montana 59604
> >406-442-7800
> >www.fija.org
> >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Bryant
> To: fijamail@earthlink.net
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Ignorant, unlettered ostrich? Ah, so that is
what birdman
>means!
>
>
> OK, there, Ilo-ilo, you can sure get pretty huffy, but like
most women,
>you prove that female logic is reasoning in sillygisms. In
particular, in
>all of your pontificating you miss the simple point I made,
that --
>whatever it was you meant by 'racial-cultural bias' -- the
impression that
>was given was the liberal refrain about such things as
'racial profiling',
>'prejudice against minorities', and 'minorities excluded from
juries'.
>These are the issues that are bandied about in the press, and
are what
>people think of when they think 'racial/cultural bias' as
involving the
>justice system. So if indeed you are worried about racial and
cultural
>bias against WHITES, then this would be a horse of an
entirely different
>colored person, and if you didn't want to be misunderstood
then you should
>have been explicit about what you meant. But like I say,
female logic ...
>
> Another thing: The issue which you term 'racial/cultural
bias in juries'
>is really the broader issue of the right to be tried by a
jury of one's
>peers, and the fact that those born and bred in a culture
foreign to
>American ideals do not have the background to properly act as
jurors. But
>while this is certainly an issue of great importance, it
again does not
>fall within the purview of 'fully informed juries' as the
phrase has been
>used by FIJA. ('Fully informed' here means knowing that you,
as a juror,
>can judge the law as well as guilt or innocence). So again
you come to
>grief on the reef of your big mouth. Should I again mention
female logic?
>
> Oh, and one more thing: Do you still want your letter
posted? I would
>expect that it would be rather much of an embarrassment at
this point. But
>like I say, female logic ...
>
> PS: Now who should we say is a blockhead, nasty, ignorant,
narrowminded,
>stupid and a few other things? I am going to fathom a wild
guess on this
>one, and it isn't me.
>
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 7/30/03 at 8:22 PM fijamail@earthlink.net wrote:
>Hello John,
>I leave it to you to decide if you want to publish my letter
and this
>retort. Print it if you like, or don't print if you don't
like. Makes no
>difference to me: you are neither my peer, my audience nor a
FIJA
>supporter. You will not be missed. Do you understand
argumentatum ad
>hominem? If not, you certainly have an excellent grasp of its
(mis)use.
>
>You are still off the FIJA list. You are still a blockhead.
>
>YOU are the only person who deliberately chose not to
understand what I
>meant by the article in the newsletter, and the only person
who took it
>entirely out of context to create a personal
misinterpretation to
>establish a forum for your own ranting. Such things as you
cannot be
>helped, and I am happy to stand on both my record and my
integrity, having
>been a part of FIJA for 12 years now.
>Good bye.
>Iloilo Jones
>
Date: 7/30/03 10:47 PM
To: <fijamail@earthlink.net>
From: John Bryant
Copy:
Blind Copy:
Subject: Re: Ignorant, unlettered ostrich? Ah, so that is what
birdman
means!
Ad hominem? Au contrarie! I spoke to my original points, while
you
engaged in calling me all sorts of names, blockhead being the
least, while
failing to understand -- or perhaps ignoring -- what I was
saying. Kindly
note that I never descended into name-calling. I don't have to --
I either
whip my enemies with logic, or I give up.
You say:
>YOU are the only person who deliberately chose not to
understand what I
>meant by the article in the newsletter
I just pointed out what you said and why it could be expected to
be
misunderstood. You never offered any contrary argument. But then
you
would probably have slipped into one of those sillygisms, so I
can
understand your reluctance ...
It is painfully obvious you got yr butt whipped -- your eagerness
to have
me off your list gives you away. Sorry for the pain, but knowing
how to
take criticism makes the difference between stoopid and smart.
Date: 7/31/03 12:16 PM
To: <fijamail@earthlink.net>
From: John Bryant
Copy:
Blind Copy:
Subject: Re: It's up to you...
Ilo-ilo: Because you didn't bother to separate your response from
my text,
I have done so below, with "J" marking my old text,
"I" marking your old
text, and ******* marking my new responses.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 7/30/03 at 9:19 PM fijamail@earthlink.net wrote:
J - >Ad hominem? Au contrarie!
I - > Ilo-ilo from Boonga-Boonga is certainly ad hominem.
******* Boy, you really ARE dumb. There was NO ARGUMENT here, ad
hominem
or otherwise. Rather it was a joke pointing out (again) that an
apparent
foreigner was in charge of what seemed clearly to be a program
for minority
support.
J - > I spoke to my original points, while you engaged in
calling me all
>sorts of names, blockhead being the least, while failing to
understand --
>or perhaps ignoring -- what I was saying.
I - No, John, I answered your
>points in my original reply: you chose, for your own
purposes, not to
>understand once again. I know it isn't me: no one else has a
problem with
>my writing or my communications.
******* Yeah, right.
J - > Kindly note that I never descended into name-calling. I
don't have to
>-- I either whip my enemies with logic, or I give up.
>
> You say:
> >YOU are the only person who deliberately chose not to
understand what I
> >meant by the article in the newsletter
>
> I just pointed out what you said and why it could be
expected to be
>misunderstood.
I - No, you deliberately took it out of context and chose to
>misunderstand it instead of asking for an explanation. In the
process of
>doing so, you also offered personal insults.
******* I did not take anything out of context. I pointed out
that what
you said would normally be interpreted as kissing up to
minorities. Maybe
there was some other article in the magazine that explained that
this was
not what you intended, but certainly in the context of your
article, that
was the way it read. Beyond that, I offered no personal insults,
but
pointed out the numerous ones you used against me. As I often
say, insult
is the last refuge of the out-argued, and your use of insults
makes it
pretty clear yr ass got whupped. All of which is to say that in
your
current letter you have gone beyond trying to cover your ass, and
are now a
LIAR. (Not an insult, just a fact.) How much deeper are you going
to work
yourself into the muck in the process of trying to get out?
J - > You never offered any contrary argument.
I - Having sent all copies of
>today's correspondence between you and me to several people,
and having
>had feedback from all of them (all white, mature,
conservative men) that
>they understood my points, I can only say that you are
choosing not to
>understand nor to carefully read my contrary argument. Now,
if you
>chose to publish your original letter, thereby bashing FIJA
and all we
>have worked for these past 15, years on your
"popular" web site, I cannot
>stop you.
******* Yeah, right, you sent it to your friends. Whaddya think
they are
going to tell you? That you are a dumbass? Like Lenny Bruce used
to say,
Hey, we have to do business with these assholes.
>
J - > But then you would probably have slipped into one of
those sillygisms,
>so I can understand your reluctance ...
>
> It is painfully obvious you got yr butt whipped -- your
eagerness to
>have me off your list gives you away.
I am removing you from the list
>because you so requested. You said, "May I suggest,
therefore, that you
>send Ilo-ilo back to Boonga-Boonga land. Or if
> not, kindly remove me from your mailing list." I am
complying with your
>request, per the stipulations set forth.
******** How dumb can you get? My point is that you are RUNNING
AWAY FROM
THE SITUATION AS FAST AS YOU CAN. The point is not whether I get
removed;
the point is your making a big deal of it. Not that your
'Intertelligence'
would perceive it.
>
I - > No pain here, just some delightful amusement at your
silliness, but no
>hard feelings, unless you chose to trash FIJA due to your own
>misinterpretation of my words. I'll copy this last
communication to
>everyone else, too. Gosh, this might be a good series of
correspondence
>for the next newsletter, too!
****** I urge you to post our correspondence. I do observe your
referring
to my 'silliness', by which I am compelled to note that it is
easy to make
accusations, but not so easy to substantiate them. But then I
realize you
are desperate and grasping at straws. I also note that you say
you won't
have 'hard feelings' unless I trash the FIJA by publishing our
correspondence due to my 'misinterpretation' of the words of its
head
honcho; and then right after this saying that publication of this
correspondence is a good idea! Boy, are you one illogical,
mixed-up
female! For my part, I say, Post the correspondence and let the
FIJA
membership decide whether it is me or you that is full of it. And
whether
they want you to continue as Head Honcho. All I require is that
you
publish it without editing, and that you include my email address
(john@thebirdman.org) and my website (www.thebirdman.org).
One more thing: My original letter was directed to Don Doig.
Maybe next
time you should give emails to the people to whom they are
directed.
> For Liberty and Justice through Fully Informed Juries
> I. M. Jones, PhD.
>
> PS...John, I still think you are a blockhead, but I'm
smiling while I
say this to you, knowing that you are mostly amusing yourself
here. I only
hope it will not be at FIJA's expense.
> On 7/31/03 at 11:08 AM fijamail@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> >Hi Ilo,
> >This idiot crawled out of some hole where the light
doesn't shine, and
discovered FIJA. FIJA has always emphasized that we think juries
ought to
represent a "multicultural" cross section of the
American citizenry
including all races and cultures. Usually this has been well
received, but
we did have one bunch of knuckle-draggers who condemned us in a
"racialist"
publication because we were willing to endorse the presence of
other than
white Christian men on juries. --Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Bryant
> To: fijamail@earthlink.net
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 1:05 PM
> Subject: Re: There was a response from Don: I thought it too
insulting
>to send to you, actually.
>
>
> To Don Doig:
>
> Now that I have finished beating Ilo-ilo's butt, I guess
it's time to
>beat yours.
>
> I see you are one of those people who are happy to say nasty
things
>about people behind their back, but won't do so to their
face. That's
>known as cowardice, Donnie.
>
> Now besides your cowardice, you also throw out a few insults
for me in
>your short paragraph, and you know what that means
("Insult is the last
>refuge of the out-argued.")
>
> But besides being a sniveling coward, you're also a liar.
You say FIJA
>has always emphasized that juries ought to represent a
multicultural
>crosssection, etc. That is pure bullshit. I have read FIJA
literature
>for a long time, and I never remember seeing anything on that
subject,
>much less that you have 'always emphasized' it. Yes, it's
possible I
>overlooked it, and maybe you are right after all, but till
you prove me
>wrong I shall believe you are a liar. My take on FIJA was
that it was
>about fully informing juries about their right to judge the
law. And
>that's all. So go ahead and prove me wrong. (Betcha can't!)
>
> But as I said in my correspondence with Ilo-ilo, multicult
juries are a
>risk, because white America is in a race war, with whites,
who are the
>originators of Anglo-Saxon law, pitted against blacks,
Mexicans, Jews and
>several other ethnicities, most if not all of whom know or
care nothing
>for the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. (You do remember the OJ
Simpson
>trial, don't you? An interesting case of 'jury
nullification', except
>that the Negro jury nullified white man's law for a black
man. And hey,
>don't forget about Rodney King, and Medgar Evers' alleged
murderer, and
>David Duke (had to plea-bargain because he was afraid to make
his case in
>front of a negro jury) and a few others, Donnie.) So your
bias in favor
>of the multicult is just plain liberal stupidity (not an
insult, just a
>fact). And that, of course, was PRECISELY WHAT I WAS
COMPLAINING ABOUT
>WHEN I WROTE TO ILO-ILO. So it rather does seem if we are
back to Square
>One.
>
> And now, Don, I want to show you the goodness of my
character. I want
>to congratulate you on founding FIJA. It deals with an
important issue,
>and that's why I have been a member for many years (but no
longer). You
>see, I am big enuf to say something nice about a person who
has otherwise
>shown himself to be, uh, let's just say not so nice. But then
you
>wouldn't want to take a compliment from an idiot and
knuckledragger, now
>would you?
>
> And speaking of the multicult, it is interesting that you
chose
>'knuckledragger' as one of your insults for -- if not me,
then 'my type'
>-- since this is one of the terms often applied to a certain
darkish
>portion of the multicult. Could we have detected a vein of
HIDDEN RACISM
>in your liberally-pristine makeup?
>
> Have an ice day, Donnie, you cowardly lying liberal
hypocrite. And
>remember, I don't say things behind people's backs -- I post
them on my
>website and sign my name.
>
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 7/31/03 at 1:16 PM fijamail@earthlink.net wrote:
>Don didn't say this behind your back, John, I was the one who
chose not
>to forward it to you because I thought it too insulting. I
changed my
>mind: it isn't insulting enough.
>John, you are a hate-filled, no doubt spiritually-repressed
person, and
>there is no hope for you that I can see.
>Your absence from FIJA will be celebrated by all of us who
have been with
>FIJA for many years, including me -- and I've been on the
board, was one
>of the founding group, was at the very FIRST board meeting as
the FIJA
>consultant, and never heard of you until your nasty notes.
>It's okay: you have your own life, and I doubt that you will
miss FIJA any
>more than we will miss you.
>And didn't it every bother you that the other co-founder is
Jewish???
>No more of your hate-filled, spiteful spewings will be
answered by FIJA.
>Good bye.
Date: 7/31/03 3:43 PM
To: <fijamail@earthlink.net>
From: John Bryant
Copy:
Blind Copy:
Subject: Re: There was a response from Don: I thought it too
insulting to send to you, actually.
(1) Hate is good, provided only that it is directed at hateful
things.
(2) Ask not whether I am hate-filled, nasty,
spiritually-repressed, or
spiteful. Ask only if I am RIGHT. (PS: I am.)
(3) Seems like Donnie is still too much of a coward to answer his
own
correspondence. But then that's pretty much what I expected.
[To which Birdman COULD have added:
(4) And I take it that you aren't answering any more of my
correspondence
because you know you are licked, but just can't admit it.]
[End of correspondence.]
YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!
Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *