The First Amendment scholars of now-famous Blog provide commentary on Connecticut’s claim of true threats, derived from the defective mind of Chief Justice Richard Robinson, the token jurist, ascended to the high bench on skin color rather than intellect, serving only to terrorize ‘we the people’.
Blog provides moot court scenario to highlight dangers of nigger think on First Amendment. A speaker tells victim “I will take you out”. This is spoken word, at close distance, victim sprayed with saliva from the enraged speaker. Nigger Boy Robinson’s court sees “reckless disregard for substantial risk of fear” in the victim and bystanders, even an ordinary person understands ‘take out’ is not about chinese food, but a death threat known to all gangster movie fans … leading to felony arrest on criminal speech, unprotected by First Amendment, punishable by five years in a maximum security prison. See how the law works? Nigger Boy finds no fault in the law, no violation of 1A expressions, he is smug in his jurisprudence that a ‘true threat’ has been identified, punished, 1A untouched; celebrating with dinner of catfish filet and watermelon.
But wait! There is more to criminal matters than just sound bytes, there is context and a plethora of ‘factors’ to consider before muzzling citizens on the undefined concept of ‘true threat’. Word-salad is a jewish delicacy, which Nigger Boy applies to convict a white boy in racial conquest. No better vengeance than a freed slave jailing a white man! Rough equivalent of a true threat, established by jew Judge David Gold at fn18 in State v Taupier is Connecticut’s example of expanding the illusive definition of ‘true threat’ to unlawfully convict goy in rabbinical courts; due process and 1A don’t apply in the gulag. But in the moot court example, a giant defense attorney, sporting a grey pony tail, named Numb Putty, argues for innocence of the spoken word, as context is key. The moot court fight is on! The jury is seated, the jew in black scoffs at the defense, while hideously fat state prosecutor, Benda Hulk, grins, downing her third jumbo Snickers Bar of the morning. The victim takes the stand, the accused exercising Sixth Amendment right to confront accuser; pure constitutional process. Did the defendant threaten you? Yes. Did the defendant threaten to ‘take you out’? Yes. Were you in fear of your life? Yes. Intimidated? Yes. Are you a victim of a ‘true threat’? Yes. Nothing further. Witness steps down. Attorney Putty calls the defendant. Did you threaten the victim? Yes. Did you threaten to take him ‘out’? Yes. Please tell the jury your exact words. “I told you a week ago to clean up your room! Do not disobey me again. I brought you into this world, and god dammit, I can take you out of it!” Attorney Putty asks the defendant to state the relationship to the victim. I am his mother. Did you knowingly intend to threaten the victim? Yes. Did you have objective and subjective intent to place the victim in fear of bodily harm? Yes. Did you recklessly disregard substantial risk of placing others in fear? Yes, his misbehaved brothers. Would a reasonable person believe you made a ‘true threat’? <pause> Wait, wuht. What is a reasonable person?
And there we have it folks, the fallacy of ‘true threats’! A standard of law reduced to the imaginary opinion of the undefined, unidentifiable, unrecognizable, ‘REASONABLE PERSON’, the jew sleight of hand to convict anyone they don’t like or silence speech not approved by the rabbi, after all, this reasonable person believes six-million kikes were exterminated in the showers of Auschwitz, therefore mother’s speech is criminal, case closed, off to jail, Nigger Boy Robinson affirms!!
Nigger Boy Robinson upholds a ‘true threat’ to dyke Bozzuto based on an email she never read, where only the jewish ‘reasonable person’ finds criminal speech, while Blog wishes both Robinson and Bozzuto .50 cal therapy and a headless float down the Connecticut River; sic semper tyrannis! A jewish model penal statue criminalizing pure speech must be restrained on command of First Amendment; a threat must be distinguished from protected speech, society cannot indulge the facile assumption that Robinson can forbid particular words without suppressing the idea that Bozzuto needs dispatch, criminal conduct does not turn solely on printed words, which dumb Nigger Boy Robinson foolishly fails to recognize in Taupier.
Editor’s Note: The moot scenario above brought to you by the jewish ‘model penal code‘ and over a half-century of federal case law that has yet to provide a succinct definition of ‘true threat’ worthy of incarceration, but the jewdiciary of Connecticut will jail a ham sandwich for not being kosher.
Ham sandwich guilty of ‘true threat’ for not being kosher.
