Give Franklin Delano Jeffries II, a Presidential Pardon
This petition had 47 supporters
This Petition is for a Presidential Pardon to restore Franklin Delano Jeffries II, rights, also known as "Dale Jeffries". The music video he made posted online was not intended to threaten anyone or change any ones decision on the outcome of his Child Custody Case. Again, the Doctors and Therapist in the Army are partly responsible for having him vent out his pain by advising him to use his guitar, sing out his pain and record it to look back on to reflect on for therapy. Even though the Army did not intend for him to post his video to Social Media, such as YouTube and Facebook, his Combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan diverted him to be confused about his Freedom of Speech and who could view his video since YouTube and Facebook was suppose to be for friends and his family. Unfortunately, Social Media on these mainframes were opened for the like minded. Facebook even started out for College Students who has ideas in common, so today the Social Media is even more confusing who can see and who your audience is because the settings still don't work all the time for privacy's. His friends list was his audience, and he vented out his pain to his friends and no one else, so it's Freedom of Speech. Why would the court let someone who was not on his friends list use his video when they were not the intended audience, especially an ex-wife outside of his friends list that was not friends with him. He has been through enough pain while He served his Country. We should of help this Combat Veteran, but we sent him to prison for something stupid and it's was wrong of us. He is a reformed civilian. We currently have not read all the articles and comments on him since they are over 200,000, plus they are college research papers that pop up weekly on him. He knows everyone on his Facebook friends list will help support him as they did then when he was charged and took off to Federal Prison. The question is what is Freedom of Speech and you can read new articles everyday crying out to the US Supreme Court that his case should have been picked up and heard. If the Supreme Court would have heard his case then it would of defined everyone's understandings and rights on Freedom of Speech. Please help him and sign this Petition. Help us fight for our Freedom of Speech! Google his name Franklin Delano Jeffries II, and research how important his case was and still is! Sources to look at to help your research on him... www.knoxnews.com http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jeffries-v-united-states/ http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/01/army-sergeant-convicted-of-threatening-a-judge-due-to-one-line-in-a-song/ http://www.popehat.com/2013/10/07/meant-to-be-threatening-or-reasonably-seen-as-threatening/ http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fS3qh9VuuaY Jeffries v. United States of America Issue: Whether, in light of the plain meaning of “threat” and the constitutional rule of Virginia v. Black, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) for “transmit[ing] in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing . . . any threat to injure the person of another” requires proof of a subjective or specific intent to threaten. Supreme Court declines case about YouTube music video gone wrong A father locked in a bitter child visitation dispute voiced his frustrations and ended up being convicted of making illegal threats. On Monday the Supreme Court turned away the case, which raised First Amendment issues. WASHINGTON A father locked in a bitter child visitation dispute chose a highly unorthodox way to express his mounting frustration with the legal system. He produced an edgy music video and posted it on YouTube. The father, Franklin Delano Jeffries II, considered his musical creation part personal therapy and part satire – a kind of joke on the oppression of the family court system. He called it “comedy for the courts.” There was just one huge problem: No one was laughing – especially the judge. At one point in his video, Mr. Jeffries sings to the judge: “I guarantee you, if you don’t stop, I’ll kill you.” Jeffries quickly found himself in a different courtroom – this time as a criminal defendant charged and convicted of making illegal threats. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison. In his appeal, he claimed he never intended his YouTube video to be an actual threat. It didn’t matter. The lower courts upheld his conviction and, on Monday, the US Supreme Court refused to hear his final appeal, thus ending the case. The case was potentially significant because it raised the issue of when threatening words exceed First Amendment protections and enter the realm of illegality. US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli had urged the high court to deny Jeffries’s petition. Jeffries’s lawyers argued that the First Amendment prohibits the government from using a man’s words against him without first proving that the words were delivered with a genuine intent to cause harm. Prosecutors replied that what Jeffries intended didn’t matter; the words in his music video were actually threatening and, thus, violated the federal threat law. Here’s another sample of his lyrics: And when I come to court this better be the last time. I’m not kidding at all, I’m making this video public. ’Cause if I have to kill a judge or a lawyer or a woman I don’t care. And this: Take my child and I’ll take your life. I’m not kidding, judge, you better listen to me. I killed a man downrange in war. I have nothing against you, but I’m tellin’ you, this better be the last court date. Mr. Verrilli said in his brief to the court that the YouTube video clearly demonstrates that Jeffries was attempting to intimidate the judge into making a favorable ruling in his case. The harsh comments were designed to put the judge in fear for his life or in fear of bodily harm, the solicitor general said. Verrilli also said Jeffries’s lawyers were wrong to argue that prosecutors must prove that a speaker had an intent to intimidate. “Nothing in the text of the threat statutes ... requires the government to prove that a defendant subjectively intended his communication to be regarded as a threat,” he wrote. “A statement that a reasonable person would regard as a threat to kill creates fear and disruption, regardless of whether the speaker subjectively intended for the statement to be taken as a threat.” There is a split among the appeals courts on that question, but it is a lopsided split. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has held that the government must prove intent to prosecute someone in a threat case. In contrast, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have ruled that evidence of specific intent is not required. Washington lawyer Charles Rothfeld urged the high court to take up the appeal and embrace what he said was a common-sense approach to enforcement of the threat law. A listener confronted with a menacing statement directed at him will frequently respond with a question: Is that a threat? Such a question would be nonsensical, Mr. Rothfeld said in his brief, “if, as the government maintains, a ‘threat’ is anything that a reasonable person would understand to be threatening, regardless of the speaker’s actual intent.” Rothfeld acknowledged that his client’s YouTube music video was anything but a valentine to the judge. But without proof that Jeffries produced the lyrics with the intention of intimidating the judge, it did not amount to a true threat, he said. “Portions of the petitioner’s video, viewed in isolation, doubtless would be taken as threatening,” Rothfeld wrote. But he said if Jeffries had been permitted to offer evidence at his trial of his subjective intent, he could have shown the jury that he made the video “as a therapeutic effort to ‘vent’ rather than to intimidate.” A therapist had advised Jeffries to try to vent his emotions rather than bottle them up, Rothfeld said. “He was told that one good way to do this was through unscripted songs, which [Jeffries] found easier to do than writing his thoughts down with pen and paper,” the lawyer said, quoting from a trial sentencing memorandum. It is not clear from the court record whether the advice included posting the resulting “vent” on YouTube. The music video was live on YouTube for 25 hours before Jeffries took it down. His ex-wife’s sister saw a link to it and notified the judge. The case was Jeffries v. US (12-1185). And remember, Dale Jeffries is a Combat Veteran of two wars who is 100% disabled from fighting for our Country in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has 70% Traumatic Brain Injury "TBI", 90 % Service Connected for fighting for your Freedom, so help fight for him and sign this Petition! Source used to help write out his Petition. http://m.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1007/Supreme-Court-declines-case-about-YouTube-music-video-gone-wrong-video/(page)/1
We are asking Gov. Bill Haslam of Tennessee to sign and support this Petition and to help Pardon Dale.
Today: Franklin is counting on you
Franklin Jeffries needs your help with “The United States President: Give Franklin Delano Jeffries II, a Presidential Pardon”. Join Franklin and 46 supporters today.