Do beliefs have consequences?

What can we infer about a person's future actions based on their stated beliefs?

The owner of Beverly Hills' "Gina's Eyelashes and Skincare," Gina Bisignano, was arrested after the 1/6 insurrection on charges of "Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds" and "Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds," among others. Two
days after the insurrection, she had appeared on Alex Jones' "Infowars"
program to share video implicating herself in the events at the Capitol,
which helped lead to her apprehension.

Ms. Bisignano was initially granted bail before prosecutors filed an appeal, stating that, "Her sincere belief in conspiracy theories and the absence of rational, evidence-based decision-making show that she is extraordinarily unlikely to accept the legitimacy of this court.s orders." This ultimately resulted in the judge denying her bail.

She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, no credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness of strangers to survive.

Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the government and the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

Hello Jeff,

[..]

She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, no credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness of strangers to survive.

Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the government and
the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?

Jesus was born in radical poverty. The Holy Family were refugees.
Look at how they were treated. And after all that was said and done,
look at who forgave us for our sins, and his reason why.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

--Lee

--
Pay your taxes!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Jeff,

Do beliefs have consequences?

It is either truth, or consequences. Never both.

What can we infer about a person's future actions based on their stated beliefs?

God damn you!

If God is real, you are damned.

The owner of Beverly Hills' "Gina's Eyelashes and Skincare," Gina Bisignano,
was arrested after the 1/6 insurrection on charges of "Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds" and "Engaging in Physical Violence in a Restricted Building or Grounds," among others. Two days after the insurrection, she had appeared on Alex Jones' "Infowars" program to share video implicating herself in the events at the Capitol, which helped lead to her apprehension.

She was being naughty, not nice. No presents for you from Santa.

Ms. Bisignano was initially granted bail before prosecutors filed an appeal,
stating that, "Her sincere belief in conspiracy theories and the absence of
rational, evidence-based decision-making show that she is extraordinarily unlikely to accept the legitimacy of this court.s orders." This ultimately resulted in the judge denying her bail.

The judge was being kind.

She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, no credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness of strangers to survive.

Kindness? No such kindness exists in this world.

Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the government and
the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?

She can go to the Salvation Army. Her first day/night would be free.
Every day/night after that would cost her $5.

If panhandling does not get her enough for a night, she can always
find a cardboard box to sleep in.

That is the kindness of strangers.

Have a Merry Christmas.

--Lee

--
Hands too small! Can't build a wall!

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Ms. Bisignano was initially granted bail before prosecutors filed an appeal, stating that, "Her sincere belief in conspiracy theories and the absence of rational, evidence-based decision-making show that she is extraordinarily unlikely to accept the legitimacy of this court.s orders." This ultimately resulted in the judge denying her bail.

She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, no credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness of strangers to survive.

Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the government and the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?

Well, first of all, why are they granting her supervised release in
*Oklahoma*, which is neither her home nor the jurisdiction of the crime,
and where she apparently knows no one? If they are willing to give legal immigrants money and housing somewhere, she should at least be able to use
her credit or debit cards to access her own funds so she can find shelter.
This sounds unusually cruel, and maybe even dangerous to others.

And why with no ID? I could see taking away a passport, but *no* ID at all?

Based on the fact that, anymore, there are places in the US that do not
even take into account the *actions* of the defendent before low-balling
their bail, I would have to say no, they should not be using beliefs at all.

Even if it was not for that, I would say no, they should not unless they
could tie those beliefs to whether or not the person is a flight risk.
Even then, I would question it in cases where the infraction was not
violent. It may have been here. I know what she is charged with, but not actually what she did.

Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching on things
that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.


* SLMR 2.1a * Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 22 Dec 2021, Lee Lofaso said the following...

Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the govern and
the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?

Jesus was born in radical poverty. The Holy Family were refugees.
Look at how they were treated. And after all that was said and done,
look at who forgave us for our sins, and his reason why.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night.

I'm not really celbrating Christmas this year,but having been raised in a Christian environment, it has been on my mind. Specifically, Christmas as the bridge from the Old Testament to the New Testament has been occupying my thoughts this holiday season.

The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are very different. The former is wrathful, vengeful, and sometimes even cruel, while the latter is portrayed as being merciful, loving, and forgiving.

However, as different as they are, there are a few things they completely
agree on. And one of those is how we should treat the poor, widowed,
orphaned, and foreigners among us. They are both very clear on that point.

And modern American evangelicals are as far from that as could be.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

On 22 Dec 2021, Mike Powell said the following...

Ms. Bisignano was initially granted bail before prosecutors filed an app stating that, "Her sincere belief in conspiracy theories and the absence rational, evidence-based decision-making show that she is extraordinaril unlikely to accept the legitimacy of this court.s orders." This ultimate resulted in the judge denying her bail.
She was eventually granted supervised release in Oklahoma, with no ID, n credit card, and no means of returning home. She relies on the kindness strangers to survive.

Do beliefs have consequences? Should people who claim that the governmen the courts themselves are not legitimate be released pending trial?

Well, first of all, why are they granting her supervised release in *Oklahoma*, which is neither her home nor the jurisdiction of the crime, and where she apparently knows no one? If they are willing to give legal immigrants money and housing somewhere, she should at least be able to
use her credit or debit cards to access her own funds so she can find shelter. This sounds unusually cruel, and maybe even dangerous to others.

While imprisoned, she was transferred from a California facility to
an Oklahoma facility. Technically, DC was the scene of the crime, but since she's charged with a felony offense, the entire US would be the jurisdiction
of the crime.

Perhaps she would be better off remaining in custody. They didn't just give
her supervised release out of the blue; she had to ask for it.

And why with no ID? I could see taking away a passport, but *no* ID at all?

Perhaps she had no ID when she was apprehended. Or, perhaps access to an ID would make her a flight risk. I'm not sure why they would do that.

Based on the fact that, anymore, there are places in the US that do not even take into account the *actions* of the defendent before low-balling their bail, I would have to say no, they should not be using beliefs at all.

Sometimes bail is too low, sometimes it's too high. Putting a dollar amount
on a crime is inherently problematic.

Even if it was not for that, I would say no, they should not unless they could tie those beliefs to whether or not the person is a flight risk. Even then, I would question it in cases where the infraction was not violent. It may have been here. I know what she is charged with, but
not actually what she did.

She trespassed in the Capitol with the intent to interrupt Congressional proceedings. That's a federal felony.

Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.

Indeed. If someone's religious beliefs include slaughtering pagans, should
they be released pending trial?

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

The entity known as Mike Powell wrote to somebody -

Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching
on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.

One nation, UNDER GOD, with liberty and justice for all.
~ Words "under God" added to the Pledge of Allegiance by
the US Congress in the 1950s

IN GOD WE TRUST.
~ Motto of the USA, declared by the US Congress

--Lee

--
If PBS won't do it, who will?

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

While imprisoned, she was transferred from a California facility to
an Oklahoma facility. Technically, DC was the scene of the crime, but since she's charged with a felony offense, the entire US would be the jurisdiction of the crime.

I wonder why she was transferred?

Perhaps she would be better off remaining in custody. They didn't just give her supervised release out of the blue; she had to ask for it.

Probably, but I wonder if she realized that meant supervised release in Oklahoma.

She trespassed in the Capitol with the intent to interrupt Congressional proceedings. That's a federal felony.

It is indeed but, if all she did was trespass, that is hardly violent.

Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.

Indeed. If someone's religious beliefs include slaughtering pagans, should they be released pending trial?

I would assume the intention to commit murder(s) would be the belief in question there.

I was thinking along the lines of punishing someone for their beliefs could lead to a legal precedent that could later be interpreted as "ok" for persons to be jailed simply for being pagan, or atheist, or Jewish, etc. That would be a problem as it would be wrong. Interesting that you jumped straight to religion + violence, though.

#
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 26 Dec 2021, Mike Powell said the following...

While imprisoned, she was transferred from a California facility to
an Oklahoma facility. Technically, DC was the scene of the crime, but s she's charged with a felony offense, the entire US would be the jurisdi of the crime.

I wonder why she was transferred?

Beats me... You could submit a FOIA request, I suppose, but until that
produces results everything else is just conjecture. I would imagine that
there are a number of non-conspiratorial reasons why a federal prisoner might be transferred from one state to another.

Perhaps she would be better off remaining in custody. They didn't just her supervised release out of the blue; she had to ask for it.

Probably, but I wonder if she realized that meant supervised release in Oklahoma.

I don't know where she was when she requested supervised release.

She trespassed in the Capitol with the intent to interrupt Congressiona proceedings. That's a federal felony.

It is indeed but, if all she did was trespass, that is hardly violent.

Perhaps that was a factor in getting her supervised release. However, the law against interfering with Congress' duties has no requirement that such interference be violent.

Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching on things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.

Indeed. If someone's religious beliefs include slaughtering pagans, sho they be released pending trial?

I would assume the intention to commit murder(s) would be the belief in question there.

One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's really no limit
on what someone could believe.

I was thinking along the lines of punishing someone for their beliefs could lead to a legal precedent that could later be interpreted as "ok" for persons to be jailed simply for being pagan, or atheist, or Jewish, etc. That would be a problem as it would be wrong. Interesting that
you jumped straight to religion + violence, though.

Historically, religion has been extremely violent. Religious violence
continues to be committed to this day.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

I wonder why she was transferred?

Beats me... You could submit a FOIA request, I suppose, but until that produces results everything else is just conjecture. I would imagine that there are a number of non-conspiratorial reasons why a federal prisoner might be transferred from one state to another.

I am not thinking conspiracy, just wondering why you would transfer someone
out of their home state into one where they have no relatives (which means
few visitors). Even murders are allowed regular visits from family.

You are right, we probably won't know if no one is reporting it.

Once you get into the realm of "beliefs," you could be touching o
things that are guaranteed freedoms, like religious beliefs.

Indeed. If someone's religious beliefs include slaughtering pagans, sh
they be released pending trial?

I would assume the intention to commit murder(s) would be the belief in question there.

One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's really no limit on what someone could believe.

Yes, but murder is clearly against the law. If I had a belief that murder
was "ritual sacrifice" and the authorities believed I would commit murders, then they are preventing murder, not simply preventing the practice of my stated religion.

I was thinking along the lines of punishing someone for their beliefs could lead to a legal precedent that could later be interpreted as "ok" for persons to be jailed simply for being pagan, or atheist, or Jewish, etc. That would be a problem as it would be wrong. Interesting that you jumped straight to religion + violence, though.

Historically, religion has been extremely violent. Religious violence continues to be committed to this day.

True. But I would be more worried about one religion deciding it was OK to jail members of other religions and non-believers if we set a bar that
makes it OK to jail persons (or extend sentences) based on their "beliefs."

There are other countries where members of other religions are treated as second-class citizens, and religious texts that "require" that additional
taxes be collected fron non-believers. I would think we'd want to do what
we can to avoid becoming such a place.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Mmmmmmmm.....chocolate."
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 03 Jan 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

I wonder why she was transferred?

Beats me... You could submit a FOIA request, I suppose, but until that produces results everything else is just conjecture. I would imagine tha there are a number of non-conspiratorial reasons why a federal prisoner be transferred from one state to another.

I am not thinking conspiracy, just wondering why you would transfer someone out of their home state into one where they have no relatives (which means few visitors). Even murders are allowed regular visits
from family.

Apparently she was ultimately being transferred to D.C. for her trial, but
was being held at an overflow facility in Oklahoma for some time. During that time, she was granted supervised release and was taken in by various members
of church groups. I don't know why she didn't have her ID or credit cards
with her, while other belongings such as her shoes were returned to her.
There is a report of her having her purse, with a dog inside, stolen from her car in an unrelated incident prior to 1/6. The dog was recovered; the purse apparently was not, so I guess it's possible that she hadn't replaced them
yet. She did go to D.C. on 1/6 and return, so maybe she used a passport? I
have no idea.

One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's really no li on what someone could believe.

Yes, but murder is clearly against the law. If I had a belief that
murder was "ritual sacrifice" and the authorities believed I would
commit murders, then they are preventing murder, not simply preventing
the practice of my stated religion.

So, just to recap, you're saying that if your religion included a belief in ritual sacrifice and "the authorities" believed that you would commit murders, even if you had not planned or committed any murders yet, "the authorities" could forcibly remove you from society? That's an interesting theory, and borders on "thought police," don't you think?

On the other hand, what Gina Bisignano did was also clearly against the law, and prosecutors convinced a judge that the same beliefs that led her to
commit those crimes had a potential to lead her to commit additional crimes.

I was thinking along the lines of punishing someone for their belie could lead to a legal precedent that could later be interpreted as for persons to be jailed simply for being pagan, or atheist, or Je etc. That would be a problem as it would be wrong. Interesting th you jumped straight to religion + violence, though.

Historically, religion has been extremely violent. Religious violence continues to be committed to this day.

True. But I would be more worried about one religion deciding it was OK to jail members of other religions and non-believers if we set a bar that makes it OK to jail persons (or extend sentences) based on their "beliefs."
There are other countries where members of other religions are treated as second-class citizens, and religious texts that "require" that additional taxes be collected fron non-believers. I would think we'd want to do
what we can to avoid becoming such a place.

That's exactly why we should keep religion -- every religion -- as far away from government as possible.

Jeff.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." -- H. L. Mencken, who indeed was a racist thereby proving himself right.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

There is a report of her having her purse, with a dog inside, stolen from her car in an unrelated incident prior to 1/6. The dog was recovered; the purse apparently was not, so I guess it's possible that she hadn't replaced them yet. She did go to D.C. on 1/6 and return, so maybe she used a passport? I have no idea.

She honestly sounds like the kind of person who puts herself into
situations where things like that happen (ID stolen, not replaced before "important" trip).

One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's really no l
on what someone could believe.

Yes, but murder is clearly against the law. If I had a belief that murder was "ritual sacrifice" and the authorities believed I would commit murders, then they are preventing murder, not simply preventing the practice of my stated religion.

So, just to recap, you're saying that if your religion included a belief in ritual sacrifice and "the authorities" believed that you would commit murders,
even if you had not planned or committed any murders yet, "the authorities" could forcibly remove you from society? That's an interesting theory, and borders on "thought police," don't you think?

Not necessarily. You brought up murder. My assumption would be that they would not know the person believed in ritual sacrifice unless they (1) were arrested for it, or (2) the person told them so. Granted, a dumb person
might share that, but a smarter person would likely figure out that
bringing that up could be seen as terroristic threatening (a new crime) and wouldn't do so.

I guess I should have asked "how do the police know this?" first.

On the other hand, what Gina Bisignano did was also clearly against the law, and prosecutors convinced a judge that the same beliefs that led her to commit those crimes had a potential to lead her to commit additional crimes.

I don't believe that should have any bearing on the sentence for current
crimes *unless* those crimes also include threats to commit future crimes.


* SLMR 2.1a * "Get out & take your Sacagawea dollars with you!" - Moe
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 04 Jan 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

There is a report of her having her purse, with a dog inside, stolen fro car in an unrelated incident prior to 1/6. The dog was recovered; the pu apparently was not, so I guess it's possible that she hadn't replaced th yet. She did go to D.C. on 1/6 and return, so maybe she used a passport? have no idea.

She honestly sounds like the kind of person who puts herself into situations where things like that happen (ID stolen, not replaced before "important" trip).

I would tend to agree.

One man's murder is another man's ritual sacrifice. There's reall l
on what someone could believe.

Yes, but murder is clearly against the law. If I had a belief that murder was "ritual sacrifice" and the authorities believed I would commit murders, then they are preventing murder, not simply prevent the practice of my stated religion.

So, just to recap, you're saying that if your religion included a belief ritual sacrifice and "the authorities" believed that you would commit murders,
even if you had not planned or committed any murders yet, "the authoriti could forcibly remove you from society? That's an interesting theory, an borders on "thought police," don't you think?

Not necessarily. You brought up murder. My assumption would be that
they would not know the person believed in ritual sacrifice unless they (1) were arrested for it, or (2) the person told them so. Granted, a
dumb person might share that, but a smarter person would likely figure
out that bringing that up could be seen as terroristic threatening (a
new crime) and wouldn't do so.

Or they might advertize this belief somehow. Death threats fly around the internet every minute, and no one gets arrested. Or, they could be a known associate of others who consider ritual human sacrifice to be a deeply held religious belief. There are any number of ways that they could be exposed.

I guess I should have asked "how do the police know this?" first.

There are any number of ways. How do the feds know of Gina's beliefs?

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)

I guess I should have asked "how do the police know this?" first.

There are any number of ways. How do the feds know of Gina's beliefs?

In her case, it sounds like she babbled about them a lot. Still if she is
not threatening to kill someone or blow something up or some other action
that it is against the law to make threats about, she shouldn't be charged simply because she has potentially stupid beliefs.

Stupid isn't against the law, by itself.


* SLMR 2.1a * Here is a loud announcement... Silence in the studio!!
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

On 05 Jan 2022, Mike Powell said the following...

There are any number of ways. How do the feds know of Gina's beliefs?

In her case, it sounds like she babbled about them a lot. Still if she
is not threatening to kill someone or blow something up or some other action that it is against the law to make threats about, she shouldn't
be charged simply because she has potentially stupid beliefs.
Stupid isn't against the law, by itself.

Sure, she wan't arrested for her beliefs, but she was denied bail for them.

Jeff.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Cold War Computing BBS (1:387/26)