Wanted: “Decoy Jews”

The Dutch city is now famous not just for its cheese, but its “decoy Jews” In an effort to combat attacks on Jewish citizens, the police are disguising officers as Jews to capture anti-Semitic hooligans.

The Jewish broadcasting company, Joodse Omroep, recently showed young Muslims shouting and making Nazi salutes at a rabbi.

It is a sad commentary on the rise of anti-Semitism.

Here is the video that triggered the very public undercover operation:

Source: Telegraph.

28 thoughts on “Wanted: “Decoy Jews””

  1. Kay,

    Sometimes I wake up unable to move. I soon realize that something horrible is happening. The horrible thing varies, but is pretty consistent under throughout any given “phase” of my life. It’s a pretty common phenomenon that’s been recorded throughout history; Succubi, and Alien abductions, and a few other things all fit the general pattern. There’s even a name for it, sleep paralysis. The thinking is that certain people have a slight flaw in their “boot up” program that turns on sensory input before it turns on muscle control and turns off the dream state (that’s hugely over simplified).


    Sometimes Human experiences are similar because we’re all human. Our social structure seems to be largely innate. So, it makes sense that there would be similar laws and concepts of justice across different cultures. Saying “these laws are the same so we obviously got them from the older source” is taking a LOT on faith, especially when it can be easily established that there other (more influential) cultures with similar laws much more directly connected to the newer set of laws.

  2. Practicing law without a license requires representing oneself as a lawyer and accepting funds for it. Everyone has a right to research and discuss law. The public doesn’t say that only drug companies can discuss drug safety, why should only professional lawyers be able to discuss law?

    “We of the United States think experience has proved that it is safer for the mass of individuals composing society to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent. Hence, with us, people being competent to judge of the facts occurring in ordinary life have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors. I believe that action by the citizens in person, in affairs within their reach and competence, and in all others by representatives chosen immediately and removable by themselves is the essence of a Republic.” (Thomas Jefferson, Letters to Pierre S. Dupont, April 4, 1816)

    “The Founders believed that self-representation was a basic right of free people. Underlying this belief was not only the anti-lawyer sentiment of the populace, but also the ‘natural law’ thinking that characterized the Revolution’s spokesmen…Thomas Paine argued in support of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights said: “either party…has a natural right to plead his own case, this right is consistent with safety, therefore, it is retained, but the parties may not be able…therefore the civil right to pleading by proxy, that is, by counsel, is an appendage to the natural right of self-representation.” (Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)).

    Why do you think that the Old Testament verses and the Laws and Liberties of MA are consistent with modern law as written?

    Abuse of process is a tort that involves a finding of fraud or perjury. I wasn’t found to have written anything fraudulent. I verified my pleadings under penalty of perjury but was not accused of perjury. My defendants didn’t file a counterclaim and there were no rule 11 hearings.

    “Mr. [Lettunich] reported his work on the following: 1. The Federal District Court held a contempt hearing regarding Kay Sieverding. She refused to dismiss the cases that she filed and was arrested. Mr. Sieverding dismissed the cases but later reneged and said He will not dismiss the cases; so he may be arrested as well.” (See

    In 1998, USDOJ published on the Federal Register that violation of an injunction is considered to be obsolete and USDOJ does not even investigate that offense unless there is a related criminal offense. See http://foia.fbi.gov/privacy_systems/63fr8659.htm 63 Federal Register 8659, 8671 / In 1998, USDOJ published on the Federal Register that “contempt of court” is referenced in Title 18 USC §s 401, 402, 3285, 3691, 3692, Title 10, USC § 847 and Rule 42 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See http://foia.fbi.gov/privacy_systems/63fr8659.htm 63 Federal Register 8659, 8671 / 02-20-98

  3. “I was sent to jail for engaging in pro se litigation”. No. It’s a Constitutional right to be able to represent yourself in court although it’s a very bad idea. If you were sent to jail, it was more likely for the analogous crime you are attempting to perpetrate here: practicing without a license . . . or more accurately pretending to be an expert on a subject you clearly know nothing about. Sure, you can string some words together, but they don’t make any sense other than as Fundamentalist propaganda. propaganda \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n., 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions; 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. But your blatant ignorance of jurisprudence leads me to suspect what you were jailed for was something like abuse of process or contempt of court. But “sent to jail for engaging in pro se litigation”? Don’t think so.

    If you don’t have a legal education at all, what makes you think that manifest Fundie nonsense would be tolerated by those who do? The Bible is simply not the foundation for any of our laws nor is it the basis of English Common Law. Common law which derived from the very practical consideration of saving time and avoiding injustice on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. They achieved this efficiency by following stare decisis instead of looking at every case before the bar de novo with new precedent only arising from new factual situations that challenge the justice and/or efficacy of standing law.

    You have no idea about what you’re talking about. This is manifest to anyone with a legal education (like me) or the ability to research and apply logic properly (like Gyges).

    But you keep on cheering for Team Jesus.

    It’s funny in a very sad, delusional sort of way.

  4. I wasn’t even talking about Jesus. The bible versus I quoted were all old testament.

    I didn’t go to to law school at all as you would know if you googled my name.

    I was sent to jail for engaging in pro se litigation and while I was there I read part of the Bible. I had read the Bible before but it had been a long time. I found all sorts of references to law in the Bible in jail and then later I researched it on-line. There are websites with Bible word searches.

    I found an article about the results of anti lawyer sentiment in MA and I went to the state law library and found paper copies of 1926 law journals and then I looked up the laws and liberties of MA.

    These are common laws and fundamental law. There is a big discussion of common laws in Seminole Tribe Of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 03/27/1996)

  5. Then your understanding would be incorrect.

    Just as your assertion to his bloodline is also suspect. Many biblical scholars think the story of Jesus birth in Bethlehem was just that: a story. And not just a story, but one made up after the fact to give Jesus of Nazereth (the name he was known by in his lifetime) a connection to Bethlehem, the city of David, and thereby “legitimize” his “divinity” by aligning it to tradition that said the Messiah would come from David’s bloodline. In other words, propaganda. So Merry Propaganda-mas!

    “Jesus had to be careful, lest he advocate such hint of inciting a revolt, he wold have been arrested and executed.

    So he was very smart to avoid making any statement that would have led to his arrest.”

    Being that Jesus was indeed both arrested and crucified by the Romans, that statement is blatant nonsense. He was crucified precisely because the Romans thought he was a shit disturber. The throwing the money changers out of the Temple probably didn’t help with his image with the Romans as even back then, as today, monied people can always find a corrupt bureaucrat willing to sell out principle and extract a benefactor’s personal revenge for a few shekels/drachmas/dollars.

    Unless you’re one of those Fundies who blame Jesus’ death on the Jews.

    The Jews who in reality had no more reason to despise Jesus than any of the other profligate self-proclaimed “Messiahs” running about at that time. And there were lots of them too. True, some of the “power elite” within the established Jewish Orthodoxy may have taken exception to Jesus proper, but I’m certain he wasn’t the only one who pissed off someone in power by challenging their authority.

    “However, Jesus would probably have said differently if his land weren’t under control of Roman, but under his Jewish religion control.” Supposition at best. If you believe Matthew’s account, Jesus said what was stated above and the clear meaning is God’s Kingdom and Man’s Kingdoms are two distinct entities. If he’d lived in a land controlled by the descendants of King David, he’d likely have gotten in just as much if not more trouble for claiming to be the Messiah and consequently of royal lineage.

  6. “Jesus said nary a word about government. Or did he? “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Matthew 22:21. Does that ring a bell?

    Seems Jesus was a fan of Separation of Church and State too.”

    It was my understanding that the above statements that Jesus made have nothing to do with state and religion.

    You have to remember that Jews were under Roman control, and many of them wanted to overthrow them to get their sovereignty back. You also have to remember that Jesus (according to his bloodline) could have been an “aristocrat in exile” and of course many people are wondering if he would support overthrow of Roman control.

    Jesus had to be careful, lest he advocate such hint of inciting a revolt, he wold have been arrested and executed.

    So he was very smart to avoid making any statement that would have led to his arrest.

    However, Jesus would probably have said differently if his land weren’t under control of Roman, but under his Jewish religion control.

  7. When JRR Tolkein wanted to publish Lord of the Rings in the 1930’s, his German publisher wrote him to ask him “what kind of name” was “Tolkien.” [Tolkien was a Catholic and his name is German.]

    I am paraphrasing, but what Tolkien essentially replied was that he did not have the good fortune to be a member of that highly intelligent “race” [Jews] and that he did not want to have anything to do with people who would even consider asking whether he was a Jew. He also added that if this racism continued, German culture was in its death throes.

  8. Let me guess. Your “law” degree is from Regents. Because it sure as Hell isn’t from a real school.

Comments are closed.