Creeping Liberalism and Liberal Lying:

Birdman Corresponds With the Executive Director of the Fully Informed Jury Association

By John "Birdman" Bryant


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:
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 3:18 PM
> > Subject: Racial/cultural bias?
> >
> >
> > To: Don Doig [FIJA founder]
> > From: John 'Birdman' Bryant (
> >
> > 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
> >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
> >FIJA.
> >
> > So how then did it emerge as a 'focus'. The most likely reason is
> >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
> >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
> >Anglo-Saxon law from the depredations of the anti-Anglo multicult. Or
> >put it another way, it sounds like you have bowed to liberal pressure
> >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 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
> >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
> >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
> >jury not even understanding the defendants, much less the information
> >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!
> >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
> >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
> >you don't understand what is going on.
> >
> >And in some areas, the federal prosecutors love to get all-white juries
> >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
> >of this country is a highly-visible issue. It is not only well within
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >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
> >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?
> >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,
> >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
> >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
> >in Mensa, big deal: I'm in Intertel, so what? That has nothing to do
> >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
> >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
> >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.
> >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
> >happen to be white/ blue/brown), or through your plumbing because you
> >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
> >-- and even before that document was written-- my God-given rights to
> >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
> >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,
> >and pretty damned stupid, old John. Your name is being expunged from
> >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
> >
> >

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Bryant
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 7:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Ignorant, unlettered ostrich? Ah, so that is what birdman
> 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 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: <>
From: John Bryant
Blind Copy:

Subject: Re: Ignorant, unlettered ostrich? Ah, so that is what birdman

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: <>
From: John Bryant
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 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

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

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
( and my website (

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 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:
> 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
> 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 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: <>
From: John Bryant
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.]



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 * * *