Daniel Novack, 26, made his first appearance on the charge of making terroristic threats this afternoon in Central Judicial Processing court in Jersey City via video link from Hudson County jail in Kearny.
Novak told Judge Kelly Austin that his name was Daniel Thornberry and gave a date of birth but said he had no social security number. When the judge asked "How is that possible?" Novak replied, "I am a member of the Shire Society, not this society."
Eventually, Austin said, "Mr. Novak, you are being held no bail. You want to keep talking over me - no bail. Step out of the booth right now."
did he make? And if he did make any threat what context was it issued in and who was it aimed at and WHY did he make any utterance that could be taken that way?
This is interesting. The "Shire Society" seem very cool from what I've seen. "Derrick J" is phenomenal.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
From the first post about this.. if you had bothered to read/research/investigate .. you would have seen.....
A self-declared member of the Shire Society, Novack is charged with threatening a woman in Bayonne on Tuesday allegedly telling her "that his friends (would) gang rape her then beat her to death," the criminal complaint says.
Which is both a violent act.. and (I would say) loosely a 'terroristic' statement.
terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uh m]
noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
Llwellyn wrote:Which is both a violent act.. and (I would say) loosely a 'terroristic' statement.
So YOU have said... Great then I have said, "A monkey plus a badger equals a walnut."
What's your next point? I'm really GLAD you are here "Llwellyn". More sport, C, U, NOW.
Big Daddy versus Giant Haystacks. Pointless eh!
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
Again, moving or completely ignoring the goalposts..
The person in question - -A self-declared member of the Shire Society, Novack is charged with threatening a woman in Bayonne on Tuesday allegedly telling her "that his friends (would) gang rape her then beat her to death," the criminal complaint says. -
Threatening a woman.. an act or attempt to terrorize someone. Glad you can skip the pertinent information to attempt to create a justification for .. a rape threat, and a threat of death.
Llwellyn wrote:Again, moving or completely ignoring the goalposts..
The person in question - -A self-declared member of the Shire Society, Novack is charged with threatening a woman in Bayonne on Tuesday allegedly telling her "that his friends (would) gang rape her then beat her to death," the criminal complaint says. -
Threatening a woman.. an act or attempt to terrorize someone. Glad you can skip the pertinent information to attempt to create a justification for .. a rape threat, and a threat of death.
Not at all "Llwellyn" not at all. Nothing moved and nothing ignored. I would like to know more (like / as any "good" lawyer would do, if there is such a thing) about whether anything provoked the allegation because if there is something (anything) that mitigates why the alleged threat was made then the threat is well mitigated. If not then he shouldn't have said the alleged threat, if that's what happened. What if she said she was going to do the same to him but said it before he did?
What then? That's a game changer and the burden of proof as we all know lies with / upon he or she who affirms. She needs to prove he said the alleged words.
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
I'm trying to find any situation under which a threat from an individual
that his friends (would) gang rape her then beat her to death
would or could be anything but an act of terror. Please enlighten us as to what you think could possibly justify such an action?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
notorial dissent wrote:I'm trying to find any situation under which a threat from an individual
that his friends (would) gang rape her then beat her to death
would or could be anything but an act of terror. Please enlighten us as to what you think could possibly justify such an action?
If one said it in response to someone else saying it first who would be said to be seen the worse?
Boaz. It's a little like Shazam. It certainly meant a lot to Billy Batson.
Nothing in this post is legal or lawful advice, it is only used for the sake of entertainment.
All "rights" are reserved by this poster.
pigpot wrote:
If one said it in response to someone else saying it first who would be said to be seen the worse?
Obviously, the threat was considered significant enough to justify an arrest, arraignment and incarceration. And filing a false complaint can result in the same for an accuser.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy. The Devil Makes Three
i decided to wander over to the shire society and check their forum and such. no mention of Daniel Novack. i suspect he is just a douchebag bandying names about to get that feeling of self importance by defiling the name of a peaceful group.
many here may not approve of the shire but i like their style at times. they actually show up to council meetings and court and seem to remain peaceful whilst trying to exercise every right at their disposal. that is not far outside the system. many actually must be familiar with roberts rules of order as they speak quite well at council meetings. many have actual jobs and do good. and they are often willing to do the time that quite often comes with being a protester of any kind.
i feel its a bit reckless to paint them with the color of turd mr. novack has opened. i have never read anything on them that condones violence or threats there of.
peace,
ninj
whoever said laughter is the best medicine never had gonorrhea....
pigpot wrote:
If one said it in response to someone else saying it first who would be said to be seen the worse?
Obviously, the threat was considered significant enough to justify an arrest, arraignment and incarceration. And filing a false complaint can result in the same for an accuser.
One other little point, minor but important, police don't usually just go and arrest some one because it is claimed that they made threaty statements towards someone, you can file all the complaints you want, and crazy people do all the time, but unless there is evidence that something actually was said or done then they aren't going to go any further, and DA's are notorious for not wanting to go to trial when there is no proof, so it kinda sorta follows that this douche bag actually made the aforementioned threats in a fashion that was verifiable, like maybe i don't know sending mail or email, posting in on their facebook page, or saying it in a room full of people. There would have had to have been sufficient proof at arraignment for a judge to have sustained the arrest, and I would equally suspect that there will be sufficient proof to get a conviction at trial.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
