The Libby Injustice
A political dispute whose "crime" was solved a long time ago.
Editorial - January 20th, 2007 - Wall Street Journal (opinionjournal.com)
Opening arguments begin next week in the trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and, regardless of the verdict, it is our firm belief that this is a case that should never have been brought. While a tragedy for Mr. Libby and his family in personal terms, the case is among the most egregious examples we can recall of criminalizing political differences. It is now coming out that Patrick Fitzgerald has a long term personal grievance with Scotter Libby. Since Libby was not the person who released Valerie Plame's name, Richard Armitage is now known to have been the person who did that, and since no crime was committed in releasing her name, it is now known that she was not covert under the law in question, and since both of these things mean Libby had no motive to lie, and since it is now known that Fitzgerald already knew both these things before he had Libby interviewed, everyone has long been asking, "What is this really about?"
It turns out it is nothing but a personal vendetta by an evil prosecutor to get even with someone who he was angry at. Like Nifong in Durham, Fitzgerald is abusing his office for personal reasons. Is anyone surprised that a legal system as corrupt as ours has come to this? Welcome to the "rule of judges".
Nifong Conduct Rebuked Early
by Joseph Neff - January 15th, 2007 - The News And Observer
"I do not understand why you will reportedly speak to the media in such certain, condemning terms before all the evidence is in, but you will not have the courtesy to meet or even speak with a representative of someone you have publicly condemned, despite your knowledge of the presumption of innocence and your position as an officer of the court bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct related to pre-trial publicity."Is it actually possible that our court system will discipline one of their own? I still have trouble believing we will see justice for Nifong based on the standard way in which our courts whitewash this kind of scandal. Nor do I believe that the "rule of judges" will be reduced significantly by this emabarrasement. Our courts are corrupt. But this is interesing!
by Tom Brodbeck - January 12th, 2007 - Winnepeg Sun
Car thief Stanley Ross is in for a rude awakening.This article is just as appropriate for America as it is for Canada. Though the level of frustration with our courts is on the rise, people are still trying to influence the legislature and executive branches to pressure the tyrants in the judicial banch rather than taking vigilante action. However anger and rage at the courts is at the breaking point.
The 22-year-old Winnipegger, who was severely beaten following a two-car crash Saturday, has been in a medically induced coma for most of the week.
When, or if, he comes to, he's going to be in for a bit of a shock when he's told about the vitriolic anger directed -- not at his assailant -- but at him.
Vigilantism, or acceptance of it, doesn't happen in a vacuum.
It occurs when the public no longer feels the justice system is holding criminals accountable for their actions.
I sincerely feel justificable vigilante action is coming. Our lawyers and court system do not seem to be willing to accept any other form of criticism as valid. We still suffer from the "rule of judges" and this is not tolerable. The alternative is the Shakespeare solution, "First we kill all the judges".
Lawyers Say Nifong Should Recuse
by John Stevenson - January 8th, 2007 - The Herald Sun
DURHAM -- The N.C. State Bar's recent decision to charge District Attorney Mike Nifong with ethical violations almost certainly presents the prosecutor with a conflict of interest in the Duke lacrosse sex-offense case, several lawyers and professors said Monday.Let me see now. A prosecutor refuses to meet with a defendant who has proof he is innocent and instead this DA continues to insist on the defendant's guilt to the press. This is the same defendant whose DNA the prosecutor was told was not present either on the accuser or in the bathroom where the offense supposedly takes place, thereby negating the possibility he was involved. Wouldn't you think a prosecutor who cared about justice would meet with the defendant and end the case? Instead the prosecutor hid the DNA evidence from the defendant and all others involved in the trial in violation of court rules.
Because he now must defend his handling of the case in an effort to save his law license, Nifong has a personal stake in the outcome and is duty-bound to step aside in the interest of fairness, according to the lawyers and instructors.
In fact this is one of many defendants whose pictures were a part of 3 separate illegal photo arrays of exclusively the lacrosse team players at Duke provided to the accuser. When the accuser picked out 2 players that were not present at the party where the incident was supposed to take place, she was asked to try again and provided only pictures of people who were present so she could "identify" someone the prosecutor could charge. This too was hidden from the defendants. To top off this farce, none of the defendants the accuser selected in the final array match the descriptions she originally gave when filing the complaint.
The real embarrassment in this article are the quotes of people who defend Nifong. Though said to be lawyers (and thus in conflict with the article's title) I wonder how they can be. Just what part of "innocent until proven guilty" do they not understand? Wait a minute and let me think. . . . . Okay. I am wrong. They can be attorneys. It is actually typical of attorneys in our corrupt court system. They think it is all about performance and winning.
Our system is an adversarial system and attorneys think guilt or innocence are irrelevant to the process. They think the best attorney should win. And that is exactly what is wrong with our system. Most of its practitioners do not have a clue what justice is or how to get it. They are so imbued with the brainwashing provided by our law schools that they do not even understand how statements defending Nifong sound to those of us who hold their system in contempt. Why is anyone surprised Nifong still will not step aside? He is an attorney.
Legal System Out Of Control
by John Reiners - January 5th, 2007 - Hernando Today
Two journalists were sentenced last September for refusing to testify about who leaked secret grand jury testimony to them about Barry Bonds' use of steroids. (They had written a series of articles and a popular book exposing steroid use in the major leagues.)Our legal system is out of control. People's lives are being destroyed for political gain, and as long as you are in bed with the MSM (as the democrats are) you get a free ride. If you do not support the politically correct preferred outcome you are destroyed, by the media and the courts. In the Libby and Bonds cases the prosecutors sent journalists to jail in order to further their case. The difference though is that Bonds appears guilty based on evidence that is public while Libby appears innocent. In both cases though journalists were sent to jail and the only concern of the MSM was whether they were supporting the politically correct desire for an outcome.There is also a parallel with the Duke Rape Case. It is now positiviely proved that Richard Armitage is the person who "outed" Valerie Plame. The special prosecutor in Libby's case, Patrick Fitzgerald, lied in public and claimed that it was Scooter Libby who "outed" her. It is now positively proved the special prosecutor knew this was a lie when he said it in the press conference.
There is a parallel between that travesty and the CIA leak fiasco which resulted in both the indictment of Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff - for obstruction of justice and perjury, and the jailing of yet another journalist who refused to testify about sources.
Like Nifong in the Duke Rape Case, Fitzegerald continues to pursue Scooter Libby even though it is known he is innocent. It is not bad enough he sent a journalist to jail when he knew they were not hiding evidence that would permit him to proceed against Libby. The whole world now knows his whole case is a lie. Armitage "outed" Plame. Yet our incompetent buffoons in the court system permit this injustice to proceed against Libby just as they allow the injustice in the Duke Rape Case to proceed.
At least one balancing power over the corruption of our courts is supposed to be the power to pardon granted to our President. It is sad that our gutless President will not intervene and pardon Libby. Another option would be to fire Fitzgerald. Bush does neither. If Libby was a democrat he would pardon him. Since he is a Republican, and Bush knows he cannot communicate effectively enough to win the battle of public perceptions, Libby simply sits there with the power of the federal government trying to frame him. Nifong is doing the same to the 3 defendents in the Duke Rape Case.
Welcome to the injustices that happen when you are subject to "the rule of judges".