Thursday, April 26, 2007

Roberts Hits Stevens Over Death Penalty

by Mark Sherman - April 26, 2007 - Forbes

Stevens, leading a five-justice majority, said Texas state courts should have set aside the death sentences because the Supreme Court had made clear that such sentences could not stand if they were imposed as a result of flawed jury instructions that Texas used until 1991.

Roberts, a dissenter in six of the court's 10 most recent rulings, wrote that contrary to being clear, Supreme Court death penalty law over the years has been a "dog's breakfast," a mess of "divided, conflicted and ever-changing analyses." State courts would find it difficult, if not impossible, to discern federal law from those rulings, he said.

Roberts concluded his 16-page dissent on a sarcastic note, at odds with his amiable image. "Still, perhaps there is no reason to be unduly glum," Roberts said, taking direct aim at Stevens. "After all, today the author of a dissent issued in 1988 writes two majority opinions concluding that the views established in that dissent actually represented 'clearly established' federal law at that time. So there is hope yet for the views expressed in this dissent."

"Encouraged by the majority's determination that the future can change the past, I respectfully dissent," he concluded.

Five to four. That is not law. That is politics. "The rule of judges" continues to embarrass the tyrants on our courts.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Social Security Hides Identity Theft

by Jill Schramm - April 22nd, 2007 - Minot Daily News

Because of privacy laws, the Social Security Administration doesn’t inform people when their numbers show up with new names, nor does the agency release information if people discover other users . . .

In other words, the largest single accessory to identity theft in America is the federal government. The courts do nothing when it is brought to their attention. They will NOT ACCEPT lawsuits trying to correct this government aiding and abetting of crime.

This is just one more situation that proves our courts are in league with criminals. They work hard to free the guilty and do not care about victims or the innocent who are wrongly convicted.

Justice in our courts is a farce. The "rule of judges" has resulted in a court system that is totally corrupt.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

$3 Million Can Buy Some Justice

Our American court system proved once again that money is the only way to buy justice (or injustice for that matter). $3 million is the estimate of how much money the families of the Lacross players have had to pay their attorneys to keep their sons out of the clutches of Mike Nifong. However if you don't have money you will lose in our courts. If the 3 Lacrosse players had not had rich parents they would have long since been convicted in our corrupt court system dominated by "the rule of judges".

Today at the Raleigh press conference held at 2:30 PM, Roy Cooper, Attorney General for North Carolina, stated what has been obvious for most of the last 13 months to any reasonable observer. The 3 Duke University Lacrosse players are innocent, Nifong abused his power, Duke and the local community cheered him on in error. The exact quote was "We believe these 3 individuals are innocent of the charges." It was a stunning announcement which no lawyer expected because it exposes his client, the state of North Carolina, to legal costs and civil lawsuits.

Almost immediately into the press conference, Cooper confirmed that his department was filing notices of dismissal on all criminal charges. "The result is these cases are over and no more criminal proceedings will occur." However he did not stop there. Some of the quotes from this press conference were simply amazing.

"We believe these cases were the result of a tragic rush to accuse and a failure to verify serious allegations. There were many points in the case where caution would have served justice better than bravado."

"Inconsistencies were so significant that we have no credible evidence an attack occured."

"Now in this case, with the weight of the state behind him, the Durham D.A. pushed forward unchecked."

"In the rush to condemn . . a community and a state lost the ability to see clearly. Regardless of the reason this case was pushed forward the result was wrong."

At various points in the press conference Cooper called Nifong an "overeaching prosecutor" and a "rogue prosecutor". Cooper promised a fact summary next week that will give details of all the failures and mistakes they found. Cooper's solution to this miscarriage of justice is letting the Supreme Court for North Carolina be the process by which prosecutorial misconduct is handled in the future. This suggestion and the request for a new law by Cooper will conveniently assure that next time the Attorney General for North Carolina is not the person who is supposed to resolve the mess created when a rogue prosecutor abuses his power.

When asked if Cooper would apologize to the 3 young men he stated "I think a lot of people owe apologies to other people." However he would not apologize.

Cooper also talked about the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum. After insisting that he had reviewed sealed records of earlier cases involving the accuser which he would not share, he proclaimed "The investigators and attorneys think that she may actually believe the many different stories that she has been telling." The implication was that she was delusional if not mentally ill and that the only way you could avoid saying she was lying was because she "believed" the stories she was telling, even if they were totally contradictory on the facts and inconsistent with other evidence. If it was not 13 months after her false charges destroyed so many lives this waffling avoidance of the issue would not be so annoying.

Part of the problem is that this was made an issue of racism, not justice. One writer has noted about the clear conflicting accounts from the accuser "This didn't stop the Black Panthers from demonstrating on the Duke campus in "support" of Mangum (rough translation of their message: when an accuser is black and the accused is white, it's racist not to believe her)."

So there you have it. Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans are innocent. That also means that the well respected coach and mentor Mike Pressler whose career was destroyed . . . was not guilty of allowing his players to conduct themselves as criminals. This was the charge that got him fired from Duke. He allowed this rape to occur. But there was no rape. Where does Mike Pressler go to get justice and get his job back?

These are the best known individuals whose lives were destroyed by the lies of Crystal Gail Mangum. They were also damaged by the use of her lies for political gain by D.A. Mike Nifong. However they are not the only victims. Hundreds of people's lives were damaged in this tragedy of "justice". The argument is that Mangum should not be charged with anything because after all she does not have any money.

This argument is a blatant indication that other than for purposes of monetary compensation (blackmail and extortion usually) our court system is useless. The reality is that no judge would allow anyone but the 3 men accused of criminal charges to sue her anyway. Our court system does not allow for justice in most cases. It is a system whereby blackmail and extortion is selectively condoned.

Nothing in this press conference addressed a related issue . . the liability of Duke University for their enthusiastic willingness to forget the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". Or how about the liability of the more than 80 liberal Duke professors who took out an aid proclaiming the 3 young men guilty, insisting their guilt was an indication of how racist our society is?

This press conference produced an amazing result. Only in this one instance has some amount of justice prevailed and only because the defendents were rich and the case got so much publicity and the Attorney General decided to stop the usual hiding behind the "we don't have enough evidence to proceed" copout. The legal profession and its concept of justice was shown to be a total farce. Due to embarrassment the truth was allowed to emerge just this once. Truth. Not something our court system has much experience with.

The most important question is, "How many other Mike Nifongs are out there?" Roy Cooper, Attorney General for North Carolina, did not address that extremely important question. I doubt much of the legal community wants that particular issue investigated.

Here are links to other articles about this case.
Prosecutor Drops Charges in Duke Case
Crystal Gail Mangum: Profile of the Duke Rape Accuser
As Lacrosse Case Ends, Case Against Nifong Goes On
Reactions to Duke lacrosse case
Ethics Train Wreck
Wikipedia Case Analysis (This is an excellent listing of the known facts)

Here are links to the duplicitous statements issued by the University that fired their coach and did everything possible to indicate they believed the students guilty, short of actually saying they were. Notice their new tone.
Statement from Duke President Richard H. Brodhead
Letter from Robert K. Steel, Chair of the Duke Trustees

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Adams v. UNCW

by Mike Adams - April 10th, 2007 -

On Monday, my attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund ( filed a federal civil rights suit on my behalf against the University of North Carolina - Wilmington. The two main aspects of the case are a First Amendment Claim and a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII. Below I offer a brief explanation of both aspects of the case.

First Amendment Retaliation. Simply put, the university has taken multiple actions against me after they became aware that I was no longer atheist and liberal but instead Christian and conservative.


Title VII. Throughout my career, I was given both clear and consistent advice on the standards required for promotion to both associate and full professor. That pattern of clear and consistent feedback was broken in 2004. I met the standards articulated to me. In fact, I exceeded them. Nonetheless, when I applied for full professor in 2006, I was subjected to a new set of standards that were higher than those applied to previous candidates.

I am intrigued by Mike Adams and his expectations that he can get justice in an American Court. He is certainly correct in his interpretation that the liberal bigots that run our colleges and universities apply a double standard. They exclude anyone from their ranks who does not kowtow to their liberal dogma. It is so obvious that anyone with half a brain could see it. However no judge will permit himself to see it. The outcome of this court case is highly unlikely to include any reasonable form of justice for Mike.

However the case will not be decided quickly. The standard practice of our courts is multi-year cases that drag on interminably. The premise that "justice delayed is justice denied" has been abandoned by the tyrannical bigots who run our courts. Our system is designed to assure that anyone with deep pockets can buy "justice". The only exception is when that purchase would be in conflict with the liberal dogma that teaches our courts must be the superior branch of government and dispense "socialism" based justice to balance free enterprise. Another factor is the money gouging expectation that the longer a case drags on the more the courts can assure that lawyer fees are run up to obscene levels. The preceding does not suggest any positive outcome for Mike Adams.

The reality is that the current situation in our colleges is de facto political persecution and exploitation by the democrat party. There is a war against Christians. There is a war against Republicans and Conservatives. The liberal minions of the democrat party deny equality under the law to any Republican or Conservative. The persecution is blatant, obvious, illegal, unconstitutional, and unless some strange alignment of powers occurs, irreversible. It constitutes one of the most egregious abuses of power any nation has ever tolerated. It is hypocrisy of the worst sort to try and pretend it is not done knowingly to deny jobs and tenure to anyone who violates the political norms of the liberal-democrats who control our colleges and our courts.

There is no recourse though because there is no justice in America. The courts are corrupt.

That said, I wish Mike well. He is a very decent man and I absolutely love his optimism.

You can read the initial pleading for Mike's case here.

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Judging the Feds:
Every Benefit of Every Doubt

by William Perry Pendley - March 30th, 2007 -

In May 1945, the United States asked Jesse Fox Cannon of Toole County, Utah, to sign a "Construction, Survey & Exploration Permit" to allow the Army upon 1,425 acres of mining claims Jesse Fox Cannon owned near the Army Dugway Proving Grounds in west-central Utah. Jesse Fox Cannon agreed; after all, a war was on; plus, the Army promised that, within 60 days of finishing, it would "leave the property in as good condition as it is on the date of the government's entry."


Last month, the Utah federal district court dismissed the Cannons' lawsuit, deferring to the federal government's interpretation of the Superfund statute, which views its nonexistent cleanup efforts as sufficient to constitute "removal or remedial action" that deprives citizens of their access to federal court. That the federal government has done nothing for more than 60 years was irrelevant, held the court.

Anyone who is surprised at this does not know our courts very well. The "rule of law" means nothing to the tyrannical judges who are so fond of the "rule of judges". Protecting the right of government to take your land and give it to another citizen is far more important than holding our government responsible for its legal obligations. The Kelo decision provides a whole new definition to the "taking" protection of our Constitution. The new definition is that government can take anything it wants and you get nothing.

Not exactly what the Constitution says, but then it is a "living" Constitution acording to our judges. The Cannon family is just one more group of citizens who have found out that liberal judges have stripped us of all Constitutional protections and rights and replaced them with "the rule of judges".