Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Fitzgerald: O.K., Libby Wasn’t Convicted of Leaking
— But Punish Him As If He Had Been

by Byron York - May 29th, 2007 - National Review Online

With sentencing next week, the prosecutor tries to up the ante.

During the perjury and obstruction trial of Lewis Libby, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never charged, and never presented evidence, that Libby illegally disclosed the name of a covert CIA agent. But now, Fitzgerald wants Libby to be sentenced as if he had been guilty of that crime.


“Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act,” Fitzgerald continues, “the court must calculate defendant’s offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.”

Since this entire case proves that there is no justice in our American courts, I supposed trying to get a man sentenced for a crime he was never even charged with makes sense to Fitzgerald. After all, Nifong proved that prosecutors cannnot differentiate between what they want to believe happened and what actually happened.

The defense presented by Libby's lawyers was equally bizarre, as they claimed that Libby was being scapegoated by the Whitehouse for a crime the Whitehouse did not commit. Such a defense is typical in our current court system. It is a system where lawyers recognize by their very actions and strategies the corrupt nature of the system. They don't believe that justice is possible based on truth and they prove it by such bizarre claims as those put forth by Libby's lawyers. Truth has no place in our current system. It is replaced by convoluted strategies and arguments that no one can follow. That is the reason the average American has so much difficulty understanding what is happening. It makes no sense.

Our system is a joke and a farce. That does not mean it is not corrupt and evil.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Judge Just Doesn't See Failure

by Jane Anne Morrison - May 28th, 2007 - Las Vegas Review Journal

The District Judge Elizabeth Halverson saga is starting to creep beyond the borders of Nevada and into the California news media, while locally the docudrama is the first thing many of us read each day. When they make a TV special of it, I'd like to suggest a name: Power and Paranoia.

Halverson spent nine years as a fairly lowly law clerk. (I always assumed the 425-pound woman, according to her driver's license, stayed as long as she could for the county's health insurance coverage.) After she was fired, she ran for one judgeship, lost, but in 2006 won on her second try.

Before long, stories started coming out of the Regional Justice Center about her contemptuous behavior toward her staff, particularly her bailiff, Johnny Jordan. Halverson, who had never had real power, was relishing it, throwing a pencil on the floor and ordering him to pick it up. Jordan was ordered to give her foot rubs and back massages. He has since filed a complaint against his former boss alleging discrimination based on sex and race. He is black and says she treated him like a "house boy."

Her court clerk, Katherine Streuber, said the judge's behavior was "vile, angry, degrading to anyone within her path." Streuber also objected to being called "the evil one" and "the anti-Christ" by the judge.

What is sad is that this type of behaviour is not so out of the ordinary that it gets you automatically expelled from judicial power. This judge will be able to hang on to power for a long time. There are many on the left who don't think there is anything wrong with her behavior.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Judge Sues Dry Cleaners for $65 Million

by Peter Lattman - April 26th, 2007 - Wall Street Journal Blog

Judge Roy Pearson sued his neighborhood dry cleaners for misplacing his pants. He’s asking for $65,462,500. The alteration work on his pants cost $10.50. Here’s the story from the WaPo and an item from the DCist.

Pearson reportedly says he deserves the money for litigation costs, for “mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort,” for the value of his time spent on the lawsuit, and for a replacement suit, according to court papers. The best detail: He’s asking the cleaners to pay him $15,000 for leasing a car every weekend for 10 years. Why? Because he must find another cleaner and since he doesn’t have a car, he says he has to rent one to get his clothes cleaned.

How did he get to $65 million? D.C.’s consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. So he computed 12 violations over 1,200 days times three defendants. In the words of WaPo columnist Marc Fisher, “A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you’re talking $65 million.”

The only thing that makes this story unusual or significant is that the person who filed the suit is one of the judicial tyrants who normally gives outrageous awards to non-Judges who file similar suits. This type of lawsuit is the reason our courts have become known as a bastion of extortion and blackmail. It is typical of the daily injustice practiced in our corrupt system.

The question you have to immediately ask is how are there three defendents? Does the judge have a split personality?

How can there be twelve violations per day? Are there twelve pairs of pants?

Why are there 1200 days involved? The Judge rejected the settlement of $12,000 offered by the cleaners and this allows him to claim the injury was ongoing?

I have one more question. Is this guy related to D.A. Nifong?

FYI - The laundry can never countersue for abusive litigation. Our courts will not tolerate anything that might discourage someone from filing frivolous lawsuits.

Welcome to "the rule of judges". Our courts are corrupt.