Judge Rules For Inmates Suing Over Prison Conditions

Staff - September 24th, 2007 - Agence France Presse

In a key ruling, US District Court judge Dean Pregerson said jail officials were guilty of "cruel and unusual punishment" by making inmates sleep on concrete floors because no beds were available, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"Quite simply, that a custom of leaving inmates nowhere to sleep but the floor constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is nothing short of self-evident," Pregerson ruled in a class-action lawsuit.

Nowhere but the floor is cruel and unusual punishment? Mankind slept in more uncomfortable circumstances than this for most of our existence. Below are some pictures of American troops defending our nation. They are proud of taking care of business. They see this as acceptable discomfort, not cruel and unusual.








Why do Democrat Judges care more about the comfort of criminals than they ever care about our citizens? That is what this ruling is. Concern for comfort of criminals. Calling it "cruel and unusual" is simly standard exagerration by these unelected judicial tyrants. They don't care if a citizen dies or how our taxes are wasted. They only care about their power.

Can New Jersey Punish Methodists For Marriage?

by Maggie Gallagher - September 19th, 2007 - Townhall.com

The headline news on the gay marriage issue is that on Tuesday, Maryland's supreme court joined the growing list of state high courts upholding marriage as the union of husband and wife.

The majority of the court held that sexual orientation is not a suspect class, that there is no scientific consensus that orientation is immutable, that marriage does not discriminate based on gender, that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, that laws defining marriage as a union of husband and wife are substantially different from those banning interracial marriage, and that the historic link between marriage and procreation justifies the state's definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

Behind this slam-dunk is a far more ominous and less noticed headline, buried in the metro section of Tuesday's New York Times: "Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue."

For the first time, a religious organization in New Jersey is being punished by the government because it refused to permit same-sex civil union ceremonies on its property.

Despite its historic nature, this officially sanctioned discrimination against a religious group did not require a special act of the legislature or ruling of the court to accomplish. A state bureaucrat, one Lisa Jackson (the state commissioner on environmental protection), quietly sent a letter informing the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization, that the pavilion it owns on the beach is no longer eligible for exemption from state real estate taxes. (The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association also remains the target of a state investigation into whether it has violated the state's anti-discrimination laws by refusing to permit same-sex ceremonies on its property.)

The proof of the war against the historical tradition of marriage by left wing radicals is the job of the person who launched this attack on a Chrisitan group. The bureacrat's position in government is ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. These environmental positions have become the bastion of left wing socialist extremists who want to change society to conform with their radical views. What, you have to wonder, has the environment got to do with whether or not same sex marriage is jammed down the throats of our nation?

You can be sure that the left wing tyrants on our courts will embrace this new attack on marriage and find environmental rights in the small print of the Constitution (which only they can find) supporting the premise that same sex marriage is necessary to protect the environment.

If it wasn't so serious, this would be funny.

Jena Six

by Bill Calhoun - September 20th, 2007 - National Black Republican Association

. . . . since all of the state officials in Louisiana are Democrats, it should be a "slam-dunk" for black Democrats.

Democrat Kathleen Blanco is the Governor of Louisiana. Democrat Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu is the brother of the senior Democrat Senator from Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu. Any and all of these Democrat officials could put pressure on the district attorney to drop the frivolous charges against the Jena 6.

The 14th Amendment to our Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. Hanging nooses in the school courtyard is akin to screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, both deserve condemnation and punishment. Yet the white students were not prosecuted for the noose hanging, while the black students were prosecuted because they retaliated. This is not equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Incredibly black Democrats, all Democrats for that matter, act like Jenna is the fault of the federal government and white society in general. They pretend it is not the fault of any Democrat though. This is akin to the Democrats of Louisiana blaming George W. Bush for their mishandling of hurricane Katrina.

No black Democrats ever complain about the characterization of black Republicans. Justice Clarence Thomas ("high tech lynching"), Lt. Governor Michael Steele (“Simple Sambo” with a pitch black face and big red lips), Secretary Condoleezza Rice (bare foot “ignorant mammy”), none of the racist insults to these accomplished Americans were a problem for any of the Democrats who repeated the accusations and laughed about them.

In the Jena Six WHITE DEMOCRATS practice the most insidious racism and Al Sharpton goes down and blames it on . . . . George W. Bush, white society in general and the Republicans.

The accusation of "racist" is a joke when it is nothing but a partisan insult. Our courts have waged war against black youth under the hypocritical label "war on drugs" for more than a generation. Major support for this pretend war comes from Democrats. Yet whenever it is condemned in the black community it is portrayed as a Republican issue and they are called racists. Democrats who support the war are never called racists.

A good article on the Jena issue is Mike Gallagher's article which you can read here. Gallagher says:

Why do so many people seem reluctant to condemn the act of hanging nooses from a so-called “white tree” in Jena, Louisiana? Is it because a race-baiter like Al Sharpton has joined with the thousands of protesters who have descended upon the tiny town?

If so, they’re allowing the well-deserved tarnished reputation of “Reverend Al” to cloud their judgment.

Good and decent people shouldn’t stand for white teenagers hanging nooses or burning crosses in order to intimidate and terrorize black people.

I don't think that "so many people" are actually reluctant to condemn this. It is just that the MSM makes sure that when Republicans do condemn it, no one hears it.

The problem is simple. Democrats have once again made this into a bash Republicans issue rather than an issue of how do we stop the use of our courts by District Attorneys to abuse the rights of anyone they decide to punish, even practicing racism within their choices. It was wrong when Nifong did it and the black community cheered. It is wrong here when the black community is outraged. I am flabergasted that in both cases the District Attorney was a Democrat and yet no one in the black community sees this as a component of the problem. Democrats can do no wrong and blacks vote for them without ever demanding accountability.

"Racist" is a partisan insult and no longer means anything when it only applies to Republicans. As noted above, it has become a joke. Just like our courts.

Durham's Debate: Pay Or Fight

by Anne Blythe and Matt Dees - September 20th, 2007 - News & Observer

Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, some in Durham say, are beginning to come across as greedy, more concerned about hitting the jackpot at public expense than as the champions of the less affluent they billed themselves to be.

Supporters, however, caution that such contemptuous reactions could amount to another rush to judgment of players who at the start were portrayed as hooligans and later as heroes triumphing over injustice.

". . . champions of the less affluent they billed themselves to be." I can't remember when these boys ever billed themselves as champions of the less affluent. It seems to me they billed themselves as people wrongly accused by a rogue D.A. backed by a racist community of blacks and liberals who were prepared to convict them without a trial. They were being railroaded by false accusations and rigged "evidence". Demanding that false allegations be dropped does not require that you be a champion of the less affluent. It merely requires that you be innocent.

Is $30 million too much to aks for having your life destroyed by people who were so guilty of misconduct themselves? I think it depends on who you ask.

If you ask the 88 Duke University liberal-marxist-socialist professors who declared the boys guilty in an ad they took out in local newspapers, calling them racist and expressing outrage that they were not summarily hanged, (well maybe that is a slight exaggeration . . . but not by much) the boys are still guilty and deserve nothing! Just read some of their recent comments. The professors do not believe they did anything wrong in taking out the ad. Some of them still believe the boys guilty. And some of them don't care whether they were guilty or not, they feel that white society is guilty and that therefore these boys should have gone to jail as proxys for white guilt.

If you ask the Durham tax payers (who elected the abusive D.A. Nifong) they mirror the comments of Sandy Ogburn, a former City Council member, who wants the city to take the case to court. "I am unwilling to give those boys a single penny . ."

Not a penny? Not even when they have been so obviously wronged?

This case is still about racism. Durham blacks do not think the boys should have gotten off. Guilt or innocence of the boys was never the question. Many blacks believe the white community to a man (or woman) owes them something for past racism and destroying these boys lives was never a big deal.

Our courts are not the best place to resolve this. I suspect that before this is over these boys will be demeaned again through ongoing smears by those in Durham who have been ready to condemn them since day one.

Not a penny? Wow. Now there is justice for you.

Sex-crime Terms Have A Limit

by Sarah Ovaska - September 13th, 2007 - News & Observer

The federal government cannot keep sexual predators locked up beyond their scheduled release dates, according to a ruling by a federal judge. The ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge W. Earl Britt declared unconstitutional part of a law approved in July 2006 with much fanfare.

The 59-page ruling, issued last week at the Raleigh federal courthouse, stopped the government's attempt to keep five "sexually dangerous" men away from the public through a process known as civil commitment, which allows a person to be held past his incarceration with the intention of rehabilitation.

"The court concludes that civil commitment of sexually dangerous persons ... is not a necessary and proper extension of Congress' power," Britt wrote.

First the pervert lovers on our courts shorten incarceration times to the absolute minimum in order to get these enemies of the state back on the street as soon as possible. With the high recidivism rate of sexual predators, judges and lawyers love the surety of additional legal fees derived from turning these perverts free. There is no surpise one of the pervert lovers has immediately interfered with this attempt to protect society. The law is a blatant interference by the Legislature with the revolving door process of turning the perverts free. Who is surprised the pervert lovers on our courts are opposed to that?

Judge In Sex Assault Case Sued By Alleged Victim

by Clarence Mabin - September 8th, 2007 - Lincoln Journal Star

In the latest legal twist in the sexual assault prosecution of a Lincoln man, the woman at the center of the case sued the trial judge this week because he barred “rape” and other words from the courtroom.

Tory Bowen, 24, said in the complaint filed in federal court that Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated her First Amendment right to free speech by barring the words “rape,” “victim,” “assailant,” “sexual assault kit” and “sexual assault nurse examiner” from the trial of Pamir Safi.

She is seeking a declaration from a federal judge that Cheuvront’s word ban was contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

This is not likely to prevail for many reasons, but it does point out the corruption of our court system. Judges play games, closely resembling farce, with the idea that courts care about truth or justice. The primary role of a judge today is to suppress evidence in trials. The idea that juries can make informed decisions when most of the evidence is hidden and surpressed is bizarre. However that is the actual situation we face. The argument suppression of evidence is needed to assure a fair trial is defended in the article.

. . . . a skeptical Richard Collin Mangrum, who teaches at Creighton University Law School in Omaha, characterized the complaint as odd and said he doubted its chances for success before a federal judge.

“It’s unusual for a lot of reasons — I don’t know where to begin,” he said.

Judges, he said, have to guard defendants’ right to a fair trial. That often means keeping out unduly prejudicial testimony or evidence, he said.

Unduly prejudicial evidence? A more honest assessment is that suppression of evidence maximizes lawyer fees and court power by protecting criminals from justice. The modern concept has become that anything that might actually support conviction is at serious risk of being excluded. I love the way the title of the article calls the victim an "alleged" victim. The word allegation is used about a defendant because someone other than the defendant is accusing them. Though you might find some word to use if you don't think the victim has been harmed, it is not an allegation about the victim. It is a CLAIM. Using the word allegation about a victim simply shows the incredible bias in favor of criminals in our court system.

Summary Judgment

by William Perry Pendley - September 8th, 2007 - Townhall.com

In 2004, within four months of each other, two three-judge panels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided cases involving the Constitution's Establishment Clause and its requirement of government neutrality regarding religion. In May, a panel held that a Latin cross on federal lands in honor of American servicemen killed in World War I violated the Establishment Clause and must be removed. That the memorial commemorated American "history and culture" was irrelevant to the panel; after all, the cross symbolizes Christianity.

In September, another panel held that Arizona's designation of private property as sacred to American Indian religious practitioners and off-limits to use by its owner did not violate the Establishment Clause. Because American Indians' religion, said the panel, is intertwined with their history and culture, governmental action supporting their religion is constitutional.

In February, the Ninth Circuit was asked, during oral arguments in San Francisco, to decide between these conflicting interpretations of the Establishment Clause.

I don't know what is funnier, a liberal Judge trying to defend attacking Christianity while promoting an American Indian religious practice (or any cult such as say Islam?) . . . . or a conservative Judge trying to defend the ongoing practice of our courts as being consistent with the "rule of law" while promoting adherence to precedents that cannot rationally be reconciled.

Both are farce.

They Been Workin' On The Railroad

Editorial - September 7th, 2007 - Wilmington Star

N.C. Attorney General Roy Cooper is being asked to decide whether it might possibly be a crime for prosecutors and police to lie and cheat in order to convict the innocent.

The AG's spokesman says Cooper's been thinking about it for several days. These things take time.

Punish lawyers who abuse the rights of citizens? Of course there is not a question of whether it is corrupt and immoral and indecent to convict the innocent. Everyone knows that it is. The question is complicated and takes time because abuse of power by lawyers is standard procedure. Our courts are corrupt. Our Judges are corrupt. The rule of law has been abandoned for the rule of judges.

However what would be the consequence of letting people prosecute "court officials" for practicing what the court system is designed to do, allow Judges and lawyers to sell justice? Just because some of the people convicted are innocent does not mean that prosecutors should be held accountable. Attorney General Roy Cooper knows well the threat to our courts if guilty or not guilty had anything to do with innocence.