Dallas Man Cleared,
Freed After 27 Years In Prison
by Steve McGonigle - January 3rd, 2008 - The Dallas Morning News
Mr. Chatman, who was a 20-year-old, part-time janitor on probation for burglary at the time of the rape, always maintained his innocence. He told the jury that he was working as far away as Arlington the night the assault occurred near the Dallas Zoo.Everyone is patting themselves on the back that "justice" worked. This man only spent 27 years in jail for a crime he did not commit. Oh what a great system we have. It is willing to free a known murderer on a technicality, but will convict an innocent black man on the bigoted testimony of a white racist.
The lead prosecutor at the trial called Mr. Chatman a liar and insisted that since the victim was a nurse, she was a trained observer and incapable of making a mistake.
Our court system is a contemptible system of injustice and greed. No one could get justice for Mr. Chatman before now because all the lawyers were tied up extorting billions from smokers because they dared to continue a habit others found disgusting. Legal but disgusting. That is justice in America today. Don't ever find yourself as a part of a disfavored group. You will never get justice in our system if you are.
Actually I guess not much has changed. Mr. Chatman was convicted for the same crime, being a part of a disfavored group. That is still law in America.
Ballot Box Integrity Versus
Voters Without Borders
by Ken Blackwell - January 3rd, 2008 - Townhall.com
On January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments for one of the biggest election law cases in years. This case might decide who becomes president of the United States in a close election, and shape the future of the country.As passionate as people get about specific candidates, there are two issues that are frightening those of us who love our country and think of ourselves as conservatives or libertarians. The first issue is the status of free speech; under attack by the FEC due to McCain-Feingold, plus there is a war to reinstate the so-called "fairness doctrine" so that conservatives can be forced off talk radio.
There are two different ways to look at this case. The first is it burdens poor people and racial minorities more than others because they . . . . are statistically less likely to have licenses or passports. The other way of looking at this case is that it’s about protecting our democratic system from being usurped by those perpetrating fraud to steal elections.
The other issue is the war over whether only citizens who have responsibly registered shall elect our public officials. Democrats want to let voting happen with no controls. In California even illegal aliens and college students from out-of-state are encouraged to vote by the democrats.
However our courts have not indicated any reluctance to grant rights to foreigners with regard to welfare and eliminate rules for the right of the poor to government entitlements. The court tyrants could easily throw out controls over voting as well and allow anyone to vote, as many times as they wish.
The most interesting comment in this article is the fact that 4600 more votes were cast in Wisconsin in 2006 than the number of registered voters. How can such obvious corruption stand? If our courts truly believed in the rule of law, this would not be tolerated. It was not just tolerated, the elections were declared valid. Depending on how the court rules in the Indiana case, it could get much worse.