In-flight Confrontations Can Lead To Charges Defined As Terrorism
by Ralph Vartabedian and Peter Pae - January 20, 2009 - Los Angeles Times
Tamera Jo Freeman was on a Frontier Airlines flight to Denver in 2007 when her two children began to quarrel over the window shade and then spilled a Bloody Mary into her lap.A federal judge, backed by an abusive and tyrannical prosecutor, incarcerated this woman for months over a momentary lapse. They then took her children away. TOOK HER CHILDREN AWAY!
She spanked each of them on the thigh with three swats. It was a small incident, but one that in the heightened anxiety after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks would eventually have enormous ramifications for Freeman and her children.
This is the essence of a totalitarian state. It is outrageous that such abuse is permitted. If you think it is bad now, just wait until the tyranny of 600,000 more self righteous bureacrats is unleashed on our nation. Obama believes in government power and this is a prime of example of what that really means. It is not the power to do good but the power to abuse anyone who you can find to abuse. This judgement is an example of how bad it will get. Only subservient and gutless citizens who kowtow to authority will be permitted.
Freedom is dead in America.
Wants Animals To Sue You
Making an Ass of the Law
by Andrew Orlowski - January 19th, 2009 - The Register
Obama's "regulation czar" Professor Cass Sunstein wants animals to be able to sue.Can anyone imagine a Republican President choosing as one of his senior advisers a wacko who believes the way to move our nation forward is allowing animals the right to sue people in court?
The proposal can be seen as part of a trend to fight political battles through the courts by playing clever tricks with the statutes or legal processes. A parallel move is the decision to give life-giving CO2 status as a "pollutant". Where do these perverse ideas come from?
Ever since the New Deal, when Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court to ram home legislation, it's been the preferred route for US activists seeking a short cut. But at bottom, it's fundamentally undemocratic and contemptuous of politics.
At a time when Russia is convinced that we are moving into a new ice age due to a major study they conducted, and a huge well respected organization gets over 31,000 scientists to sign a petition disputing the theory of man caused global warming, the Magic Marxist Messiah is still following Al Gore and his disciples in the belief that it is "proven science" and they must "save the planet" by destroying free markets and replacing them with government guidance.
More wacko green fanatics have been appointed by Obama than have ever had positions of power in our nation before. And one of them thinks that turning over control of our court system to these loons is a good move. As if the contempt for the "rule of law" has not caused damage enough, turning our economy over to the "rule of judges" is certain disaster.
and the President Should Pardon Himby Clarice Feldman - January 12, 2009 - American Thinker
Libby was convicted for his recollection of what a reporter told him -- a part of a phone call with reporter, Tim Russert, in which the prosecution maintained Plame was never mentioned.Though this article is a political article about the case for a pardon and would not normally be something I post on this blog, the pardon is necessary because the case is a perfect example of the total evil of our current court system. That justifies it appearing here. An abusive and contemptible prosecutor tried to frame the Vice President of the United States. In anger at his failure to get Scooter Libby to support his frame, he turned around and framed Scooter Libby on the premise that he knowingly lied. Yet the basis for the lie was proved false.
The Prosecution first claimed that Libby lied about his Russert conversation to conceal his real source -- the Vice President -- for the information about Plame. This was what the Prosecutor, in his famous phrase, called "the cloud over the Vice President." But the uncontested evidence at trial -- evidence that even the Prosecution admitted to be true -- demolished this claim. Libby had told the investigators about his conversation with the Vice President from the very first time that he testified. In addition, uncontested evidence at trial showed that just after he spoke to Russert, Libby had a separate conversation in which he learned that the media was talking about Plame's CIA employment. So Libby had no need to make up anything about Russert. The only cloud over the vice-president's office was the one the prosecutor put there to cover for the absence of any rational case against Libby or Cheney.
Only a stupid and ignorant pack of pro Democrat partisans on the jury could convict this man. It stands as a perfect example of the total corruption of our court system and its voire dire packing of juries with biased people who will vote the way the judge wants them to vote. This was followed by judicial rulings that sabotaged the reasonable explanation of why no perjury was intended. Murderers are allowed to present gibberish arguments and their convictions are overturned if a judge denies them this ability. Here the judge rejected a rational defense. No one with a brain would have voted that Scooter Libby was a criminal if truth had prevailed.
Will George W. Bush pardon this man whose only crime is believing in his Presidency? That he has not yet pardoned Libby, or Ramos and Campeon will forever be a blight on George W. Bush's arrogance and indifference to justice.
Meanwhile " ... because the prosecution constructed a case so complex that even the jury and the judge couldn't remember important facts -- and because the prosecution got away with making unproven and false allegations about the harm allegedly done to Wilson's wife -- an innocent man was convicted ... "
Typical result in what is a totally corrupt court system.
Update: 1/20/09 - George W. Bush, as expected, left the conviction of Scooter Libby intact. If anyone ever again tells me about George W. Bush's loyalty, I will smash them in their face.
by George F. Will - January 11th, 2009 - Washington Post
A volunteer for a Catholic charity in Milwaukee ran a red light and seriously injured another person. Because the volunteer did not have deep pockets, the injured person sued the archdiocese -- successfully, for $17 million.Our courts are insane and corrupt. Lawyers have destroyed freedom by turning legal language into a farce that frequently is interpreted to mean the opposite of what the words say. Judges, the most corrupt element in a corrupt comedy, love the power over society they are granted. Unless and until we conservatives and libertarians demand that our nation return to a nation based on the rule of laws, not a nation on the rule of judges, we are as guilty as the liberals in destroying freedom.
Time was, rights were defensive. They were to prevent government from doing things to you. Today, rights increasingly are offensive weapons wielded to inflict demands on other people, using state power for private aggrandizement.
We all get smarter from experience. To maintain a free enterprise form of government, our national founders changed two significant things that had failed during the period our nation was governed by the Articles of Confederation, the first attempt at national governance in the Americas. One change was to take away the power of states to interfere with contracts and cancel debts of favored constituents. This change resulted in bankruptcy becoming a federal duty. The second was to insist on the control of interstate commerce by the central government to avoid each state erecting barriers to trade that harmed overall freedom. Again this was done during the period of the Articles of Confederation to favor certain local constituents against the national good.
These were not the only changes that found their way into our Constitution but they were two changes of huge significance to our system of government, each resulting in greater freedom. The first of these, federal bankruptcy law, sanctified contracts so that people could and would trust that fair laws would protect them when they loaned money. As a result our form of free enterprise was augmented by financial rules that smoothed the process of commerce by the availability of monetary liquidity.
The second, the commerce clause, created a single huge market that was free from bureaucratic interference and allowed for hard work and individual creativity to flourish.
Unfortunately that commerce clause has become the basis for an egregious expansion of federal power that our founders would have abhorred. Primarily because it now burdens our nation with an egregious level of bureaucratic interference that stifles creativity and hard work. No greater example of this abuse exists than the case of Wickard (the Secretary of Agriculture who demanded the power to punish a farmer for feeding his family) v. Filburn (a farmer who grew wheat for his own family's consumption). Wickard v. Filburn is a classic example of the way that freedom is destroyed by that element that always exists in society who savor dictatorship more than freedom. Unfortunately too many of our Judges have been biased in favor of dictatorial interpretations of law for far too long.A simple explanation of the case is that Filburn was told he had to limit his planting of wheat to 12 acres so that prices could remain high enough to satisfy a bureaucratic need to promote farm profits. Filburn did not abide by this restriction, but instead planted some extra wheat for use by his own family and use on his own farm. Though the extra wheat he grew was clearly not involved in Interstate Commerce, the claimed excuse for the limit on the acreage, Wickard argued that if citizens were allowed to grow their own wheat it would effect Interstate Commerce. If enough grew their own wheat, there would be no Interstate Commerce for wheat at all since no one would need to buy wheat. Therefore no one could grow wheat without permission of a government bureaucrat because it MIGHT effect Interstate Commerce in aggregate. The idiocy of that logic in a nation that pretends to care about freedom is obvious. The only purpose of Interstate Commerce is to serve the people's needs that they cannot provide for themselves. If everyone grew their own wheat the one person we don't need is a Secretary of Agriculture... or his department either. It is thus obvious that the real concern is the power to take freedom away from the individual. Our courts were too much in favor of power to see this... or maybe just too corrupt. In any event, Wickard v. Filburn is the law of the land. As a direct result, federal power has grown exponentially and freedom has contracted in proportion.
This is especially true since courts have used Wickard v. Filburn to interpret that our federal government has almost no Constitutional barriers to totalitarian control.
Is She A Public Or Private Figure?
by Ashby Jones - December 31, 2008 - Law Blog
Tuesday’s news that Beltway lobbyist Vicki Iseman had filed a defamation suit against the New York Times over its February article about her and John McCain caused quite a stir here at Law Blog Central. Interests were piqued not only because the case involves journalists and the media, but because everyone here, it seems, had his or her own notion over whether Iseman would be deemed a “public” or “private” figure for the case’s purposes. In a defamation case, the public/private issue is a big one. Public-figure plaintiffs generally have to prove more to win their case than do private-figure plaintiffs.This is more of an interview than an article, however it proves some basic facts about law in our courts that are important to remember. First important point, no one has a clue what the law says or means. Our corrupt judges have so blurred all legal issues so that the courts can rule randomly about anything and there is absolutely nothing that you can do. This allows for the rule of judges to premept the rule of law with no chance to disagree.
The next point is that the press are exempt from ever being held accountable for political bias. no one with any sanity would doubt that Vicki Iseman was smeared by the New York Times for any reason other than that she was on the opposite side of a political issue. If this is not basic malice, malice does not exist. However our courts will never allow such basic obvious reality to interfere with their game of court.
Final point about our courts is liberals always win, no matter whether there is any justice in that position or not.