The Rule Of Law

JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations ... Disappear

2011-12-14T07:52:00.007-05:00

I repeat - DISAPPEAR! [Emphasis added]

by Dianna C. Cotter with L. Donofrio Esq. - December 14th, 2011 - American Thinker

Did Justia.com deliberately aid Barack Obama in 2008 by helping to hide the one legal case that might prevent him from legally qualifying for the presidency?

On October 20, 2011, New Jersey attorney Leo Donofrio accused online legal research behemoth Justia.com of surgically redacting important information from their publication of 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions which cite Minor v. Happersett, an 1874 decision which arguably contains language that appears to disqualify anyone from presidential eligibility who wasn't born in the country to parents who were citizens. According to the decision in Happersett:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. (Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 [1874])

This is settled law for all except the "living Constitution" people who are indifferent to history and precedent. "Natural Born" is a precise legal term which means born in the U.S. to parents who were citizens. Barack Obama is not "natural born" since his father, whether a bigamist or not, was in any event not a citizen. This is true no matter when you measure it since he was not a citizen at the time of Obama the II's conception, birth, or at any time before or after.

There has been a conspiracy about this that was blurred by the idiot argument that Barack Hussein Obama II was not born in Hawaii, but born in Kenya. That argument was lost by the birthers as it should have been since it was based on wishful thinking. The evidence that his mother was in Hawaii at the time of his birth is overwhelming and beyond question. Yet now the same people who drummed up that distraction (and kept it alive) are discovered to have actually been involved in a conspiracy more egregious - a conspiracy to hide the fact that under settled law Barack Obama II should never have been on the ballot as a candidate for President.

He was not, is not, and can never become a "natural born citizen". He IS a citizen under the post civil war Fourteenth Amendment, but that does not make him "natural born". They are two distinctly different issues.

Kansas Man Sues Couple He Took Hostage

2011-12-03T07:07:00.003-05:00

Only in America can the criminal sue the victim

by Staff - November 30th, 2011 - KMBC TV

Can there be no trust between a kidnapper and his hostages?

A man who held a Kansas couple hostage in their home while fleeing from authorities is suing them, claiming that they broke an oral contract made when he promised them money in exchange for hiding him from police. The couple has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

Jesse Dimmick of suburban Denver is serving an 11-year sentence after bursting into Jared and Lindsay Rowley's Topeka-area home in September 2009.

He threatens them with a knife, hides in their home using threats, then claims they breached a contract he had with them, obtained under this coercion, and turned him in to authorities.

What Judge would allow such a suit to proceed? Why any of the corrupt bigots who serve as Judges in the farce the American justice system represents.

Failed Democrat Pol Sues Critics Over Election Loss

2011-10-26T08:34:00.003-04:00

The Judge hearing the case is a former president and director of the Planned Parenthood Association of Cincinnati. As conflicts of interest go this one is outrageous.

by Peter Roff - October 24th, 2011 - U.S. News

When voters in Ohio's 1st Congressional District threw Democrat Steve Driehaus out of office after only one term, he did not bow out gracefully. No, he decided to get even. So he did what anyone does in today's culture: he sued somebody.

Charging that its activities contributed to his defeat and thus to his "loss of livelihood," Driehaus is suing the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life candidates for Congress and which has been one of the leading and most effective organizations involved in the fight to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood.

Appointed by Barack Obama, Judge Black, the presiding Judge is neither recusing himself or ending the farce. The American court system thus finds itself taking sides in a political discussion and attempting to end the free speech rights of those on one side of the argument.

Who is surprised. When the courts embraced the abusive violation of equal rights called 'affirmative action', it stopped being a system of justice and became a political farce. Nothing in the intervening years has changed its arrogant belief that justice is whatever the majority of judges say it is. The people have no rights.

Land Seized In Kelo Decision - Used For Debris Dump

2011-09-05T07:15:00.005-04:00

by Brian Garst - September 3rd, 2011 - Big Government

In 2005, Kelo v. City of New London made eminent domain infamous. The widely reviled Supreme Court ruling gave the go ahead for the city of New London to use eminent domain for taking private property in order that it be given to a private company for “economic development.”

The public response was one of outrage. Facing the potential wrath of voters, politicians across the country moved to add new protections against such abusive seizures. But that wasn’t enough to save the homes of the folks in New London, whose property never would be developed. Pfizer, the intended beneficiary of the land theft, walked away years ago from their development plans.

Now, to add new insult to injury, the vacant lot is a dump.

A quote in the article is priceless. The arrogant totalitarian justices, lead by the brain dead Anthony Kennedy, insisted development of the land “would be executed pursuant to a 'carefully considered' development plan.” Not even close to true!

It is too bad these idiot totalitarian justices cannot be personally sued for their UN-constitutional ruling. It turns out the city of new London ultimately paid $80 million for a piece of land worth a fraction of that cost.

State Of The Union

2011-09-04T08:49:00.002-04:00

It’s time to close the union violence loophole

by Mark Mix - September 2nd, 2011 - Washington Times

In the wake of a Verizon strike that saw clashes between union protesters and company employees, it’s worth asking a simple question: Why do union toughs have a federal “Get Out of Jail Free” card?

Most people don’t know it, but the Supreme Court’s 1973 Enmons decision exempts union officials from federal prosecution for violent activities “used to gain legitimate union objectives.” This baffling immunity gives union thugs license to harass, intimidate and even attack independent-minded workers.

According to figures compiled by the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, the media has reported more than 12,000 instances of union violence over the last three decades. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg - incidents that didn’t make the morning paper point to a much larger, unreported total.

Like the incompetent and tyranny promoting rules on murder that have left our nation with the highest murder rate in the world, the courts have embraced tyranny in union organizing too.

Why are the judicial tyrants never held accountable for their ignorant rulings? Why are the American people so gullible they continue to accept our corrupt courts as a system of justice when it is so clear that nothing could be further from the truth. There is no justice in America.

Anecdotal evidence, like union thugs throwing feces on twelve year old children of strike breaking parents, is ignored by both the media and the American populace. Nothing is done. Even when arrested, the judges send these people home with, at best, a slap on the wrist. How can such acts against children be tolerated in a truly civil society?

Actually the question answers itself. It can't. Such a society has stopped being civil and has become a tyranny.

The Threat Of Liberal Judicial Activism Reaches New Heights

2011-08-14T06:58:00.001-04:00

by Lester Jackson - August 14th, 2011 - The American Thinker

It is, of course, nothing new for critics, including justices themselves, to accuse the court of rewriting law, twisting and torturing it beyond recognition. But, until now, there was at least a pretense of making decisions based on actual law. Resort to such pretense is bad enough!

Now, however, the United States is but one justice away from a majority so arrogant and incapable of embarrassment as to see no need even to resort to this pretense in usurping the democratic process. We are perilously close to five imperial justices so hell bent on ramming their unpopular personal values down the throats of an unwilling public that they will enforce laws that they themselves acknowledge do not exist -- in this case, for the benefit an unspeakably barbaric murderer.

Really! Do such justices have anything but contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the legislative process, contempt for the Constitution that clearly specifies that process, contempt for self-government and, ultimately, contempt for the American people?

The answer to that is, of course, obvious. Contempt for the American people is at the heart of this bizarre refusal to limit their actions to actual law. The American court system as defined by the leftist judicial activists has ceased to care about justice or law. Political dogma is the only criteria for decisions.

As a result, there is no justice in America. Our courts permitted President Barack Obama to steal the lawful billions of secured creditors of General Motors and use these stolen billions to reward his union cronies with lifetime pensions that they had lost by bankrupting the corporation. It was illegal, but not a single liberal justice cared. The secured creditors had their property stolen because they were "bad people" in the eyes of the liberals. The unions were enriched because they were "good people" in the eyes of the liberals.

Only political bias matters at this point in the corruption of the American Republic. We have become a banana republic, as corrupt as any that has ever existed. This writer warns that we could lose our country and respect for the law if we do not work for the right outcome in 2012. I disagree. I say we have already lost our nation. The outcome of 2012 will determine whether we can reverse that loss.

Supreme Court Follows The Law Twice In A Single Day!

2011-06-21T08:07:00.006-04:00

Justices Curb Class Actions

by Jess Bravin & Ann Zimmerman - June 20th, 2011 - Wall Street Journal

The Supreme Court threw out a sweeping sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., ruling Monday that the 1.6 million women allegedly victimized had too little in common to form a single class of plaintiffs.

The case split the court 5-4 along its ideological divide, with Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion concluding the allegations against Wal-Mart were too vague and the evidence too weak to establish the common injury essential to encompass all women employed since 1998 in the roughly 3,400 U.S. Wal-Mart stores.

What is truly scary is that a bare majority of the justices thought it appropriate to limit class actions law suits to the criteria on which they have been permitted under the laws the legislature passed permitting them. After all, any limit denies lawyers the vehicle by which they destroy businesses operating under the concept of free markets. Nearly half the court still desires to destroy that freedom.

A Slightly better outcome in another trial happened on the same day, so perhaps it was a good day after all.

... And the Climate Tort Cashiered

Editorial - June 20th, 2011 - Wall Street Journal

Yesterday's other important Supreme Court decision (see above) came in a case that joined the green lobby and the trial bar, if that isn't redundant. The Court unanimously struck down one of the legal left's most destructive theories, and not a moment too soon.

In American Electric Power v. Connecticut, eight states and various other environmental activists sued a group of utilities, claiming that their carbon emissions were a "nuisance" under federal common law and that therefore the courts should set U.S. global warming policy. Yet this is a fundamentally political question, one the Constitution reserves to Congress and the executive, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the 8-0 majority.

The Wall Street Journal Editorial board actually gushed "Justice Ginsburg's finest hour." I can't say I would go that far but the 8-0 victory is certainly encouraging. Perhaps the fact that the vast majority of Americans now hold the court system in contempt is starting to seep through the thick skulls of these judicial oligarchs.

If that happened they may stop arrogantly legislating from the bench as they realize that their unelected life time jobs are not so secure when the people despise them. Their cushy service could end in severe reprisals by people who resent their tyranny.

Bellevue Family Sues FBI Over 'Terrifying' Raid

2011-06-17T09:12:00.005-04:00

by Brian Bowling - June 16th, 2011 - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

The lasting impact of the raid on Gary Adams' home became clear in a comment from his 3-year-old granddaughter during a recent trip to the pharmacy.

"She said, 'Granddad. Police. Hide,' " Adams, 57, of Bellevue recalled Wednesday while discussing the federal lawsuit he filed against the officers who burst into his home March 3.

Led by FBI Special Agent Karen Springmeyer, about a dozen officers used a battering ram to enter Adams' rented Orchard Street home in a search for Sondra Hunter, then 35. But Hunter hadn't lived at that address for almost two years, while Adams and his family had been living there for more than a year...

The problem is that police are arrogantly indifferent to the consequences of such monumental screw-ups. They have that attitude because the Supreme Court of the United States is so incompetent. If these people were true criminals they would be able to destroy the police for any small infraction. However since they were innocent citizens, the Supreme Court could not care less about them. The Justices see their job as defending criminal rights, not enforcing justice. Citizens are just annoying side issues in our court system. If they die, they die. The Supreme Court could not care less.

That is proved by another recent situation where U.S. Marine veteran Jose Guerena was killed by a SWAT Team that broke into his house. His wife was on the phone with 911 thinking that it was a home invasion. Jose never removed the safety on his gun or pointed it at the SWAT Team but that did not stop them from shooting him 60 times and then letting him bleed to death for an hour without a single one of the officers doing anything to try and save him. Not one of these murderers tried to do anything to save his life.

America has become a totalitarian goon state at the behest of the judicial oligarchy that our Supreme Court tyrants have become.

There is nothing the Guerena family can do to punish his murderers. They are SWAT and thus immune from being held accountable for anything they do to private citizens. You have to be a criminal for the courts to care.

Appeals Panel Hearing ObamaCare Suit Comprised Of 2 Obama Nominees And A Clinton Nominee

2011-05-10T10:45:00.005-04:00

by Philip Klein - May 10, 2011 - Washington Examiner

A three-judge federal appeals panel comprised of two Obama nominees and a Clinton nominee will hear arguments later this morning in two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the national health care law.

The makeup of the U.S. Fourth Circuit of Appeals panel is crucial, because in lower court rulings so far, Democratic judges have upheld the law while Republican judges have declared it unconstitutional.

The judges on the panel will be Obama nominees James A. Wynn, Jr and Andre M. Davis, who will sit on the panel along with Clinton nominee Diana Gribbon Motz.

All three judges are left wing extremists.

There is no justice in America.

The courts are a partisan corrupt farce. When you know the outcome of a case based solely on the political party of the judges hearing the case, free America - a just America - has ceased to exist.

Disclosure Delayed Is Justice Denied

2011-04-21T07:11:00.001-04:00

by Ed Whelan - April 19th, 2011 - National Reivew Online

Two weeks ago, former federal district judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled last summer in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, publicly disclosed for the first time that he has been in a same-sex relationship for the past ten years. A straightforward application of the judicial ethics rules compels the conclusion that Walker should have recused himself from taking part in the Perry case. Further, under well-established Supreme Court precedent, the remedy of vacating Walker’s judgment is timely and necessary.

I doubt that anything will happen though. Judges protect judges in the abusive and tyrannical style we have gotten used to under our judicial oligarchy. Justice has become a joke. There is rarely justice in our system. That is so true it is pretty accurate to say that "There is no justice in America. Our courts are corrupt."

On the rare occasions when this sentiment is not correct, it stands as an exception that proves the statement is all too true.

Just as a former illegal alien subverted our Constitution and denied the elected branches of our government the power to refuse to provide welfare to those who had illegally invaded our nation, we now have a biased homosexual judge stripping a huge majority of our citizens the right to vote for the laws which they choose to live under.

He’s The Jurist Defendants Covet — Judge ‘Let Me Go’

2011-04-20T08:55:00.001-04:00

by Andrea Estes and Scott Allen - April 17th, 2011 - Boston Globe

It looked like Carl Lemon would be going back to jail for the 20th time. Saddled with a 25-year record of shoplifting, drug dealing, and assorted other crimes, not to mention eight aliases, Lemon had made it easy for prosecutors. He even signed a confession saying that he had stolen a woman’s purse while she ate in a Back Bay restaurant. A second victim, whose bag he also snatched, had driven overnight from Canada to testify against him.

But, as the two victims watched in disbelief, the judge set Lemon free, saying that the career criminal, then 43, needed a detox program, not jail time. When the detective who arrested Lemon rolled his eyes and muttered that the decision was a disgrace, Judge Raymond G. Dougan Jr. had court officers lock him up for the morning instead.

“I thought someone was going to jail that day; I just didn’t think it would be me,’’ recalled Detective Andrew Gambon.

There is little recourse for any victim whose rights are so brutally treated by a progressive un-American Democrat judge. Our judiciary has become rampant with a disease that destroys justice. That disease is the arrogance that perfect justice is the goal. In search of that judges reduce complex problems and a balance between victims and criminals to a simplistic defense of the most evil elements of society. After all, the judges say. It is not their fault. Entering each case with the belief that crime is the fault of society, the search for perfect justice means victims become mere pawns in the brutal injustice that has turned our society into a criminal's heaven.

Judge Gives 'Juror No. 799' Indefinite Jury Duty

2011-04-11T06:59:00.037-04:00

... After She Makes Racist Remarks On Questionnaire

by John Marzulli - April 6th, 2011 - New York Daily News

An incensed federal judge sentenced a racist Brooklyn woman to indefinite jury duty on Tuesday after she trashed the NYPD and minorities. "This is an outrage, and so are you!" Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis told the woman, holding up her bile-filled juror questionnaire.

Juror No. 799, an Asian woman in her 20s who said she works in the garment industry, was up for jury duty in the death penalty trial of Bonanno crime boss Vincent (Vinny Gorgeous) Basciano.

It didn't take long for her to start looking worse than the defendant.

Worse than the defendant? A woman who has a racist view of some others but has never acted on those views is WORSE than a murderer? What kind of insanity is that? By what law does this judge decide to enslave this woman into a duty that he will not even allow her to perform? Do you doubt he will never let her on to a jury?

The judges in our nation have reached the arrogant belief that they are above the law and can do anything that they want. You must live your life as they see fit or they will sentence you to perpetual enslavement as a pawn in their tyrannical court system. This is the same system that frees murderers for a police officer saying the wrong words when he reads the Miranda warning. The victims of a crime? They mean nothing to the totalitarian scum who rule our nation in a judicial oligarchy as corrupt as history has ever seen.

When did this woman lose her right to be judged "innocent until proven guilty?"

When did this woman lose her right to her "day in court?"

When did slavery for those a judge disapproves of become a casual power that this judge can exercise with no one but the judge having any say? Our court system has become a judicial oligarchy, out of control and tyrannical in the extreme. How is it less abusive than the infamous inquisition? This judge should be impeached and stripped of all his corrupt arrogance and power. Nothing else is justice.

Oh yeah. There is no justice in America. Our courts are corrupt.

Justice Alito Was Right

2011-03-13T09:31:00.005-04:00

by William Murchison - March 9th, 2011 - The American Spectator

The picketers could have picketed almost anywhere in America, said Alito. Why at the church where the funeral of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder was being held? From the claim of free speech rights there was no logical pathway to the intentional infliction of "severe emotional injury on private persons at a time of intense emotional sensitivity.'"

Among the judicial precedents Alito noted was a 1942 case in which the high court called attention to "the social interest in order and morality." That was of course back when American culture accorded order and morality a higher seat in national proceedings than was due trash-talking and narcissistic chest-thumping. The debasement of traditional norms of respect and civility, from the 1960s forward, accompanied cultural grants of latitude to do anything that resembled self-expression: burn a U.S. flag, swear on the air, publish pornography, insult or howl down a speaker.

The most important issue in this article is the same as the article I posted here by David Horowitz.

It addresses the issue of our court's tolerance for the sabotaging of free speech by allowing some to use the premise of free speech to "howl down a speaker" they disagree with. The insane acceptance of mobs and rioting as constituting "free speech", even when their actions have no intent but to deny others the right to free speech, is a defacto and ignorant acceptance of tyranny by our courts. What has happened is that the denial of free speech has become a political strategy adopted by the left to dominate politics in our nation, the Constitution be damned.

The recent riot by a mob of government workers in Madison, Wisconsin is a perfect example. These were government workers rioting against Democracy to assure their corrupt power (gained by rigging the system to allow them to negotiate with the very people they put into office through corruption) was not infringed by people who had followed the "rule of law" principals and procedures that supposedly were what these government-worker mobs were obligated to enforce.

Yet that is exactly what has become the ignorant logic of our judges. It is one more example of why justice has become a farce. The judges permit government workers to riot to assure that the free speech rights of the voters are over turned.

There is no justice in America. Our courts are corrupt.

Courting Disaster

2011-03-01T08:57:00.004-05:00

by Fay Voshell - March 1st, 2011 - The American Thinker

The Obama administration has basically executed a coup against the judiciary and due process of law by taking to itself the duties of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. For if the administration can decree a given law as unconstitutional without the evaluation of its constitutionality or non-constitutionality residing in the hands of the judiciary, the process of judicial review is unnecessary. Worse, the entire system of governmental checks and balances is completely wrecked. The executive branch would reign as supreme arbiter of law.

If the Executive branch can rule what is or is not Consitutional, then any act can be defended. A perfect example is the act of suspending elections.

If next year, in 2012, Obama orders that elections be suspended because of civil unrest like that currently going on in Madison Wisconsin, what Institution would oppose him? Even if red states proceded with elections, would the result have any meaning if 3 or 4 major blue states did not vote? What Institution of government would attempt to remove Obama in such a contested environment?

It was inconceivable as recently as last month that anyone in the American government would simply overturn a legally enacted bill by Presidential fiat. Yet Obama has accomplished that with his declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act ins un-Constitutional. What Institution will challenge him? Nothing indicates that the Republican Party has even noticed this un-Constitutional usurption of power.

The revered Insitutions of our nation are unraveling and the press is backing the mob in Madison. Has not a single member of the press considered, if the Constitution means nothing, doesn't that mean that freedom of the press means nothing?

The ABA's Jihad

2011-02-23T08:07:00.003-05:00

by Pamela Geller - February 22nd, 2011 - The American Thinker

The American Bar Association (ABA) has decided to undertake the fight for Sharia law. The ABA's Executive Counsel "has organized a Task Force to review the legislation of 14 states -- ... in which anti-Sharia legislation has been introduced."

The goal of the ABA's Task Force is to fight against these legislative initiatives by free people...

[Snip]

In reality, Islamic law is the most radical and intolerant system of governance on the face of the earth. It denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and legal equality for women and non-Muslims. That's why so many states are trying to ban it.

The article goes on to identify the actions being undertaken by the ABA to implement Sharia finance, a convoluted system of banking designed to pretend that interest is not interest to meet religious dictates of tyrannical Mullahs. That is the finance system that has kept Islamic countries backward and sabotaged all efforts at free enterprise within Muslim countries for over a thousand years. What in the world would cause an American organization to promote such an ignorant concept?

An equally queer concept is the support by a free press in America for the suppression of criticism against anything Islamic. If you say anything, even something truthful about honor killings of raped women, beheading of infidels, the misogyny against women - absolutely anything that any Muslim finds offensive - you are guilty of Islamophobia and blasphemy. The article notes that Los Angeles is among many cities promoting the right of Muslims to take away the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of our citizens if they dare commit the "hate crime" of criticizing Islam.

A free press is glorifying the elimination of free speech. Local governments are backing this by making it the law of the land.

Has America gone insane? How can such idiocy be tolerated.

High Court Passes Up Ten Commandments Return

2011-02-23T07:00:00.000-05:00

by Lee Ross - February 22nd, 2011 - Fox News

Deciding not to revisit a controversial decision from 2005, the Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will not give another look at the attempt by local officials in Kentucky to hang a copy of the Ten Commandments inside their county courthouse.

The decision to bypass the case is a defeat for those who feel the document is of such great moral importance that a framed copy must be placed in the McCreary County Courthouse. Equally, it is a victory for those opposed to the placement of an inherently religious document in the public space, especially the ACLU.

In reality the decision is a blatantly religious ruling by those who worship Atheism. Atheism has become a religion. It is waging war against Christianity with all the religious fervor practiced by Islam when it too attempted to wipe Christianity from the face of our planet. At this point, those who are too stupid to understand the dogmatic religious persecution of one religion by another are pretending that this is a war between the evil Christians and the morally superior Atheists. Such an ignorant position will not long prevail when Atheists use the power they are gaining to force their views on others.

The "Judicial Activism" Ploy

2011-02-09T05:29:00.000-05:00

by Thomas Sowell - February 8th, 2011 - TownHall.com

Now that two different federal courts have declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, the administration's answer is to call the courts guilty of "judicial activism."

Barack Obama has a rhetorical solution for every problem. Remember the repeated claims of "shovel-ready" projects that needed only federal stimulus money to get started? Last year the President quietly admitted that there were not many "shovel-ready" projects, after all.

But the phrase served its political purpose at the time-- and that was obviously all that mattered. Now, in the wake of rulings by two different courts that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, rhetoric is being mobilized again, without any fussy worries about facts.

The most frightening part of this issue is that it will be months before it is resolved, and in the meantime our future freedoms hang in the balance. This issue truly is the bright line between a nation of liberty and a nation of tyranny. As corrupt as our courts have become, nothing will stop the total erosion of liberty if the legislature can demand that anyone must do business as government bureaucrats direct.

She Was The Single Mother Who Claimed Her Town Was Poisoned

2011-01-03T06:03:00.002-05:00

by its water supply... but was Erin Brockovich wrong?

by Paul Bracchi and Barbara Mcmahon - January 3rd, 2011 - London Daily Mail

The record payout, which made headlines on both sides of the Atlantic, was seen as a personal victory for Brockovich, a lowly clerk at a small-town Californian law firm, a divorced single mother and former pageant queen with a penchant for leopardskin mini-skirts and plunging necklines, who took on corporate America — and won. Cue the credits and Academy Awards.

Today, however, more than a decade on from one of the most celebrated ‘David and Goliath’ legal battles of recent times, a less flattering assessment is emerging.

Fresh scientific evidence has come to light that casts doubt on Brockovich’s claims that PG&E was responsible for the continuing legacy of ill-health in Hinkley.

This case is prefect evidence of the corruption of the American Court system; dominated by deceiful lawyers, complicit judges, lottery seeking defendents, idiot science and a gullible press.

The American Court System is nothing but the largest blackmail and extortion system in the world. Deep pocket defendents have no expectation of fairness or justice in our courts. As a result they cave in quickly and thus continue the practice of corruption simply to mitigate their exposure and costs. The bloodsuckers make out like bandits and society pays the bill because there is little use in fighting. The judges make sure that those who fight are screwed so badly they learn to pay the blackmail and go away.

There is no justice in America. Our courts are a farce.

ObamaCare UnConsitutional ... For Now

2010-12-13T15:07:00.005-05:00

U.S. Health-Care Law Requirement Thrown Out by Judge

by Tom Schoenberg & Margaret Cronin Fisk - December 13th, 2010 - Bloomberg News

The Obama administration’s requirement that most citizens maintain minimum health coverage as part of a broad overhaul of the industry is unconstitutional a federal judge ruled, striking down the linchpin of the plan.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson in Richmond, Virginia, today ruled that the requirement in President Barack Obama’s health-care legislation goes beyond Congress’s powers to regulate interstate commerce.

[Snip]

“We are disappointed in today’s ruling but continue to believe -- as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found -- that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional,” Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. The government is “confident that we will ultimately prevail,” she said.

The reality is, this law proves there is no justice in America. The rule of law has become a farce. Each judge rules as they want based on their political ideology. There is no legal basis for many of the rulings since the Constitution means nothing to liberal judges. Justice also means nothing to these liberal judges. Judicial power is the only force behind their lust for a judicial oligarchy that gives all power to judges to rule as they wish.

Any rational person must see that in a nation ruled by a judicial oligarchy, freedom does not exist.

New Jersey Man Serving 7 Years For Guns He Owned Legally

2010-11-30T07:11:00.001-05:00

by Jason Nark - November 30th, 2010 - Philadelphia Daily News

Everything Brian Aitken was or had worked for was wiped away one winter afternoon...

In between jobs, his well-oiled life was running ragged, and on Jan. 2, 2009, when his ex canceled his visit with their son, he became distraught, muttered something to his mother, and left his parents' home in Mount Laurel, N.J.

"He said something that scared her, things that a guy will only say to his mom, like . . . 'Life's not worth living anymore,' " said Larry Aitken, Brian's father.

Sue Aitken, a trained social worker, decided to play it safe and called police, but she hung up before the 9-1-1 dispatcher could answer. Police traced the call and showed up anyway...

When Mount Laurel police arrived at the Aitkens' home on Jan. 2, 2009, they called Brian - who was driving to Hoboken - and asked him to return to his parents' home because they were worried. When he arrived, the cops checked his Honda Civic and, inside the trunk, in a box stuffed into a duffel bag with clothes, they found two handguns, both locked and unloaded as New Jersey law requires.

Yet they prosecuted him anyway. Forget the U.S. Consitution. Forget any sane response to the fact that Brian was no threat to society. SEVEN YEARS!!!!! Seven years in a prison with murderers, rapists, gang bangers, drug dealers, thieves.

That is what this law abiding citizen of our nation is spending in jail. The same amount of time that limousine liberal judges usually sentence repeat offenders for raping or stealing. Actually it is the same amount of time that a few MURDERERS are given in our nation by these oh so sympathetic defenders of rehabilitation and their practice of coddling criminals.

However there is no sympathy for Brian. HE OWNS A GUN!!!!

Impeaching Justice Roberts?

2010-10-28T10:02:00.008-04:00

by Jason Mattera - October 26th, 2010 - Human Events

It’s come to this: Democrats are so desperate at trying to mobilize the left wing of their base to prevent an electoral bloodbath next week that one congressman is actually promising to impeach Justice John Roberts from the Supreme Court. Why? Because Roberts allegedly “perjured” himself in the Citizens United case when he, along with four of his colleagues, struck down portions of campaign finance law as unconstitutional. You see, Roberts wasn’t acting as an objective “umpire,” but as an activist, flippantly overturning precedent to quench his conservative worldview.

Why are conservatives so outraged that anyone would think of impeaching a Supreme Court justice to assure victory in the ongoing political war for our nation's future? The courts have been corrupt for generations and have sabotaged respect for Constitutional Law and Individual Freedom on many occasions. Why then are conservatives shocked at the idea of judges being impeached?

I love the idea. I personally think that the greatest way to get our country back is to end the insanity of a single judge having the power to issue an injunction against the will of the people as expressed in the laws our legislature has passed. I want those people impeached.

I want mass impeachment the next time the Supreme Court destroys our Constitution by ruling based on international law. Get rid of everyone who supported the ruling in one big event. I want conservatives and libertarians to wake up to the reality that our courts have no respect for 'the rule of law'. Today we have 'the rule of judges'. I may disagree with which judges to impeach but I absolutely embrace the idea that it is time to start impeaching judges. I want to impeach all that think their rulings are the last word and that the Constitution is a 'living document' they can subvert.

Stop being outraged at the idea itself. Respond instead with a gleeful, "Yes lets impeach some judges. I have a long list!"

Washington Post Blockbuster Confirms Worst Fears About Holder Justice Deptartment Race Policies

2010-10-23T08:54:00.002-04:00

by Andrew Breitbart - October 22nd, 2010 - Big Government

Congratulations to the editors at the Washington Post. Seventeen months after the Eric Holder Justice Department dismissed a slam-dunk case against the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, the Post gets around to printing a thorough vetting of the dismissal. The story is slated for Saturday’s print edition. While other media like Breitbart/The Bigs, Fox News, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Investors Business Daily, Pajamas Media, and Drudge have had dozens of stories on the corrupt New Black Panther dismissal, the Washington Post at last is in the game.

The only question is whether this will matter in the election or not. It should. That Obama is using the Justice Department to get even with 'Whitey' is a major story. All that remains is to see if it matters to any of Obama's supporters who claim to care about equal treatment under the law. I do not have the confidence that Breitbart has that this will matter to most of them. I think they are just as corrupt as Holder and Obama.

Free Speech Cases At Top Of Supreme Court's Agenda

2010-10-04T08:05:00.003-04:00

by Mark Sherman - October 2nd, 2010 - My Way News (Associated Press)

First Amendment cases top the Supreme Court's docket as it begins a new term with a new justice and three women on the bench for the first time.

The court will look at provocative anti-gay protests at military funerals and a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. These cases worry free speech advocates, who fear the court could limit First Amendment freedoms.

The funeral protest lawsuit, over signs praising American war deaths, "is one of those cases that tests our commitment to the First Amendment," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

That is worrisome. That these power hungry totalitarian oligarchs are so focused on deciding when someone can speak in our society is not encouraging. Their deciding who a complainant can make the targets of their rage, even when the target is not involved in abusing the people who are unhappy, is even more frightening.

It is clear if the suit against the church who expresses displeasure with ALL of our troops, mocking them at their funerals, stands up as just proper free speech, it will be important to do the same to all liberals in response. Signs at the funeral of every registered Democrat should be displayed calling them "communist scum" and mocking their attempts to destroy American freedom.

Even worse though is the refusal by the courts to address the serious issues that are destroying justice under the Obama administration. How can these judicial oligarchs ignore the abuse of Obama taking the "secured" rights of GM and Chrysler bond holders and simply stealing their property. They gave this wealth to the unions who bribed the progressive movement officials with their illegal campaign contributions. There is no more blatant quid pro quo example of criminal conduct in the history of our nation.

Our Supreme Court tyrants could care less.

There is no justice in America. Our courts are corrupt.

A Judge’s Warning About The Legitimacy Of The Supreme Court

2010-09-27T08:37:00.006-04:00

by Lincoln Caplan - September 26th, 2010 - The New York Times

In his dissent from a decision striking down the District of Columbia’s gun-control law, he showed why. “In my view,” he said, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

It is amazing that the liberal justices cannot see that the right of self defense in a "crime-ridden urban area" was one of the purposes of the second amendment. The words are not complex, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." To the average citizen this provision is clear. To them, passively waiting for government to defend you is not the appropriate response to an invasion of criminals into your home.

Breyer argues only the elite who can afford to live in gated communities should be allowed to keep arms. The poor must deal, unarmed, with the criminals.

I have a different view.

Our courts no longer have legitimacy. Period. The rule of law has been abandoned in favor of the rule of judges. There is no social contract between our citizens any longer if Breyer gets gets his way. There is only the power of government and its desire to make you behave the way your superior elite betters decide you should behave.

This new judicial oligarchy espoused by Breyer and his progressive cohorts will not end until we elect non lawyer legislators who will start the mass impeachment of arrogant self righteous demagogues like Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy and Sotomayor. Every one of these has argued that our courts should be ruled by international standards of justice, not by our social contract, the Constitution. It is the International reputation of "their court" that concerns them. Not what the citizens of our nation see as our social contract.

To argue for subverting the Constitution in favor of International law is an impeachable offense. It violates their oath to uphold the Constitution, the most sacred oath they took upon accepting the duties with which they were entrusted. They have violated that trust. We MUST impeach them or we will never again see the rule of law in America.

Taking Back Constitution Piece By Piece

2010-08-31T08:18:00.003-04:00

by Frank Miele - August 29th, 2010 - Daily Inter Lake

History is plain. So are the words in the 14th Amendment. But both are now being ignored thanks to a feckless adherence to judicial precedent no matter how wrong-headed the decision.

We are told that every child born in the United States has the right to claim citizenship in our country based on the wording of this amendment, but for goodness’ sake, before we sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, shouldn’t someone actually read the amendment?

It PLAINLY says that there are TWO elements which are BOTH necessary to qualify for citizenship. One is that you must be “born or naturalized in the United States.” The meaning of that is more or less self-evident. The meaning of the second element — that a potential citizen must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States — has been conveniently forgotten or obfuscated. More invisible ink?

Anyone who bothers to spend half an hour researching the history of this amendment will find ample proof that the phrase is intended to exclude the children of foreign nationals from acquiring citizenship just due to the accident of being born in the United States. To claim otherwise requires a willful ignorance so profound as to be frightening.

Frightening. That is the perfect word. Frightening.

Proponents of this progressive abuse of our Constitution are frightening. By twisting the clear meaning of words to invent a new right to citizenship that didn't exist under the amendment and that was in clear violation of the intention of the people who passed it shows the amazing arrogance of our judges. It also shows their total contempt for the people and the nation they have taken an oath to serve.

This single judicial abuse is the foundation for my belief that until we establish the right to mass impeachment and conviction of judges, America will never regain its freedom.

Fed Agents Frustrated By Judges’ Immigration Decisions

2010-08-31T07:52:00.001-04:00

by Sara A. Carter - August 31st, 2010 - Washington Examiner

In March, Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Sandoval — who had committed serious crimes in the United States since 1998 — stood before Florence, Ariz., Immigration Judge Bruce Taylor on a deportation hearing. That day the judge canceled his removal proceedings, allowing him to stay in the United States.

Four months later, Sandoval was arrested again on an outstanding warrant but was released. Three days after that release he led police on a 100 mph car chase. Then in August, in response to a 911 call from his family, he shot at Arizona deputies who came to his home. That night, he escaped.

Federal Judges have no accountability. As long as there is a political party that is intentionally subverting the Constitution, there is no willingness to allow their political decisions to be challenged through the normal impeachment process. As a direct result, our courts are out of control. Liberal, incompetent and even anti-American judges regularly make rulings that are simply insane from any perspective that follows the rule of law. However our judges no longer believe in the rule of law. They don't believe in the Constitution. They believe in "progressive" politics and protecting their political party's constituents. Illegal aliens have a massive lobby within the Democrat Party. As a direct result, the laws of our nation mean nothing.

Judges abuse their discretion to free criminals from foreign lands under the pretense of defending the constitutional rights of people who have no legal right to be here as described in a constitution they don't otherwise respect. In a just world they would be impeached, convicted and exiled from the nation whose laws they hold in such contempt.

Somali Pirates Who Fired On U.S. Navy Are Not Really Pirates

2010-08-21T06:42:00.008-04:00

by Andy McCarthy - August 20th, 2010 - National Review

Putting federal judges in charge of national security — what could go wrong?

Federal judge Raymond A. Jackson has dismissed piracy charges against six Somali men who are alleged to have fired on U.S. naval warships on the Indian Ocean. Why? Because the attacks failed to ravage our vessels — indeed, they were captured and brought to Judge Jackson’s civilian court in Virginia. According to Judge Jackson (appointed to the bench by President Clinton in 1993), to be prosecuted for piracy (under Section 1651 of the federal penal code), pirates have to succeed in carrying out a robbery on the high seas. If they try but we capture them, they can’t be charged.

Makes perfect sense, right?

What annoys me about the author of this article is he actually tries to excuse the judge - blaming his ruling on actions of the legislature that fell short of specifically describing an attempt as piracy. The argument is that if the legislature had been more specific, a judge seeking to subvert justice would not have had the room to do so. This is non sense. These corrupt judges will merely make up some different excuse to destroy justice. It is the judges who are corrupt.

What is very likely to happen is that this will become a precedent that will allow bank robbers who fail and rapists who are stopped and murderers whose victims survive to avoid justice as well. I mean if you try but fail, you haven't committed a crime, right? This judge said so.

Clearly this judge does not think these "poor Somalis" should be held accountable. After all we are a rich nation and we have not given them all the food and clothing and middle class comforts they deserve, so how can you charge them with a little thing like taking what they want by force?

There is no justice in America. The courts are corrupt.

California's Bumbler In A Black Robe

2010-08-18T10:05:00.002-04:00

Editorial - August 17th, 2010 - Washington Examiner

Walker's decision is best read as an attempt to show that "judicial application of the rationality test can be a parody of intelligent analysis," according to constitutional law professor Robert F. Nagel. The decision contains, for example, a "finding of fact" that "religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." Walker is entitled to his own opinions about religious faith and the faithful, of course, but his clearly prejudicial reasoning exposes himself and the federal judiciary to parody and ridicule.

It appears lost on Walker that how he arrived at his decision is as important as the ruling itself. His lofty judgments on mankind, insolently cloaked as "fact," are suggestive of an arrogant political class that has no regard for voters.

Suggestive? I believe that America's 'ruling class' has left little doubt they hold the citizens of this nation in total contempt. "No regard" is as much of an understatement as "suggestive." What is sad is that it is nearly as accurate a summation of the attitude of conservative judges as it is of liberal judges. The entire judiciary is pretty arrogant and indifferent to the rights of the 'great unwashed' . They see themselves as ruling over our nation in a judicial oligarchy where they are the supreme power.

Constitutional Sovereignty: Will States Use It Or Lose It?

2010-08-06T06:37:00.006-04:00

by Alan Keyes - August 6th, 2010 - World Net Daily

In a post published earlier this week at my website, I draw attention to and argue in support of the observation made in an article at Canada Free Press regarding the case challenging Arizona's immigration law. Bylined Publius Huldah, the article cites part of the above quoted language of the U.S. Constitution to make the point that the case must be heard and decided in the first instance by the Supreme Court of the United States. On Wednesday, I read a WND article reporting the views of two experts who disagree, asserting that "the full text of the constitutional provision needs to be noted, because it does not provide the Supreme Court with 'exclusive' original jurisdiction."

This assertion is demonstrably incorrect.

Alan Keyes debunks the progressive assertion that clear language in the Constitution can be misread to permit the legislature to overrule that very language.

This premise is key to the war against activist judges and their abuse of the social contract of our nation. The idea that lawyers and judges can decide, independent of a nation's citizens, what the social contract means is tyrannical. We are not a judicial oligarchy. Judges and lawyers cannot go off and construct a social contract of complex concepts subject to exclusive lawyer dominated litigation which they insist are beyond the grasp of the average citizen. Such a premise destroys the social contract and leaves no alternative but revolution and bloodshed to restore the people to their rightful place as supreme power in the land.

The Constitution is our social contract. It is a contract between the people, not between lawyers and judges. Progressives are arguing that if you disagree with their attempts to alter this contract they can use Alinsky techniques to call you an idiot for failing to accept their logic. Such ridicule is itself fueling the growing contempt for the 'ruling class' in Washington and the legal system which defends their power. It also fuels contempt for those among us (not me I assure you) who defend this arrogant 'ruling class'. This is the major element in the growing divisiveness in politics.

I currently hold no great hope for most elected Republican officials. They are often as accepting of the 'ruling class' logic as progressive Democrats. We are going to find out whether we are still a Constitutional Republic of free citizens or have become a mob dominated pure democracy of socialist tyranny. This showdown is fast approaching.

Michigan Man’s 24th Lawsuit Threatens Family Business

2010-08-03T09:14:00.006-04:00

by Staff - December 2009 - Faces of Lawsuit Abuse

Richard & Dick Singer · Acra Cast, Inc. · Bay City, MI

In 2006, one the company’s neighbors – who had filed 23 previous lawsuits in the county – sued Acra Cast, the Singer family business. Acra Cast, with about 15 employees, is a small foundry, which designs and creates precision metal castings ranging from sculptures to machine parts. The plaintiff alleged that emissions from the foundry had contaminated his cars, his carpet, and the siding of his house.

Singer’s business has always been in full compliance with all environmental regulations. As the case proceeded, Singer learned that the plaintiff did not even own some of the cars for which he wanted compensation, and he had disposed of the carpets and cleaned the house siding before any evidence could be collected. From the samples they could collect, Singer explains that he and his lawyers eventually discovered that the gritty material on the plaintiff’s car could not have been caused by the wax burned at Acra Cast.

The web site where this article is posted is one of the most important sites on the Internet. It continuously exposes the American Court system for the corrupt hypocrisy it is. There is no protection for such frivolous lawsuits as the one described here because the courts want the legal fees that are extorted even when the final ruling proves the case was a joke.

In the last week, a case that (according to the Constitution) had to be tried in front of the Supreme Court as court of 'original jurisdiction' was allowed to be tried in front of a single federal district court judge. I am talking about the lawsuit by the ACLU and Attorney General Holder against the State of Arizona. Arizona is a state. The Constitution is clear. Trials involving states MUST be tried in the Supreme Court. Why does the Supreme Court do nothing about this?

Last year the bondholders of General Motors and Chrysler had their wealth seized and given to a politically favored union. Where was the Supreme Court? Why have they done nothing to fix this injustice?

The American court system is a complete sham. It has become a system of extortion and blackmail for lawyers, their corrupt clients and the corrupt judges who allow the injustice to continue. It is a left wing kangaroo court where favored constituencies destroy their enemies with illegal politically biased rulings that make a farce of the rule of law.

When will American citizens demand our court system be purged of these corrupt judges and returned to a system that embraces the rule of law?

Is Blago Judge Protecting Obama?

2010-07-02T06:57:00.000-04:00

String of Curious Rulings in Corruption Trial Raise Questions about Judge's Motives

by Jerry McGlothlin - Attributed July 1st, 2010 - Special Guests

In April, Judge James Zagel was presented with a motion to subpoena Barack Obama by Rod Blagojevich's defense lawyers. The redacted motion showed a very strong argument for Obama's testimony; it was made even more compelling when a software glitch revealed all the omitted words on the internet, making it available to everyone. A primary request within the subpoena motion was the transcripts of a two hour interview between then president-elect and the FBI after Blagojevich's arrest in December of 2008.

Zagel denied the motion. Blagojevich's team then requested summaries of the interview; that too was denied. Had that been the only instance of a questionable ruling, Zagel may have deserved the extension of some grace relative to his discretion. However, there have been several instances where his rulings and / or comments seemed to benefit no one but Obama.

Is anyone surprised that a liberal judge would bend the law for political reasons?

Our courts are corrupt. There is no justice in America.

Confession Deal Backfires And Serial Killer Goes Free

2010-06-09T21:54:00.007-04:00

by L.L. Brasier - June 9th, 2010 - Free Press

Between 1967 and 1969, four young Oakland County women were strangled with their own nylons or underwear.

Nolan Ray George, then in his mid-20s and working for the City of Pontiac, eventually confessed to three strangulations, two of them fatal, and went to prison for one. Through plea deals with police and prosecutors, and fortuitous appellate court decisions, he served only 12 years in a Michigan prison.

It is absolutely bizarre how liberal judges apparently lust after the opportunity to free killers and rapists. What was supposed to be a 40 to 60 year sentence was reduced and reduced and reduced, so that the liberal judges could get this man back out on the street killing innocent girls. You have to believe the judges understood that someone else would die. Only a blithering idiot would have believed he was not going to kill again.

So he was freed. Then after he kills again... they let him get out a second time. Freeing him the second time did not require a blithering idiot. It required an evil contemptuous liberal judge who knowingly intended the American people to suffer. When are we going to start punishing these liberal scum with what they deserve. I vote for the death penalty for any judge who knowingly frees a murderer.

Someone should be punished for the revolving door prisons liberals have inflicted on our society. They do nothing except provide an education to the criminals about how to murder and rape and get away with it. They learn how to play the idiot judges for the buffoons they have proven themselves to be and walk away with sentences that are a farce.

Ninja Bureaucrats On The Loose

2010-06-08T08:45:00.003-04:00

by Quin Hillyer - June 7th, 2010 - Washington Times

''The government," wrote 50-year-old Denise Simon, "is too big to fight." With those words, in a note to her 17-year-old son, Adam, she explained why she was committing suicide (via carbon monoxide) three days after 10 visibly armed IRS agents in bulletproof vests had stormed her home on Nov. 6, 2007, in search of evidence of tax evasion. Her 10-year-old daughter, Rachel, was there with Simon when the agents stormed in.

"I cannot live in terror of being accused of things I did not do," she wrote to Adam. To the rest of the world, in a separate suicide note, she wrote: "I am currently a danger to my children. I am bringing armed officers into their home. I am compelled to distance myself from them for their safety."

If anyone still cannot understand how a civilized nation such as Germany reached a point where its bureaucrats were actively complicit in killing innocent people in gas chambers, they need only look at the daily acts of American bureaucrats and their growing abuse against our citizens. This article is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our courts are corrupt and rule in violation of the law on a regular basis. Judges strip justice from victims on a daily basis by the suppression of accurate evidence for technical violations of their rules by bureaucrats who were not even present when the crimes were committed. The Miranda farce was used to free a murderer who was read his "rights" twice, but the judge was not happy with the way they were read. You would think that if the action was so contemptible that it justified freeing a murderer, the perpetrator of this violation would be jailed. Yet the reality is it is a farce. The judge knows it. NOTHING was done to the police officer. How does that represent intellectual balance? We are seeing a growing idiocy of our judiciary as they become complicit in the evil our nation is coming to represent.

The list of horror stories about innocent citizens incarcerated for trivial offenses in this article does not even include the tens of thousands whose lives have been destroyed over excessive and irrational sentences for trivial or non existent "crimes" in the war on drugs. How about the man whose car was seized in a "drug raid" because his daughter who was driving it gave a ride to a friend who had drugs on him that neither she nor her father were aware of? Today, our bureacrats are frequently the most evil of the criminals a citizen has to face.

Now comes the regime of Barack Obama and the growing criminalization of America is about to become a politicized reign of terror against our own citizens by the most arrogant and partisan President in our nation's hitory.

Peekaboo! I See You… Acting Unconstitutionally

2010-06-08T08:44:00.001-04:00

by Iain Murray - June 7th, 2010 - American Spectator

During the next two weeks, the Supreme Court will rule on a case that, if decided correctly, will bring relief to small businesses all over the nation. The details of the case sound arcane, but they get to the heart of how America is governed and what the Founders intended. Should the Justices uphold a challenge to the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB, often pronounced "Peekaboo"), then entrepreneurs, the Constitution, and the rule of law will win. The losers? Beancounters and bureaucrats.

The arrogance of supporters of Sarbanes-Oxley is unbelievable. They have created a court system and a regulatory system all rolled up in one, empowering unelected bureaucrats to destroy people's lives on a whim, or simply for a mistake.

There is no greater threat to freedom than self righteous bureaucrats who think of themselves as guardian angels. Unless and until we return to Constitutional principles, we cannot survive as a free nation. The problem is that these laws are being evaluated by unelected buffoons that serve for life. Their respect for our social contract has been proven non existent since the time of Woodrow Wilson, the evil President who started America down this road to Armageddon.

Kagan's Disdain For Constitutional Law

2010-05-31T06:38:00.004-04:00

by Phil Boehmke - May 30th, 2010 - American Thinker

The question of Ms. Kagan’s respect for the Constitution as the fundamental law of our Republic may be illustrated by one [of] the decisions she made as Dean of Harvard Law School. CNSNews.com reports.
As dean, Kagan won approval from the faculty in 2006 to make major changes to the Harvard Law's curriculum.

"My understanding is that she instituted three new courses to the required curriculum and, in so doing, got rid of a requirement to take constitutional law," Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com.

"Currently at Harvard, constitutional law is not required for first-year law students, or even for graduation," Alt added.

It is a frightening prospect that someone who feels that constitutional law is not important enough as to be a required course of study for the prospective lawyers in her charge, should be seated on the Supreme Court where her influence would be felt for decades to come. As Mr. Obama continues to remake our Republic to suit his socialist agenda he understands the crucial importance of having like minded individuals on the high court to fend off potential legal challenges.

It is frightening. This person, like Obama, sees herself as destroying the Constitution to come up with something better. Better in her mind.

She will never live up to her pledge to defend that which most Americans believe is the basis of our social contract, our Constitution. It is frightening that this woman desires a position whose oath of office she has campaigned to violate.

Foreign Law: Coming Soon To A Supreme Court Near You

2010-05-26T07:08:00.003-04:00

by Ben Johnson - May 24th, 2010 - Citizen Reporter

This point was driven home by the Supreme Court’s decision last Monday in Graham v. Florida, which cited foreign law to strike down sentencing guidelines used by 37 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion joined by Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor. [the four justices in the global socialist cabal]

As her record proves, Elena Kagan would accelerate the trend of using foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

Once again the global socialist Anthony Kennedy proves that he is a split the baby, America hating, master of insane rulings. He is on a quest to maintain for himself the prestige of being the swing vote. His massive ego is driven by the need to be powerful. Kennedy has found his niche in life by proving again and again, he has no legal premise to base his rulings on other than that his ego must be placated. He will sell his soul to either legal side in an issue for the prestige of writing the decision.

Victims' Families Angry Over Vanessa Coleman's Trial Verdict

2010-05-19T07:23:00.010-04:00

by Emily Stroud - May 13th, 2010 - WBIR TV

Vanessa Coleman escaped the death penalty and life in prison. But a jury convicted her Thursday on 17 counts in a kidnapping, rape, and murder case.

The jury found Coleman not guilty of all of the counts related to victim Chris Newsom. Testimony at trial alleged she never saw Newsom.

The 17 convictions all relate to victim Channon Christian. The jury found Coleman facilitated her murder, rape, kidnapping, and theft of property.

Reading the lengthy verdict took almost an hour Thursday afternoon.

Vanessa Coleman's parents, Linda and Greg Coleman, intertwined their arms, held hands, and cried.

Coleman herself smiled at times.

"She was getting away with murder, she was pretty happy," Channon Christian's mother Deena Christian said. "But that doesn't make us happy about it."

There is no justice in America. The court's are a joke.

A mob of black's perpetrated one of the most gruesome and horrible crimes in our nation's history against this white couple, and only one of the defendants is getting the justice they deserve. It was brutal. As an example, Channon, while still alive, had bleach poured down her throat to purge the DNA evidence left by the gang of black men who forced her to repeatedly give them oral sex. This was one of the least gruesome of the pains inflicted on this poor young woman. It was savage and brutal. Finally she was placed in a garbage bag alive and forced to die of suffocation, alone and afraid. What was done to her boyfriend Chris is beyond the hideous acts performed by any sexual sadists of the last 40 years.

Yet the court system bent over backwards to give the defendants every conceivable break and treat them just like your standard everyday minor criminals. The victims were ignored. Their torture was ignored.

This was a crime of racial hatred by a black mob fueled by racist rage beyond belief. The courts agreed with the perpetrators and treated it as if the two victims were the white establishment and deserved what they got. This is a joke. This is an outrage. Justice was not served. In the corrupt courts of America today, it rarely is.

DNA Test Clears American Musician After 28 Years In Jail For Rape

2010-05-09T08:23:00.003-04:00

by Giles Whittell - May 8th, 2010 - Times Online

“You’re going to have to bear with me,” the judge said. “I know you’re anxious.”

For a man wrongly convicted of rape almost 30 years ago, Raymond Towler did not look anxious. Perhaps it was because a few more minutes in custody made little difference after so long. Perhaps it was because he had a reasonable idea of what Judge Eileen Gallagher was about to say.

Several things about this article caught my eye. One is the long title. You almost don't have to read the article after you read the title. Two is the theme of the article, that only blacks experience injustice and go to jail. Three is the irony. The system that spends so much energy chasing perfect justice is more guilty than most of dispensing injustice.

How does a system that frees killers for an accidental mis-statement of the Miranda warning to a murderer who has been arrested a dozen times, heard it again and again and cannot possibly be in doubt as to his so-called "rights", keep accepting non-sensible "identifications" that the rest of the world has long recognized are incompetent?

Might I suggest that it is because our progressive judges don't care a whit for justice but are in search of greater judicial power?

Global Warming Advocates Threaten Blizzard Of Lawsuits

2010-03-30T08:55:00.004-04:00

by Gene J. Koprowski - March 29th, 2010 - FOXNews.com

Environmentalists, unable to squeeze "cap and trade" rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming:

They're going to sue.

They're revving up their briefs and getting ready to shop for judges who will be sympathetic to their novel claim that the companies they believe contribute to global warming are a "public nuisance."

[Snip]

"This end-run around civil discourse undermines the very foundation of American democracy, violates the Constitution and has proven fiscally disastrous," [David]Ratowitz told FoxNews.com.

As I have repeately argued, there is no justice in America. Our courts are corrupt. They are systems of extortion and blackmail, not civilized processes for resolving disputes based on the rule of law. They make the law up as they go.

Judge Orders Notorious Terrorist Freed From Gitmo

2010-03-23T08:53:00.003-04:00

by Thomas Joscelyn - March 23rd, 2010 - The Weekly Standard

According to the Wall Street Journal, a district judge has ordered Mohamedou Slahi – a known al Qaeda recruiter who worked for Osama bin Laden – freed from Guantanamo. The Journal’s account does not explain the judge’s reasoning and the decision was not immediately available online. But the decision is inexplicable in light of Slahi’s notorious track record. There is no doubt that Mohamedou Slahi is one of the worst terrorists held at Gitmo.

If there was any doubt that progressive judges are waging war against America, this action should be adequate proof. Since Justice Robert H. Jackson coined the phrase, judges have worked to assure that decisions were not inherently anti-American. This one is. It is an insane ruling.

Chicago Gun Case Could Restore Other Civil Rights

2010-02-27T07:08:00.003-05:00

by Clark Neily - February 26th, 2010 - Las Vegas Review-Journal

Gun owners aren't the only ones who should pay close attention to the "McDonald" Chicago gun-ban case, which will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court March 2. If properly decided, the case could restore an important legal tool to protect the rights of small business owners and homeowners who face oppressive state and local government regulations.

Because the Supreme Court in McDonald may consider reinvigorating what is known as the "Privileges or Immunities clause" of the 14th Amendment, those engaged in civil rights battles nationwide may soon have a new arrow in their quiver to better defend the rights of homeowners and entrepreneurs. The clause states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

After the restoration of free speech rights, eviscerated ever since progressives gained ascendancy over our courts in the last century, it would be truly astonishing if Justice Kennedy could be persuaded to take this monunmental step. It is clear that with the replacement of Rehnquist by Roberts, individual liberties have gained a powerful new voice. Thomas, Alito and Scalia are solidly on board with Robert's new activism in support of the rule of law and our Constitution.

Kennedy is the swing vote between these four and the progressive wing of the court.

Stevens, Ginsburgh, Breyer and Sotomayor will oppose this. You can expect another dissent with snarling and angry language at the idea that the rule of judges will be weakened through a return to respect for the Constitutional rights of citizens.

Of course, first Kennedy has to sign on - and that is never a sure thing. Who knows where he stands on anything? As a moderate his views are whimsical and inconsistent. Like the last so-called moderate on the court, O'Connor, his votes are never based on a theory of government or law that anyone can make sense of.

That is why I cannot get too excited about the chances for a sane ruling on this case until Kennedy actually votes.

Federal Court Requires State Of Washington To Allow Incarcerated Felons To Vote

2010-02-08T09:24:00.002-05:00

by James Thunder - February 8th, 2010 - American Spectator

The Ninth Circuit found that the practices of the State of Washington with respect to policing, investigation, prosecution and sentencing resulted in racial disparities among the incarcerated that cannot be explained in race-neutral ways. For example, African Americans were "over nine times more likely to be in prison than Whites, even though the ratio of Black to White arrests for violent offenses was only 3.72:1…Native Americans were more than twice as likely to be searched as Whites…" (In the Second Circuit case, the plaintiffs alleged that African Americans and Latino Americans constituted 86% of the New York prison population but only 31% of the state's overall population.) Please note that intentional discrimination is not necessary to prove that the government violated the Voting Rights Act. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit assumes that the convictions of incarcerated felons were lawful; that is, they were not innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. It is the criminal justice system that was found to be systemically racist, causing the plaintiffs to be investigated and prosecuted much more frequently, and to be given longer sentences, than Caucasians.

Under these circumstances, the Voting Rights Act has posed a problem for the courts because it would appear that the law would be plainly triggered and would require the courts to negate state laws (and state constitutions, as in the case of Washington) that disenfranchise these individuals who have been incarcerated on account of their race or color. The Second Circuit provided a litany of reasons why this law's plain text should not apply to incarcerated felons, including: (1) the Fourteenth Amendment allows the disenfranchisement of felons; (2) there is a long history "and continuing prevalence" of such disenfranchisement; (3) statements made in House and Senate committee reports and on the Senate floor as part of the legislative process leading to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act declare that the Act does not affect felon disenfranchisement; (4) the introduction after 1965 of bills by supporters of the Voting Rights Act to allow explicitly disenfranchisement; (5) the enactment by Congress of felon disenfranchisement in the District of Columbia soon after the Voting Rights Act was enacted; and (6) the enactment of laws to facilitate removal of felons from the voting rolls. All of these circumstances persuaded the Second Circuit that Congress did not intend its language to have literal effect. To apply the statute literally, the Court wrote, would be "demonstrably at odds with the intentions" of Congress. It would be an "unthinkable disposition."

None of this matters to the idiots of our courts. Read this article to find out how lawyers agonize over little issues in their search for perfect justice which can be portrayed as in conflict with obvious issues of greater import. This entire issue is due to judges insisting that a law not intended to cover felons must apply to felons even when it is clear that the legislative intent was not to cover them if the judges can find a way to argue they don't like the result and the court rules for how complicated laws must be written is not satisfied.

There is no justice in America. Our courts are not just corrupt, they are populated with imbeciles who spend all their working hours trying to sabotage the concept of justice.

The rule of law means nothing to totalitarian scum who favor the rule of judges.

High Court Shows It Might Be Willing To Act Boldly

2010-01-22T07:28:00.004-05:00

by Robert Barnes - January 22, 2010 - Washington Post

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues delivered a seismic jolt Thursday. They overturned two of the court's past decisions -- including one made as recently as six years ago -- to upend federal legislation that says corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates and to declare unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002.

"This is obviously such an exceptionally dramatic, high-profile break with precedent," said Pamela Harris, executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law Center. "The question is, what will come next? Perhaps they have exhausted themselves on this one case, or it could have the opposite effect and be energizing. I really don't know which it will be."

Though I believe that this ruling is positive in protecting individual liberty, it is also annoying in that it enhances court power. For anyone sensitive to the growing judicial oligarchy of our nation's courts, that second aspect will certainly leave you worried.

The unwillingness of the liberal justices, and the Democrat Party, to stop trying to determine who gets to participate in our democratic elections however means that other concerns are probably best left for future battles. This outcome on balance is positive for a return to more individual freedom. That is good.

I was amused by the closing sentences of this writer's article, "But the reaction to the court's decision followed mostly partisan lines. And the court's familiar ideological split may have reinforced, warranted or not, the image the court finds most distasteful -- that its decisions are political as well." If the nine clowns think for a second that they are not practicing politics and find that impression distasteful, they are delusional.

High Court To Consider Government's Low Tactics

2009-12-28T09:11:00.005-05:00

by Steven Geoffrey Gieseler - December 28th, 2009 - American Thinker

... This parade of monstrosities might seem like something out of a dystopian novel or a third-world country, but it happened to an American citizen theoretically protected by the American Constitution. What's worse, the courts -- largely unwilling to second-guess the government when it comes to property rights, which are unique among constitutional guarantees -- signed off on the down-zoning scheme, ignored the scope of the project rule, allowed the trial manipulation, and thus rubber-stamped thirty years of government abuse of Gilbert Fornatora.

I would argue that this case has already proved there is no justice in America - our Constitution means nothing. The Supreme Court, by tolerating the continuing and ongoing abuses of government goons all over our nation (not just in this case but on a regular basis), has already destroyed our Constitution. Even if Fornatora wins, he will have endured many years of government oppression sanctioned by our Supreme Court. No matter what the ruling at this late date, that oppression will not be undone. Nor will anything ever be done to punish the goons who practiced that oppression.

What is sad is that most lawyers and judges think somehow our courts are great because people who have enough money and persistence can ultimately get justice... maybe. I argue that the reality is America has become a nation where oppression is common because our courts are corrupt. This case proves my argument, and no matter the outcome, it will still prove it. Victory by Fornatora will merely be farce.

Nonunion Auto Retirees Cry Foul Over Deal

2009-12-25T07:30:00.005-05:00

by William Ehart and Andrea Billups - December 24th, 2009 - The Washington Times

... 22,000 other Delphi salaried retirees understand these are hard times for everyone, especially those in the auto industry -- but they feel discriminated against because they did not belong to a union.

That's because GM is making up a $4.3 billion pension shortfall for its union workers and retirees who split off with Delphi, but not the $2.5 billion shortfall for salaried workers and retirees. About 46,000 union retirees are involved.

About 400 retirees at American Axle & Manufacturing are also affected, even though they never worked for Delphi. The company was created in 1994 when GM sold five plants to American Axle. GM kept those workers' pensions, then placed them with Delphi after the spin-off.

Delphi, based in Troy, Mich., has since closed most of its North American plants. Its current salaried employees' pensions are also being slashed.

Mrs. Hampton, who supports President Obama, doesn't understand why the salaried retirees and employees were singled out and wants the government to make them whole, too.

Just as the Democratic administration was accused of tilting the playing field in favor of its union allies in other aspects of GM's bankruptcy, salaried Delphi retirees say the union pension deal is unfair.

It is all about power, not wealth. It always was. These people do not have a problem with someone else's money being stolen in a bankruptcy that ignores the rule of law and favors those with political power. They think only about themselves. They just don't like when it is not them getting the special deals. They think only about themselves just as they have their entire working lives.

They didn't care about the non-union workers who had to pay more than their cars were worth back when the UAW was able to extort exorbitant wages from GM, which even non union workers at GM benefited from.

It is still all about me... me... me... and they don't like the new rules.

The lady in the article does not care about people who are not as well off as she whose life savings were stolen in the bankruptcies of Chrysler and GM. They were the "rich" whose wealth Obama was going to redistribute. She never cared until it turned out that the definition of rich was pliable. Non union workers turned out to be a part of the rich too.

Now it is whine... whine... whine...

This isn't fair she whines. It was not supposed to be her wealth that got redistributed. What she never understood was that when the rule of law is abandoned, the poor cannot always find enough rich who can be screwed to make everyone happy. They found that out in the French revolution too. No matter how many rich have their heads cut off, there is never enough left to go around.

The Supreme Court Is A Fraud

2009-12-19T07:38:00.004-05:00

Does anyone trust the Supreme Court to follow to the rule of law in these two cases?

Religious freedom at stake - by Alan Sears

Should a Young Democrats club on a university campus be compelled to elect Republican officers? Should a student chapter of PETA be forced to be led by an ardent hunter and taxidermist?

If you say no, you're one up on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in a crucial case earlier this year that Christian clubs on university campuses forfeit official recognition unless they're open to non-Christian leaders and voting members.

The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, centers on the contention by administrators at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco that a campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society -- a nationwide association of Christian lawyers, judges, law students and professors -- is discriminating against people on the basis of religion because the chapter requires its elected officers and official members to sign a statement of faith embracing Christian theology and behavior.

The dislocation of judicial discernment - by Jed Gldastein

No honest and thoughtful person believes that the ACORN apparatus is entitled to public funding. It is a socially subversive organization, and it undermines common sense to think otherwise. Yet, Federal District Court Judge Nina Gershon has now ruled that Congress must fund ACORN for services to be rendered under previously signed federal contracts.

According to the New York Times, Judge Gershon’s decision is based on the notion that ACORN was “singled out by Congress for punishment” without “any judicial, or even administrative, process adjudicating guilt.” The judge’s decision thus clothes itself in the garb of Fifth Amendment “due process,” and in doing so attempts to trump the legislative power vouchsafed to Congress under Article I of the Constitution.

I never thought I would reach a point where I had no confidence that judicial tyrants would rule the correct way in cases as obvious as the ones listed above. Yet that point has been reached.

The Supreme Court sat by idly while Barack Obama stole billions of dollars from average citizens and gave it to the UAW in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. The process was blatantly against the law. Yet not one of the corrupt power hungry demagogues on our highest court said a word.

Our courts have become as corrupt as any banana Republic dictatorship anywhere in the world.

Justice Thwarts Black Panther Subpoenas

2009-12-06T07:03:00.000-05:00

Editorial - December 6th, 2009 - Washington Times

Could it be that President Obama's legal team is imploding due to a voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party? So many new developments regarding the Black Panther case occurred in the latter half of last week that it is hard keeping up with them all. But none of them look good for the Obama administration or for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s Justice Department.

Of course this opinion rests upon the assumption that the American Justice System still cares about justice. With the justice Department actively subverting justice, who is truly stupid enough to believe that this is still true.

Our Nine Tyrants, the "Supremes" continue to appear indifferent to the numerous signs our system has become a farce. The system is too complicated and too politically influenced to deal with the constant abuses that result in bad convictions, governmental abuse and a constant stream of criminals walking free with their victims standing helpless and outraged at the courthouse door.

Here in our area of North Carolina, the incredible abuse of the national Department of Justice - getting a court to rule that a county dominated by blacks cannot be freed from the assistance of their insight into how to run their county - proves the corruption. In fact, the blacks who run the county are merely precluded from doing anything that would interfere with a socialist system of government. As long as it redistributes wealth through the dominance of the Democrat Party, they can do anything they like.

This is justice?

Property Owners Get Dunked On

2009-11-28T07:24:00.002-05:00

Another victory for the powerful over property rights.

Editorial - November 28th, 2009 - Wall Street Journal

New York judges served up what basketball fans call a facial on Tuesday, when an appellate court ruled that the state may seize homes and small businesses in Brooklyn for the benefit of a private developer and the New Jersey Nets. The decision represents a backward step for the effort to protect property rights at the state level since the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London.

The case, Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corporation, dealt with plans by developer Forest City Ratner to build a new arena for the Nets as well as snazzy apartments and offices on land currently occupied by homes and businesses. To make way for the sports complex, the state declared the property "blighted" and used its power of eminent domain to hand it to the developer.

Such unabashed takings have an unfortunate history in New York state, where the political class has a habit of using its powers on behalf of well-connected private interests. Caught under the wheels are average citizens whose only recourse is to try to defend their property rights in court.

There is of course no expectation they will defend citizen rights by the tyranny dominated totalitarian scum who hold positions of power as federal judges. Both left wing activist judges and right wing conrservative judges intentionally allow these judicial abuses to continue. The reason is simple. The power of the judiciary is enhanced by its ability to involve itself with these cases. Judges care nothing about the law. They only care about power and taking property is all about power. The rule of law has become the rule of judges... and the judges like it that way.

There is no justice in America. The courts are corrupt.

The KSM Show Trial

2009-11-24T07:27:00.000-05:00

by J.R. Dunn - November 24th, 2009 - American Thinker

AG Eric Holder's statement that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will remain in custody no matter what the verdict in his upcoming Manhattan trial, coupled with Obama's instructions to the jury that KSM be "convicted and executed", reveals the entire exercise as a show trial, a ritual effort intended not to achieve justice, but to make a public political point. The question is, what could that point possibly be?

What is the point? It is of course to humiliate America, our previous President, George W. Bush and the Republican Party. It is most assuredly not to prove what a great justice system we have. Our justice system is a joke, proven by the fact that this trial will take place.

Woman Hit By Train While Taking Photos On Tupelo Tracks Seeks Millions From Railroad

2009-11-18T05:46:00.002-05:00

by Stafff - November 17th, 2009 - Associated Press

Helen Gable was taking pictures on the railroad tracks in Tupelo in 2006 when a train cut her leg nearly off as she tried to get out of the way.

[Snip]

"Helen Gable, while taking pictures of her niece's daughter, was exercising due care" while standing on the tracks, the lawsuit said.

Then why did a huge vehicle that cannot turn even an inch nearly cut her leg off?

Why does our Supreme Court still tolerate such stupid law suits? Do they want to look like imbeciles... or are they so focused on the trivia of their job they cannot stand back and see how utterly stupid it is for this lady to blame the train for her incompetence. There is no way to claim she was both standing on the tracks and exercising due care. The two facts are mutually incompatible.

California Killer's Case Back Before Supreme Court

2009-11-02T07:05:00.002-05:00

by David G. Savage - November 1st, 2009 - Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington - The U.S. Supreme Court is considering, for the third time, the case of a California murderer who was sentenced to die in 1982 for the brutal killing of a young woman.

Twenty years ago, the California Supreme Court affirmed a death sentence for Fernando Belmontes, but since then his case has bounced back and forth in the federal courts. Three times in this decade, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned his death sentence as flawed.

The case is the latest skirmish in the long-running war between California prosecutors and the 9th Circuit over the death penalty -- and it helps explains the oddity of capital punishment in California. Although death sentences are common, executions are rare.

The reason is because the 9th Circuit is a leader in the rule of judges sweepstakes. 9th Circuit judges are arrogantly indifferent to law and the premise that judges enforce the rule of law. They are instead dedicated to the idea that our Constitution is an outdated document. Judges get to make it up as they go.

Don't like the idea of the death penalty. Fine. You simply block all executions and make the courts a permanent farce. The people are too stupid to do anything about it. Judges consider themselves above the law, not a part of it.

Imprison Here, Release Here

2009-10-24T11:21:00.004-04:00

Transferring terrorist prisoners to the U.S. means setting them free here, too.

by Andrew C. McCarthy - October 23rd, 2009 - National Review Online

If Guantanamo Bay is closed, scores of trained jihadists, committed to killing Americans, will be released to dwell among us: It is that simple.

President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder contend that America’s civilian federal prisons are secure. Our “supermaxes,” they insist, are up to the task of confining the most lethal terrorists. Even if that were true (and history shows it is not), the argument is the most hollow of strawmen. These terrorists are not going to escape — they are going to walk right out the prison gates. They are going to be freed by a perverse new legal system, an ad hoc creation of progressive federal judges, assisted mightily by an Obama Justice Department rife with lawyers whose former firms and institutions spent the last eight years representing America’s enemies.

I am so distressed at this article that all I can do is post it. My thoughts about this are unfortunately so filled with rage that I do not wish to write them for public consumption while the rage still fills my soul. I will update this later this weekend after I have had time to cool down. However I will say one thing now. Blood in the streets is coming. Lots of blood. America will not go down without a fight.

After further thought, I am not sure I will ever be calm enough to respond to the insanity in this article. I will leave my original thoughts as I expressed them. This is outrageous. Enough said.

Who says they’re your kids?

2009-10-11T10:45:00.002-04:00

Not in Montana

by Frank Miele - October 11th, 2009 - Daily Inter Lake

The one bright spot in the ruling came not from the benighted majority, but from the lone dissenter, Justice Jim Rice, who spoke eloquently for parents and for sanity.

"The Court's decision," Rice noted, "will open a Pandora's Box of potential attacks upon the right of fit and capable parents to raise their own children."

After establishing that the Montana Supreme Court has previously held fast to the rule that "a finding of abuse, neglect or dependency is the jurisdictional prerequisite for any court-ordered transfer of custody from a natural parent to a third party," Rice demonstrates conclusively that his fellow justices in this ruling have ruled in favor of Kulstad "for the apparent purpose of diminishing the reach of the constitutional rights previously declared for parents."

Once again the activist judges in our corrupt court system have ignored all law and precedent and ruled the way they want.. just because they can. Anyone who continues to consider our courts and our judges to be worthy of respect is just as corrupt as the rulings they pull out of their bodily orifices.

This is the epitome of the rule of judges destroying the rule of law.

Trial Lawyers Lobby Sinks $6.2 Million In Debt

2009-09-30T12:54:00.004-04:00

by S.A. Miller and Kara Rowland - September 28th, 2009 - Washington Times

The American Association for Justice, the most prominent group representing plaintiffs' attorneys, has seen a shake-up in its executive suite and has struggled to deal with what appears to be a mounting budget shortfall. To help it fight congressional efforts to make it harder for patients to sue doctors and lawyers, it recently sent out an extra solicitation to its members, asking them to fork over money for a lobbying campaign.

The most striking evidence of its financial woes is a swift decline in income, which resulted in a more than $6.2 million deficit in its operating budget for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2008, the most recent year for which data are available.

The reality is that most of the money that lawyers win in lawsuits goes into the pockets of lawyers, not the people who may or may not have been mis-treated by doctors. In most cases, they are winning lawsuits like John Edwards won them, based on fraudulent claims. It is now well known that increasing the frequency of Cesarean section deliveries does not protect either the babies or the mothers, especially when a singnificant number die as a result. John Edwards got rich by killing mothers based on a lie.

When do we get to sue him for his fraud?

Misplayed

2009-09-11T05:08:00.002-04:00

by Jeffrey Rosen - September 10th, 2009 - The New Republic

Hasen calls Austin “the first and only case in which a majority of the Court accepted … the equality rationale as a permissible state interest.” That’s why the conservative justices on the Roberts Court seem poised to overturn it, and why Kagan was reluctant to defend the case in explicitly egalitarian terms. But there is a subtler way of defending the Court’s focus on the “distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth”--and it has to do less with equality than with democratic legitimacy. In The Constitution in 2020, Robert Post, the new Dean of Yale Law School, rejects an egalitarian defense of campaign laws, on the grounds that if the government attempts to prevent speakers with intense convictions from drowning out those who are less engaged, it would thwart one of the basic principles of self-government: namely, that individuals should be able do whatever they think necessary to convince the public to embrace their views.

Government, whether of the executive branch variety, or the judicial variety, always wants to pick winners and losers. It seems to be something in the genes of people attracted to the power of government, they just have to use that power. Therein lies the problem with our current courts. Judges want to create specific legal circumstances where they can award victory to those who share their political preferences.

It is the reason that those leftist judges (who see themselves as sympathetic to the poor and downtrodden) wish to shut down the political influence of those they see as serving the rich and powerful. That permits for the bizarre situation where a small group of middle class conservatives can have their rights trampled by the congregated wealth of corrupt trade unions. The judges do not decided these issues by the relative actual wealth but by their perception of whose interests are served.

It is the reason that our courts have permitted such things as the multi billion dollar extortion of the tobacco industry, a product that was never illegal to sell but which the leftists judges found too reprehensible to retain the profits it created. Thus the law was effectively changed after the fact [a clear ex post facto violation of the Constitution] and civil courts were used to sanctimoniously punish people for acts that were not crimes at the time they occurred. If you look at where this "tobacco" money is going today it is clear that the beneficiaries are left wing groups unrelated to the perceived victims that these extorted dollars were supposed to help. This entire process is corrupt when viewed by any objective observer. It is a clear example of judicial corruption that many of us feel a strong necessity to end.

I am disturbed how the leftist magazine, The New Republic, can be so clearly upset at the possibility that government will not continue to interfere with political speech. This is creating tyranny against some and is clearly subverting the free speech right guaranteed in our Constitution. There was a time when liberals were defenders of freedom rather than advocates for tyranny.

Sign Up For Harassment

2009-09-07T08:14:00.003-04:00

by Paul Jacob - September 6th, 2009 - Townhall.com

Specifically, Judge Settle must resolve whether Washington state’s Public Disclosure Act, requiring the Secretary of State to publically disclose the signers of petitions, violates First Amendment protections for voters signing a petition.

As noted in the article, the premise of secret ballots has been extended to citizens signing petitions on behalf of and against the NAACP, the Socialist Worker’s Party and the Communist Party. Yet liberals argue that protection granted the Communist Party should not be granted to citizen's who oppose gay marriage because it does not "constitute a small minority which has been marginalized or historically disadvantaged relative to their opponents... " In other words, American Citizens who love our nation as it is do not deserve the same protection as those who wish to destroy our nation.

It is going to be interesting to see whether the liberal extremists in our unelected federal judiciary agree that destroying our country deserves more protection than defending it.

Judge Rules That He Too Can Grant Access To U.S. Secrets

2009-09-02T06:33:00.001-04:00

by Michael Doyle - August 27th, 2009 - McClatchy

In a highly unusual legal step, a federal judge has ordered the government to grant an attorney a security clearance so he can represent a disgruntled former narcotics officer in a lawsuit against a former CIA officer.

As usual, the judges of our land think that NO LAW applies to them. They can decide that someone who has a grievance can see any record that the judge deems appropriate, legislatively passed statutes not withstanding. Top Secret and critical to our nation? No problem. Who cares how many of our agents and soldiers die if a judge thinks it unimportant to his search for perfect justice in a single case.

Our courts are corrupt beyond belief.

Trial Lawyers Are The Fourth Branch Of Government

2009-09-02T06:11:00.002-04:00

by Daniel J. Popeo - August 20th, 2009 - San Francisco Examiner

Ten years ago, notorious trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs, apparently frustrated with elected officials’ inaction on health care, decided to take matters into his own hands, filing class-action lawsuits against HMOs.

Reporting on the suits, Time magazine asked Scruggs whether the plaintiffs’ bar was trying to run America. His response, accompanied by laughter, was, “Somebody’s got to do it.”

Today, even though Scruggs is in jail, his manifest-destiny vision of private lawyers making public policy has become a troubling reality.

In arguments with lawyers I never seem to make any progress on getting them to accept that just because they think that something should be public policy does not mean that they should be able to get this from judges instead of through the legislative process. There also seems to be no respect for the concept that if something is legal under the law they should not also be permitted to punish those who they see as evil anyway.

The contemptible courts of our corrupt judicial system have subverted our form of government for so long that none of them see it as evil any longer. As noted in the article, billions of dollars in judgements have been won against people who never broke a law. They simply did something that trial lawyers saw as immoral, and corrupt judges with corrupt juries proceeded to extort money from them.

The courts are no longer a third branch of government with an appropriate role to control that the other two act responsibly under the law. They have become a fourth branch of government that acts as legislative and executive too with no meaningful restraints. An unelected and unregulated and uncontrolled fourth branch of government that is totally corrupt and totally evil.

Eric Holder's Justice Department

2009-08-03T10:51:00.004-04:00

It's all politics, all the time.

by Jennifer Rubin - August 10th, 2009 (Publication Date) - The Weekly Standard

In his confirmation hearing Eric Holder (Barack Obama's Attorney General) declared,

The attempts to politicize the department will not be tolerated should I become attorney general of the United States. It will be my intention to return [the civil rights] division and the Department of Justice as a whole to its great traditions and the great traditions that it had under Democratic and Republican attorneys general and presidents.

He further pronounced,

I will work to restore the credibility of a department badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference. Law enforcement decisions and personnel actions must be untainted by partisanship. Under my stewardship, the Department of Justice will serve justice, not the fleeting interests of any political party.

While some conservatives doubted that the man who helped facilitate the Marc Rich pardon and overrode the recommendation of career attorneys to give Bill Clinton a favorable recommendation on the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists in 1999 could live up to those pretty sentiments, he was confirmed by a vote of 75-21 with the support of many Republican senators.

Holder soon cast aside his confirmation rhetoric in favor of partisan politics.

[Snip]

In looking at the totality of Holder's performance, the degree to which he has departed from his confirmation hearing rhetoric is glaring. Any demarcation between the Obama administration's political agenda and the impartial administration of justice is being eradicated. "Holder is the most political, partisan attorney general I can remember," says Frank Wolf. A former Justice Department official says that "the entire equilibrium of the department is out of whack." Lamar Smith, too, is dismayed. He says he has met with Holder several times. "You hear the words but there is a disconnect with the actions."

I don't think you are going to see anything better as long as Democrats control our government. Our court system has become so corrupt that anything political is simply rubber stamped by tyrannical judges. If you doubt that, simply observe the miscarriage of justice in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy rulings. The entire legal concept of secured loans was thrown out in service of political payoffs to unions who gave huge campaign contributions to Democrats. The corruption of the rulings was arrogant and intolerable. However nothing will be done about it.

This article will scare anyone who loves America. It is a litany documenting the number of partisan socialist appointees that have been given power by President Obama over a justice department that is ruled by an Attorney General who hates America.

The American Constitution and the rule of law have ended in our nation.

Lawyers Emerge As The Winner In Ford Settlement

2009-08-03T07:12:00.007-04:00

by Paul Elias - August 3rd, 2009 - Associated Press

The lawyers were paid millions of dollars. Ford Motor Co. put behind it a costly lawsuit connected to the Explorer rollover scandal of the 1990s. And the judge closed out a complex case that clogged the Sacramento County Superior Court's overburdened calendar for more than seven years.

Everyone seemingly got some tangible benefit — except for nearly all of the 1 million consumers covered by the class action lawsuit filed in their name. None of the consumers got money, only discount coupons toward new Ford purchases. Few used them.

The practice of settling class action lawsuits by doling out discount coupons rather than cash has come under fire from tort reform activists and others who complain that such lawsuits mainly benefit the lawyers — and even the companies being sued — at the expense of their clients.

Of course this is typical of the corruption of our courts. Note the allusion to the "complex case". What they really mean is that the lawyers thought arguing that an SUV is more likely to roll over than a sports car was somehow enlightening. That the Explorer was fairly average in roll over propensity compared with other top heavy 4 wheel drive high road clearance off road capable vehicles is what made it a "complex case".

Of course lawyers are of the opinion that no one should ever sell a product that does not defy the laws of gravity. Even if most of the customers realize it is going to be more prone to roll over if they want the type of vehicle in question, the manufacturer is still liable when it does roll over. This is known as the consumer law of hindsight. The manufacturer is liable... period. Back when I worked for Bendix they lost a lawsuit because the judge ruled that the failure of a third party brake cylinder made in Brazil was their fault because they did not somehow build a truck where a defective brake cylinder they did not manufacture could not be installed.

What?

That no one with a brain could define how they could have done that made no difference to the idiot judge in that case. After all, the corrupt judges are never wrong since "justice" is what they say it is. This arrogance is exactly why we have the most corrupt court system on earth. That anyone can be sued by anyone, no matter how ignorant or insane is the reason America has more lawyers than the entire rest of the world. That alone is all the proof necessary to label our court system the most corrupt. This case is just more evidence piling on.

‘Hobbit’ Heirs Seek $220 Million For ‘Rings’ Rights

2009-07-16T09:05:00.003-04:00

By Brett Pulley - July 15th, 2009 - Bloomberg News

J.R.R. Tolkien sold movie rights to his “Lord of the Rings” novels 40 years ago for 7.5 percent of future receipts. Three films and $6 billion later, his heirs say they haven’t seen a dime from Time Warner Inc.

The accounting methods used by New Line Cinema, the Time Warner unit that made the movies, will face a jury’s scrutiny in October, when the heirs’ lawsuit against the New York-based media company is set for trial in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The case, if not settled by then, may provide a window into accounting practices that let Time Warner deny proceeds of the Oscar-winning films to Tolkien’s heirs. The litigation also threatens to derail two “The Hobbit” films that, if their predecessors are a guide, could generate $4 billion in sales.

“Usually it’s not outright thievery by the studios, but death by contract,” said Pierce O’Donnell, the Los Angeles- based lawyer who represented the late columnist Art Buchwald in a successful case against Viacom Inc.’s Paramount Pictures in 1988. “It’s an esoteric world where black doesn’t mean black, and white doesn’t necessarily mean white.”

Of course the reality is that this egregious practice of ripping off artists is based on the extortion and blackmail based logic of our corrupt court system. As noted in the article, it is standard practice to charge one artist for expenses which were incurred on completely different projects for other artists. Incredibly, since the contract provides for profits on these expenses, the first artist gets ripped off twice. How else do you think a phenomenally successful series of movies that generate $6 billion in sales can rip off the writer, due 7.5% of the gross, and claim he is due NOTHING!

Courts repeatedly have endorsed this idiocy. It is standard practice in Hollywood because our courts embrace the corruption it is dependent upon.

There is no justice in America. Our courts are corrupt.

Kodak Agrees To Settle Bias Lawsuit

2009-07-15T07:55:00.007-04:00

by Matthew Daneman - July 15th, 2009 - Deomcrat and Chronicle

Eastman Kodak Co. has agreed to a $21.4 million settlement with a group of African-American employees who contend the company discriminated against them in its pay, promotion, job assignment and layoff practices.

A hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for Sept. 15 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jonathan W. Feldman for final approval. The judge last month gave preliminary approval to the deal, under which more than 3,000 current and former Kodak workers could receive payments ranging from $1,000 to as much as $75,000.

Under terms of the 132-page settlement, Kodak also would make numerous changes to how it trains its work force on equal employment issues and handles future discrimination complaints.

This is the third lawsuit brought by blacks against Kodak. They settled the first law suit with new rules establishing how to treat blacks with preferential treatment in the future. They then sued again when the new rules did not result in blacks getting ahead of whites by sufficient margins. This was not a law suit. This was extortion, sanctioned by the most corrupt court system in the world.

Please note. Every single black worker at Kodak was covered by the two suits which are being settled here and got free money from the settlement. The suits essentially argue that rules written by blacks in the previous lawsuit did not protect a SINGLE BLACK employee. NOT ONE.

If the actions by Kodak were truly that egregious that they harmed every single black employee... you can bet every dime you own that this action would not have been settled. Actually what it really proves is that if you have a good lawyer and you are black, you will win any law suit against any business in our current court system. That is how corrupt our courts have become.

Lawyers Group Gives Sotomayor Its Highest Approval Rating

2009-07-11T09:00:00.003-04:00

by Michael Doyle & David Lightman - July 7th, 2009 - McClatchy Newspapers

The nation's lawyers and law enforcement leaders gave Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ringing endorsements Tuesday, even as Republicans tried to rally opposition.

With Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing less than a week away, the American Bar Association announced that the 54-year-old appellate judge is "well qualified" to serve on the nation's highest court. The unanimous recommendation is the association's highest grade for a potential judge.

It is total hypocrisy to call the American Bar Association "The nation's lawyers and law enforcement leaders". By their defense of criminal loving liberal judges it would be more honest to call them the leading force for the subversion of victim rights in America. Our murder rate is the highest in the world because of their political bias in favor of "the rule of judges" and against "the rule of law".

Since Sotomayor is liberal and a racist, she could have one of the highest rates of being overturned among American judges and she would still be praised by this group. Oh wait. She has one of the highest rates of being overturned among American judges. Well of course, holding America in such contempt that she rejects "the rule of law" makes her "well qualified" in the minds of the anti-American pro-Socialist liberal-progressive haters who populate the Democrat Party and the highly politicized American Bar Association.

What Will She Do For An Encore?

2009-06-30T08:11:00.003-04:00

by Paul Mirengoff - June 29, 2009 - Powerline

Short of writing "get whitey," It's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did. Let's count the ways.

[Snip]

Fourth, even the dissenting Justices blew off the reasoning of Sotomayor's panel in a footnote, and fashioned their own, different standard for deciding the case.

That seems to have been lost in most of the reporting on this issue. Sotomayor got it so wrong that all NINE justices disagree with how she decided this case. ALL NINE. It is not at all the way that it is being portrayed, that 4 agreed with her. ALL NINE agreed that Sotomayor got it wrong. The 5 to 4 ruling was on how to fix her mistakes, not whether she got it wrong.

Of course this is just one more example of how little justice there is in America today. Because it will not matter one iota how incompetent Sotomayor is. That by 7 to 1 Sotomayor has been overruled in cases of hers sent to the Supreme Court is lost in all the non sense being touted by her supporters. Sotomayor does not believe in "the rule of law". Sotomayor is one more advocate for the "rule of judges" philosophy that essentially says, court is all about politics and the liberal view can be implemented by unelected judges. That is the frightening fact of her selection by the Magic Marxist Messiah.

Discrimination: From Equality To Payback

2009-06-16T10:03:00.002-04:00

by Thomas Sowell - June 15th, 2009 - Investor's Business Daily

The warm and genial image of Sotomayor presented on television, during President Obama's introduction and afterwards, is in sharp contrast with what attorneys who have appeared before her in court have said.

A poll of such attorneys showed them rating her worse than other judges in her treatment of those who appeared before her. A tape of Judge Sotomayor's abusive behavior in court backed up the attorneys' picture.

Sotomayor should frighten anyone who believes in equality and fair play. She is clearly a racist who feels comfortable with "payback" and has little respect for the Constitution and the concept of equality . If she is approved, it will take us even closer to the day when our nation will be beyond salvation as a nation that assures freedom. As it has for sixty years, the rule of law moves ever closer to the rule of judges.

A Little More Judicial Activism, Please

2009-06-14T05:49:00.000-04:00

by George Will - June 12th, 2009 - Investor's Business Daily

It is hard to tell if George Will is writing this article to criticize Obama or defend him in a backhanded manner. Certainly it makes anyone who loves America furious at George W. Bush's handling of last year's bailouts.

So President Bush's Treasury Department gave an "interpretation" of the law that ignored the unambiguous terms of the pertinent legislation, the history of its enactment and Treasury's own prior interpretations of it.

Once again conservatives have had their ability to protest government overreach gutted by an action of the 'compassionate communist' that is absolutely NOT conservative. Of course if you point that out you are denounced for BDS.

A bemused Paulson, who was present at the creation of Bailout Nation with TARP funds, said while still in office: "Even if you don't have the authorities — and frankly I didn't have the authorities for anything — if you take charge, people will follow."

Obama is simply following the precedent of George W. Bush in abusing executive power. Why are there so many conservatives who still defend this man whose only claims to conservatism were family values and national defense. On all other issues Bush was liberal, even tyrannical. Who cares if in personal relationships he was a "nice man", the complement which we are reminded of repeatedly by those who can find no stronger defense.

That said, Obama was delighted to use Bush's precedents to gut the balance of power in America. One sentence in the Court's failure to act is pertinent.

... as the court said in its order permitting completion of Chrysler's bankruptcy, its refusal to review what lower courts have authorized "is not a decision on the underlying legal issues" and pertains to "this case alone."

By the time these incompetent judges get around to doing anything, America will be a tyrannical dictatorship and they will be useless. Their one chance to stop this abuse of law has passed.

Justice delayed is justice denied. The point this ruling proves is the Supreme Court does not care a whit about justice. It cares about power. They just haven't figured out how to deal with Obama so that it empowers the courts. He has figured out how to defeat the courts though. Move fast. By the time the Supreme Tyrants figure out how to act, they will not be Supreme anything any more.

Judicial 'Activism' Isn't The Issue

2009-06-09T08:06:00.001-04:00

by Jeff Rowes - June 6th, 2009 - Wall Street Journal

Many conservatives who think of themselves as proponents of limited government would be surprised to discover that conservative judges begin their constitutional analyses in almost every context by placing a thumb firmly on the government side of the scale. It's called "judicial deference." Many liberals, who take pride in being "empathetic," would be surprised to learn that liberal judges also subscribe to judicial deference.

The practical result is that judges of both persuasions almost never enforce any constitutional limit on the power of government to regulate property and the economy. Given that the vast majority of law concerns these two areas, the real crisis in constitutional law is not judicial "activism" but judicial passivism.

It is comforting to see others who are as afraid of judicial conservatives as I. It has long been my contention, starting even before the creation of this blog, that liberals were not the only threat to freedom. It is our entire court system that is corrupt, not just one side of the political spectrum. One of the first steps to fixing a problem is to find a term to refer to the problem. I have seen 'judicial deference' used in other contexts, so I am a little leery of using it to refer just to 'judicial deference' to the legislature, but that specific threat is certainly a huge threat to liberty.

How could Kelo have become the standard of our nation? How frightening is it that where the America people see clearly a threat to freedom, the arrogant judges on both left and right see only a 'technical issue' about the degree of government domination of our lives, leaning towards greater domination as the right answer?

'Judicial deference' to the legislature is the major reason I do not trust the horrible consequences of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies to our Supreme Court. I will be astonished if we see a ruling that protects our liberties.

Supreme Court Asked To Block Chrysler Sale To Fiat

2009-06-07T08:11:00.003-04:00

by Staff - June 7th, 2009 - Associated Press

The emergency request goes first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who handles such matters from New York. She can act on her own or refer it to the entire court.

The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund claim the deal unfairly favors the interests of the company's unsecured stakeholders ahead of those of secured debtholders such as themselves.

The funds also challenged the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority.

The government-sponsored reorganization of the U.S. auto industry, including the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings, "is a matter of incredibly high profile and importance," the funds said in their request to the high court. "The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of the massively powerful executive branch."

Not much chance of the judiciary staying out of the politics and stopping an abusive executive branch. Especially with communist enthusiast Ruth Bader Ginsburg calling the shots. There is no justice in America. The courts are politicized and corrupt. By his use of the simple strategy of rushing the courts, Obama has effectively emasculated them. Bader Ginsburg is a leader in politicizing the courts for the purpose of advancing liberal causes. Of course it does not help that 'compassionate communist' George W. Bush led the way in violating the Constitution and 'the rule of law' by corrupting the TARP process before Obama even became President. That gives Obama and his Obamanista followers carte blanche to do anything they want.

A Matter Of Law

2009-06-02T08:17:00.005-04:00

Editorial - June 2nd, 2009 - Investor's Business Daily

GM's bankruptcy pushes bondholders aside in favor of the U.S. government and the UAW. Though bondholders hold $27 billion in debt, they'll get just 10% of stock.

How's that compare with the other "stakeholders?" For spending $50 billion to bail out GM, the government will get 60% of the equity in the new GM; the UAW, which along with other unions gave millions to Democrats, will be repaid for its loyalty with 17.5% of the stock for $10 billion of unsecured debts [plus they get $6.5 billion in preferred stock and $2.5 billion in bonds, for a total of $9 billion PLUS the 17.5% in common stock].

So the government, with roughly two times what private bondholders have on the table, gets a stake five times bigger. And the union, with about a third as much "invested," gets a 70% bigger stake [not counting an additional 90% of their stake in preferential assets]. Even the Canadian government, with its $9.5 billion "invested," ends up with 12%.

They call it "restructuring." We call it theft.

It is theft. Blatant corruption on a scale never before attempted in America. It is amazing how the worst tyrants are always smiling mild mannered people. Obama smiles, and then destroys his enemies with deceit and lies. How can you tell if Obama is planning to do something? Why all you have to do is list things he has said he will not do. He is an outrageous liar and nothing he says can be believed.

The only question is whether our politicized courts can do anything fast enough to stop him. The sense of urgency he keeps pushing is intended to keep moving things so quickly that before anyone with the power can stop him it is too late. Now, now, now. That is all you hear from him.

This article talks about someone filing a federal court case to stop this stealing. It "hopes" the Supreme Court will do something. Long before either comes to fruition, America will be a fascist state ruled by a dictator. We are storming down that path every day Obama is in power.

The courts have abandoned "the rule of law" and Obama is showing them what that really means.

Lawyers Tag Nominee As 'Terror On The Bench'

2009-05-29T08:19:00.004-04:00

by Tom LoBianco - May 29th, 2009 - Washington Times

Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges.

This Judge believes that felons should vote, that you do not have a right to protect yourself with a gun, that 'the poor' should not be bound by laws and that white men are not fit to be Judges. Barack Obama, our 'Dear Reader', has certainly indicated the type of person he thinks should rule our courts with this nomination.

Both Obama and Sotomayor are taking racial grievance-mongering to new levels of absurdity. Both support reparations for blacks, including paying blacks who have voluntarily immigrated here recently. This nominee is a racist appointed by a racist. However as evidenced by Bill O'Reilly and the other populists in the MSM, it is improper to take note of this. Only whites can be racists.

Sotomayor ‘La Raza Member’

2009-05-28T17:15:00.003-04:00

Posted on blog - May 28th, 2009 - Stop The ACLU

Barack Obama has picked a radical for his nominee to the Supreme Court. If her own statements are not enough to convince you of her racist attitude, perhaps the fact she belongs to an anti-white extremist group known as La Raza will.

How can anyone who loves America and is proud of our tradition of freedom accept such an extremist hate monger as Sotomayor? She is not a reasonable appointee to a court that is supposed to be our defense against subversion of the Republic. If she is even an ambivalent endorser of the lunatic goals of La Raza, she is an insult to our nation and our courts.

Obama Picks Sotomayor For High Court

2009-05-26T09:16:00.015-04:00

by Ben Feller - May 26th, 2009 - Breitbart.com

President Barack Obama tapped federal appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court on Tuesday, officials said, making her the first Hispanic [or should that be Latina - see update at bottom] in history picked to wear the robes of a justice.

[snip]

Obama had said publicly he wanted a justice who combined intellect and empathy—the ability to understand the troubles of everyday Americans.

Considering that Sotomayor is like many Hispanics and most blacks, a vitriolic hater of America (to such an extent that she rejects the term American and calls herself a Newyorican) it is unlikely that respect for "the rule of law" will be high on her agenda. But she does have an agenda. Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male..." How can anyone talk about themselves in the third person and not be ridiculed, especially when spewing racist gibberish like this statement.

The very fact that she and Obama claim she is the first Hispanic Judge, despite the highly admired Justice Benjamin Cardozo, indicates just how narrow their view of Hispanic is. To them Hispanic really means America hating new world descended immigrant. Coming from a European country like Portugal simply does not count. With this bias dripping from their claim, who expects Sotamayor to be anything but a racist anti-white, redistribution of wealth socialist, who subverts the Constitution at will.

This is consistent with Obama's consistent opposition to our Bill of Rights. I am flabbergasted at how few people know that while Obama was an Illinois State Senator he complained in a radio interview about the 'negative liberties' in the Constitution that prohibit our federal and state governments from doing things to make people live as they 'should'. Sotomayor is right out of that same mold, holding our Constitution in contempt.

That may explain why she has been reversed 60% of the time and is about to be reversed again on her imposition of a racist solution in a case about reverse discrimination.

As Jeffrey Rosen noted in his article here, even many of her friends in the Democrat Party are said to feel she is, "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")

A talker who thinks highly of herself. Now why would anybody be surprised that this would impress the narcissistic reader of teleprompters. The question her supporters should have to answer is simple, "Given her repeated public contempt for whites and males, how can she be expected to to rule impartially for ALL Americans?"

UPDATE: In response to a vitriolic and profanity laced email about this posting, I have learned at least one thing. Sotomayor is conceded to not be the first Hispanic Justice, but is the first Latina Justice! This is based on the rationale that Hispanic is no longer an appropriate name for people of the new world. I am informed the Spanish and Portuguese "imperialists from Europe" should not be allowed to give their name to the Latinas and Latinos that they oppressed. Therefore Cardoza can retain the claim to be the first Hispanic Justice but Sotomayo is the first Latina Justice. ROTFL. Do these liberals never tire of changing definitions to make sure they can denigrate anyone white or American?

UPDATE 2: Bloggers are saying that John McCain has congratulated Obama on a "great pick". Now I know she is not qualified.

Rule Of Law Be Damned

2009-05-11T09:40:00.003-04:00

by Bradley R. Gitz - May 10, 2009 - Arkansas Democrat Gazette

What the president's bizarre understanding of the judiciary entails is nothing more than a frontal assault on the concept of the rule of law itself. In his glib, arrogant fashion, he wishes to see the idea of "a nation of laws" replaced by "a nation of men" without perhaps even understanding what that shift implies for the integrity of the democratic process and the status of our most cherished liberties.

The impression grows that we have elected a remarkably superficial and ignorant man to the presidency.

Few who have read Alinky's Rules for Radicals and who know how dedicated to its premise Obama has always been would be surprised at the final sentence in this article. Of course there are many who see little difference between Obama's more open defense of this "rule of judges" mentality and the reality of our totally corrupt court system. Between the slavish adoration for this concept by the vast majority of our legal professors in law schools and the majority of judges who embrace the concept, the court system has already been corrupted. The question is what chance exists that "the rule of law" will ever again be supported by our courts?

Bush Attorneys Who Wrote Terror Memo Face Backlash

2009-05-07T08:35:00.004-04:00

by Terence Chea - May 7th, 2009 - Associated Press

Pressure is mounting against two former Bush administration attorneys who wrote the legal memos used to support harsh interrogation techniques that critics say constituted torture. John Yoo, a constitutional law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is fighting calls for disbarment and dismissal, while Judge Jay Bybee of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals faces calls for impeachment.

The left wing extremists have decided, just as they did in the Soviet Union, that they will criminalize political opposition. "War crimes" is simply code words for "I want you dead for daring to disagree with me!"

Conservatives have not yet awoken to the vitriolic hate directed at them by Obama and his hate mongering followers. The courts are now being asked to embrace this hate and allow vigilante justice to prevail. As corrupt as the American court system has become, I would not trust that such an evil practice will not be permitted to go forward.

Look at what happened to Libby.

Obama's Prosecutions By Proxy

2009-05-06T11:10:00.002-04:00

by John R. Bolton -May 6th, 2009 - Washington Post

President Obama's passivity before the threatened foreign prosecution of Bush administration officials achieves by inaction what he fears doing directly. This may be smart politics within the Democratic Party, but it risks grave long-term damage to the United States. Ironically, it could also come back to bite future Obama administration alumni, including the president, for their current policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

What kind of nonsense is this? Does John Bolton seriously believe that Obama "fears doing directly" what he is clearly orchestrating? If he really believes this, then John Bolton is an idiot. I highly recommend that Bolton read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", the bible from which Obama takes all of his guidance. Perhaps he would start to see the deceit being SUCCESSFULLY utilized by Obama to destroy his political opponents.

The person who really should be blamed for this is the inarticulate retard, George W. Bush. By letting the persecution of Scooter Libby proceed, he encouraged the liberals in their belief that conservatives would be too late in ever protecting the foot soldiers in Bush's administration. Bush was too stupid to see how corrupt our courts have become. He was an idiot then and an idiot now. It appears that Scooter Libby will not be the only person who will pay the price for Bush's naive ignorance about the viciousness of his opposition. Even now, his daddy is parading around with Bill Clinton and giving cover for the idea that Democrats are decent people.

If they are successful in persecuting these lawyers, I plan to switch sides and support the prosecution of George W. Bush. He destroyed our party and destroyed our nation. He could not have done more damage than if he planned it. Who knows. Maybe he did. In any event, I can honestly say, I wish him to be destroyed too.

The real problem is that our courts have not yet figured out that they are about to be co-opted into the socialist regime of Barack Obama. They are allowing Obama to rewrite bankruptcy law, even as they allowed for Scooter Libby to be persecuted for a political vendetta. They have extended Habeas Corpus to enemy troops on the battlefield. Their arrogant disregard for the rule of law under the "living Constitution" idiocy will ultimately be repaid by all patriots hating their guts. I have no more respect for the so-called conservative justices who are quietly allowing this corruption of our system to get worse than I do for the liberal practitioners who are leading the charge.

America is the loser, whether it ends in civil war or a socialist dictatorship.

He Fought The Tort Bar

2009-05-02T06:07:00.007-04:00

... And Won

by Kimberley A. Strassel - May 2nd - Wall Street Journal

There were losses, some of which made Mr. Ulizio despair. "The first time we ever lost a case in trial, it was 2001. We tried it in Beaumont, Texas, and lost $7.5 million. . . . The judge sat there through the trial reading a newspaper. At one point an objection was made, the bailiff taps him on the shoulder and says 'judge, objection is being made.' He looks at our lawyer and says 'overruled.' The plaintiffs' lawyer raises his hand and says 'no, judge, it was me.' He says 'sustained' and goes back to reading the paper."

This article once again proves the point that there is no justice in America ... most of the time. The frightening lesson is that none of the lawyers who committed fraud have been punished. Nor any of the Judges who participated in the ongoing fraud.

For that you can thank the Supreme Tyrants, 9 arrogant and unconcerned power hungry thugs who run the most corrupt court system on earth. They murder nearly 20,000 innocent people each year. Tens of thousands more have their right to justice sabotaged by the "criminal" rights which guarantee the guilty walk free on technicalities.

This year these Supreme Tyrants are way too busy making sure that they get to extend "criminal" rights to terrorists who are determined to destroy America and behead our citizens. Our soldiers are being put into the position of our police, hand cuffed by ignorant rules designed for the express purpose of freeing the guilty.

Does anyone think these judges are embarrassed about running the most corrupt court system on earth?

Why The Law Is Foreign To Ginsberg

2009-04-27T01:47:00.001-04:00

by Selwyn Duke - April 26th, 2009 - American Thinker

Yet living-document justices are comforted in their misfeasance by rationalizations they conjure up to justify it. One that Ginsberg has used is to criticize the view that the Constitution is "stuck in time." But she has it wrong. It is not stuck in time but stuck in law. Law can be changed through legal measures -- in the case of the Constitution, the amendment process -- but until then it's supposed to be "stuck." The alternative to being stuck in law is being subject to the caprice of those with greater power. That would mean that you could appear before a judge and he could rule based on whim or that a policeman could arrest you because he believed he had just experienced an epiphany about what the law should be. In other words, this thinking is no different from the rule of kings, where a Herod could deliver John the Baptist's head on a plate to please his wife. It is why G.K. Chesterton said, "There are only two ways of governing: by a rule and by a ruler." It is why we should have "the rule of law" and not the rule of lawyers.

And this is why some of us have likened our Supreme Court to a de facto oligarchy. After all, on what basis does an oligarchy rule? Its members decide guided by nothing more than the dictates of their own consciences. So people can put as much lipstick on this pig as they want. They can wrap their living-document legal philosophy in a million pseudo-intellectual arguments. But, at the end of the day, it boils down to might makes right. When justices depart from constitutional constraints, they cannot be voted out of office or fired. The only thing constraining them then is their own consciences and the regard of their overseas peers -- just as with an oligarchy

An interesting article which clearly explains the logic by which many of us have come to have nothing but contempt for the Supreme Court... actually contempt for the entire American court system.

High Court Poised To Closely Weigh Civil Rights Laws

2009-04-20T10:29:00.000-04:00

by Robert Barnes - April 19th, 2009 - Washington Post

The Supreme Court has an opportunity to reaffirm or reshape the nation's civil rights laws as it faces a rare confluence of cases over the next two weeks, including a high-profile challenge brought by white firefighters who claim they lost out on promotions because of the "color of their skin."

The cases also touch on the Voting Rights Act, the need to provide English classes for immigrant children and, more tangentially, discriminatory mortgage lending.

I cringe when I read articles like this, since it is my expectation the supreme tyrants of an uncontrolled court system are about to sabotage our nation with some new and more insane dictates that they pretend are "law".

Judge Shocks America’s Conscience

2009-04-20T10:06:00.000-04:00

by Ken Blackwell - April 20th, 2009 - Townhall.com

Judge John D. Bates is a Bush appointee on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Bates held that terrorist detainees that are held at the Bagram Air Force Base are entitled to habeas corpus, claiming that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in Boumediene v. Bush demands this result.

This ruling proves the long term serious consequences of so many anti-American progressive judges deciding our cases on a basis that is against the rule of law and even against any rationality. Conservative judges who respect precedent follow the progressive rulings with equally insane rulings that adhere to the idiocy that has been established. Boumediene was insanity. Bagram is simply the logical extension of that insanity.

The inability to differentiate between war and crime will lead to American soldiers losing their lives on the battlefield. Is there anyone in our judiciary, or even among our citizens, who thinks this is insane?

Faces Of Lawsuit Abuse

2009-04-20T08:21:00.000-04:00

I recently received an email about a website, “Faces of Lawsuit Abuse” sponsored by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. The website features a collection of video stories about small businesses and individuals across the country that have been targeted by abusive lawsuits.

Some of them are really compelling videos, including two released recently:

www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/stories/story.asp?s=49876 – about a seven-year-old boy who was sued over a minor accident with an adult skier on a Colorado ski slope and

www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/stories/story.asp?s=49877 – about a California fast food restaurant owner who was sued over the exact location of a bathroom mirror.

These lawsuits are simply icing on the top of a growing cake representing how corrupt our court system has become. Great web site.

Ginsburg Shares Views

2009-04-13T07:27:00.000-04:00

... on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa

by Adam Liptak - April 11th, 2009 - New York Times

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.

The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is “probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court.” There is one reason for that, she said: “You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”

Nothing more dramatically emphasizes the problem with law in America today than this arrogant claim by Justice Ginsburg that she is proud to violate her oath to preserve the Constitution. Her feelings are hurt that she is not as admired by the intellectuals abroad as the Canadian Supreme Court is admired. This is a confession of treason against the American people. Yet she thinks that it is a rational defense of her belief that intellectuals from abroad are more important than the people of America.

How can anyone who loves America defend this insane logic?

She actually argues that denying the use of torture to save American citizens is important, because she does not care about American citizens. Their lives are as unimportant to her as fleas. Our entire law has become riddled with examples where trivial technical issues are deemed more important than justice, even life, for anyone who has the misfortune to depend on this arrogant elitist for unbiased law. The law has beocome overwhelmingly biased in favor of those who are most disrespectful of law.

Torture? Ginsburg is above it and perfectly happy to muse about its place in the world even as people are killed, maimed, extorted, beheaded and enslaved. Not her problem. She can sit in her ivory tower and pontificate about perfect justice.

No greater example exists of the reason the world is speeding towards anarchy and choas than this blithering idiot's indenfensible hypocrisy.

Imperial Judiciary Goes Global

2009-04-05T05:55:00.000-04:00

Editorial - April 3rd, 2009 - National Review Online

In response to Rasul’s implausible claim that the federal habeas-corpus statute gave federal courts jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay, lawmakers amended the statute to make clear that this was not the case. Not to be denied, the Court simply swept that legislation aside. In Boumediene, the justices claimed it was not just a statute but the Constitution — the compact between the American people and their government — that somehow vested alien enemies of the American people with a right to challenge, in the American people’s own courts, their detention by the American people’s military, during a war approved by the American people’s representatives.

Predictably, Judge Bates has taken the next step. He reasoned that if the font of federal court jurisdiction is not U.S. sovereignty but de facto U.S. control, the Bagram military base in Afghanistan, which we firmly control, is no different from Gitmo. There was, however, a major difference: Bagram is in an active zone of combat. This was a circumstance even the Boumediene majority suggested was entitled to special consideration. Bates gave it none. And if Boumediene commands that everyone within U.S. court jurisdiction is vested with U.S. constitutional rights, why shouldn’t a prisoner in Afghanistan have the same privileges as a prisoner in Gitmo? Or, by Bates’s logic, as a prisoner in Pittsburgh?

The result? Battlefields are now crime scenes, and the U.S. military will be forced to behave like a team of police investigators. If they want to capture enemy agents rather than kill them, our troops had better carefully rope off the crime scene, meticulously gather the physical evidence, record witness statements, administer Miranda warnings, and make certain a contingent of defense attorneys is available for interrogation purposes. That isn’t how wars are fought.

There was a time when the courts were thought to be a branch of the American people’s government, and when the United States went to war, the courts were part of the national war effort. Today the courts exist not within but above the government. Their goal is not American victory, but global due process.

The blatantly obvious indication is that our courts just became enemies of the people. If such, why should we not send our troops to detain (not arrest - just detain as enemies) all judges and send them to Gitmo? Or better yet Bagram? We certainly need to stop treating judges with deference or the respect accorded to a branch of the American government. No miranda warnings. No lawyers to defend them. If they want to be enemies, let them be enemies.

Felonious Advocacy

2009-04-03T07:58:00.000-04:00

Felonious Advocacy - Fancy words for the end of free speech.

by Jacob Sullum - April 1st, 2009 - Reason Online

"I'm a little disoriented here," Justice Antonin Scalia said during last week's oral arguments in a case involving legal restrictions on movies that criticize politicians. "We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press?"

Scalia's discombobulation was understandable, given that Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart had just claimed the First Amendment does not bar the government from telling interest groups what videos they may post online or what books they may publish.

There is no such thing as freedom of speech when government can punish you for saying something they think is improper. Freedom of speech is also non existent on college campuses when the right of someone to say something is subservient to the rights of those who create a disturbance so they cannot speak.

What we have currently is idiocy and will lead to more and more violence. Our judges will not stop liberal hooligans from creating riots to stop conservative speech and, at least recently, has not been willing to allow conservatives to speak during political campaigns. If government officials in public positions of authority side with one political view and allow the other side to be suppressed, what choice do we have but to revolt? Our rights have already been taken and we are slaves.

Prosecutors Gone Wild

2009-04-03T07:24:00.000-04:00

by John Farmer - April 2nd, 2009 - New York Times

There is both good news and bad in the Justice Department’s decision to move to dismiss all charges against former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who had been convicted on seven felony counts of ethics violations. The good news is that Attorney General Eric Holder has done the right thing, acknowledging that his department’s Public Integrity Section, which handles corruption cases, committed egregious misconduct. The bad news is that the broader problem of prosecutorial excess remains unaddressed.

And at least one part of the problem is that there is no attempt by the press to get involved except when the press itself has a political motivation. There were people who complained about the sexual relationship between prosecutor and witness in the Stevens case, but no one except conservative blogs would even mention it. That was because the misconduct was by career DEMOCRAT prosecutors.

That refusal to cover the issue includes the bigots of the New York Times, who are publishing this issue without noting that all but one of the abuses they list in the article were committed by Democrats. During the campaign, while it was still possible to destroy a Republican Senator, they had no interest in publicizing the prosecutorial abuse in the Stevens case. They made note of the one Republican listed in this article though, leaving the impression that this was a problem created by George W. Bush. What hypocrisy.

Our courts are out of control and the Judges who should be stopping this abuse are part of the problem, not part of the solution. The press (that could help to publicize the abuse if they wanted to) are generally in favor of protecting the Democrats who are the prime abusers because they share a liberal agenda.

The Ted Stevens Scandal

2009-04-02T08:46:00.000-04:00

Editorial - April 2nd, 2009 - Wall Street Journal

The Justice Department yesterday moved to set aside an October conviction on ethics charges and forgo any future trials for Senator Stevens. He walks free, in other words, an innocent man. In the motion, Justice said it "recently discovered" that prosecutors withheld from the defense notes about an interview last April with the state's star witness, Bill Allen, that contradicted his subsequent testimony. Under the Brady Rule for evidence, Justice was obliged to share that with Senator Stevens's lawyers.

This was one of many prosecutorial missteps that came to light after Mr. Stevens was found guilty less than two weeks before Election Day. The Republican narrowly lost his bid for a seventh term. Attorney General Eric Holder yesterday promised a "thorough" probe into the conduct of prosecutors, which is the least the Department owes Mr. Stevens. The Obama Administration made the political calculation here to walk away from the original mistake made by Bush Justice rather than further embarrass the Department in post-trial hearings.

Actually, the Democrat (never mentioned that did they) career prosecutors had already accomplished what the Democrat Party and Barack Obama had wanted, so why continue? They did not care about what happened to Ted Stevens after he was defeated. They simply wanted the Senate Seat in Democrat hands. They have that. So they won no matter what happens to Stevens now.

Of course they wanted to stop any further publicity. Of course they wanted to avoid a constant reminder that the entire prosecution was a political witch hunt. Further prosecution of Stevens would have done nothing else but help the cause of reminding everyone how corrupt Democrats are.

Republicans, who are too stupid to fight this kind of corrupt dirty war, are focused on getting justice for Stevens. They ought to be focused on the evil corruption of our court system as practiced by liberal-progressive-socialist judges and prosecutors.

Not since the so-called "rogue" prosecutor Mike Nifong was purged from the system have we had such a perfect example of how our court system really works. Rarely do these abuses get prosecuted. Even more rarely do the judges who normally cover them up suffer any consequences at all. What most people just do not seem to get is that outrageous court corruption is actually business as usual.

Why Card Check Is Unconstitutional

2009-03-30T08:58:00.000-04:00

by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey - March 30th, 2009 - Wall Street Journal

The Employee Free Choice Act of 2009 -- otherwise known as "card check" -- is organized labor's dream. As a practical matter, this legislation, pursued by both the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress, would do away with the secret ballot in the unionization process. Although card check's advocates and critics have spilled much ink arguing about the bill's fundamental fairness to labor and management, so far the debate has not focused on the other compelling interest at stake: the constitutionally protected right of employees to keep their opinions on controversial issues like unionization to themselves.

What frightens me is that you cannot trust the current liberal and corrupt judges of our nation's courts to believe in a constitutional right to freedom. They are quite sure that anyone has a right to be a pervert and no parent has the right to protect their children from these perverts. However they seem to be rather reticent to interpret constitutional protections if they help individual liberty.

Bailing Out Of The Constitution

2009-03-29T09:28:00.000-04:00

by George F. Will - March 29th, 2009 - Washington Post

It is high time Americans heard an argument that might turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something going very wrong. The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) is unconstitutional.

By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law. Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators.

Congress seems predisposed to turn over more and more of its legislative function to the executive branch. At the same time congress seems more and more predisposed to "punish" any citizen who it feels should be punished, without any of the protections of fairness and justice required by a court.

How else did the legislature get the right to subpoena various business executives to appear before congress for the abusive denunciations and ridicule that we have seen in recent weeks. Why are judges not outraged?

I have already posted a few articles talking about the banana republic quality of our current Obama regime and the Democrats who rule congress. Match this with the tyranny of a court system that has long since abrogated any concern for justice or the rule of law and we find ourselves in a nation headed for tyranny and revolution.

A Clear Danger To Free Speech

2009-03-27T11:27:00.000-04:00

Editorial - March 27th, 2009 - National Review Online

At issue is a film called Hillary: The Movie, a documentary produced by the nonprofit group Citizens United, which did not wish to see Senator Clinton elected president. Because McCain-Feingold prohibits so much as mentioning a candidate’s name in pre-election communications paid for by certain disfavored groups — unions and “corporations” — the filmmakers were informed by a federal judge that showing their work would constitute a crime. The filmmakers sued, and the case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Mr. Stewart is defending the government’s ban on this film; the same rules that apply to a campaign commercial apply to a documentary film, his reasoning goes. Justice Alito alertly pressed Mr. Stewart on that issue: If commercials and films are covered, how about books? How about campaign biographies? Yes, Mr. Stewart answered, the U.S. government is prepared to ban books, under certain circumstances, and is legally empowered by McCain-Feingold to do so. Jaws dropped, black robes fluttered.

The amazing thing is that like most of these issues, the law does not mean a tinkers damn. We may have another 5 to 4 political decision, but it will not represent law. It will represent judicial tyranny no matter which way it goes. If conservatives win, and free speech is once again permitted, there is no doubt that liberals on the court will start waiting for their first opportunity to subvert the decision. If liberals win, and free political speech is driven even further into oblivion, it will have no impact on the defense of outrageous pornography which has characterized the only speech the liberal perverts see as absolute.

Our courts today represent judicial tyranny. Whether it is right wing or left wing is the only question.

Attainder For Beginners

2009-03-24T08:13:00.000-04:00

by James Taranto - March 23rd, 2009 - Wall Street Journal

The House's vote last week to impose a confiscatory tax on bonuses earned by employees at bailed-out financial institutions led many readers to write us arguing that, or asking if, the legislation is an unconstitutional bill of attainder--a measure imposing punishment through legislation without a trial.

The short answer is probably not, and the reason is that the bill would confiscate bonuses from many employees who are not accused of any wrongdoing or mismanagement.

What an amazing concept. If a law punishes a few innocents in addition to the so-called "guilty" because congress knowingly tries to hide that it is a bill of attainder aimed at individuals (who they whipped up mob anger towards) then it is okay and we can pretend it is not truly aimed at the real targets. Is there any better definition of court corruption than this?

Courts Unlikely to Strike Down AIG Tax Law, Legal Experts Say

2009-03-22T09:07:00.000-04:00

by Greg Stohr - March 20th, 2009 - Bloomberg News

The House yesterday voted 328-93 in favor of a 90 percent tax on bonuses, including the $165 million insurer AIG paid last week after receiving $173 billion in bailout funds. The Senate plans to vote next week.

The measure raises a number of legal questions, and New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg yesterday said the legislation was unconstitutional. Still, any legal challenge will meet a significant obstacle: the historic reluctance of the Supreme Court to second-guess Congress on tax issues.

“Given the state of the law, it will be unlikely that the Supreme Court will strike down this legislation,” said Edward McCaffery, a University of Southern California tax-law professor who says he questions the wisdom of the proposal.

Gregg said the legislation would violate the constitutional ban on bills of attainder, or laws that single out individuals for punishment. “It’s basically targeted on a small group of people,” he said.

The House took several steps to shield the measure from that argument, said Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School.

Is there anyone in America too stupid to realized who this bill was targeted at? Is it okay to pass a bill clearly targeted at a group like the AIG executives if you "purify" the language to pretend you really meant it to cover a greater group that just happens to include the group that all the legislators were publicly railing against?

What about the whole "ex post facto" thing which is also banned in our Constitution. Our corrupt judges have long since ignored that ... so clearly that "right" will not protect anyone either. In fact, the whole bill of rights thing to protect people from an out of control government has long since been rendered a joke. Today, it is used to protect one group of government favored citizens from other citizens, and is used to crush that second group. So much for protection from government. Our judges are so corrupt, nothing in the Constitution means anything any more.

Abusive Lawsuits: Suing America Into Ruin

2009-03-19T11:06:00.000-04:00

by Staff - March 19th, 2009 - San Francisco Examiner

To save jobs, stop abusive lawsuits. That was the gist of the timely message Monday at a hearing on legal reform sponsored by the Senate Republican Conference.

The hearing’s biggest emotional punch was delivered by Crystal Chodes of Rancho Cordova, who in May of 2006 worked for Basketball Town, a special-events sports facility serving as many as 100,000 families. When one family scheduled a birthday party for the facility’s upper floor, the wheelchair-bound uncle of an invited friend could not attend. Basketball Town offered to move the party downstairs, and the facility was fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The uncle still sued, and, Chodes said, “The cost of defending the lawsuit ultimately became more than we could bear. After about a year of fighting the lawsuit, we were forced to settle and to close our doors forever.”

Business after business gets caught up in this extortion process. No other word than extortion accurately describes the problem.

Few Ripples From Supreme Court Ruling On Guns

2009-03-17T08:00:00.000-04:00

by Adam Liptak - March 16tf, 2009 - The New York Times

About nine months ago, the Supreme Court breathed new life into the Second Amendment, ruling for the first time that it protects an individual right to own guns. Since then, lower federal courts have decided more than 80 cases interpreting the decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, and it is now possible to make a preliminary assessment of its impact.

So far, Heller is firing blanks.

If anyone had any doubt that the American Constitution has become a joke, they need only follow the logic of this article. The Supreme Court ruling that the specific wording of the Second Amendment guaranteeing the "right to bear arms" really meant what it said has been reversed by judicial interpretation of incredible duplicity. Liberal judges have used that ruling to extend legal protections to perverts and criminals ... but not to law abiding citizens. The fact that profanity is offered more legal protection than political speech has long angered anyone who sees our Constitution as a protection for all citizens from government, rather than a document that protects liberals from conservatives.

Our corrupt courts have made a mockery of that idea and made sure that all judicial interpretations give criminals greater power to destroy citizens, or give greater power to bureaucrats to interfere with the lives of law abiding citizens.

I love the conclusion of this article. “My own bet,” said Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, “is that Heller will more likely than not turn out to be of no significance to anyone but constitutional theorists.”

In other words, liberals are going to take your guns and they don't give a damn what the Constitution or the Supreme Court says.

Regrets Only? Native Hawaiians Insist U.S. Apology Has A Price

2009-03-12T12:48:00.000-04:00

by Jess Bravin and Louise Radnofsky - March 12th, 2009 - The Wall Street Journal

A century after a cabal of American sugar planters, financiers and missionaries overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii, Congress said it was sorry. The U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide whether that apology meant anything -- from a legal standpoint, at least.

The Hawaii Supreme Court thought it did. Last year, that court cited the 1993 Apology Resolution to block the state from transferring any of the 1.2 million acres of land -- some 29% of Hawaii's total -- received from the federal government upon statehood in 1959. Those lands once belonged to the Hawaiian crown or its subjects, and were confiscated by the Americans without compensation.

This is all about reparations. The key issue is whether the descendants of some wronged group, can claim superior rights over other citizens. There is a minority of people of Pacific Island Heritage who live in Hawaii who came there after the sugar planters overthrew the Kingdom. Do they get to benefit even though they really have no claim to having been wronged by citizens alive today? If these Hawaiians have benefited as U.S. Citizens, which they apparently did since they voted in huge numbers to join our nation more than 50 years AFTER the supposed coup which ended the Kingdom, have they not superseded any claim of damages?

The idiocy is exactly the same as the one where descendants of blacks who came to America voluntarily after slavery ended, are going to benefit from the descendants of whites who came to America voluntarily after slavery ended, if reparations are enacted.

Equal protection under the law has become a farce in this corrupt court system found in our nation today. I do not trust the Supreme Court to ever really care about equal protection under the law. The entire concept has become a mockery of justice.

Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Liberal?

2009-03-08T08:21:00.000-04:00

by David G. Savage - March 8, 2009 - Los Angeles Times

"We think Justice Thomas got it exactly right," said Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "A key part of our constitutional system is respect for the states in protecting the health and welfare of their citizens."

Thomas has never been shy about breaking with conventional wisdom -- even when it is the conservative consensus. Over the years, he has spelled out a distinctive approach in several areas of the law. And his views do not always yield predictably conservative results.

The position of this writer on what is "conservative" is more left wing bias than reality. The problem is that the article is written by someone who neither supports or understands "conservative" views. It also indicates that many "conservatives" have become so pro "Wall Street" in their interpretations they have failed to notice that "Wall Street" is no longer "conservative".

Wall Street today practices a form of socialism that some have started to call crony capitalism to denote how far from the principles of free enterprise they have strayed. Reflexively defending this Wall Street version of crony capitalism has become the practice of some so-called "conservatives", like the "compassionate conservatives" of the George W. Bush ilk. The problem is that they are NOT conservative at all. They may call themselves "compassionate conservatives" but they are more accurately "compassionate socialists" as they define everything in terms of this crony capitalism melding of Wall Street and big government power. Big government is not conservative, nor Constitutional, and never will be.

Equating that hypocrisy with conservatism is simply wrong. Clarence Thomas, at least, sees that.

Cash Bar

2009-03-04T05:04:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court ponders when your right to a fair trial collides with their right to be divine.

by Dahlia Lithwick - March 3rd, 2009 - Slate

The Supreme Court is in a tough spot in Caperton v. A.T. Massey. The legal claim here is that Americans have a due-process right to a judicial system untainted by the appearance or likelihood of bias. And appearances alone are sometimes enough. Indeed, the facts here are so completely grotesque, they cause the usually mild-mannered John Paul Stevens to proclaim: "We have never confronted a case as extreme as this before. This fits the standard that Potter Stewart articulated when he said, 'I know it when I see it.' "

But the extravagant weaselliness of Chief Justice Benjamin sits uneasily beside an almost complete absence of law that might curb it. The advocates struggle to scrape together a handful of precedents, along with bits of the Constitution's due-process clause, in what rapidly starts to look like a constitutional comb-over.

We elect Judges here in North Carolina and the result has not always been judicial excellence. In fact I don't think that you could argue with the premise that trail lawyers select the Judges who will fatten their pockets while defeating Judges who try to eliminate corruption. I am curious how this case will come out. But the corruption of our court system does not give me great confidence.

Lawyer’s Lawyer, Radical’s Radical

2009-02-25T10:00:00.000-05:00

by Andrew McCarthy - March 9th, 2009 (Publication date - posting date 2/24) - National Review

Meet Obama DOJ nominee Dawn Johnsen

Johnsen’s ... bête noire is national security — at least to the extent it involves detaining terrorists and enemy combatants as military opponents rather trying them as civilian criminal defendants. Her 2008 academic article “What’s a President to Do? Interpreting the Constitution in the Wake of Bush Administration Abuses” gathers the Left’s full array of anti-war tropes and disguises them as legal analysis. There is the determination to ignore the terrorist attacks of the 1990s, such that the War on Terror is presented as something President Bush started after 9/11 rather than a years-long jihadist provocation to which the United States finally responded after 9/11. This framework would make it impossible to prosecute as war crimes such pre-9/11 atrocities as the bombings of the USS Cole and the embassies in East Africa. Johnsen further denigrates as an “extreme and implausible Commander-in-Chief theory” Bush’s rationale for warrantless surveillance of suspected al-Qaeda communications into and out of the United States. In fact, the practice was strongly supported by federal court precedent and has since been reaffirmed by the appellate court Congress created specifically to consider such issues. And Johnsen has recently written that the new administration “should order an immediate review to determine which detainees should be released and which transferred to secure facilities in the United States” for civilian trials.

The liberal love for destroying any methods by which America defends itself from acts of war, even to the opposite preference of assuring that enemies are conceded Constitutional rights, is the main background to this love of our corrupt courts as the venue for defending our nation's enemies.

Rancher Ruling Adds To Border Debate

2009-02-23T08:25:00.000-05:00

by Jerry Seper - February 22nd, 2009 - Washington Times

Arizona rancher Roger Barnett initially faced the possibility of paying $32 million to compensate several illegal immigrants he stopped at gunpoint on his land. He walked away instead with a verdict that rejected any notion he violated the trespassers' civil rights and affirmed that U.S. citizens can still detain aliens crossing the border.

What remains to be seen, though, is what impact the $77,800 in damages that a jury Tuesday ordered Mr. Barnett to pay will have on America's larger immigration debate and the efforts of some illegals to get compensation from a country they aren't even allowed to enter.

How can anyone make sense of a ruling that say a man has a legal right to defend his land but owes $60,000 in DAMAGES for having done what he has a legal right to do? It is such insane idiocy that liberal judges have allowed to become common place in our corrupt court system.

16 Illegals Sue Arizona Rancher

2009-02-09T21:04:00.000-05:00

by Jerry Seper - February 9th, 2009 - Washington Times

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Liberal Democrat judges are determined to make sure that the Constitution is extended to every person in the world. That extension includes the ignorant premise that people who are entering the country illegally have civil rights that prevents a American citizen property owner from arresting and holding these illegal aliens and calling the immigration authority.

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

He IS the victim. Everyone in America is a victim of a corrupt judiciary whose lust for power allows them to distort everything our Consitution stands for to convert our nation into a socialist haven for everyone in the world.

Verdict Is Still Out On Innocence As Defense

2009-02-05T08:40:00.000-05:00

by Lias Falkenberg - February 2nd, 2009 - Houston Chronicle

Does innocence matter?

When I posed that question in a column last week on death row inmate Larry Swearingen’s innocence claim in federal court, I was unaware of the state of Texas’ long-held official answer.

The next day, attorney Gerry Birnberg sent me the link to the transcript of the 1992 oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Herrera v. Collins.

I was appalled by what I read.

The State of Texas argued before the nation’s highest court that it was OK to execute an innocent person, as long as he got a fair trial.

If this surprises you, then you need to wake up. Any doubt of just how corrupt our court system has become is proven by the fact that lawyers actually argue gibberish such as this in our highest courts. And our Judges listen! Rulings are made that are just as insane as the arguments.

The American Court system has long since abandoned any pretense at justice because they feel that any definition of justice is too complicated to follow. They have settled on a much easier solution. They define 'justice' as whatever they decide. How convenient. No great agony over a complicated definition. No need to concern yourself with actual innocence or guilt. Once twelve raving lunatics said 'guilty' the Judges can walk away and wash their hands. It is not their problem.

Does this seem reasonable to you?

Motley Paint Crew

2009-02-03T10:59:00.000-05:00

Editorial - February 3rd, 2009 - Wall Street Journal

In a 2000 letter to a Texas school, plaintiffs attorneys at Wells, Peyton, Greenberg & Hunt (working alongside Motley Rice predecessor firm Ness Motley) pitched participation in any lead paint lawsuit as a "win-win situation." Even if the administrators weren't sure there was any lead paint in the schools, there must have been some "at one time or another," they wrote.

Using an argument that plaintiffs don't have to prove damage but can merely allege it probably occcured, against defendants who don't have to have done anything wrong but who merely resemble defendants who plaintiffs can allege probably did something wrong ... is the essence of modern law. "Someone who looks like you did something that might have harmed me even though I didn't notice at the time. Since I could have been harmed and it could have been you ... you owe me some money."

In such an environment, the law has become a mockery and a farce. This one example of a lawsuit's failure and some possibility of retribution to its initiators will not slow the deterioration of justice in America.