-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded message follows -------
Justice Run Amok by Joe Pierre If anyone ever doubted that our justice system is in a shambles, the spectacle of the Los Angeles courts over the last decade should dispel their doubt. First, we had the spectacle of the trial of the L.A. cops for thumping on a drugged-up black miscreant who had just led them on a 100 mph chase through city streets, and then resisted arrest. The entire nation was subjected by network TV news to endless replays of a few seconds of an edited version of a home video made by a bystander. "Everyone knew" the cops were guilty of brutality. A problem: the trial jury, in a trial in a neutral venue, viewed the entire tape and heard all the available evidence, and acquitted. Now what? Los Angeles blacks, whipped into rage by their "leaders" with cries of "Racism!" and inflammatory news reports screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater, predictably rioted; burning, looting, pillaging and raping everything in sight, and were justified by media liberals and at least one Congresswoman for acting "out of frustration." The police were impotent. The national guard was absent. The militia had been disbanded generations before, "replaced" by the national guard. The law-abiding were reduced to whatever self-defense measures they could mount on their own behalf. News helicopters filmed scenes of merchants protecting their stores from the roof-tops with rifles. It made one long for the good old days of the impetuous, but effective, activities of the California vigilantes in the gold-rush period, and sympathize with the the forceful, restraining hand of the Ku Klux Klan, on a lawless, post-civil war reconstruction South trying to deal with carpetbagger "justice." Politics intervened. Justice was replaced by expediency. The cops had to be punished, despite their acquittals. The Attorney General of the United States, proclaiming that "justice" would be done, charged the cops with violations of Rodney King's civil rights. A black jury was chosen from the heart of Los Angeles, and the desired verdict was rendered. The cops were sentenced to imprisonment. Next act: In the riots, an unprovoked attack on a truck driver was video taped by a news crew, in which the driver was nearly beaten to death. The black perpetrators were identified. The Attorney General was not so outraged this time, and the local court, desirous of avoiding charges of racism, was lenient. After all, they were motivated in the assault by their "frustration." Next act: The case of Orenthal James Simpson. His estranged wife and her acquaintance were murdered with a knife. She was practically decapitated. Blood samples, DNA evidence, bloody gloves and socks found in his house, blood splatters on Simpson's vehicle, evidence that she was terrified of him and had predicted that he would kill her, police records indicating that he had battered her in the past, his inability to satisfactorily account for his time, his shoe tracks in the victim's blood at the scene, what more do you want? A black jury acquitted. Reason? A police detective witness had lied about using the word "nigger" in the past ten years . Los Angeles is just the tip of the iceberg. Jury nullification: black jurors acquitting black defendants in the face of insurmountable evidence of guilt simply because they are black, is a national epidemic. Article after article has been published, in the newspapers, Reader's Digest, and numerous magazines over and over again. Four eyewitnesses, fingerprints, the accused attempts to plea- bargain and admits guilt, and the jury acquits. The courts take too long to render justice. I was subpoenaed as an expert witness in graphic arts at a federal counterfeiting case in Portland, Oregon, several years ago. The accused had been tried for the murder of his girl-friend's husband 10 years earlier. The body had been found in a well, slaked with lime. The accused was a bricklayer. He was found guilty, but appealed. The appellate court also found him guilty. He appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ordered a new trial on a technicality of law, and finally he was acquitted. The witnesses had died or moved away, and ten years had passed. But, in the meantime he was involved in counterfeting, found guilty and sentenced to 12 years. Did he serve it? I don't know, I was never subpoenaed again to testify. The people of California recently passed a proposition (Prop 209) that prohibits public colleges from discriminating for or against an applicant on account of race or gender. The same rule would apply to state and local authorities who award government jobs and contracts. United States District Judge Thelton Henderson, in a convoluted ruling, issued a temporary restraining order forbidding the Governor, Pete Wilson, from implementing the law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. A law that says all are equal before the law, is unconstitutional? The entire voting population of California makes a law, and one judge decides that they are out of line, and makes it stick?! The State of Oregon, years ago, made a deal with its employees: In essence, we can't pay you much, but the benefits will be good. For example, when you retire, after your years of service, we will not impose a state income tax on your retirement pay; a simple contract between an employer and its employees. Some federal retirees in the state, with whom the state had made no such deal, thought it was unfair that their incomes should be taxed while retired state employees were not. There were other disimilarities in employment: The federal employees generally were paid more for the same work during their employment period, and were credited with military service time toward their retirement, while state employees were not, and generally their employment had more protections from layoff; but they sued -- in another state, with a similar situation. The United States Supreme Court ruled that all must be taxed the same. Now, Oregon is a sovereign state, and it had made a perfectly reasonable contract with its employees. No one else was involved, and it was an expedient answer to state funding problems that had worked well for years. Because of the decision of nine judges on the Supreme Court, the whole thing was turned upside down. The state now has to tax its old employees, contrary to the contract agreement under which they worked for their entire career; unilaterally broken by a third party whose business it was not. The courts, and particularly the federal courts, have attained far too much power. Much of their activity is not constitutional. Article III of the Constitution, which creates the judicial branch of the federal government, and from which the Supreme Court derives its power, specifically delineates and limits the extent of its jurisdiction to cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States and treaties under their (the United States) authority. The cases are spelled out: those affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls, admiralty and maritime law, controversies in which the United States are a party, controversies between states, or between a state and citizens of another state, or between citizens of different states, between citizens claiming lands under a grant by another state, or between a state or its citizens and a foreign state. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors or consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party In all other cases, it has appellate jurisdiction only with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. There is notably no provision for the Supreme Court, or any other body or person, to "interpret" the Constitution. The Constitution is written in plain language-- not legalese -- with plenty of provision for amendment, and it does not require interpretation by a lawyer or judge. It was written by plain men to be understood by everyone. In fact, it is the people's contract with government; intended to protect us from exactly the overweening, powerful figures who now would dictate to us how we must live. The contract is there to protect us, why aren't we enforcing its terms? ------- End of forwarded message ------- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
