How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2005 | Joseph Farah

[Hunterb]

WASHINGTON – Was the U.S. Supreme Court fooled by a make-believe sodomy case in Lawrence v. Texas – one manufactured by homosexual activists to entrap police and ensnare the judicial system in a conspiracy to change the law of the land?

That is the compelling verdict of a new book, "Sex Appealed: Was the U.S. Supreme Court Fooled?" by Judge Janice Law.

It was in the Houston courthouse where Law presided as judge that she first heard rumors that the key figures in what became the landmark Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case actually invited arrest in a pre-arranged setup designed from the start to test the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. What the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."

When the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge to Texas anti-sodomy laws in 2002, the only facts for the high court to review were Deputy Joseph Richard Quinn's 69-word, handwritten, probable cause affidavits – written within hours of the arrests of the three principals in the case Sept. 17, 1998.

There had been no trial. There had been no stipulations to facts by the state or the defendants. The defendants simply pleaded no contest at every phase of the proceedings. It was quite simply the misdemeanor dream case homosexual activists in Texas and nationwide had been dreaming about. Or had they done more than dream about it? Had they schemed about it, too?

Nearly everyone familiar with the case that set off the nation's same-sex marriage craze knows there were two defendants in the case – two men, John Geddes Lawrence, 60, and Tyron Garner, 36. Forgotten, until Law's book, was a third man arrested at Lawrence's apartment that night – Robert Eubanks, who was beaten to death three years before the case was heard by the Supreme Court.

It was Eubanks who took the fall for calling the police the night of the "incident." He said he was the one who placed the call reporting a man firing a gun in an apartment building. When police officers responded to the felony call, Eubanks was outside Lawrence's apartment directing police to the unit – still insisting a man with a gun was threatening neighbors.

When police approached Lawrence's apartment, they found the front door open. When they entered the apartment, they found a man calmly talking on the telephone in the kitchen, also motioning to the officers to a bedroom in the rear.

Despite repeated shouts by officers identifying themselves as of sheriff's deputies from the moment they entered the Houston apartment, no one seemed surprised to see them – especially not Lawrence and Garner.

The veteran police officers who entered the bedroom that night were unprepared for what they were about to see.

"You could tell me that something was happening like 'there's a guy walking down the street with his head in his hand,' and I would believe it," said Quinn, who had 13 years on the force the night he entered Lawrence's apartment. "As a police officer, I've seen things that aren't even imagined."

But what he saw that night shocked him, searing images into his mind that seem as vivid today as the day they happened.

Quinn and his fellow officers, expecting to see an armed man, perhaps holding a hostage or in a prone position ready to fire at them, instead, found was Lawrence having anal sex with Garner.

And they didn't stop – despite repeated warnings from officers.

"Lawrence and Garner did not seem at all surprised to see two uniformed sheriff's deputies with drawn guns walk into their bedroom," Quinn recalls.

Quinn shouted to them to stop. They continued.

"Most people, in situations like that, try to cover up, hide or look embarrassed," explained Quinn. "Lawrence and Garner didn't look at all surprised to see us. They just kept doing it."

Finally, Quinn took action. He told them: "I don't believe this! What are you doing? Did you not hear us announce ourselves? Don't you have the common decency to stop?" But still Lawrence and Garner did not stop until Quinn physically moved them apart.

Lawrence and Garner would be booked that night for a class C misdemeanor punishable by only a fine. Eubanks was charged with filing a false police report because there were no guns found. Lawrence and Garner would become celebrity heroes of the homosexual activist movement. Eubanks would wind up beaten to death – with Garner a possible suspect in a case that remains unsolved.

But who was the mystery man on the phone in the kitchen? He was never identified officially because there was no reason to charge him. Law believes his identity is key to proving the pre-meditated nature of the Lawrence case setup. And she thinks she's solved the case. Readers can be the judge.

The 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court Lawrence ruling favoring the defendants in the landmark case is the trigger event kicking away roadblocks to same-sex marriage, says Law.

The justices who voted to overturn the Texas statute and invalidate anti-sodomy laws in the rest of the U.S. were Justices Stephen Breyer, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision.

Those voting to uphold the Texas law were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

If the Lawrence case were known to be a setup during the five years following the arrests, then the defendants would not have a right-to-privacy claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court probably would never hear the case.

After that historic ruling, Law decided to investigate a case that had never before been subject to any investigation. By then she was a visiting judge, sitting for judges who are on vacation or ill.

"I researched and wrote 'Sex Appealed' because I know many of the Lawrence participants, I had the time, contacts, and the journalistic background to investigate, and, as a lawyer and judge, I felt an obligation to history to find out what really happened behind the scenes in one of the most culture-altering cases in America's legal history," Law said. "I am the judge who, after the internationally publicized case was concluded at the highest level, embarked on her own investigation of rumors about the case assigned to her Texas court."

Along the way, Law is not only persuasive that Lawrence was planned from the start – that police, in effect, were entrapped into witnessing a crime because the homosexual activists needed a test case – but also gets support for her theory from other judges involved in the saga.

What would it mean, two years after Lawrence v. Texas, if Supreme Court justices learned they had been fooled, manipulated, played like a radio?

Did the justices know that a key witness in the case had been murdered and that one of the defendants appeared to be a key suspect?

Were they aware one of the lawyers that handled the sodomy case for Lawrence and Garner also represented Garner in the unsolved murder death of Eubanks?

How could there be an issue of privacy in a case in which police were invited, encouraged, begged to enter an apartment and directed to the bedroom where the unlawful sexual activity was taking place?

Law also finds that homosexual activists nationwide and, specifically, in Houston were actively searching for that "perfect" test case when Lawrence happened to come along.

As the U.S. Supreme Court is being reshaped through the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of William Rehnquist, some are wondering if it's possible the court could "second-guess" itself in the Lawrence ruling – one that turned out to be among the most controversial decisions in years.

[Boiler Plate]

Consider this. There is a California state congressman(democrat) currently putting through legislation to lower the legal voting age from 18 to 12. You can take it from there.


Here is the film version of that senario.

"Wild in the streets"

http://iafrica.imdb.com/title/tt0063808/

[anton]

I'd prefer to have our courts respect the constitution and vote for legislators who would repeal bedroom prohibitions. Wouldn't you?

[Mulch]

What!?
There are some things that rational people should just know without having to be told. To even consider that a 12-year old has the wherewithal to engage in voting or contract negotiations, let alone sex, is contemptible.

You provide yet another example for me why I'm not a libertarian.

[VRWCmember]

That's a strawman. There is a clear legal definition for "adult," so your use of quotes is interesting.

Not as regards to consent; there is NOT a clear legal definition for "adult". Age of consent laws vary from state to state. 16 is common. 14 is less common but available in some states. In others it is 13. Under "privacy" arguments, many liberals are trying to get age of consent eliminated altogether or lowered to 12 and in some cases lower. Darth Bader Ginsburg believes that all age of consent laws should be abolished or the age of consent lowered to 8 or 12. (She is on record as having argued such a position for the ACLU.)

This conversation is only about the government regulating what adults can do on their own property. Kids are a strawman, and a lame one at that.

Actually trying to say this is about "what adults can do on their own property" is something of a strawman. The law in question has nothing to do with whether you are on your own property or not. It has to do with whether or not the government can criminalize a particular behavior. Admittedly, regulation of this behavior and enforcement of the law is problematic at best when "consenting adults" engage in this behavior in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But that isn't really what this discussion is about since several individuals conspired to lure police into witnessing two conspiring adults engaging in the prohibited behavior and refusing to stop when ordered to do so.

There is a clear legal definition for "adult," so your use of quotes is interesting. Children do not have full legal rights, and as such the government has the right to regulate certain of their behaviors. There are, therefore, not relevant to this conversation.

What I find "interesting" is that your position appears to be that laws governing sexual activity with children are legitimate because the "government has the right to regulate certain of their behaviors" while I favor laws against pedophilia based on the responsibility of government to protect children from sexual predators.

[VRWCmember]

Is it the government's place to regulate those actions?
Yes. That is (statutory) rape. Thank you for the easiest question in this thread.

But thanks to the Lawrence decision, perhaps it is not such an easy question. Lawrence was the first step on a slippery slope that could eventually overturn any state laws against incest, polygamy, and possibly even pedophilia. Bader-Ginsburg is on record that statutory rape laws and age of consent laws are discriminatory and should be abolished. So, when those laws start getting challenged on a "privacy" or "discrimination" question, then the "statutory rape" status of the action is called into question. Is it STILL the government's place to regulate (or prohibit) those actions.

[DBeers]

You are the ones who want to make sex between two consenting adults illegal, not me.

One does not need to make illegal all legitimate sexual acts to make illegal illegitimate sexual acts.

You are advocating homosexual sodomy -period. The rest of your arguments are moral relative straw men...

[jwalsh07]

What the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."

Hardly. Roe v Wade, Doe v Bolton, Griswold v Ct etc, etc.

In fact SCOTUS jurisprudence from about 1940 to the present is one big bad joke.

[DBeers]

Seems to me that your beef is with anyone who would lower the age of majority. I would agree, since I don't think that most kids are ready for those responsibilities at such an age. But if that's what a state wants, a state should be allowed to do it. It's their business where they want to draw the line between adult and child. It has no real bearing on the conversation except to raise some sort of emotional hackles.

There seems to be a disconnect? The 'state' is not some ethereal arbiter... The 'state' like the federal government is the people -not the judiciary. The people have repeatedly spoken YET the judges overule in favor of what -the lowest common denominator? The judges surely do not respect the people when they consider sodomy to be an unalienable right or when they insert themsel;ves into moral questions reserved to the people...

[TypeZoNegative]

The means don't justify the end. Yes, the sodomy law is more of the nanny government interfering with your life, but to make up a fictitious case to promote your agenda is low.

[rdb3]

>>I do not think that it is the government's place to regulate the actions of two or more adults entered into consentingly.

>What about one or more "adult" and one or more non-adult adolescent?
What about one or more "adult" and one or more pre-adolescent who is really really curious and wants to try the experience?

Is it the government's place to regulate those actions?

I specifically stated "two or more adults entered into consentingly." The operative words are "adults" and "consentingly."

Since what you ask does not specifically include consensual adults only, my answer would be "yes". NAMBLA arguments find no love here. I know you're not saying that, but that's why I said "yes".

Then again, I wouldn't use the term "regulate" or anything similar that gives an air of legitimacy. I believe that if a non-adult + adult are involved, it's a crime. If no consent is given, that, too, is a crime. Two or more consensual adults? Government should back off. I may find what two or more adults choose to do consensually morally repugnant, but that is not what should make it a crime.

I'll leave that at that.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

[Charles H. (The_r0nin)]

The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. To do otherwise is to support a "nanny-police-state".

Either-Or logical fallacy.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You need to read more of this thread.

[Paul C. Jesup]

but to make up a fictitious case to promote your agenda is low.

The Georgia court case I am talking about happened.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You are advocating homosexual sodomy -period.

No, I advocate freedom for adults to have sexual relationships with other consenting adult.

You advocate tyranny.

[Vinnie]

Exactly,
IMHO any decision made on a faked 'crime' should be invalidated.

[Paul C. Jesup]

"Hypocracy" (sic)? WHAT HYPOCRISY? I stated factual information and NO opinion. Ergo, there is no "hypocrisy", other than your own!

See post 80 of this thread.

[Paul C. Jesup]

You need to read a little further down post 123 about "mob rule"/majority rule.

[Paul C. Jesup]

I suppose if they were having "consensual sex" with your 12 year old son, you wouldn't want the goverment invading their privacy?

What part of "two consenting adults" do you not understand?

[Paul C. Jesup]

Just answer the question. Does the geovernment have the authority to prohibit prostitution between two consenting adults?

Well you could do some book research on this in comparing Navada with the rest of the U.S. on this issue.

[COEXERJ145]

Farah is about 2 years behind the time. It was known when Lawrence v. Texas was being argued that it was a setup all along just like Roe v. Wade.