Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by 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.
This line from your post led me to the conclusion I reached: "Not as lawyers or carpenters or bartenders, but as homoSEXUALS first and foremost."
I'm as straight as an arrow, but have lived and worked and played amongst many gays, and this has NEVER been my experience.
Your comments sound like talking points provided to you in lieu of actual experience with them yourself.
Please point us in the general direction to the Constitution (or any other official U.S document) preferably one that specifically states that citizens are exempt from any state criminal law. Precisely, the states laws that criminalize homosexual sodomy.
Article and section please.
So you think the 10th amendment can shield prohibit these laws?
No, as I have said above I think the Ninth Amendment prohibits these laws.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
As I have said before, I believe rights trump powers.
This is (I believe) the central conflict in our Republic - when the state's power to regulate conflicts with the innate rights retained by the people.
I believe in individual freedom over government control of persons, so I side with rights over powers. Even when the right involved is the right to do something I don't want to do - I don't belive that the Constitution only protects my own personal likes.
Why don't you go back to DU.
Ah, name calling. Hardly a substitute for a valid argument.
Did you even read the article? You did? Well how do you feel about the guy that was killed to cover this up?
In post 217 of this thread you said the 10th amendment. Now you are saying you are talking about the 9th amendment They may fall for that at DU but not here.
Now as far as The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
it was the people who made the law by voting for representatives who would pass that law so the people in doing so had retained their right to have a law. Just because some Judge didn't like the law did not make the law unconstitutional any more than the Roe v. Wade decision was based on constitutional grounds. \
Only a Liberal belives this type of shit. Liberals hang out on DU. Go back to DU.
In post 217 of this thread you said the 10th amendment. Now you are saying you are talking about the 9th amendment They may fall for that at DU but not here.
And in 222, I discussed the Ninth. If you are having trouble following a conversation, I would suggest actually reading the posts in a thread.
So these guys were like Rosa Parks, but with anal sex. I get it. /sarc
Perversion (sodomarriage) is not a civil right.
My effort is to stand up for decency, morality and ethical standards, and I do so simply by providing the reality of truth, ethics and the morals which founded this country.
If you are adverse to these morals, I recommend you move to a more "liberal" locale, such as Canada, France, Netherlands, Norway, Spain or Sweden. I'm told that their Socialistic permissive governments are quite willing to tolerate the various psychosis inherent in both sexual psychotics and the lower forms of life which grant them credence.
I applaud you for that.
My effort is to stand up for the Constitution.
See post #242
Please point us in the general direction to the Constitution (or any other official U.S document) preferably one that specifically states that citizens are exempt from any state criminal law. Precisely, the states laws that criminalize homosexual sodomy.
I have never contended that citizens are exempt from any state criminal law. I contend that the states are limited in what they can criminalize. There's a major distinction there.
The 14th Amendment says, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
That phrase, part of the "Due Process" clause, applied the Bill of Rights to the states. That's a good thing, or else the Bill of Rights would be meaningless. Who cares if the federal government can't ban gun ownership if states can ban gun ownership? Either it's a right retained by the people or it isn't.
Now, that hasn't stopped states from constantly pushing against the Bill of Rights (the 2nd Amendment is a good example of a right under constant threat from some states). But just because they try to do it doesn't mean they have the authority to do it - our government is replete with examples of extra-Constitutional authority seized and unchallenged.
Now, this is complicated. As I've said before, there is a great conflict between the powers reserved for states in the Tenth Amendment (which are not listed) and the rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment (which are not listed). We all must try to resolve this conflict in accordance with our principles. I am a lover of liberty, therefore I always default to restricting the power of the state, so I favor the personal protections of the Ninth Amendment.
Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Sexual perversion, same sex "sodomarriage", are not "privileges" or "immunities"
They're criminal acts and have been deemed as such through legislation in state laws for over two centuries. That is a fact!
There's no magic or secret phrase anywhere in any official U.S. document that will prove otherwise. That is a fact!
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You've still got it backwards - the Constitution is a list of the things the government can get involved in. Criminalizing morality isn't among them.
Once the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, the states lost the authority to legislate most personal morality. That is a fact.
The choice is simple - you're either for less government, or more. Bigger or smaller. Smaller government means that people will make choices you don't like - that's the nature of freedom.
That's the only part of your misconstrued drivel that's correct.
You're dead wrong! States have every right to legislate moral issues otherwise there would be no reason for states to have their own judicial systems. IOW we'd all have to go to Federal court when we broke the law for any reason- which would be listed as criminal acts mandated by the federal government. Can you produce such a list? NO! Because The states have jurisdiction.
The states have jurisdiction, but only within the limits of the Bill of Rights. Wich, as we have seen, paints with a very broad brush the scope of our individual rights.
So long as the expression of those rights does not conflict with the rights of others (and no, the "right not to be offended" doesn't count), the states are on shaky ground when they try to legislate one particular morality.
>sigh<
That should, of course, be "Which, as we have seen,"
Nobody has a right to engage in sexual perversion (HOMOSEXUAL SODOMY), every citizen is forbidden by state law to do so. There's no special group that has the right to do so and another group forbidded, we're all equally forbidden by "due prosses"- state legislation!
In this case, it appears they were INVITED into the bedroom.
This is one instance where I would have supported the officers beating the snot out of both of them, ensuring permanent damage to their tools, then claiming the pervs were resisting arrest and attempting sexual assault.
All law is based on someone's morals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.