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.
That's just silly. If "somebone's morals" are your criteria for writing law, you'll get all sorts of goofy laws. Heck, the liberals use that as their justification for micromanaging the lives and businesses of everybody else.
I would say that if you're looking for some over-reaching basis, I'd say that all law is based on protection of property, including the property of one's person. The first laws were created to protect the property of the Sultan/Pharaoh/Chieftain/King. Each successive reformation from the Magna Carta to the Constitution extended that protection to more and more citizens.
But that's not really what we're talking about here. There is no impact on either property or person. To the extent it is a crime, it's a victimless crime between consenting adults. There is no Constitutional basis for those laws, and the 14th Amendment makes the validity of these types of laws shaky at best.
This whole issue comes down to a conflict between the rights of individuals and the powers of the state. Given this conflict, and in the absence of an impact on uninvolved parties, I'll take liberty every time. Freedom doesn't mean "the right to make the choices I want you to make."
After all, do we really want the government deciding what kind of sex people should be allowed to have? Is that what conservatism is really all about?
Now you are making me responsible for knowing about a conversation you are having with someone else?
I wouldn't dream of it, until you accused me of "bait and switch". If you didn't want me to hold you accountable for the posts, you shouldn't have challenged me on what I did or didn't say.
Not to mention the snarky DU comment - if you're going to insult the integrity of posters, please make sure you know what you're talking about first.
I suggest you quit interpreting and just read what it plainly says.
I am.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Yes and one of the rights retained by the people is to vote for representatives who will pass laws that are wanted by the people. Judges are overstepping their authority by striking down those laws. Laws that are completely acceptable under the constitution. Laws that regulate behaviour. like homosexual behaviour. If that is what the people want. Clearly that is what the people wanted however since the liberals could not sway the public they turned to judges. Unelected Judges that do not represent the people.
Yes and one of the rights retained by the people is to vote for representatives
I'm in complete agreement so far.
who will pass laws that are wanted by the people. Judges are overstepping their authority by striking down those laws. Laws that are completely acceptable under the constitution.
Still in complete agreement.
Laws that regulate behaviour. like homosexual behaviour. If that is what the people want.
Now I cannot agree. The people do not have the right to pass un-Constitutional laws. The Department of Education is extra-Constitutional, no matter how many Americans like it.
The Constitution is clear about the limits of the power of the federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment extended the limits on powers to the states. Doesn't matter if 100% of the people want extra-Constitutional laws, the laws are still invalid because they have no basis in the Constitution.
Clearly that is what the people wanted however since the liberals could not sway the public they turned to judges. Unelected Judges that do not represent the people.
And once again, we are in agreement. Activist judges are bad. But in asking them uphold laws that states have no basis in the Constitution passing in the first place, you're asking for your own kind of activist judges. And those activist judges are bad, too.
The Constitution limits the powers of government. It does not limit the freedoms retained by the people.
So you support torture by police toward U.S. citizens.
I am not even sure if someone was even killed considering Worldnetdaily has heavily exaggerating their reports over the past five to six years.
The propensity to paint the middle with the extreme is an unfortunate fact of social and political discourse these days.
I don't buy it.
To suggest that gays (all gays?) are "without doubt the most promiscuous amoral group of people around today" is the same as suggesting the Eric Robert Rudolph is the one true voice of the pro-life movement. It's just silly, BP.
BTW, your post could be read as someone "coming out". You are suggesting that you know the things you say are true, as they "do not hesitate to make it known to one another", followed by "Course you wouldn't know that, being a straight guy, would you now."
I'm proud of you, it's very bold what you have done. I didn't realize that you were speaking from your own personal experience (not that there's anything wrong with that). Self-loathing, though, is not at all a healthy thing.
Now I cannot agree. The people do not have the right to pass un-Constitutional laws. The Department of Education is extra-Constitutional, no matter how many Americans like it.
So what you are saying is we cannot have laws that regulate behaviour. So no laws against public intoxication, having sex with animals, public nudity, homosexuality etc...
So if those things are against what the framers wanted when they wrote the constitution then why didn't they (in their time) strike down those laws. Those laws existed when they were in power so why didn't they declare them unconstitutional then?
In this case, I support exactly what I stated.
Defining a law as 'goofy' is a subjective view. Is 'goofy' good or bad? By your post, one could easily assume you believe it to be bad, which is a moral judgment.
Thank you for proving my point, even though you didn't mean to do so.
Not in the bedrooms of normal people.
But in the bedrooms of weirdos is OK.
That was exactly my point. Laws based solely on morality are inherently subjective. I think the wearing of plaids and stripes ought to be a crime. Actually criminalizing it, however, is bad policy.
Actions should not be criminialized just because you don't want to do them.
Give the government control over some aspects of other peoples' lives, and it'll sieze control of yours. I'm surprised that so many people who call themselves "conservatives" forget that.
Poor boy, are you looking for a date, sorry but I doubt that I'm your type, being a homophobe and all. Besides it really doesn't sound all that enjoyable, but that's just me.
I didn't want to say it when you reponded, but it always seems that when someone has to tell you that they are not greedy and money means nothing to them or that they are a honest, trustworthy kinda guy the opposite is true. So your "I'm as straight as an arrow" line kinda tipped your hand. Not that I have anything against you as a person , but your lifestyle is going to kill you and those you practise it with.
So all th JR High stuff aside, I guess you would like us to believe that homosexuals are monogamous, practice fidelity with their one life partner and that homosexual activities are normal and perfectly safe?
LOL.
It must be great to live in a binary world. Life is so much simpler there.
You were the one who suggested you had the inside track to knowledge about amoral gay promiscuity, and that they don't fear to share that fact amongst themselves, not I.
You have spent your time with gays talking about amoral promiscuity, I have spent mine talking about jobs, homes, families, etc., without getting into their sex lives. I don't want to hear about that any more than I want to hear about the sex lives of the 20-something single heteros in my office. Could it be that the world is not so simple as you would have it?
Please feel free to get the last word in, as I think this exchange has outlived its humor value.
DMZ,
It pretty much outlived it's value altogether with your first post, when you decided to get involved, with no other intention than to try and get a zinger in. Thanks for playing.
Kindest Regards,
Boiler Plate
Isn't it kind of hard to exaggerate murder?
Can you name a law that is based on objective truth and not subjective opinion?
Actions should not be criminialized just because you don't want to do them.
In the same way, actions should not be DEcriminalized just because you want them to be.
In the same way, actions should not be DEcriminalized just because you want them to be.
I think you have it backwards, friend.
I expect the government to have to justify its authority on matters to the people, not the other way around.
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.