How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court

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.

"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.

"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.

The Pharaohs married their brothers and sisters. With the exception of one generation or two, as far as we know, there were no recorded deformities.

Actually, there are more recorded deformed and/or genetically disposed diseases ( hemophilia ) of the progeny of European royal cousins.

You forgot one thing. Hetrosexual sex can transmit HIV from one person to another person. (sarcasm) So, shall you make all sex illegal...

In the context you presented your arguement, it is a very valid arguement. Birth Defects also occur in non-incest cases.

So, shall YOU make all sex illegal?

I'm sorry, but that may be the silliest comment I've read today on FR

Thank you. That's the nicest thing anyone's said all day.

The police didn't come to watch a peep-show. They came to find a man with a gun. The butt-pirates planned for their arrival, knew they were coming and continued their activity in their presence. They made this an exhibition.

Unless we're going to apply a standard that cops have less rights to not view this depravity than the rest of us, this was a display for public showing.

Again. No.

I can't say I'm an expert on the topic, but it's pretty clear to me that the fight is to keep you out of their bedrooms.

Would heteros having sex in their bedroom have been arrested under the same circumstances, or would the cops have done what they should have done in this case, to wit: Nothing (as in no person threatening anyone else with a firearm) to see here, move along.

For the 4th amendment to apply to this issue, you would have to have a situation where the government entered without probable cause and found an illegal activity going on.

What part of: secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, do you not understand...

Not necessarily, since various kinds of sexual deviants often like to do their thing in public or in front of others...yuck.

But you're right, it was obvious right from the start this was a setup.

What's the story?

I think the only point to be made is that it's tough to rely on a privacy argument if they in fact wanted the police to witness the act. I don't think the constitutionality of it is affected, but their standing to make the argument on which they relied is altered.

I think the only point to be made is that it's tough to rely on a privacy argument if they in fact wanted the police to witness the act. I don't think the constitutionality of it is affected, but their standing to make the argument on which they relied is altered.

I see, thanks.

This has less than nothing at all to do with me. All I did was correct your erroneously stated, factless post.

You can't state, as you did, as a fact, that which is patently false and then expect everyone to swallow it as whole clothe.

I thought the destinction between paid LE and innocent school children was obvious.

I used hyperbole, sure. However, show me where in the law the cops don't have the same rights as the rest of us. If I were lured into this trap, you can bet I would seek prosecution.

I guess the Lifestyle nazis such as yourself should never be underestimated in their fervent need to overstate any situation.

Geez. Talk about hyperbole...

In short, no.

I beg to differ.

Claiming that you are a homosexual, by definition, informs everyone around you that you are attracted to and prefer sexual relationships with members of your same sex (the word "gender" is a politically loaded term and I refuse to use it). Otherwise, how would anyone know that you are "gay," save for the really effeminate men or truly butch women?

Having said that, I completely agree that "gays" and "lesbians" should have same rights as everyone else. I do not think that it is the government's place to regulate the actions of two or more adults entered into consentingly.

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

That begs the question: Doesn't the very definition of "homosexual" (and the fight for "homosexual rights") put everyone into their bedrooms?

Yes, that is the point!!! Teaching Kindergarten kids about "diversity" is exposing them to the behavior of homosexuals.

The gay mafia is out to normalize their sick, perverted, hedonistic, and disordered lifestyle through indoctrination in the schools and through their clubs in high school and esp. through the courts!

" The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults."

The government claims to have a right to regulate what you can put into your own body and they will put you in jail if you put stuff on their list in there. If they can regulate weed, they can regulate buggery. Truth is, they don't REALLY have the right to regulate either, but they regulate nonetheless.

In the context you presented your arguement, it is a very valid arguement. Birth Defects also occur in non-incest cases.

This is why the bride and groom have blood tests before they get married, to check to see if their blood types will not conflict with each other if they chose to have children.

So, shall YOU make all sex illegal?

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

The government claims to have a right to regulate what you can put into your own body and they will put you in jail if you put stuff on their list in there. If they can regulate weed, they can regulate buggery. Truth is, they don't REALLY have the right to regulate either, but they regulate nonetheless.

(sarcasm) I take it that you support torching the U.S. Constitution as well...

It's also obvious to anyone who doesn't support the "gay" agenda (or who has not been hitting the bong regularly) that the sodomy laws were not actually on the books to prevent people from doing whatever they do in private, it was to KEEP it private. Out of the bushes, out of the parks, not in parades, not on the streets, not in public bathrooms, not in schools, not on stage, etc etc etc.

So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?

Depends. Is government a chick?

Is she cute?

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.