Posted on 07/22/2002 8:27:41 PM PDT by kristinn
Edited on 05/11/2004 10:58:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is forging ahead with establishing a network of domestic tipsters -- despite being dealt what may be a deathly blow to the plan: House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, inserted last week a ban on the program in the bill to form a new Homeland Security Department.
(Excerpt) Read more at home.post-dispatch.com ...
The Justice Department is forging ahead with establishing a network of domestic tipsters
Trust the Justice Department! ...Why should anybody?
Discover How Judges that Preside
Over Jury Trials Routinely Violate the Constitution.
"As a practical matter, I don't know how this is different from the beginning of a trial, when you tell the jurors you have to follow the law as I state it," Warren said. "I just won't give [the disapproved instruction]." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
The above statement in bold told to jurors, since 1894 has been in violation of each Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The Sixth Amendment reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Prior to 1894 judges routinely told jurors that they were to judge the facts and the law. ...And the law. For the defendant, a jury that judges the law upholds his right to a jury that is not partial for the government. It is the defendants right to have a jury that judges the law as well as the facts.
To judge all facts in the case includes judging the most critical fact -- that a person was charged with breaking a certain and specific law or laws. Without that there can be no case to take to trial. It is the primary and most critical fact for which the government makes its case. Pressing criminal charges against a person gets the process in motion. The reason it must be the prosecution that gets the process started is because the suspect/defendant is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty in court.
Thus it was not the person's/defendant's actions that initiated force against any person or their property. For, until the defendant has received the verdict it is not known whether the arresting law enforcement officer acted in self-defense in correctly upholding the law or unknowingly acted with initiation of force while attempting to uphold the law. That is, the LEO making the arrest had reason to believe the person broke the law and then the DA (district attorney) pressed charges against the suspect. Yet the LEO/DA/government don't know for certain that the suspect/defendant broke the law. That detail will be answered by the jury.
What does it mean when the jury's verdict is an acquittal? It means the charges against the defendant were in error. That is, the defendant never broke the law he was charged with breaking. The law has been judged by the jury to have been wrongfully charged against the defendant. The jury says, "No. The law does not apply to the defendant breaking it. The law only applies in that the defendant abided the law." The law has been deemed to have been wrongfully applied -- the law does not apply to the defendant.
Guess what? That's what jury nullification is -- the jury discovers the same thing. That is, with jury nullification the jury decides that the law does not apply to the defendant -- the law had been wrongfully applied.
As per the Sixth Amendment the defendant has the right to an impartial trial wherein the jury judges the law. For there is no way the jury can avoid judging the law. The jury has only two choices, 1) the law was correctly applied/charged against the defendant, or 2) the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.
It is each judge's job responsibility to ensure that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are protected. The primary key to each trial is the laws that the defendant is charged to have violated. It is by way of the facts presented by the prosecution and the defense during the trial that the primary key -- law as charged -- is judged to have been correct or in error. The facts presented by the prosecution and defense are secondary. That's the nature of cause and effect relationships. When one thing cannot exist without the other first being present the first thing is primary and the effect of that is secondary.
It is accepted that the defendant acted in a manner that appeared to have broken the law and was one factor in the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment that the person's actions violated the law. It cannot be misconstrued that the defendant's actions are the primary cause. For the defendant is deemed innocent and only suspected to have broken the law. The primary cause is the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment to set the court process in motion -- not the suspect's actions.
As per the Sixth Amendment an impartial jury favors neither the government nor the defendant.
Each jury that each judge has failed to inform the jury that they are to judge the law as well as the facts as they pertain to the case/trial has caused each of those juries to favor the government over the defendant.
Since 1894 each judge that has presided over jury trials has routinely violated the constitution. Concurrently, each defendant in each of those trials has had his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury violated. ....Violated by the judge presiding over the trial.
At issue in People v. Engelman, 02 C.D.O.S. 6411, was California Jury Instruction 17.41.1, which judges give before deliberations. It directs jurors to advise the court if they suspect someone is refusing to discuss the evidence or plans to disregard the law. California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
As shown earlier the jury cannot disregard the law for it is the law that is the primary key being judged.
"Unless jurors are informed of their solemn responsibility to report misconduct, I predict that many judgments will be reversed simply because the trial judge never had the opportunity to cure the problem." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other
That is trivial compared to the fact that virtually every judge presiding over jury trials routinely violates defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. Now there's a valid reason why many judgments will be reversed. Reversed simply because the judge violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury when he instructed the jury to favor the government over the defendant.
To be totally honest with you (and i know i may be setting myself up for quite some flak here) if things continue going the way they are ('protection' prgrams from the government that are inherently anti-American, economic and fiscal snafus, etc) the chances of President Bush being re-elected become slim.
And even though right now his ratings are still very favorable one should also remember that in the heat of the Gulf War prez. George Bush the senior also had enviable ratings, but still lost to Clinton!
Although this may seem anathema to many, there is a chance history may be repeated (i.e another bush losing to another clinton).
And if you notice the Liberals and the Media have already started attacking, and to be perfectly honest with you it seems (to me) that the White House is giving them all the ammunition they need. Whatever you may think of the liberals one thing is for certain .....they are very well versed in the fine art of spin and subtle insinuations. And when the White House starts pushing programs like TIPS, which seriously sounds to me like something Nazi Germany (or to a lesser extent the USSR during the 60s) would have advocated, questions start being asked .....even by conservatives.
A good example of this is yesterday i saw Pat Roberson criticize the Bush plan of TIPS. And this is a person who during the election had organized prayers for Bush to win!
And then there are the rampant corporate scandals ...some of which implicate Bush and Cheney! You and i both know that this is simply hyperbole angled against the conservatives, but to many of the populace they see the perpetual reports on and on and on, and soon they start to believe this. And when 'normal' people start losing money there is a greater likelihood that they will be sufficiently pissed off to allow their emotions to take over the logical mind, and thus they can more readily accept the ubiquitous broadcasts condemning the Republican party.
And such things are basically acting as attritive factors, and come election date the chickens may come home to roost for us Republicans.
Actually i was watching this other broadcast yesterday, and this person was basically criticizing the war against terrorism. Basically he was making light of the initiatives Bush has taken against terrorism, and that the terrorists have already done so much they do not need to do any other thing ever! For example UBL spent basically 20 grand (or more) in training his mules to attack us on 9-11. We have spent Billions (with a B), and furthermore it has cost the economy many Billions more. And the costs are rising. Moreover there have been fundamental changes in the American percepion of life, and maybe even in our way of life. People are seriously considering having what is tantamount to civilian spies policing their blocks.
The FBI is beginning to look like it as during Hoover's terms, and shades of the FBI's Counterintelligence Program (COINTELPRO) are starting to materialize. So is the spectre of the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)
And the New York Times reported that several FBI officials had tried to push for the scraping of the Fourth Amendment since it 'hampered' their efforts and encouraged lawsuits against them.
And then there are the reports of the actions of Adolf Hitler in 1933 when he was chancellor. He invoked article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to suspend certain civil rights in times of national emergency. He later created the SS agencies and the Strom Troopers.
Obviously we know Bush does not intend to follow the path of Hitler, but the media have come upon this and it is vital ammunition for them! And as the election day comes closer you can be assured that this (as well as other national and economical issues) will begin to gain prominence, and the interesting thing is that although the White House will be completely innocent they will have a hard time proving it (and remember the first maxim of public as well as legal opinion is this : it is not what you know but what you can prove).
And then there are the statements being used by Liberals to undermine Bush ....and the other funny thing is that they make sense if looked at froma shallow perspective. For example what Benjamin Franklin said: They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Or what Justice Louis Brandeis said: The greatest danger to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
Compare that statement with the following by AG John Ashcroft: To those that pit Americans against Immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens, my message to you is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to america's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent int he face of evil.
Both the statements say the same basic thing ....but obviously the media will print the former (and ignore the one from Ashcroft) and use it against Ashcroft and co.!
And this is why i say again unless something is done to rectify this trend come 2004 the same thing that happend to George bush the senior will happen to George Bush the son ......he will lose to a Clinton (in this case Hillary) or a Clinton clone (maybe Al 'mr internet' Gore). And the ammunition for this is coming straight from the White House.
And the next step may be for the media and liberals to state that what Bush is doing is (borrowing a term from IBME) turning the U.S.A into the U.S.S.A.
And this is why i say again unless something is done to rectify this trend come 2004 the same thing that happend to George bush the senior will happen to George Bush the son ......he will lose to a Clinton
"The government, having already manipulated the economy to almost no-end, President Bush can play the unbeatable five-ace hand of replacing the threat-of-force IRS and graduated income tax with a voluntary consumption tax -- if you don't want to pay the sales tax don't buy the item. For example, implement the proposed national retail sales tax (NRST). Not only would that boom the economy it would win votes for Bush and republicans in congress." Party of Principle' Gaining Ground
No flak or flames for you. You make a lot of sense. As for the whole idea of this TIPS program; if it is implemented and then abused, which seems altogether likely, then it could be flooded with bogus tips and rendered useless. Of course I'm not advocating that anyone break the law. Wink wink nudge nudge.
You need to see this, Punkin'. The USPS hasn't totally rejected TIPS yet. Call your union rep. and tell 'em you don't want people thinking you're a snitch.
If this is not proof that the R's and D's behind folks' names on election ballots matters nada, then nothing is.
They'll be parked just outside your local IGA in case your purchase triggers an alert on the Carnivore system.
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.