Lieberman urges Mfume for high court: In make-up speech recommends NAACP boss with no law degree

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, July 18, 2003

[JohnHuang2]

A few days after being declared "persona non grata" by the NAACP, Democratic presidential candidate Joe Lieberman suggested in a speech to the group that its leader, Kweisi Mfume, would make a good Supreme Court justice, the New Republic reported.

Mfume, however, has never been to law school.

Sen. Joe Lieberman

Lieberman had upset the civil-rights leader by skipping a candidate forum at its national convention Sunday, the magazine reported.

The Connecticut senator called Mfume the next day to apologize and agreed to come to Miami to speak to the convention Wednesday night.

After an apology to the group and a recounting of his civil rights bona fides, Lieberman, the Democrats' vice-presidential candidate in 2000, commended the NAACP for its work during the Florida recount.

"We didn't realize at the time, Al Gore and I, that we not only needed Kweisi Mfume fighting for justice here in Florida counting votes," Lieberman said, according to the New Republic. "We need him on the Supreme Court where the votes really counted. Maybe that'll happen some day."

According to the NAACP website, Mfume has earned a Masters degree in liberal arts, with an emphasis in international studies, from Johns Hopkins University.

Don't bother asking

At Sunday's event, Mfume said the four candidates who didn't show up now have no right to ask for black votes in the 2004 election, USA Today reported.

Four empty chairs were placed up front, representing Lieberman, Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and President Bush.

''We are interested in people who are interested in us,'' Mfume said, calling their failure to attend an affront to African-American voters and the 94-year-old National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

''This organization has dignity,'' he said, according to USA Today. ''We are not going to allow anybody, Democrat or Republican, to take it for granted.''

In a speech, the NAACP leader named each of the no-shows accompanied by a dramatic death-knell chord.

''You have now become persona non grata,'' he said. ''Your political capital is the equivalent of Confederate dollars.''

USA Today noted Bush is the first sitting Republican president to travel to Africa, and the three missing Democrats received 100 percent scores for their voting in the last Congress from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

[stand watie]

certainly does!

but then he's a DIMocRAT, so it's natural for him.

free dixie,sw

[connectthedots]

You didn't say low opinion of the legal system. You said low opinion of lawyers.

You are correct, and I would also say that the legal 'system' today is fine. The problem is the corrupt manner in which too many courts are controlled and operated by those who operate them in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sect. 1962(a),(b),(c),(d); the federal RICO statutes. That the courts in the state of Washington, including the state supreme court is operated in this manner cannot be disputed. The chief justice of the Washington Supreme Court, Gerry Alexander, as much as admitted this to me in a meeting I had with him in his chambers on August 12, 2002. This would be a defamatory statement, except for the fact that the truth is an absolute defense.

And do you think law school makes someone suspect, as opposed to being a lawyer? If so, what is the basis for the statement.

If you had ever tried to litigate an action as a pro se in court, you would know exactly what I mean. I have never encountered so much lying about facts, and blatant ignoring of the clear meaning and construction of words and the law than I have encountered with the courts as a non-lawyer. The courts simply ignore the facts and the law when dealing with pro ses and do whatever the hell they want to do.

What they fail to understand or accept is that not all pro se litigants are ignorant of the law; and I am one pro se who really knows the ropes of the law and court rules.

I don't think it should be a requirement that a person graduate from law school or go through a 'clerk program' in order to be a lawyer. I have no problem with a requirement that a person be required to pass an examination to establish that they meet a minimum level of legal knowledge such as a 'bar exam' and possibly even a requirement to work with an experienced lawyer for 2-3 years. Anything more than that is very possibly unconstitutional. That this has not been challenged in the courts by now is more an indication that those who are already members of 'the club' have no personal interest in opening the door to more competition.

[Just mythoughts]

So true, he could out do the clintons in their religious presentation, it would be the biggest revival of the modern era.

PASSING THE PLATE the grand finale.

[UnklGene]

You can't mean Frizzell "Pee-Wee" Gray?

[Liz]

Quitting the prez race isn't the end for Sen LIEberman.

Sen LIEberman is to be memorialized in the Chia Pet Hall of Fame.

[Liz]

It's called a$$-kissing, and Joe does it so well, doesn't he?

One can almost hear Kweisi's sighs of ectasy......"Oh, Joe, that feels so good." .............LOL........

[lugsoul]

Out of curiousity, what criminal enterprise are the courts conspiring to further?

[mafree]

.. none lived with him,

Not true- Crazy Mfume did rear some of his kids (all sons) at least part time.

[connectthedots]

Out of curiousity, what criminal enterprise are the courts conspiring to further?

The federal RICO statutes are a bit difficult to understand, even for many attorneys. Basically, there are four elements to RICO:

1. Operate, manage, control, or obtain control

2. An enterprise (a court is an enterprise)

3. Through a pattern (at least two within a ten year period of time, but two may not be enough)

4. Of racketeering activity (listed in 18 U.S.C sect. 1961).

There is also a requirement in some of the substantive RICO stautes that requires that the conduct of the enterprise affect interstate commerce, but it is only a deminimus standard. For example, a court's purchase of office equipment, office supplies or even law books from an out of state vendor meets the requirement of affecting interstate commerce. If two or more people conspire to violate the substantive RICO statutes, they are also guilty.

There is an additional requirement in order to maintain a civil RICO action, and that is there must be damages. 18 U.S.C. 1964 provides a civil remedy for people damaged by violations of Sect. 1962.

If judges or other public officials commit at least two acts of racketeering activity (a pattern) in an effort to maintain their control of their public office (the enterprise). Their salaries and benefits of their office is certainly enough to meet the requirement for them benefitting from their control of their offices through a pattern of racketeering activity.

Many people are under the mistaken impression that the RICO statutes were enacted to only go after what most people would consider organized crime such as the mafia and other similar criminal enterprises. The RICO statutes have no requirement that the 'enterprise' be criminal. When you stop to think about it, an inanimate object is incapable of committing a crime. In my case, a court cannot commit a crime, but the people who control them certainly can. An analogy would be does a gun commit a crime when used by someone to commit a murder? Of course not, the person qho operated the gun committed the murder. The gun is an inanimate object that was used for a criminal purpose.

I know you are an attorney, and I do not mean to imply that all attorneys are dishonest or corrupt, but when a citizen goes after judges and powerful political figures for their crimes, you cna certainly imagine that they all circle the wagons to do whatever they can to prevent any of them from being held accountable. Once one of them goes down, the rest will follow in short order.

Not many citizens have the knowledge, ability, will and desire to do what I and a few others are doing to expose the corruption in the State of Washington, but I am one of them; and it has been at a great cost financially and personally. Someone has to do it and there isn't a long line of people awaiting their opportunity.

[connectthedots]

Forgot to mention that only about 30% of all criminal RICO prosecutions are against what one would traditionally consider to be 'organized crime'. Most are against people who operate, manage or control what most would consider to be 'legitimate businesses'.

[Lurking Libertarian]

We have a winner. For bonus credit, what specificallyu does the Constitution say about the qualifications to be the Soliciter General of the United States?

Nothing. The Soliciter General is not mentioned in the Constitution.

[Rummyfan]

Attorney General?

Solicitor General?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Sorry; that should be "Solicitor general."

[votelife]

this is pandering to a new height. Can you imagine if Bush promised the leader of the Christian Coalition a spot on the Supreme Court? Or the head of the NRA? The media would go absolutely crazy!

This works two ways though. This won't get out and Lieberman will get zero coverage.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Connectthedots is involved in a long-running fight with the courts in Washington State. As I recall it-- and I'm asking him to correct me if I'm wrong--he represented himself in a suit against a business partner and lost, and since then has been suing all of the judges who ruled against him.

[connectthedots]

There is a difference in not having a judge rule in your favor and having your rights to substantive and procedural due process criminally violated. Judgment corruptly entered, (and for your information, even the judge in the original action cannot point to a document that is a final judgment) are not valid and void ab initio. Why would so many other public officials be obstructing justice if my allegations had no merit? Why would the state appellate courts refuse to give me a hearing on a petition for a writ on mandamus if my claims were not valid and conclusive? Wouldn't it be easy enough to simply give me the hearing to which I am entitled to as a matter of law if I was wrong on either the facts or the law?

A reasonable person would have to conclude that something is amiss, wouldn't they? Do you dare to presume that there are no corrupt and dishonest judges? What kind of libertarian are you. if you believe all judges are honest?

[Lurking Libertarian]

A reasonable person would have to conclude that something is amiss, wouldn't they?

I know nothing about your case except what you posted some time ago, which I don't remeber that well, so I have no opinion on the subject either way.

Do you dare to presume that there are no corrupt and dishonest judges?

No; where did I say that?

What kind of libertarian are you. if you believe all judges are honest?

I made no statement either way as to the validity of your claims; what are you getting so excited about?

[novacation]

Right on Joe! A race baiting, white hating, Jew hating, work hating black would really protect the constitution!The world has gone mad, well, at least the democrats have.

[lugsoul]

So where does the concept of a predicate offense come from?