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.

[connectthedots]

Maybe I misconstrued your comment regarding the initiating incident that led me to eventually discover the corruption in the Washington courts. If that is the case, I apologize.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I do not remeber the details of your case, only that it had all started with a dispute with your partner and that you were alleging corruption on the part of the judges who ruled against you.

[connectthedots]

The predicate offenses are those racketeering activities as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1961. IOW predicate offense = racketeering activity. The only real distiction is that there must be at least two predicate offenses for it to be considered racketeering; and the two predicate offenses must be related and affect the same victim(s).

Your question is a fair one and is illustrative of how difficult it is to understand the concepts involved in RICO. Once people understand that RICO statutes do not apply just to what is traditionally considered to be 'organized crime', it is much easier grasp the concepts.

[Godebert]

Nice liberal puff piece.

[skinkinthegrass]

"Come on down to my Hyphenate Pander Party. We got corned beef burritos, pastrami Egg Fu Yung, grits in Marinara sauce, vintage Manishevitz, and oregano bagels stuffed with teriyaki-glazed ham, chitlins and chili peppers."

...you forgot the southern fried ginger Chicken and the sesame-seeded Poke salad...Hmmmm :)

[connectthedots]

If you want to read a couple of cases involving Judges and RICO you ought to read Frega v. U.S. and Maloney v. U.S.. The Maloney case was a result of the 'Operation Greylord' investigation of corruption in the Chicago state courts.

I've got much better and far, far more evidence that existed in the Maloney case. My biggest problem has been getting the FBI and U.S. Attorney to do their jobs.

[lugsoul]

Okay, let me back up, then. What do you contend is the "racketeering activity?" I'm not talking about organized crime. I'm talking about crime, period. What crime do you allege is being committed in this conspiracy?

[lugsoul]

Okay, those cases involved judges taking bribes. Do you contend your judge was bribed to receive favorable rulings? And the appellate court? If so, do you have any evidence of this other than a ruling you perceive to be non-sensical?

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying that I hear a lot of people call judges "corrupt" because they don't like the way the judge ruled. Wrong is not corrupt. Stupid is not criminal. That's why I ask.

[connectthedots]

Numerous counts of mail fraud, obstruction of justice, and other RICO predicates. Keep in mind that mail fraud is fairly simple to prove and obstruction of justice has only two elemants; a pending matter in a legal action and an attempt to interfer with the due administration of justice. These are two very staight-forward RICO predicates to prove, especially in my case. I have the letters and mailings to proof mail fraud and the obstruction of justice evidence is actually contined in the court records of cases I initiated; in part as an inexpensive discovery tool.

[connectthedots]

The Maloney case was actually more about obstruction of justice which also involved the acceptance of bribes. Why bribe a judge unless you expected him to obstruct justice in some manner.

In the Frega case, the primary predicates charged were mail fraud. The feds often use mail fraud because it is very simple to explain to juries. Mail fraud is simply a scheme and artifice to defraud someone of their rights and property and the use of the mail in an effort to further the objective of the conspiracy. When a judge corruptly uses his position, he must necessarily deny the intrinsic right of a person or the government's right to the honest performance of his duties (18 U.S.C. 1346).

[lugsoul]

Okay, this is more difficult than it should be. My question is simple. What do you contend the judge(s) did wrong, other than rule against you? Did they take money or favors? Did they rule favorably for someone they know? Did they rule in a certain way in order to gain advantage for themselves? Without regard to what charge you think applies, what do you say they did wrong?

[connectthedots]

If so, do you have any evidence of this other than a ruling you perceive to be non-sensical?

I agree that stupid or being wrong is not necessarily criminal. But when judges intentionally refuse to even grant clearly required procedures and communicate with each other in an effort to obstruct justice, that is criminal. If these judges were simply wrong, why commit all these other crimes. Why not just give me a hearing and issue a written opinion as required by law. Even if the supereme court's decision. The reality is that the law and facts are so clear and irrefutable that they chose to simply do nothing in the hopes that I would eventually go away as so many others must have done in the past.

How about an admission by the trial court judge that he could not produce any court document that could be construed as a final judgment in the trial court on any of the issues? I've got the video tape of this. How about the judge who refused to entered a default judgment to which I was entitled to as a matter of law because he "didn't feel comfortable" and then contacted the county who was the dendant in that case to inform them what I had done. When I filed a petition for a writ of mandamus because the judge refused to perform a duty imposed upon him by law, the judge recused himself from the case.

Dispite the fact that the state supreme court is required by the Washington Constitution and Washington Statutes to conduct a heraring and issue a written decision on petitions for writs against state officers (superior court judges are state officers) refused to conduct a hearing or issue a written decision because had they done so, they would have had to rule in may favor. That would have opened the flood-gates exposing the depth and breadth of the corruption in government in the state of Washington. When I met with the CJ of the state Suprem Court on August 12, 2002, he did not deny a single one of these allegations, nor many other facts and allegations. I would think that should be more than sufficient, and that is just a small part of the evidence that I have. It's all in various court records and video tapes of court proceedings.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I am saying that I hear a lot of people call judges "corrupt" because they don't like the way the judge ruled. Wrong is not corrupt. Stupid is not criminal. That's why I ask.

I agree that wrong is not corrupt, but it certainly could be. Stupid is not criminal but some judges are so stupid, it ought to be. If you spend much time in court, you should see the humor in this comment.

[lugsoul]

Okay, just so I understand. Your trial judge failed to do something or another, and there is no final in the file. This judge and perhaps other judges have ruled in ways that you find contrary to the law, or without appropriate process. But you do not have evidence that any of these actions were done for money or favor or advantage, right? And the "corruption" you describe involves not conducting the proceedings in the way you contend they should have been conducted?

[lugsoul]

Follow-up - I'm not trying to challenge what you claim, only to understand it.

BTW, you really should check out the lead I gave you on the Kobe thread. It is funny stuff. Most of the issues are evidentiary issues - ordinarily pretty dry - but these were mostly evidentiary issues on various ways the defendant tried to prove his, um, hugeness to the jury.

[connectthedots]

Okay, this is more difficult than it should be. My question is simple. What do you contend the judge(s) did wrong, other than rule against you?

Read my previous post. In another related case, I caught a judge committing perjury during a hearing, forced the sheriff to investigate and the sheriff's report pretty much stated that the judge did commit perjury and referred the case to the county prosecutor for prosecution. Even though the judge's name was all over the report, the prosecutor's computerized records indicate that the suspect was "First Name: NONE, Last Name: NONE". I think this is clear evidence of obstruction of justice. The attorney for the other party in that case even admitted to the sheriff that the judge committed perjury. This was part of my RICO action as well. There have been numerous other instances such as this as well. The prosecutor refused to prosecute because if he did so, his participation in the RICO conspiracy would have been exposed. This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Did they take money or favors? Did they rule favorably for someone they know? Did they rule in a certain way in order to gain advantage for themselves? Without regard to what charge you think applies, what do you say they did wrong?

I am not required to prove a judge received a bribe. That I was deprived of my property in violation of 18 USC 1257 is enough. It is also reasonable to infer that a judge would not obstruct justice and commit other crimes if there was not something in it for him/themselves.

[connectthedots]

Follow-up - I'm not trying to challenge what you claim, only to understand it.

I agreee that you are simply trying to understand. If I didn't, I would have stopped responding before now.

I'd like to read the info on the Kobe thread. Where can I find it. Use freepmail if you want.

[lugsoul]

Try this address - it was the quickest one I found:

http://www.constitution.de/state_wright.htm

This is a real case. I first saw it in the reporter, well before the internet was in common use.

[Pharmboy]

This phony "Orthodox" Jew gets crappier by the minute...

[connectthedots]

If that was all I had, I would not have a case. I have much much more. When the CJ of the state supreme court admits, during in in-person meeting with me in his chambers, that I was entitled to a hearing in the state supreme court on my petition for a writ of mandamus, admits that he authored an appellate court opinion that clearly established that I was entitled to a default judgment in the amount of $1.2 million dollars, that there was no legal authority for appellate court commissioner who illegally exercise judicial authority in case the supreme court wants to send to a black hole because if they actually heard the case as required by the constitution, it would expose the vastness of the judicial corruption in the state, I think it is far, far more than just 'error'.

Why the CJ of the state supreme court agreed to meet with me would take more time to explain that I have right now, but I think you would agree that it would be highly unusual for the top judicial officer in a state to meet with private citizen concerning a legal matter that the state supreme court should have conducted a hearing on but has refused to do so.

[ridesthemiles]

Another thread says Mfume has 6 children by 6 different women, none of which he has ever been married to. Anyone know for sure? If so, isn't this a wonderful example for the younger members of American society, especially the ones with African ancestry? If I had eaten today, I would vomit. What is the matter with Lieberman? This is presidential candidate material? I wouldn't vote for either of these jerks to run the local animal control department.