Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: goldilucky
"I witnessed James getting off free from a federal court hearing in downtown L.A. federal court earlier this year regarding his illigal political contributions to the Clintons."

Here's a sincere question fer the LegalBeagles out there..."What is to prevent a Locality or a State from bringing charges against these LOWLIFE TRAITORS that the Federal Justice System seems soooo inept at nailing to the wall fer their Anti-American Crimes?!"

To my knowledge, there is nothing that gives the Feds Supreme--and Sole--Jurisdiction over these crimes that can be traced to specific localities!!

FReegards...MUD

41 posted on 11/09/2001 6:55:22 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: Mudboy Slim
"Here's a sincere question fer the LegalBeagles out there..."What is to prevent a Locality or a State from bringing charges against these LOWLIFE TRAITORS that the Federal Justice System seems soooo inept at nailing to the wall fer their Anti-American Crimes?!""

A state could bring charges against these lowlifes if there is a state statute violation. Then it belongs in state court. But since this has federal criminal elements under the federal campaign commission, it is proper to bring this in the federal tribunals. The only reason why the federal justice system seems so inept at nailing these lowlifes for their criminal activity is simply because the law clerks assigned the case to a Clinton judge. It is my suspicion that this law clerk or deputy clerk was "placed" in charge to disperse of such a case resulting in it being "killed" by a Clinton source. This is called "spiking a case". In cases like this, law clerks and deputy clerks may be recused if it is discovered and proven of such criminal acts.

"To my knowledge, there is nothing that gives the Feds Supreme--and Sole--Jurisdiction over these crimes that can be traced to specific localities!!"

True because the Supreme Court of the U.S. has original jurisdiction pertaining to the constitutionality of issues. Depending on if the decision of the federal court's is final or interlocutory (temportary). However, it depends on the case whether it is one of case or controversy. Of "case" means that constitional issues apply whereas, "controversy" applies to federal statutory laws. Where the federal court may have certain powers and restraints on deciding a case, the Supreme Court holds discretion on whether to hear a matter of "public interest" and that of a private dispute. Also the issue of "standing" of the plaintiff (U.S.) depends on the nature of the injury. Whether the injury is one of a diffuse nature (alleged harm) or one of cognizable nature(injury in fact) is another consideration.

45 posted on 11/09/2001 7:44:06 PM PST by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson