Docstoc

Review of Founders' words is sound

Document Sample
Review of Founders' words is sound Powered By Docstoc
					                       Chapter 5 – The Imperial Judiciary

                                                                     Page
Poem: I Have to Live With Myself                                      66

Article: The Imperial Judiciary                                      67

Article: Public Denied Hearing at Public Hearing                     69

The Empirical Judiciary – To Commission on Structural Alternatives   70

News Article: Judgement of Clinton Nominee is Questionable           76

News Article: Elitists Win One                                       77

News Article: Attorneys Will Split $3.4 Billion Tobacco-Case Fee     78




                                           65
    I Have to Live with Myself
     I have to live with myself and so,
    I want to be fit for myself to know.
    I want to be able as the days go by,
Always to look myself straight in the eye.
I don’t want to stand with the setting sun,
And hate myself for the things I’ve done.
     I can never hide myself from me,
      I see what others may never see.
   I know what others may never know,
      I can never fool myself and so...
      Whatever happens I want to be,
    Self-respecting and conscience free!
                                       Author unknown




                    66
                             The Imperial Judiciary
    Most pro-family initiatives in 1997 will go               state political office. A judge appointed by
forth in Congress, but family advocates are                   President Clinton argued that the statute violates
becoming more savvy about how judicial                        First Amendment rights of those wishing to hold
activism undercuts the process of self-                       public office who want to legalize drug use. In
government. The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming                 effect, the decision establishes a constitutional
docket illustrates how courts are being utilized by           right for a potential state official not to be tested
anti-family forces to reshape the culture. Justices           for illegal drug use.
will hear two "right to kill" cases from the U. S.                n addition, a case reviewed by the Supreme
Court of Appeals for the 9th and 2nd Circuits.                Court in October 1996 could drastically alter the
Both cases are examples of how a culture of death             traditional notion that public streets are forums
is encroaching upon society, first with the unborn            for free speech activities. The central issue in
and now with the elderly and infirm                           Schenck vs. Pro-Choice Network is the
    .One case from Washington state provides a                constitutionality of "sidewalk counseling" and
perfect illustration of how judges second-guess               other speech, including prayer, near abortion
what citizens want. An initiative placed on the               clinics. Should pro-family citizens care about
state ballot by Washington residents was                      such judicial actions? Can they do anything about
approved by the electorate. The vote established a            them? "Yes," says Keith Fournier, executive
ban on physician-assisted suicides. But through a             director of the American Center for Law and
series of court appeals, the ban was struck down              Justice. "Anti-family forces have established a
by the 9th Circuit and now has made its way to                pattern. If they don't like the results of elections,
the Supreme Court.                                            they turn to the courts for help with their social
    "Think of it! An initiative by the people is the          engineering. And liberal judges will find in their
most direct form of government we have," said                 favor. The judicial branch has assumed for itself a
Tom Jipping, director of the Free Congress                    power way beyond what the framers of the
Foundation's Judicial Selection Monitoring                    Constitution intended."
Project. "The voters made their wishes known by                   The next four years will be key ones in the
a majority. Yet a court has the power to thwart               battle for the judiciary. According to information
the will of the people."                                      gathered for the Judicial Selection Monitor, a
    In the other "right to kill" case, the 2nd Circuit        monthly publication of Free Congress
ruled that two New York state statutes are "one               Foundation's Judicial Selection Monitoring
and the same" and, therefore, subject to further              Project, of the 837 federal judges, 202 are Clinton
interpretation by a higher court on the legal                 appointees.
principle known as "equal protection under the                    Court-watchers estimate that Clinton will fill
law." One statute allows dying patients to refuse             three or four Supreme Court vacancies during his
invasive and extraordinary treatment, and the                 second term. "Clinton says he will be going for
other bans physician-assisted suicide. The                    his place in history, and what could be a more
decision was bumped up to the Supreme Court.                  telling legacy than whom he nominates as
    Explains Mike Pendleton of the Free Congress              justices?" says Marty Dannenfelser of Family
Foundation: "Terminology such as 'allows' and                 Research Council.
'bans' should make it obvious that they are not the               Should pro-family Americans worry about his
same. But what we're seeing is that judicial                  choices? Consider the following examples from
activists are becoming so brazen they're even                 Clinton's appointees so far:
amending state constitutions." Also, the Supreme                  U.S. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader
Court accepted for review from the 11th Circuit a             Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted against
case addressing the constitutionality of a Georgia            limiting porn on cable TV, against single-sex
statute requiring drug testing of candidates for              education, to block a ban on quotas for
                                                         67
homosexuals, to allow race preferences in                search warrant for illegal videotapes did not
government contracting, to block term limits, and        specifically mention the other forms of illegal
to empower the federal government to regulate            child pornography that were found.
every aspect of social and economic life. Justice           Judge Pierre Leval (2nd Circuit) voted to
Ginsburg is former general counsel for the               reduce the sentences of LSD traffickers.
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).                      Judges Rosemary Barkett and Claudia Wilken
   Judges Judith Rogers and David Tatel (D.C.            (11th Circuit) voted to allow lawsuits against
Circuit) voted against limiting porn on broadcast        school districts when one student harasses
TV.                                                      another.
   Judges Blane Michael and Diana Motz (4th                 These examples, say family advocates, point to
Circuit) voted against excluding gays from the           the need for vigilance as Clinton makes more
military.                                                appointments during his next term.
   Judge Carlos Lucero (10th Circuit) voted to              "A liberal activist judge will work his way
declare as unconstitutional a city seal that             back to the conclusion he wants through his
included a cross.                                        decision-making process, whereas a restrained
   Judge Theodore McKee (3rd Circuit) voted to           judge will base his interpretation on the
ban student-led graduation prayers.                      Constitution itself, whether or not he personally
   Judge Martha Daughtrey (6th Circuit) voted to         agrees with the law," added Pendleton.
throw out child pornography evidence because a




                                                    68
       PUBLIC DENIED HEARING AT PUBLIC HEARING
Appellate Judge stops invited member of the public from speaking to the Commission on the Structural
Alternative for the U.S. Courts of Appeal Chicago "Public Hearing".

Marshals secure the room and bar the public's re-entry. Visibly shaken judges make hasty exit to
"security area". Justin Garriott, reporting.

On April 3, 1998, at a "public hearing" in Chicago, a panel of appellate judges meeting with the public
about ways to improve the Appellate Courts heard more than it was ready or willing to hear. After
reminding the panel of Senator Joseph Biden's remark in 1990 that "the courtroom doors are closed to
the American public", Chicago pro se Peter Jon Simpson told the judges that those doors "…are now
permanently welded shut". In a often scathing report which he was invited to deliver, Simpson
attempted to relate several cases of blatant intellectual dishonesty, judicial misconduct, perjury, and
obstruction of justice that, named numerous federal judges in several districts currently on the bench.
Simpson's message was so unsettling and unwelcome that the judges were visibly unnerved and Judge
Gilbert Merritt ultimately cut Mr. Simpson off, "recessing" a public hearing then barely two hours old.

Apparently the message frightened them as well. One minute into Simpson's remarks, a federal
marshal left the room, returning with five more. The marshals moved closer to Simpson when he asked
Judge Merritt why he couldn't extend his remarks, when licensed attorneys were allowed to extend
theirs. Judge Merritt and his associates, Judge Rymer, U. Virginia law professor Daniel Meador and a
staff member exited quickly after denying this member of "the public" a hearing at this allegedly
"public hearing". While in recess, the marshals told Simpson, his family and this reporter to "take it out
into the hall". When all immediately complied with that order, the Marshals stood in front of the doors,
preventing re-entry.

Judge Merritt promised the full text of Mr. Simpson's remarks would be posted on the Commissions
web site. Said Mr. Simpson later, "It will probably be an air-conditioned day in Hell before that
happens". "We the people" shall soon see, even though "We the people" cannot be heard.

Explicitly reserving all my rights, I bid you YHVH'S Blessings & Godspeed!!
P. J. Simpson




                                                   69
     To the Commission on the Structural Alternatives for the Courts of Appeal
Speech By:     Peter Jon Simpson – Staff Coordinator, Erwin Rommell School of Law
               At Chicago April 3, 1998

I am Peter Jon Simpson, an American with firsthand knowledge of the Federal Judiciary. Thank you
for your invitation. Restructuring the Appellate Courts involves three questions:

   1) What does a non-lawyer litigant in America have to do to get his case read by a judge who
      understands the law and a Constitutional question before him?
   2) What does a non-lawyer litigant in America have to do to get his Appeal placed before a panel of
      judges who will
         a) read it and who
         b) understands the law and the Constitutional question before them?
   3) What do Americans have to do to experience good, old-fashioned legal reform?

History notes in 1066 William The Conqueror landed in England, burned his ships behind him and lost
half his army in the 1st battle he fought. He conquered England anyway. Why? Because as the
retreating English King sent for the people to come to the defense of the King & the Fatherland, the
people refused his call.

Why? They ignored the invasion of their own country because the corrupt federal judges of their day
had reduced them to slaves on the land. There were two set of rules, one for the King's cronies, another
for the people. The people, facing a legal system that worked solely for the benefit of the privileged
elite, stood by as the invaders marched.

Do you know why many today would not lift a finger if an enemy came to these shores and threatened
you members of this panel, your cronies, and the silk-stocking lawyers and judges that surround me in
this room? Do you know why many would pray for the success of the invaders? Do you know why
many disenfranchised Americans would actually help the invaders, hoping for a better deal from our
enemy than the deal they've received from the corrupt and reprehensible reprobates who parade as
federal judges today?

In the legislative history of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, Senator Joseph Biden remarked "...
the courthouse door is closed to the American people". Believe me, it is now permanently welded shut.
I am the living embodiment of that. Can any of you explain why today, non-lawyers like me who study
and raise constitutional questions in Federal courts, are laughed at, ignored or worse?

Kilgore wrote in Judicial Tyranny, "Tyranny cannot come to America until judges become
intellectually dishonest". In 1991 my daughter was removed from my home at gunpoint, without any
court process whatsoever as required by state law. She was then assaulted and sexually molested by
government bureaucrats and their agents.

Ignoring a direct warning of the United States Supreme Court, I foolishly appealed to justice, filing a
Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit. It was summarily dismissed after 58 docket entries in 60 days. I have
waited over 7 years for my constitutionally guaranteed "day in court". I am still waiting.

Mr. Justice White, can you explain to me how I get my $120 filing fee back. I paid for trial by

                                                  70
impartial jury, not summary dismissal.

I drew Federal Judge Scott O Wright, known in Missouri as "Judge Scott All Wrong", the District's
Chief Judge. He has risen to his level of incompetence. Scott All Wrong is as intellectually dishonest
as the worst of despots.

Can any of you learned judges explain to me why Judge Wrong has done absolutely everything in his
power to keep me from bringing those who molested my daughter to trial?

Can any of you learned judges explain to me why the Federal Prosecutors laughed in my face when I
asked for a grand jury investigation of the crimes visited on my then innocent three year old daughter?

Please, save your suggestions about hiring a lawyer for someone who knows less than I do about our
"caste-system legal system".

Can any of you learned judges explain to me why no lawyer-- not one-- dared lift a finger to help me?
They all told my father as he waived his checkbook at them, "we wouldn't touch this case with a 10
foot pole".

Mr. Justice White, can you explain to me how I can get my daughter's innocence back? Can you please
tell me how I can stop the nightmares from waking her, how I can make her not flinch whenever she
sees a cop?

My first go at the 8th Circus Court of Appeals won a summary reversal. Since then, the 8th Circus
judges have gone out of their way to deny me relief unless & until I surrender my daughter to the very
bureaucrats who assaulted & molested her. Can any of you learned judges explain this to me?

This panel has already learned live & firsthand that in the 11th Circus no pro se petition ever reaches a
judge's desk. Those opinions are decided and written by clerks or staff lawyers. From my experience,
the same is true in every Appellate Circuit. Can any of you learned judges explain to me why? Is this
what we the people pay federal judges $100,000+ per annum, plus perks to do? Is this what passes for
"intellectual honesty" in the Federal Appellate Courts these days? Can any of you learned judges
explain any of this to me?

An eyewitness to this commission's Atlanta March 23rd meeting wrote me: "Peggy did a fine job
during the Commission Hearing. I sat in the back and observed Senior Judge Hatchett who sat in the
back mid section. He started freaking out, looking back at the U.S. Marshall, not once or twice but
many times. When Peggy mentioned the thousands of 372 Complaints, he got up and called in extra
U.S. Marshals. I JOKE NOT. By the time the Marshals arrived, the hearing was adjourned."

Can any of you learned judges explain to me why this distinguished panel does not possess the
integrity to place a true and exact copy of Peggy Dadic's complete remarks from that hearing on its
web-site? Will my remarks appear?

Is this panel aware of the revelations surrounding 7 U.S. Supreme Court receiving expensive trips &
cash honoraria from West Publishing Co. while West litigated in actions before that Supreme Court? I
have seen nothing from N Lee Cooper, Esq. or his private country-club American Bar Association
about such conduct, conduct that would make the most depraved South American Dictator blush. Can
any of you learned judges explain why? Is Mr. Cooper too busy?
                                                   71
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the American Spectator magazine had the integrity at the time to
publish the facts. Did Mr. Cooper miss those reports because they're hard to read through the cigar-
smoke in the back rooms where most cases are decided and "the fix" is arranged?

Do you members of this Commission know what regular Americans, especially non-lawyer litigants,
face in these federal courts every day?

The 8th Circus Chief Judge is Richard Arnold. He sits on that alongside his brother Morris Arnold, in
willful & premeditated violation of the very law they both swore to uphold, the Anti-Nepotism Statute
at 28 U.S.C §458.

The 8th Circus lies to Congress, falsifying the number of Complaints filed and responds that this is a
problem for the legislature. Is it not true that it wouldn't matter anyway, as today's Federal Judiciary
simply ignores the Congress with impunity and writes law on its own?

In our "caste-system legal system", like England's in 1066, there are two sets of rules today: one for me
and my family and regular Americans, and another set of rules for the privileged elite like Richard and
Morris Arnold and the lawyers & judges crowded into this hearing this morning. Can any of you
explain to me how & why our magnificent system of constitutional government has degenerated into
the nightmare I've been living for over 7 years? Can any of you tell me the last time a federal judge
was impeached for trampling the rights of an American?

Let me repeat this for emphasis and clarity-- Richard & Morris Arnold sit in willful, premeditated
violation of the very law they swore an oath to uphold. Of course, regular folks like me know that the
745 Federal Judges in America can't be bothered with petty annoyances like having to obey statutes
passed by Congress. Those are for peasants like me and my family and millions of other Americans,
not our "modern Mandarin" ruling elite like the Arnolds and their privileged friends.

Do you really wonder why lawyers and judges are held in such contempt and derision today? Do you
really ponder why respect for the law & the judges who are to impartially administer the law has
vanished with nary a trace? May I brazenly suggest to you that you might consider waking up &
smelling the coffee?

If you recall, the violation of the judge's oath of office is grounds for impeachment. Henry Hyde &
Orrin Hatch have been told by hundreds & hundreds of Americans of the situation regarding the
Arnold Brothers in St. Louis at the 8th Circus. Hatch & Hyde just laugh in our faces or worse, they
simply ignore us. They're obviously just too busy to be concerned with the affairs of peasants. Can any
of you tell me why this is?

Now I want you to understand that I believe Richard Arnold & his brother Morris belong on the bench.
They belong on the bench awaiting their turn to use the telephone in the Maximum Security Wing of
the Federal Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois, where they ought to be for suborning perjury, fraud and
obstruction of justice. You see, after 23 hours in lock-down, you only get one hour out to use the
telephone and you have to wait on the bench for your turn...

Of course, we all know, even if the Arnold Brothers' fraud is exposed and they are removed, they'll
keep their fat pensions & their freedoms, remaining members in good standing of the American Bar
Association. Can anyone tell me why? Do you think per chance Mr. Cooper will explain to us how the
                                                   72
corrupt do always seem to find a way of protecting their own?

In the last year, the number of 28 U.S.C. §372(c)(1) Complaints For Judicial Misconduct against the
egregious conduct I and countless other Americans have experienced in the Federal District &
Appellate Courts has skyrocketed. Corrupt judges dismiss all 372 complaints, lie to Congress about the
number filed and Henry Hyde & Orrin Hatch are too busy playing footsie with the Judiciary to care a
whit about those they pretend to serve. Can any of you explain this to me?

Do they refuse to protect the rights of Americans so they wont risk annoying the Federal Judiciary?

We the people create jokes when we are powerless to rectify situations like you have willfully
perpetrated upon us. Do you know what they call a lawyer with an IQ of 61? - Federal Judge. Do you
know what you call a lawyer with an IQ of 41? - Federal Appellate Court Judge.

The Federal Judges' oath of office at 28 U.S.C. § 453(a) comes to us from ancient precedents. It is
found in the Sacred Texts @ DEUTERONOMY 1: 16-17 and LEVITICUS 19: 15. In 1983, Congress
codified our national need to study & apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures in our everyday life.
Today, in the hands of judges the likes of Wrong & the Arnold Brothers the Judicial Oath is a cruel
joke made on the very people whose taxes pay the six figure salaries of these politically connected
ambulance-chasers. Can any of you justify this to me and my
family?

Here in the 7th Circus the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, written by lawyers who litigate in this
circuit describes the 7th by saying "[I]f there's bad law to be made, they will make it, in terms of being
pro-government in criminal cases and pro big-business, or status quo in civil cases". Where in our
Constitution does the judiciary obtain its power to make law?

Will Judge Posner explain to all of us why a non-lawyer litigant in the 7th Circuit was sanctioned over
$2,000 for raising a constitutional question which the District Court & the 7th refused to address? Mr.
Justice White, you may read it for yourself. Allegedly, Judge Posner wrote that decision, although the
evidence already before this commission suggests that is a bald-faced lie.

Reversing a criminal conviction on Constitutional Law grounds is an exercise in futility for even the
most learned & skilled litigator, as the entire 7th Circus panel suffers from 1st degree cognitive
dissonance. Can any of you explain to me why 7th Circus judges, like most Federal Judges, either can't
read plain English or, if they can read, they don't understand plain English?

Can anyone here explain to me why the 7th, in Briscoe v LaHue, decided that cops intentionally lying
under oath are exempt from suit for perjury? Can anyone here explain to me why the Supremes in
Briscoe upheld this intentional rewriting of the statutes passed by Congress?

At least one Federal Judge in America has the stones and conscience to agree with me. Read Judge
Fong's opinion in Re Grand Jury Proceedings, 707 F.Supp, 1207, 1215-16 (D. Hawaii 1989).

The Supreme Court, before it went on West Publishing Co.'s gravy train, noted similar abuses in the
courts below. Here's their warning that I ignored.

"Sheriffs having eyes to see, see not; judges having ears to hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the truth
or falsify it... all the apparatus and of civil government away as if government and justice were crimes
                                                   73
and feared detection. Among the most dangerous things an injured can do is to appeal to justice."
Mitchum v Foster, 92 S.Ct. 2151, 2161 (1972)

I know firsthand those dangers. And while the lawyers in this room snicker and the judges on this
panel stare off into space, the destruction of our republic by an out-of-control Federal Judiciary, "the
Imperial Judiciary" as Jefferson called it, continues apace.

Jefferson's 200 year old warnings ring true today, as the last pro se litigant raped by some ignorant
Appellate Panel in this building will explain. There is nothing new under the sun....

Kilgore wrote in Judicial Tyranny, "Tyranny cannot come to America until judges become
intellectually dishonest". Honored members of this commission, tyranny is here!!

In closing, I ask you a favor. I'd like you to get us one day before both the Senate & House Judiciary
Committees. Just Americans injured by this system. No lawyers. This nation is filled with non-lawyer
litigants whose rights are trampled daily by corrupt, intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt
judges. We'd like to give Congress one more opportunity to serve we the people, before America
plunges headlong into the anarchy and civil war which always result when corruption replaces justice.

Our "caste-system legal system" only serves to enrich you who operate it. If a citizen, especially a pro
se litigant, is treated fairly & justice is served, the system broke down & something went terribly,
terribly wrong. I have fought for my rights for over 7 years. I'm not making generalizations, I speak
from hard experience. I now realize I have no rights.

Can you explain to me why the Constitution, in the hands of corrupt jurists like Scott All Wrong, the
Arnold Brothers and most all other Federal Judges, is merely a list of suggestions, to be considered at
the whim and caprice of judges?

If I had a bar ticket; if I belonged to the correct Masonic Lodge, my problem would have been fixed
just hours after its inception. Can any of you learned members of this panel explain this to me?

Please permit me to leave you with a quote from Samuel Adams to say a short prayer for you all.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of
freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor your arms. Crouch down and lick
the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were
our countrymen."

And I leave this imprecatory prayer for you:

YHVH, God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, God of my forefathers and Creator of the Universe, strike
down each and every member of this commission should they shirk their responsibilities to clean up
the whorehouse nightmare into which our corrupt legal system has degenerated. If they refuse to heed
Psalm 20 & Psalm 58, sweep them from out of this land, they and all their families with them. Show
them the exact same mercies that their corrupt cronies show American litigants across this land every
day. Remove the memory of them from among us but leave us the memory of their crimes. Let their
accursed respect of persons in judgment which they have allowed and aided to creep over America like
the stench of death be lifted and cast off into the outer darkness after them. And let YOUR judgment &
dealing with them in this life stand as a reminder to the jurists who follow them of the penalty YOU
                                                   74
will mete should they also be deluded into violating YOUR STATUTES and our unalienable rights. To
those on this panel whose hands are clean, show them YOUR mercy & loving kindness. To those
whose corrupt deeds of omission and commission and extra judicial oaths are worked in secret, let
their astonished eyes watch as YOU mete out justice that is swift & retribution that is final.

May the choice this commission makes this day honor YHVH and honor each and every one of you.

Now that I have asked all these questions of you, I'll be pleased to answer your questions of me.

            [As my full statement was not permitted, the honored judges had no questions.]




                                                   75
             Judgment of Clinton nominee is questionable
                   Mona Charen – Creators syndicate. Times Union 3/17/98

    In his State of the Union address last                    But, as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, noted in
January, President Clinton called upon the                his floor statement about the nomination, her
Senate to "vote on the highly qualified nominees          sentences were, in fact, reversed in at least two
before you –up or down."                                  cases, Commonwealth vs. Easterling and
                                                          Commonwealth vs. Williams.
      Here is one example of a judge the president
considers to be "highly qualified." Frederica                  In the Easterling case, the defendant pled
Massiah-Jackson is a judge in the Court of                guilty to burglary and criminal conspiracy.
Common Pleas in Philadelphia. The president               Despite nine prior adult property convictions and
has nominated her to serve as federal judge (a            two burglary convictions, Easterling was
lifetime appointment) for the Eastern district of         sentenced to only 11 to 23 months in prison
Pennsylvania.                                             (three years less than the standard guidelines).
     The streets of Philadelphia are a good deal               In the Williams case, the defendant pleaded
more dangerous than they would otherwise be,              guilty to robbery and possession of an instrument
thanks to the tenure of Massiah-Jackson. Hers is          of a crime. He had snatched a woman's purse and
a record of lenient sentencing, lack of judicial          deeply slashed her with a razor blade. Williams,
temperament, bias against law enforcement and             too, had a prior criminal record, yet Massiah-
anti-white racism. Her nomination is opposed by           Jackson sentenced him to only 11 to 23 months
the attorney general of Pennsylvania, the                 and instantly paroled him.
Philadelphia and National Fraternal Order of                   Between 1988 and 1989, the judge presided
Police, the National Association of Police                over 66 bench trials of defendants accused of
Organizations and the Pennsylvania District               aggravated assault. In 14 cases, the judge found
Attorneys Association. In one notorious incident,
                                                          the defendants not guilty of the most serious
denied by Massiah-Jackson until a transcript was          charge. In 37 cases, she found the defendants
produced, the judge told defendants at a trial to         not guilty of any charge.
"take a good look at the faces" of undercover
police officers who were testifying against them               It isn't that Massiah-Jackson is unfeeling.
and to "be careful out there”. Both officers told         She cried when a jury returned a guilty verdict
the Senate Judiciary Committee that they felt the         against a defendant who had raped a 1O-year old
judge was "outing" them deliberately and placing          child. "It's not that I think the rape didn't occur,"
their lives in danger.                                    she explained. "But five years is a lot of time."
                                                          After serving his sentence, the defendant was
     At both of her judiciary committee hearings,         freed and raped a 9-year-old.
Massiah-Jackson       displayed   a    positively
Clintonian lack of recall about specific cases,               In one case, the judge did bring herself to
even when transcripts were produced to refresh            impose a harsh sentence, explaining that among
her recollection. She was asked, for example,             other aggravating factors, the defendant was a
whether her sentences had ever been reversed as           "Caucasian."
too lenient. She said no.




                                                     76
                                   Elitists win one
                      Florida Times Union, March 20, 1998, By an FTU Editor

A federal judge used convoluted legal reasoning             their money no longer would be used to entice
when she placed a permanent injunction on                   people to enter this country illegally.
California's Proposition 187. The law - passed                 Also, the judge failed to make an important
overwhelmingly by welfare and non-emergency                 distinction. The voters were regulating the access
health care to illegal immigrants. It also                  of illegal aliens, not all aliens, to freebies. It
instructed teachers and other public employees to           makes no sense to reward people for breaking the
report them to authorities.                                 law.
   In her 32-page ruing, Judge Marlana Pfaelzer                 Nor is it clear how teachers were becoming
accused the voters of trampling on the rights of            immigration officers. It is an obligation of
the federal government by engaging in an illegal            citizenship to report illegal activity. The voters
"scheme to regulate immigration (and) This                  merely wrote good citizenship into the job
ruling means... Teachers will not have to become            descriptions.
"immigration officers,” the American Civil
Liberty Union said.                                            Teachers already are already required to report
                                                            suspected child abuse. Does that make them
   But voters do not scheme. They cast ballots.             police officers? Employers withhold income
And while elitists often don’t like the results, the        taxes from workers' paychecks. Are they IRS
founders intended that the nation be ruled by its           agents? The judge threw out the law for one
people.                                                     reason – she personally opposed it. In her eyes,
   There was no attempt to regulate immigration.            that was justification enough. Thomas Jefferson
The voters did not beef up the Border Patrol in             would disagree. In his Notes on the State of
the San Diego – Tijuana area, put quotas on the             Virginia, Jefferson wrote: "Every government
number of foreign nationals allowed to enter the            degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the
state or order local authorities to check green             people alone. The people themselves are its
cards at work sites. They simply declared that              only safe depositories.”




                                                       77
                            Attorneys Will split $3.4 billion
                                   tobacco-case fee
                                             By Jackie Hallifax
                                                Associated Press

    TALLAHASSEE           -     Florida's  tobacco          will split the rest.
attorneys will be paid $3.4 billion by cigarette                Edie Ousley, a spokeswoman for Gov.
makers for getting the state a $13 billion                  Lawton Chiles, said the trial team "obviously
settlement from the industry, an arbitration panel          convinced an independent arbitration panel how
announced yesterday.                                        much they should be paid."
    The fee is the largest awarded to attorneys in              A lobbyist for small business owners said the
any state that has sued the industry and ends a             fee decision would send "shivers down the spine
legal dispute that began soon after Florida settled         of small businesses across Florida."
its lawsuit in August 1997                                      It gives a small group of attorneys the means
    We feel great, it's finally over," said W.C.            to "declare and wage all out war on legitimate
Gentry, one of two Jacksonville attorneys to                business interests across our state," said Bill
share the money. "A major part of the settlement            Herrle, state di-rector of the National Federation
is to get the industry to pay our fees. We did a            of Independent Business.
job that No one else had done."                                 Kerrigan said businesses that build quality
    The group of attorneys, which includes                  products don't have to worry.
Jacksonville attorney Wayne Hogan, had been                     "If they decide to manufacture products to kill
working on the civil lawsuit against the tobacco            people just to make a profit, they better look out," he
companies since February 1995.                              said. "We'll come after them, too."
    "It was an awfully difficult case against an                Gentry said he was pleased by the award but
industry that had never lost," Hogan said.                  wouldn't be very excited "until I actually see a check
    The Florida award equals 25 percent of the              in my account as I pay off my banker for some of
$13 billion agreement, an important point to the            the loans I've had over the years."
attorneys. They said their 1995 contract with the               The arbitration agreement calls for tobacco to
                                                            make the first payments by Dec. 21, but Gentry
state promised them a fee equal to a quarter of             predicted the payments would stretch out so long
the state's award.                                          -cause of the $500 million annual cap - some of
    However, the settlement called for lawyers' fees        the money he's owed will be paid to his
to be decided by arbitration, generating a legal            granddaughter.
dispute between the state and its lawyers.                      The award comes a year after a trial judge in
    That fight was settled yesterday when all 11            West Palm Beach said a $2.8 billion fee, which
firms that represented Florida agreed to the fee            was 25 percent of the original $11 billion state
reached Thursday by a three-member panel.                   settlement, was "patently ridiculous" and "clearly
Cigarette makers will pay the attorneys directly -          excessive."
                                                                Steve Yerrid, a Tampa attorney on the
but not immediately. Under arbitration, the
                                                            litigation team, said that as the only child of two
industry has the amount it pays for attorney’s              parents who died from smoking-related illnesses
fees across the nation capped at $500 million a             he's proud of what the state's' lawyers achieved.
year. Lawyers for different states agree to accept              "We took a lot of criticism," Yerrid said.
a pro-rata share of that amount each year.                  "We've had a lot of harsh words said … our
    Florida's $3.4 billion will be divided among            supposed greed but what it comes down to is the
nine Florida firms, which will share 54 percent             end result, and people can judge the end result."
of the total, and two out-of-state firms, which

  (Who, ultimately, is paying the bill for making these lawyers “filthy rich”? Has the public been
hoodwinked into paying another tax?)


                                                       78

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:16
posted:10/27/2011
language:English
pages:14
gjmpzlaezgx gjmpzlaezgx
About