infomaticfilms — June 14, 2010 — The story of how eveyone has a strawman created for them at birth and how it is used to collect revenue for your government.
A fun and informative animation made in the spirit of freedom. Please spread and upload with credits intact also link back to our channel if you do. Hi-res and mobile versions are avilable for download from our website.
www.infomaticfilms.com
Showing posts with label Supreme-Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme-Court. Show all posts
Friday, June 18, 2010
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Pennsylvania Supreme Court -a bit of History
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania meets in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. The Harrisburg Chamber of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, located on the fourth floor of the Capitol, is both a seat of justice as well as an artistic treasure.
Predating the United States Supreme Court by 67 years, Pennsylvania's highest court was established by the General Assembly on May 22, 1722, a remarkable creation unprecedented in American history.
Penn, a self-taught lawyer who was jailed on dubious grounds five times in England, wanted a fair and competent court system. In the original constitutions drafted by Penn, he established a Provincial Court under the control of his British governors.
The General Assembly, however, espoused the principle of separation of powers, and formally called for a third branch of government starting with the 1701 Judiciary Bill, written by the brilliant Speaker David Lloyd of Chester County. Penn consistently rejected such measures. In 1722, the appointed British governor needed the House to raise revenues. House leaders agreed to raise taxes in return for an independent Supreme Court. Lloyd became its first Chief Justice.
Nowhere else in the early 1700s was there an independent Supreme Court with the power to declare laws made by an elected legislative body to be unconstitutional. The concept of a free judiciary is one of Pennsylvania's greatest contributions to democracy.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/vc/visitor_info/blue/supreme_court.htm
My comments:
It looks like something is wrong with the whole thing.
Penn was Jailed 5 times in england. Came over here and established a Provincial Court under the control of his British governors.
Although Penn was against it, The General Assembly called for a separte branch of powers, and formally called for a third branch of government starting with the 1701 Judiciary Bill, written by the brilliant Speaker David Lloyd.
House leaders agreed to raise taxes in return for an independent Supreme Court. Lloyd (appointed British governor) became its first Chief Justice.
Sounds all supsect to me! Doesn't this sound like we have always been under the British rule of Thumb? then does't that mean most of our History is truely then a Lie?
The United States of America is Independant of Who and When?
Well what do we expect. the British Empire is the seat of Satan! the dirty birds!
~LisaMarie~
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania meets in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. The Harrisburg Chamber of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, located on the fourth floor of the Capitol, is both a seat of justice as well as an artistic treasure.
Predating the United States Supreme Court by 67 years, Pennsylvania's highest court was established by the General Assembly on May 22, 1722, a remarkable creation unprecedented in American history.
Penn, a self-taught lawyer who was jailed on dubious grounds five times in England, wanted a fair and competent court system. In the original constitutions drafted by Penn, he established a Provincial Court under the control of his British governors.
The General Assembly, however, espoused the principle of separation of powers, and formally called for a third branch of government starting with the 1701 Judiciary Bill, written by the brilliant Speaker David Lloyd of Chester County. Penn consistently rejected such measures. In 1722, the appointed British governor needed the House to raise revenues. House leaders agreed to raise taxes in return for an independent Supreme Court. Lloyd became its first Chief Justice.
Nowhere else in the early 1700s was there an independent Supreme Court with the power to declare laws made by an elected legislative body to be unconstitutional. The concept of a free judiciary is one of Pennsylvania's greatest contributions to democracy.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/wu01/vc/visitor_info/blue/supreme_court.htm
My comments:
It looks like something is wrong with the whole thing.
Penn was Jailed 5 times in england. Came over here and established a Provincial Court under the control of his British governors.
Although Penn was against it, The General Assembly called for a separte branch of powers, and formally called for a third branch of government starting with the 1701 Judiciary Bill, written by the brilliant Speaker David Lloyd.
House leaders agreed to raise taxes in return for an independent Supreme Court. Lloyd (appointed British governor) became its first Chief Justice.
Sounds all supsect to me! Doesn't this sound like we have always been under the British rule of Thumb? then does't that mean most of our History is truely then a Lie?
The United States of America is Independant of Who and When?
Well what do we expect. the British Empire is the seat of Satan! the dirty birds!
~LisaMarie~
Saturday, October 10, 2009
The Congress now tells The Supreme Court what to do?
When did this start happening?
I had thought that "The Supreme Court" is the Law of the Land.
just Wondering ~LisaMarie~
Congress set to keep abuse photos hidden
10-10-2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is set to allow the Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against the release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq being abused by Americans.
The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The White House is asking the justices to put off consideration of the case until after a vote on the measure in the House and Senate, as early as next week. The provision is part of a larger homeland security spending bill and would allow the defense secretary to withhold photographs relating to detainees by certifying their release would endanger soldiers or other government workers.
The ACLU said the court should not disturb a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York ordering the photographs' release. The pending congressional action "does not supply any reason for delay," Jameel Jaffer, director of ACLU's national security project, told the court.
The dispute is on a list of cases the Supreme Court could act on Tuesday.
Lower courts have ruled that a provision of FOIA allows documents to be withheld from the public for security reasons only in instances where there are specific threats against individuals.
President Barack Obama initially indicated he would not fight the release of the photographs. He reversed course in May and authorized an appeal to the high court.
The president said he was persuaded that disclosure could further incite violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and endanger U.S. troops there.
The photographs at issue were taken by service members in Iraq and Afghanistan and were part of criminal investigations of alleged abuse. Some pictures show "soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees," Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the appeal to the high court.
In one, "a soldier holds a broom as if 'sticking its end into the rectum of a restrained detainee,"' Kagan said, quoting from an investigation report prepared by the Pentagon. Two investigations led to criminal charges and convictions, she said.
Kagan said the military has identified more than two dozen additional pictures that could be affected by the court's ruling.
The government made much the same argument to prevent the release of 87 photographs and other images of detainees at detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
International outrage resulted when photographs from the Iraqi prison showing physical abuse and sexual humiliation of inmates that took place under the Bush administration were revealed. One picture showed a naked, hooded prisoner on a box with wires fastened to his hands and genitals.
The government dropped its appeal related to those photographs after they were made public and posted on the Internet.
The ACLU, in seeking the other pictures, said the government had long argued that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was isolated and was an aberration. The new photos would show that the abuse was more widespread, the ACLU said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-10-abuse-photos-congress_N.htm?csp=34
Comments:
LisaMarie
Oct 10, 2009 10:24 AM
Yes Mary Jane... payoffs and sellouts. Just FKN Disgusting!
Mary Jane
Mary Jane Moore-Wright
Oct 10, 2009 10:17 AM
Hmmmm, you are right...something is fishy here. They are suppose to keep each other in check. It seems as if payoffs are involved.
I had thought that "The Supreme Court" is the Law of the Land.
just Wondering ~LisaMarie~
Congress set to keep abuse photos hidden
10-10-2009
WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress is set to allow the Pentagon to keep new pictures of foreign detainees abused by their U.S. captors from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court.
Federal courts have so far rejected the government's arguments against the release of 21 color photographs showing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq being abused by Americans.
The Obama administration believes giving the imminent grant of authority over the release of such pictures to the defense secretary would short-circuit a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The White House is asking the justices to put off consideration of the case until after a vote on the measure in the House and Senate, as early as next week. The provision is part of a larger homeland security spending bill and would allow the defense secretary to withhold photographs relating to detainees by certifying their release would endanger soldiers or other government workers.
The ACLU said the court should not disturb a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York ordering the photographs' release. The pending congressional action "does not supply any reason for delay," Jameel Jaffer, director of ACLU's national security project, told the court.
The dispute is on a list of cases the Supreme Court could act on Tuesday.
Lower courts have ruled that a provision of FOIA allows documents to be withheld from the public for security reasons only in instances where there are specific threats against individuals.
President Barack Obama initially indicated he would not fight the release of the photographs. He reversed course in May and authorized an appeal to the high court.
The president said he was persuaded that disclosure could further incite violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and endanger U.S. troops there.
The photographs at issue were taken by service members in Iraq and Afghanistan and were part of criminal investigations of alleged abuse. Some pictures show "soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees," Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the appeal to the high court.
In one, "a soldier holds a broom as if 'sticking its end into the rectum of a restrained detainee,"' Kagan said, quoting from an investigation report prepared by the Pentagon. Two investigations led to criminal charges and convictions, she said.
Kagan said the military has identified more than two dozen additional pictures that could be affected by the court's ruling.
The government made much the same argument to prevent the release of 87 photographs and other images of detainees at detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
International outrage resulted when photographs from the Iraqi prison showing physical abuse and sexual humiliation of inmates that took place under the Bush administration were revealed. One picture showed a naked, hooded prisoner on a box with wires fastened to his hands and genitals.
The government dropped its appeal related to those photographs after they were made public and posted on the Internet.
The ACLU, in seeking the other pictures, said the government had long argued that the abuse at Abu Ghraib was isolated and was an aberration. The new photos would show that the abuse was more widespread, the ACLU said.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-10-abuse-photos-congress_N.htm?csp=34
Comments:
LisaMarie
Oct 10, 2009 10:24 AM
Yes Mary Jane... payoffs and sellouts. Just FKN Disgusting!
Mary Jane
Mary Jane Moore-Wright
Oct 10, 2009 10:17 AM
Hmmmm, you are right...something is fishy here. They are suppose to keep each other in check. It seems as if payoffs are involved.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
POLICE HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL
Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
Sources:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html
"It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."
Sources:
7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.
(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.
(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).
(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).
(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).
(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)
(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).
(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sotomayor Denied My Appeal and I Spent 16 Years in Prison
By Jeffrey Deskovic, AlterNet.
Posted July 10, 2009.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor Denied My Appeal and I Spent 16 Years in Prison For a Crime I Didn't Commit
Sotomayor put procedure over innocence as a federal judge.
My name is Jeffrey Deskovic. At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, a conviction that was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by a medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later -- almost three years ago -- when DNA evidence proved my innocence, while also identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed to the crime. Since my release, I have made it my life's mission to battle against wrongful convictions and fight for legislation that would minimize the chances of what happened to me happening to someone else. It is this fight that compels me to speak out about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Before I was exonerated, I sought out every legal avenue I could to win my freedom. I defended my innocence before the New York Appellate Division, raising such proof as the fact that the physical evidence found did not match me and arguing that the police violated my rights by coercing a false confession from me at the age of 16. The court ruled against me 5 to 0, concluding that there was nothing wrong with my interrogation and stating that there was "overwhelming evidence of guilt," despite the fact that there was no evidence beyond my forced confession. In truth, the DNA and the hairs found on the victim's body were evidence of my innocence.
When my lawyer was denied a chance to reargue the case on the grounds that the court's decision ran counter to the law and to the facts, we moved to the Court Of Appeals, the highest court in New York. I filed a Writ Of Habeas Corpus, in which I argued that my conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The year was 1997. The year before, Congress had passed Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism-Effective-Death-Penalty Act (often called AEDPA in legalese), which mandated that from then on, all state prisoners would have only one year to appeal to a federal court after being denied an appeal by their state's highest court. As a result, there was some confusion in the federal courts regarding the filing procedure; it was not clear how this new law would apply to cases already in the system. Different jurisdictions were answering the question in different ways; my lawyer called the court clerk and asked whether it was enough that my petition be post-marked on the due date, or if it had to physically be filed and in the building on the due date. The court clerk told my attorney that it was enough that it be postmarked. That information turned out to be false. Consequently, my petition arrived four days too late.
Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro seized on the late petition, arguing that the court should dismiss my case without even considering my innocence claim. The court sided agreed. I then appealed my case to the 2nd Circuit. It was there that I first met Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
My lawyer gave three reasons why Judge Sotomayor and her colleague should overturn the procedural ruling: 1) Upholding such a ruling would cause a miscarriage of justice to continue; 2) Reversing the procedural ruling could open the door to more sophisticated DNA Testing; 3) The late petition was not my fault or my attorney's. To our dismay, Judge Sotomayor and her colleague refused to reverse the ruling. "The alleged reliance of Deskovic's attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance," they wrote. "Similarly, we are not persuaded that … his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit." A second appeal to Sotomayor's court resulted in the same decision. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case, and I remained in prison for six more years.
When I first learned that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was immediately alarmed. What would it mean for other people who were wrongfully convicted? Judge Sotomayor put procedure over innocence in my case. Could she be trusted not to do so again in the future? Could she be counted on to correct injustices when the facts indicated that and/or the legal arguments could demonstrate that a trial was unfair?
Judge Sotomayor condemned me to serve a life sentence for a murder and rape that I did not commit. That other innocent people could be denied relief based on procedural technicalities is no mere possibility; Take the case of Troy Davis, who faces execution in Georgia despite overwhelming proof of his innocence -- proof that has never been allowed in a court room. Consider, too, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alaska V.S. Osbourne, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that no prisoner has a constitutional right to access DNA Testing even when such testing could demonstrate innocence. That decision came down to a 5 to 4 vote; if Judge Sotomayor had been on the court, can anybody say with confidence that she would have voted in favor of DNA access?
There are human consequences to these decisions. I can still see the prison cell, the barbed wire, the isolation from my family, the depression, helplessness, frustration, abuse by prison guards, the constant physical danger in prison, no opportunities to build for my future, missing births, deaths, and holidays. We need to awaken this country to the role that judges play in perpetuating wrongful convictions by putting procedure over innocence, by putting finality of conviction over accuracy, and by rubber stamping appeal denials regardless of whether a trial was truly fair.
Judge Sotomayor will appear before the Senate next week. Given that she has been nominated to a lifetime appointment that affects all of our rights, what she did in my case -- condemning me to a life sentence based on procedure in the face of an airtight innocence claim -- should be part of the discussion. I want my case to be a part of the national discussion. I want Senators to ask Judge Sotomayor if she stands by her ruling, and whether she would rule that way in the future. If I could I would testify at the Senate confirmation hearing, about the human impact of Judge Sotomayor's putting procedure over innocence. Thus far, however, I have gotten no response from either side on Capitol Hill.
It is deeply dismaying that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have introduced my case to the national conversation about Judge Sotomayor. Do people remember Anita Hill? As serious as her allegations of sexual harassment were, I would think that my serving time in prison wrongfully and being condemned to a life sentence for a crime that I was innocent of would be even more serious. Why does Judge Sotomayor continue to ignore this story? Does President Obama agree with Judge Sotomayor’s ruling? Does he think that ruling served justice? Is that the type of “empathy” he wanted? I lost 16 years of my life. It seems evident that politics is trumping justice; that I am once again being wronged by the system.
http://www.alternet.org/story/141197?page=entire
To watch Jeffrey Deskovic speak about Sotomayor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2-NgsTLjfA
To learn more about Deskovic's case:
http://www.jeffreydeskovicspeaks.org/
Posted July 10, 2009.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor Denied My Appeal and I Spent 16 Years in Prison For a Crime I Didn't Commit
Sotomayor put procedure over innocence as a federal judge.
My name is Jeffrey Deskovic. At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, a conviction that was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by a medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later -- almost three years ago -- when DNA evidence proved my innocence, while also identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed to the crime. Since my release, I have made it my life's mission to battle against wrongful convictions and fight for legislation that would minimize the chances of what happened to me happening to someone else. It is this fight that compels me to speak out about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Before I was exonerated, I sought out every legal avenue I could to win my freedom. I defended my innocence before the New York Appellate Division, raising such proof as the fact that the physical evidence found did not match me and arguing that the police violated my rights by coercing a false confession from me at the age of 16. The court ruled against me 5 to 0, concluding that there was nothing wrong with my interrogation and stating that there was "overwhelming evidence of guilt," despite the fact that there was no evidence beyond my forced confession. In truth, the DNA and the hairs found on the victim's body were evidence of my innocence.
When my lawyer was denied a chance to reargue the case on the grounds that the court's decision ran counter to the law and to the facts, we moved to the Court Of Appeals, the highest court in New York. I filed a Writ Of Habeas Corpus, in which I argued that my conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The year was 1997. The year before, Congress had passed Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism-Effective-Death-Penalty Act (often called AEDPA in legalese), which mandated that from then on, all state prisoners would have only one year to appeal to a federal court after being denied an appeal by their state's highest court. As a result, there was some confusion in the federal courts regarding the filing procedure; it was not clear how this new law would apply to cases already in the system. Different jurisdictions were answering the question in different ways; my lawyer called the court clerk and asked whether it was enough that my petition be post-marked on the due date, or if it had to physically be filed and in the building on the due date. The court clerk told my attorney that it was enough that it be postmarked. That information turned out to be false. Consequently, my petition arrived four days too late.
Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro seized on the late petition, arguing that the court should dismiss my case without even considering my innocence claim. The court sided agreed. I then appealed my case to the 2nd Circuit. It was there that I first met Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
My lawyer gave three reasons why Judge Sotomayor and her colleague should overturn the procedural ruling: 1) Upholding such a ruling would cause a miscarriage of justice to continue; 2) Reversing the procedural ruling could open the door to more sophisticated DNA Testing; 3) The late petition was not my fault or my attorney's. To our dismay, Judge Sotomayor and her colleague refused to reverse the ruling. "The alleged reliance of Deskovic's attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance," they wrote. "Similarly, we are not persuaded that … his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit." A second appeal to Sotomayor's court resulted in the same decision. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case, and I remained in prison for six more years.
When I first learned that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was immediately alarmed. What would it mean for other people who were wrongfully convicted? Judge Sotomayor put procedure over innocence in my case. Could she be trusted not to do so again in the future? Could she be counted on to correct injustices when the facts indicated that and/or the legal arguments could demonstrate that a trial was unfair?
Judge Sotomayor condemned me to serve a life sentence for a murder and rape that I did not commit. That other innocent people could be denied relief based on procedural technicalities is no mere possibility; Take the case of Troy Davis, who faces execution in Georgia despite overwhelming proof of his innocence -- proof that has never been allowed in a court room. Consider, too, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alaska V.S. Osbourne, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that no prisoner has a constitutional right to access DNA Testing even when such testing could demonstrate innocence. That decision came down to a 5 to 4 vote; if Judge Sotomayor had been on the court, can anybody say with confidence that she would have voted in favor of DNA access?
There are human consequences to these decisions. I can still see the prison cell, the barbed wire, the isolation from my family, the depression, helplessness, frustration, abuse by prison guards, the constant physical danger in prison, no opportunities to build for my future, missing births, deaths, and holidays. We need to awaken this country to the role that judges play in perpetuating wrongful convictions by putting procedure over innocence, by putting finality of conviction over accuracy, and by rubber stamping appeal denials regardless of whether a trial was truly fair.
Judge Sotomayor will appear before the Senate next week. Given that she has been nominated to a lifetime appointment that affects all of our rights, what she did in my case -- condemning me to a life sentence based on procedure in the face of an airtight innocence claim -- should be part of the discussion. I want my case to be a part of the national discussion. I want Senators to ask Judge Sotomayor if she stands by her ruling, and whether she would rule that way in the future. If I could I would testify at the Senate confirmation hearing, about the human impact of Judge Sotomayor's putting procedure over innocence. Thus far, however, I have gotten no response from either side on Capitol Hill.
It is deeply dismaying that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have introduced my case to the national conversation about Judge Sotomayor. Do people remember Anita Hill? As serious as her allegations of sexual harassment were, I would think that my serving time in prison wrongfully and being condemned to a life sentence for a crime that I was innocent of would be even more serious. Why does Judge Sotomayor continue to ignore this story? Does President Obama agree with Judge Sotomayor’s ruling? Does he think that ruling served justice? Is that the type of “empathy” he wanted? I lost 16 years of my life. It seems evident that politics is trumping justice; that I am once again being wronged by the system.
http://www.alternet.org/story/141197?page=entire
To watch Jeffrey Deskovic speak about Sotomayor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2-NgsTLjfA
To learn more about Deskovic's case:
http://www.jeffreydeskovicspeaks.org/
Thursday, July 9, 2009
It's All Illegal
God Save America Again
It's All Illegal
Anonymous
7-6-9
Americans - on their day of supposed "independence" - have no cause for celebration. Our country is being deliberately destroyed. It's all illegal.
1. We now have a third consecutive stolen national election with a man who took over the highest office in the land. He is, most probably, not a natural born American citizen. Where are Obama's REAL birth certificate, passport, and university grades? Every other American citizen supplies grades and proof of citizenship, when requested for jobs. What is Obama hiding?
2. A corrupt Congress (our Legislative branch) and Judiciary are in collusion in this huge cover-up. It's all illegal, according to the US Constitution.
3. Therefore, any and all Executive Orders (EO's) are null and void. Any laws passed by a complicit Congress and Judiciary are also Constitutionally illegal.
4. The US military is now stationed on US soil [plus how many other hired non-US mercenary troops that are not reported?]. Troops have not been stationed in the United States since the Civil War. It's illegal, according to the US Constitution.
5. 800 Secret FEMA/military detention concentration camps have been built around the United States using OUR taxpayer money, in order to silence and jail Americans who see what is really happening.
6. The military should be helping rebuild our country's wrecked and aged infrastructure, instead of waiting to pounce on innocent American citizens.
7. The United States is involved in three illegal wars. This has also bankrupted our country. Millions of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis have been killed or maimed for life. Covert and illegal US operations are wrecking lives around the globe! Millions of American vets come home either in coffins or medically destroyed! For what?
8. The Fed is deliberately bankrupting our country. This is a private banking consortium, always meeting in secret to extract from us every last inflated, and now, worthless dollar a situation they created. The Fed is destroying our entire financial base. They have stolen TRILLIONS OF OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS! These people are "citizens" of the United States; and yet they refuse to be held accountable, while they continue to steal our hard-earned money. The Constitution did not set up a private banking system. This is also illegal.
9. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are losing their homes, and there is no planned relief except for the rich. It's deliberate. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, due to all this criminality. The real US unemployment figure is about 20%! This, too, is deliberate. Millions of Americans don't have enough food to eat daily.
10. The Constitutional checks and balances that our Founding Fathers set in place are now being deliberately manipulated, through illegal laws, to destroy our independence, for the criminality of a secret, elite, and military take over of our country, by the New World chaotic-Order.
11. There are now more than 10 years of dangerous and secret HAARP and Chemtrails Clandestine Weather Modification Programs that are destabilizing our planet's weather and entire web of life. People are being poisoned daily by these deadly aerosol assaults. There is no public debate or discussion. This is illegal and immoral!
12. The corporate-controlled mass media (radio, TV, and print) is aiding and abetting the dissemination of deliberate lies, by those public officials supposedly "in charge." Trivial Hollywood news has now replaced investigative reporting, enforcing a country-wide situation where Americans are poorly educated and badly informed. President Thomas Jefferson reminded us that real "information is the currency of democracy." Where is it?
13. There are credible reports that all Americans (over the age of three months) will be "forced" to take dangerous and untested influenza vaccines [possibly 3 shots, to make sure we're totally poisoned] created for some bio-engineered "swine flu" that was made in some bioweapons lab, and does not respond to any vaccine. The Big-Pharma companies, who are making these vaccines, have been indemnified by the US government.
This means, when people die or are disabled as a result of being forced to taking these shots, that the drug companies are free-and-clear from any accountability. The drug companies have a long and sordid history of marketing unsafe pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, they will make millions and millions of dollars, pounds, and euros to poison millions of people. This is corporate, out-of control greed, at any and all expense! Greed has replaced Safety and Ethics.
In the 1770s, there were 13 original colonies who joined together to pave way for our new country, independent of monarchal tyranny and "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" (Lincoln's words). This is now being destroyed by corporate elite and government insiders.
The 13 issues cited above are all high crimes. These crimes are against our own Constitutional laws, the Nuremberg Trials laws, the Geneva Conventions. Where is accountability, as our country is wrecked daily?
On this fourth of July, we have nothing to celebrate! Our Constitution is being deliberately shredded, while most citizens are not informed about what is REALLY happening. United, we stand together. We are now being Divided, without full disclosure or truth.
Americans, WAKE UP. There are PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS TO THIS INSIDER CORRUPTION.
(1) Our taxes are paying for all these illegal laws. If millions of us do not pay taxes to support bankrupt corporations and their CEO's outrageous salaries, then these criminals do not have any financial base from which to plunder us any further.
(2) Create REAL alternative political parties: Real Greens, Real Independents, and other new parties who will work for our "Common Good." Vote all the officials out of office and hold them legally accountable for all their crimes. Have real voting checks, so there are no more fraudulent and rigged outcomes. Congressional seats were not supposed to be a lifetime job. Lobbyists are bankrolling these seats. Congress is working for lobbyists and corporations, not us.
Truth? Justice? They are part of our Constitution; and we can reclaim this awesome document that has guided us for more than 200 years. We can reclaim our Constitutional Rights peacefully! There are millions of courageous US citizens who can help bring our country back to honor and safety for all of us! Read the words of our Founding Fathers! They brought our country into being to get away from the aristocratic tyranny of England and the rest of European monarchies.
Will we let this ensuing tragedy happen? It still could be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
"If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions."
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it always to be kept alive."
Quotes by Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America (1801-1809). He died on the 4th of July 1826.
http://www.rense.com/general86/allillegal.htm
It's All Illegal
Anonymous
7-6-9
Americans - on their day of supposed "independence" - have no cause for celebration. Our country is being deliberately destroyed. It's all illegal.
1. We now have a third consecutive stolen national election with a man who took over the highest office in the land. He is, most probably, not a natural born American citizen. Where are Obama's REAL birth certificate, passport, and university grades? Every other American citizen supplies grades and proof of citizenship, when requested for jobs. What is Obama hiding?
2. A corrupt Congress (our Legislative branch) and Judiciary are in collusion in this huge cover-up. It's all illegal, according to the US Constitution.
3. Therefore, any and all Executive Orders (EO's) are null and void. Any laws passed by a complicit Congress and Judiciary are also Constitutionally illegal.
4. The US military is now stationed on US soil [plus how many other hired non-US mercenary troops that are not reported?]. Troops have not been stationed in the United States since the Civil War. It's illegal, according to the US Constitution.
5. 800 Secret FEMA/military detention concentration camps have been built around the United States using OUR taxpayer money, in order to silence and jail Americans who see what is really happening.
6. The military should be helping rebuild our country's wrecked and aged infrastructure, instead of waiting to pounce on innocent American citizens.
7. The United States is involved in three illegal wars. This has also bankrupted our country. Millions of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakistanis have been killed or maimed for life. Covert and illegal US operations are wrecking lives around the globe! Millions of American vets come home either in coffins or medically destroyed! For what?
8. The Fed is deliberately bankrupting our country. This is a private banking consortium, always meeting in secret to extract from us every last inflated, and now, worthless dollar a situation they created. The Fed is destroying our entire financial base. They have stolen TRILLIONS OF OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS! These people are "citizens" of the United States; and yet they refuse to be held accountable, while they continue to steal our hard-earned money. The Constitution did not set up a private banking system. This is also illegal.
9. Meanwhile, millions of Americans are losing their homes, and there is no planned relief except for the rich. It's deliberate. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, due to all this criminality. The real US unemployment figure is about 20%! This, too, is deliberate. Millions of Americans don't have enough food to eat daily.
10. The Constitutional checks and balances that our Founding Fathers set in place are now being deliberately manipulated, through illegal laws, to destroy our independence, for the criminality of a secret, elite, and military take over of our country, by the New World chaotic-Order.
11. There are now more than 10 years of dangerous and secret HAARP and Chemtrails Clandestine Weather Modification Programs that are destabilizing our planet's weather and entire web of life. People are being poisoned daily by these deadly aerosol assaults. There is no public debate or discussion. This is illegal and immoral!
12. The corporate-controlled mass media (radio, TV, and print) is aiding and abetting the dissemination of deliberate lies, by those public officials supposedly "in charge." Trivial Hollywood news has now replaced investigative reporting, enforcing a country-wide situation where Americans are poorly educated and badly informed. President Thomas Jefferson reminded us that real "information is the currency of democracy." Where is it?
13. There are credible reports that all Americans (over the age of three months) will be "forced" to take dangerous and untested influenza vaccines [possibly 3 shots, to make sure we're totally poisoned] created for some bio-engineered "swine flu" that was made in some bioweapons lab, and does not respond to any vaccine. The Big-Pharma companies, who are making these vaccines, have been indemnified by the US government.
This means, when people die or are disabled as a result of being forced to taking these shots, that the drug companies are free-and-clear from any accountability. The drug companies have a long and sordid history of marketing unsafe pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, they will make millions and millions of dollars, pounds, and euros to poison millions of people. This is corporate, out-of control greed, at any and all expense! Greed has replaced Safety and Ethics.
In the 1770s, there were 13 original colonies who joined together to pave way for our new country, independent of monarchal tyranny and "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" (Lincoln's words). This is now being destroyed by corporate elite and government insiders.
The 13 issues cited above are all high crimes. These crimes are against our own Constitutional laws, the Nuremberg Trials laws, the Geneva Conventions. Where is accountability, as our country is wrecked daily?
On this fourth of July, we have nothing to celebrate! Our Constitution is being deliberately shredded, while most citizens are not informed about what is REALLY happening. United, we stand together. We are now being Divided, without full disclosure or truth.
Americans, WAKE UP. There are PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS TO THIS INSIDER CORRUPTION.
(1) Our taxes are paying for all these illegal laws. If millions of us do not pay taxes to support bankrupt corporations and their CEO's outrageous salaries, then these criminals do not have any financial base from which to plunder us any further.
(2) Create REAL alternative political parties: Real Greens, Real Independents, and other new parties who will work for our "Common Good." Vote all the officials out of office and hold them legally accountable for all their crimes. Have real voting checks, so there are no more fraudulent and rigged outcomes. Congressional seats were not supposed to be a lifetime job. Lobbyists are bankrolling these seats. Congress is working for lobbyists and corporations, not us.
Truth? Justice? They are part of our Constitution; and we can reclaim this awesome document that has guided us for more than 200 years. We can reclaim our Constitutional Rights peacefully! There are millions of courageous US citizens who can help bring our country back to honor and safety for all of us! Read the words of our Founding Fathers! They brought our country into being to get away from the aristocratic tyranny of England and the rest of European monarchies.
Will we let this ensuing tragedy happen? It still could be the land of the free and the home of the brave.
"If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions."
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it always to be kept alive."
Quotes by Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States of America (1801-1809). He died on the 4th of July 1826.
http://www.rense.com/general86/allillegal.htm
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Supreme Court Rules DNA Tests for Prisoners Not a Right
By a 5-4 vote, the justices say current protections are enough for convicts who believe old genetic evidence will exonerate them.
By David G. Savage
June 19, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court said Thursday that DNA possesses a unique ability to free the innocent and convict the guilty, but the justices nonetheless ruled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence that remains in police files.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative bloc agreed to stand back and allow states to work out the rules for new testing of old crime samples.
Already, 47 states and the federal government have enacted laws or rules that allow prisoners under some circumstances to obtain DNA tests, the high court said.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the majority saw no need for "a free-standing and far-reaching constitutional right of access to this type of evidence." Upholding such a right "would take the development of rules and procedures in this area of out of the hands of legislatures and state courts shaping policy in a focused manner and turn it over to federal courts," he wrote in the opinion.
While Roberts stressed the virtues of judicial restraint, the dissenters said the court was abdicating its duty to seek justice.
Alaska does not give prisoners the right to obtain DNA testing, and William Osborne, who was convicted of rape, belatedly sought testing of a semen sample. He and another man were accused of abducting a prostitute near Anchorage, beating her and leaving her nearly dead in the snow. She survived and identified Osborne as her attacker.
His lawyer did not seek DNA testing during his trial, but Osborne sued to obtain the tests after his conviction. He even offered to pay for the test.
Osborne won in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost in the Supreme Court on Thursday.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, said Alaska has the evidence that "will conclusively establish" whether Osborne committed the rape.
"If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence," Stevens wrote. "If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice."
Stevens said the prisoner in this situation has a right to "test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined in dissent.
Besides Alaska, only Massachusetts and Oklahoma have not decreed by law that at least some inmates can obtain DNA testing. The Innocence Project in New York says 232 people have been freed from prison through DNA testing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-dna19-2009jun19,0,5346519.story
By David G. Savage
June 19, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- The Supreme Court said Thursday that DNA possesses a unique ability to free the innocent and convict the guilty, but the justices nonetheless ruled that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to demand DNA testing of evidence that remains in police files.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court's conservative bloc agreed to stand back and allow states to work out the rules for new testing of old crime samples.
Already, 47 states and the federal government have enacted laws or rules that allow prisoners under some circumstances to obtain DNA tests, the high court said.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the majority saw no need for "a free-standing and far-reaching constitutional right of access to this type of evidence." Upholding such a right "would take the development of rules and procedures in this area of out of the hands of legislatures and state courts shaping policy in a focused manner and turn it over to federal courts," he wrote in the opinion.
While Roberts stressed the virtues of judicial restraint, the dissenters said the court was abdicating its duty to seek justice.
Alaska does not give prisoners the right to obtain DNA testing, and William Osborne, who was convicted of rape, belatedly sought testing of a semen sample. He and another man were accused of abducting a prostitute near Anchorage, beating her and leaving her nearly dead in the snow. She survived and identified Osborne as her attacker.
His lawyer did not seek DNA testing during his trial, but Osborne sued to obtain the tests after his conviction. He even offered to pay for the test.
Osborne won in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but lost in the Supreme Court on Thursday.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, said Alaska has the evidence that "will conclusively establish" whether Osborne committed the rape.
"If he did, justice has been served by his conviction and sentence," Stevens wrote. "If not, Osborne has needlessly spent decades behind bars while the true culprit has not been brought to justice."
Stevens said the prisoner in this situation has a right to "test the evidence at his own expense and to thereby ascertain the truth once and for all."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter and Stephen G. Breyer joined in dissent.
Besides Alaska, only Massachusetts and Oklahoma have not decreed by law that at least some inmates can obtain DNA testing. The Innocence Project in New York says 232 people have been freed from prison through DNA testing.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-dna19-2009jun19,0,5346519.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)