Alabama Justices Surrender to Judicial Activism

[TheGeneral]

Although I am now a justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I had to recuse from any involvement in Adams’ case because I helped prosecute him. Because I believe the Court’s decision illustrates a serious problem with our judicial system, however, I write to explain what I regard as a failure to defend our constitution and laws against activist federal judges.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=505

[Areopagus]

Although I am now a justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, I had to recuse from any involvement in Adams’ case because I helped prosecute him. Because I believe the Court’s decision illustrates a serious problem with our judicial system, however, I write to explain what I regard as a failure to defend our constitution and laws against activist federal judges.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=505

The justices based their ruling not on the original intent or actual language of the United States Constitution but on foreign law, including United Nations treaties.

Ironically, one of the UN treaties invoked by the U.S. Supreme Court as a basis for its Roper decision is a treaty the United States has refused to sign. By insisting that American states submit to this unratified treaty, the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court... unconstitutionally invalidated laws in 20 states….

….But state supreme court judges should not follow obviously wrong decisions simply because they are “precedents.”

After all, a judge takes an oath to support the constitution — not to automatically follow activist justices who believe their own devolving standards of decency trump the text of the constitution.

The Adams case presented the Alabama Supreme Court with the perfect opportunity to give the new U.S. Supreme Court the occasion to overturn the unconstitutional Roper precedent. If our Court had voted to uphold Adams’ death penalty, he would have appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Because the U.S. Supreme Court can accept only a handful of the petitions it receives, the Court may not have heard the case at all, and Adams would have been executed as he deserves.


This is another case where the States (Tenth Amendment) and Congress http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#45
should interpose against a lawless U.S. Supreme Court that is determined to break as many laws as it can.

Why bother voting when unelected judges can intrude into any issue they please and break laws that restrain evil?

The Federalist Papers : No. 81

The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only ``in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.'' Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns.

We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, ``with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.''

The propriety of this appellate jurisdiction has been scarcely called in question in regard to matters of law; but the clamors have been loud against it as applied to matters of fact.
[….]
To avoid all inconveniencies, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.

The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this: that it has been carefully restricted to those causes which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that in the partition of this authority a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been preserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, both subject to any EXCEPTIONS and REGULATIONS which may be thought advisable…. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed81.htm

[rimchamp77]

I'm one of those weird people who sees a logic to having a Supreme Court second guess legislation and executive edicts. This is to keep garbage like the [anti] Patriot Act from messing with the lives of people when such garbage emanates mostly from hysteria generated by some major event. The fact that our current executive has gotten such mileage out of the deaths of over 3000 US citizens to allow him to expand governmental intrusions, suspend due process and operate to a large degree like a middle eastern autocrat is scary. The Supreme Court should have interdicted and struck down the Patriot Act early on. But it didn't. It should have forced trials of detainees held in custody. It should have ruled on the status of detainees. Yes, that's what makes this current regime so scary. We have several thousand foreign nationals held in our name who have no rights whatsoever. They're not enemy combatants. They are not suspected criminals. They are not citizens of a democratic country. They are not convicted criminals; how could they when we refuse to even grant them hearings much less trials by peers? How does the Supreme Court NOT step in and ensure justice? Is this forum deaf to this issue simply because the people wrongfully detained worship the same god in a different manner than we do and call him by a different name? Do people in this forum realize how wayward these terrrorist loudmouths are to their own faith? How would people in this forum like Christianity depicted - and judged - by others as similar to the actions of Charles Manson or Jim Jones or David Koresh? If we believe that christians are called to righteousness how do we NOT speak up about the abuse of others who do not follow our faith? If our faith is limited only to likeminded people how are we any different from the muslim fanatics who pollute Islam?

[deskjockey]

I'm one of those weird people who sees a logic to having a Supreme Court second guess legislation and executive edicts. This is to keep garbage like the [anti] Patriot Act from messing with the lives of people when such garbage emanates mostly from hysteria generated by some major event. The fact that our current executive has gotten such mileage out of the deaths of over 3000 US citizens to allow him to expand governmental intrusions, suspend due process and operate to a large degree like a middle eastern autocrat is scary. The Supreme Court should have interdicted and struck down the Patriot Act early on. But it didn't. It should have forced trials of detainees held in custody. It should have ruled on the status of detainees. Yes, that's what makes this current regime so scary. We have several thousand foreign nationals held in our name who have no rights whatsoever. They're not enemy combatants. They are not suspected criminals. They are not citizens of a democratic country. They are not convicted criminals; how could they when we refuse to even grant them hearings much less trials by peers? How does the Supreme Court NOT step in and ensure justice? Is this forum deaf to this issue simply because the people wrongfully detained worship the same god in a different manner than we do and call him by a different name? Do people in this forum realize how wayward these terrrorist loudmouths are to their own faith? How would people in this forum like Christianity depicted - and judged - by others as similar to the actions of Charles Manson or Jim Jones or David Koresh? If we believe that christians are called to righteousness how do we NOT speak up about the abuse of others who do not follow our faith? If our faith is limited only to likeminded people how are we any different from the muslim fanatics who pollute Islam? Judicial review was started by John Marshall and is said to have been understood as proper by the founding fathers. So you are not that weird. I suspect somebody has to seek judicial review and that the court is not likely to dream up cases to argue for itself. I think the Patriot Act was rushed through immediately after 9/11 and well before the Iraq dead so I suspect the proofs probably not appropriate for the characterizations. The court has ruled on those detainee cases brought before it. Those that are not US citizens are given the courtesy of certain legal privileges but certainly don’t get Constitutional rights, they still having allegiance to another constitution in some foreign land.

I also suspect that if we’d been attacked by Christians from Germany, we’d have handled the prisoners by military tribunal and executed them. Ooops, we already did that one. I remember killing Redcoats during the Revolution and killing family members, church members and past friends during the Civil war. Also I remember that we killed the Serbian Christians while we supported the Taliban Muslims in Kosovo. Simply said, I guess we are no different then the Muslim fanatics who also have no trouble killing fellow Muslims. In war the US observes a no religious test killing policy I guess.

[MAC]

"We" as in the Union Army? ;) Ain't nuthin' good come out of Northern and Carpetbagger Presidents and the two so-called Southern were Scalawags to be sure!

Yep, we sho' nuff got ourselves a mess in King George and the uncircumcised Philistine black-robed 'supreme beings' elitist sittin' up thar on thet bench.

[Will]

I remember killing Redcoats during the Revolution and killing family members, church members and past friends during the Civil war.

jockey:

If you remember the Revolution, you must be several hundred years old. I thought living that long was only back in Old Testament times???

[deskjockey]

jockey:

If you remember the Revolution, you must be several hundred years old. I thought living that long was only back in Old Testament times???Oh! I'm not quite that old, I just have an excellent memory. I saw the story on TV last night and remembered it today. Or was that two nights ago, ah, I can't remember. Hey Moses, do you remember what night we saw that Revolution story on the History Channel. :)

[MAC]

Hey, isn't the History Channel pretty "PC"?

Guess there were a few Scalawags and Carpetbaggers before the wah-wer. ;)

[Will]

Getting back to the subject of judicial activism, please read the text of the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

and then tell us what do you think of this:

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/blanton01.html

case???

Will

[deskjockey]

Getting back to the subject of judicial activism, please read the text of the Sixth Amendment:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

and then tell us what do you think of this:

http://caselaw.duicenter.com/blanton01.html

case???

WillHere is what Scalia, in a disenting opinion thinks of such matters. "Even if we allowed (as we do not) other structural errors in criminal trials to be pronounced "harmless" by judges ... it is obvious that we could not allow judges to validate this one. The constitutionally required step that was omitted here is distinctive, in that the basis for it is precisely that, absent voluntary waiver of the jury right, the Constitution does not trust judges to make determinations of criminal guilt. Perhaps the Court is so enamoured of judges in general, and federal judges in particular, that it forgets that they (we) are officers of the Government, and hence proper objects of that healthy suspicion of the power of government which possessed the Framers and is embodied in the Constitution. Who knows? — 20 years of appointments of federal judges by oppressive administrations might produce judges willing to enforce oppressive criminal laws, and to interpret criminal laws oppressively — at least in the view of the citizens in some vicinages where criminal prosecutions must be brought. And so the people reserved the function of determining criminal guilt to themselves, sitting as jurors. It is not within the power of us Justices to cancel that reservation — neither by permitting trial judges to determine the guilt of a defendant who has not waived the jury right, nor (when a trial judge has done so anyway) by reviewing the facts ourselves and pronouncing the defendant without-a-doubt guilty. The Court's decision today is the only instance I know of (or could conceive of) in which the remedy for a constitutional violation by a trial judge (making the determination of criminal guilt reserved to the jury) is a repetition of the same constitutional violation by the appellate court (making the determination of criminal guilt reserved to the jury)."

[Will]

Here is what Scalia, in a disenting opinion thinks of such matters........

jockey:

Sounds like Scalia really believes in the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury "in all criminal prosecutions" doesn't it???

Except that the hypocrite went right along with the other eight justices making the decision in Blanton v. N. Las Vegas a unanimous decision to allow the judiciary to deny the accused a trial by jury and to sentence him/her to prison time. That is the type of hypocrisy you can expect from lawyers, I hate lawyers more than I hate terrorists and I hate lawyers who are judges more than that!!!

After reading the SC decision, do you think a person accused of DUI in Nevada has a snowball's chance of getting acquitted???

Will

[deskjockey]

jockey:

Sounds like Scalia really believes in the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury "in all criminal prosecutions" doesn't it???

Except that the hypocrite went right along with the other eight justices making the decision in Blanton v. N. Las Vegas a unanimous decision to allow the judiciary to deny the accused a trial by jury and to sentence him/her to prison time. That is the type of hypocrisy you can expect from lawyers, I hate lawyers more than I hate terrorists and I hate lawyers who are judges more than that!!!

After reading the SC decision, do you think a person accused of DUI in Nevada has a snowball's chance of getting acquitted???

WillWill,

Obviously you have never met an attorney in person.:D How can you be in CP and hate attorneys? I thought you had to be in the legal profession to join CP? Let me restate something from an astute Wall Street guru that had been with Morgan Stanley. It is that 85% of professionals add no value. That means your lawyers, accountants, stock brokers, doctors, educators etc have 85% of the ranks that are adding less value then you pay them. Having been involved with all these throughout my career, I can confirm his conclusions and would suggest he was being gracious at 85%. It doesn’t make the professions inherently evil, it merely means most don’t belong there. The legal profession is even more troubled by such because the worse lawyers must bill the most hours to accomplish the same outcome. Industry, in the late 80’s figured they were going to get the legal bills under wraps and get rid of all their $500/hr lawyers and rely on in-house and $125/yr outside services. So what happened? Well their cost went through the roof. Partly do to incompetent negotiated settlements and partly do to huge hour billing of inexperienced lawyers. You see the stupid client asks the wrong question. They ask how much do you bill per hour. It doesn’t make any difference if the bill 1 cent/hr. as the Rose Law firm proved. We can bill infinite hours. The question is, when it is all said and done how much money do I walk away with. You won’t get that answer, but that is all you are concerned about.

It is in the nature of man to tell every teenager she is going to be a star and bill her for photos and cutting records, to bill your law client to pursue an issue you know is dead in the water, to sell a stock (I once had a guy sitting next to me that spent half the day telling clients to sell XYZ and the second half telling others to buy XYZ), doctors who keep telling you to come back to monitor your situation when they clearly know it is a complete waste of time. But these are human nature issues not that the profession is evil.

I’m an uneducated village idiot and so this is merely my opinion. Regarding Scalia and contradiction of lawyers, I think you have to understand what it is that they are rendering opinion on. I mentioned the other day that I didn’t think that all the abortion Alito decisions were specifically on abortion, just that the legal issue happened to be involved in a case about abortion. But because I didn’t read any of the cases I can’t be sure. Well that is somewhat the case with Scalia regarding these two cases. In Neder v US, he was stating his opinion of the Constitution regarding Federal Givernment’s Constitutional obligation of due process in Federal Court. The obligation is all encompassing.

In Blanton v N. Las Vegas, it is an issue of the state’s obligation of due process under their state statutes. I think I mentioned this the other day as “negative prohibition” of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t require enforcement of due process, it therefore only requires due process protection from the Feds, not the states.

BUT, that is subject to; in ’68 they decided to extend their reach into the states under the language of Amend VI based on due process in XIV in Duncan V La., I guess to be civil rights politically correct figuring those Bubbas in the South would still be lynching folks unless the Feds stepped in. But they gave themselves some arbitrary limitations such as the case has to be serious, such as jail would be more then six months, but could be less then 6 months on other criteria.

So to sum it up, prior to ’68 due process was a state issue and what Scalia did is make it a Federal issue with exception of less than 6 mo. jail term? So you therefore are condemning him for not removing all state rights in such matters rather than complimenting him for removing almost all of the states rights. You are a tough man to please. My position is the opposite of yours in that he should have stayed out of the state’s business. If folks didn’t like LA due process, then move or change the law.
Michael

[Will]

Jockey:

Some time ago, I was in a golf tournament and played with a young man who cheated about as much as I've ever seen. I called him on some of the scores on holes that he (purposefully) shaved a stroke or two. I had to play with him the second day too. On the second day we were waiting to tee off and he asked me what I do for a living. I told him and asked him what he did. He said he was going to law school. I commented that he would make a H.. of a lawyer. He didn't catch the sarcasm and thanked me.

I hired a lawyer to do something for me and it ended up costing me a small fortune because he did what he wanted to do rather than what I told him to do. I'm not saying all lawyers are despicable but a far higher percentage of them are despicable than the percentage in any other profession. Lawyers have done more harm to this country than terrorists could ever do. That is why I hate them more than I hate terrorists.

You are wrong about Scalia unless you hold that federal judges are subject to corruption while State judges aren't???

The SC chose Blanton v N. Las Vegas as the issue to give judges the power to imprison people without a jury trial to be PC. Anyone charged with DUI is considered a pariah and would have trouble getting a fair trial even if it were by a jury rather than by a judge. I don't know if Blanton was guilty or not, but I am D... sure that he didn't get a fair trial. Most judges are tyrants and will go right along with the police who arrest a person for DUI, the same as they go right along with police who hand out other traffic tickets. I am not saying that under the Sixth Amendment a traffic ticket requires a trial by jury but I'll bet the members of the First Congress who passed the Sixth Amendment were spinning in their graves as a result of the SC decision in Blanton. Go read the Congressional records of the debates in the House of Representatives in 1789 on the issue. They were quite clear in their requirement of "ALL criminal prosecutions".

Will

[deskjockey]

Jockey:

I'm not saying all lawyers are despicable but a far higher percentage of them are despicable than the percentage in any other profession. Lawyers have done more harm to this country than terrorists could ever do. That is why I hate them more than I hate terrorists. Will, if I understand what you are saying from your anecdotes, you are not going to nominate a lawyer for man of the year for ’06. I know many lawyers who have been put in jail for crime. It seems like a high percentage for any profession. Law and politics will tend to attract such. As many philosophers and researchers have found, the criminal element will gravitate to professions that help them protect their activities. Harvard Professor Pitirim Sorokin, in a survey of rulers throughout history, “the rulers of the states are the most criminal group in a respective population.” And what profession dominates politics? I have worked with hundreds of lawyers through my career. I will concur that I have noticed a large percentage out of control. When Friday rolls around and the staff wants their paycheck and you have to make your yacht payment, it often seems desirable to use the Web Hubbel billing meter while out golfing. But it is your job to keep tight rains on ‘em. Don’t blame human nature left unattended, be it your lawyer, doctor, stockbroker, accountant, home builder, car dealer or any other professional.

You are wrong about Scalia unless you hold that federal judges are subject to corruption while State judges aren't??? I have no clue what I’m wrong about, but I did state I was disappointed in his suicide opinion, based on his admission that the Constitutional would be disappointed and that he should not have ruled in Blanton as you allege. But you claim he should not only have ruled in Blanton but also not provide the 6 months provision thereby remove all state’s right. I really don’t think it is corruption but that all three of us have three different opinions on the same facts, probably yours and mine less informed.

The SC chose Blanton v N. Las Vegas as the issue to give judges the power to imprison people without a jury trial to be PC. Anyone charged with DUI is considered a pariah and would have trouble getting a fair trial even if it were by a jury rather than by a judge. I don't know if Blanton was guilty or not, but I am D... sure that he didn't get a fair trial. Most judges are tyrants and will go right along with the police who arrest a person for DUI, the same as they go right along with police who hand out other traffic tickets. I am not saying that under the Sixth Amendment a traffic ticket requires a trial by jury but I'll bet the members of the First Congress who passed the Sixth Amendment were spinning in their graves as a result of the SC decision in Blanton. Go read the Congressional records of the debates in the House of Representatives in 1789 on the issue. They were quite clear in their requirement of "ALL criminal prosecutions".

Will Will, I believe the situation was opposite your characterization and that states didn’t have to have any jury for any case prior to Blanton. Blanton now required a jury in all cases, except if the sentence is under 6 months. He expanded the jury requirement. If my understanding is correct, Blanton is the first expansion of this from federal to state. If so, clearly the legislature has never objected to lynchings without juries, it was Scalia who objected. And I disagree with him doing so. If you find it offensive, move or change the state statutes. Be thankful you are not in my state, where it doesn’t make any difference what the law is, nobody cares and nobody bothers to see what it is. The state politicians merely get all cases to move through wake country and that is the end of the issue. Go read this one and then see if you think you have a problem. And this is not unique but our daily fare. I could say if you don’t like it change the law, but it is the law already. Have fun reading this one.

http://www.ncfamily.org/PolicyPapers/Findings%200601-LotterySuit.pdf

[Will]

Jockey:

Of course, I'm making an assumption that might not be true. Since Blanton chose to plead not guilty to the charge against him, I assume that the policeperson who arrested him didn't take a breathalizer test, that there was only one policeperson present and no other witnesses against him. If the policepeson did take a breathalizer test or there was, at least, one other witness against Blanton, he was a D... fool for not pleading guilty and getting the best deal he could. I wonder if he hired a lawyer to defend him??? If he didn't he was a D... fool. Anyone knows that judges are extremely prejudiced against people who represent themselves. The fact is that people who represent themselves in jury trials have a higher rate of acquital than those represented by lawyers. Of course, those who represent themselves in non-jury trials seldom ever gwt acquitted.

I am assuming that Blanton is not a D... fool. He chose to go to a lot of trouble and maybe expense to try to defend our right to a trial by jury long after he had completed his entire sentence for the crime. I hail him as a man of integrity and one of the unsung heroes in our battle to restore the constitutional republic.

Will

[deskjockey]

Jockey:

Of course, I'm making an assumption that might not be true. Since Blanton chose to plead not guilty to the charge against him, I assume that the policeperson who arrested him didn't take a breathalizer test, that there was only one policeperson present and no other witnesses against him. If the policepeson did take a breathalizer test or there was, at least, one other witness against Blanton, he was a D... fool for not pleading guilty and getting the best deal he could. I wonder if he hired a lawyer to defend him??? If he didn't he was a D... fool. Anyone knows that judges are extremely prejudiced against people who represent themselves. The fact is that people who represent themselves in jury trials have a higher rate of acquital than those represented by lawyers. Of course, those who represent themselves in non-jury trials seldom ever gwt acquitted.

I am assuming that Blanton is not a D... fool. He chose to go to a lot of trouble and maybe expense to try to defend our right to a trial by jury long after he had completed his entire sentence for the crime. I hail him as a man of integrity and one of the unsung heroes in our battle to restore the constitutional republic.

WillWill, I just took a few minutes to read a couple paragraphs of Blanton. The case was not one of fact (and I don't think the SC deals much in rehashing fact) but rather law so whether he was drunk or not is not material. Oh, it is a good thing I don't practice law. You are correct that the trial by jury has always been in place and my hasty insane prior claims are in error. Golly when do they delete these threads so we can regain some esteem again? The issue of Blanton was only what should be the parameter of petty crimes that had long been excluded from jury. So I think all Blanton did is tighten up the issue of "petty", not that petty crimes hadn't been long settled law to avoid jury.

Blanton seems to merely be housekeeping from my quick read of a few paragraphs but that was enough to prove I shouldn't practice law. Sadly, my conclusions still remain, you can move or get the law changed from 6mo to all cases in your state. Did you read the link I had provided on the wackos in my state? How'd you like to be under the law here?

[Will]

jockey:

I know the SC Blanton case was not about the facts of the case, but I'll bet they would have gotten Blanton acquitted if he had gotten a jury trial. I haven't seen the evidence that the state had that Blanton was drunk, but I'll bet it was little more than the word of one policeperson, but to a judge that is as good as the word of ten witnesses. The trial judge could have given Blanton a jury trial, but the question is, why didn't he/she? Probably because the judge knew that a jury would acquit him and we can't have that, can we? We have to show these commoners who's running things around here!!!

You link doesn't work - go back and try it for yourself.

Will

[deskjockey]

jockey:

I know the SC Blanton case was not about the facts of the case, but I'll bet they would have gotten Blanton acquitted if he had gotten a jury trial. I haven't seen the evidence that the state had that Blanton was drunk, but I'll bet it was little more than the word of one policeperson, but to a judge that is as good as the word of ten witnesses. The trial judge could have given Blanton a jury trial, but the question is, why didn't he/she? Probably because the judge knew that a jury would acquit him and we can't have that, can we? We have to show these commoners who's running things around here!!!

You link doesn't work - go back and try it for yourself.

WillWill,

I have no clue what the statutes are for petit jury in NV. And I don’t think the six months is the only criteria, because other circumstances can justify a jury, so check your statutes. Certainly, some states provide for such if both parties agree, but I doubt a judge demanding it would be normal. If you are currently dealing with this issue you might see if you can get approval by the prosecutor. Also, If you know who the judge will be, and he is elected, go to the board of elections, and ask for his contributors list and just find who gave the most and you have found your attorney to solve the issue.

I share your concern regarding givernment. We have a corrupt electorate that elects a corrupt givernment. When we start from that position we must always demand the utmost of proof by givernment, because we know they have a huge incentive to play with the facts.

The other thing I really dislike is the multiple charge method, which I believe is not permissible in England. The result is that we have over 20% of guilty pleas made by innocent folks because it is an intelligent mathematical decision. I can plead innocent on principle, but these guys can withhold evidence and lie and put me away for 200 years on all charges. I can plead guilty and get 7 years and be out in 3. The cop, prosecutor and defendant all win. You can argue, but what about principle and truth. Well when your kids have no dad supporting them and your life is time limited you have to make practical decisions based on concerns for others, not just one’s own noble principles.

Regarding my link, it loads a PDF file so if you haven’t downloaded Adobe Acrobat it won’t load. But it worked fine for me.
Michael

[Areopagus]

. I know many lawyers who have been put in jail for crime. It seems like a high percentage for any profession. Law and politics will tend to attract such. As many philosophers and researchers have found, the criminal element will gravitate to professions that help them protect their activities. Harvard Professor Pitirim Sorokin, in a survey of rulers throughout history, “the rulers of the states are the most criminal group in a respective population.” And what profession dominates politics? I have worked with hundreds of lawyers through my career. I will concur that I have noticed a large percentage out of control. When Friday rolls around and the staff wants their paycheck and you have to make your yacht payment, it often seems desirable to use the Web Hubbel billing meter while out golfing.


The Connecticut Mutual Life Report on American Values on the '80s http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0819140201/absolutsearch05/104-0478424-1657524
Originally issued in 1981 and initiated as a survey to investigate the extent to which traditional American values have remained prevalent in contemporary society, this study brought forth one factor that consistently and dramatically affects the values and behavior of Americans, religious commitment. Co-published with the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, this survey was conducted by Research and Forecasts, Inc.

The Connecticut Mutual Life Report on American Values on the '80s : The Impact of Belief (Hartford: The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, 1981) The legal profession was even more 'liberated' than the BIASED media by an average of 6% indicating moral approval on all of the following six issues.

• Abortion
• sex prior to 16
• single pre-marital sex
• sodomy
• marijuana
• porn movies
A majority of the General Public morally disapproved of all behaviors, except single pre-marital sex. A majority of the legal profession morally approved all six issues, with 4/6 issues getting greater than 67% support.

It came as a considerable surprise when a nationwide study sponsored by the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company found that religious leaders were rated most trustworthy of any elites in the society. http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1983/v39-4-article2.htm

[Will]

jockey Michael:

I tried your link again and it worked fine. I must not have clicked directly on it or something. The article prooves that the government in this day and age don't give a D... what the US or State Constitutions say. They just do what they think they can get away with and to H... with their oathes of office. I wonder if God takes kindly to people who make a sacred promise to him (an oath) with no intention of living up to it???

No, I'm not involved in any criminal matter. I just know that judges are prejudiced against non-lawyers (commoners) and you can't get a fair trial without a jury. Even with a jury you can't get a fair trial most of the time because the judge will brow beat a jury into a conviction in many cases. I can't remember where, but I read where a woman cried for several days after she sat on a jury where a guy ended up with , as I remember, an eighteen year sentence. Too bad she didn't know what "jury nullification" is. Judges won't even let jurrors know about their power of "jury nullification." There have been cases where the jury brought in a question as to what it was because one of the jurors brought it up in deliberations. The judge immediately called a mistrial because the judiciary of today doesn't want jurors acquitting people because one or more of the jurors believe the accused didn't do anything wrong. Go to:

http://www.fija.org

To find out what one patriotic organization is trying to do. In Little Rock Arkansas they were handing out pamphlets to potential juries during the Whitewater scandal and the federal judge threatened to have them thrown in jail for jury tampering if they didn't quit. The people of the country have no idea how tyrannical the judiciary in this nation has become.

Will