There is no longer any doubt at all; the
American Experiment is now dead and what remains is the question of whether the people will rise and put a stop to the crapfest that we are experiencing or whether our nation will be overtaken by the likes of a Pol Pot, Hitler or Mao.
I recently wrote on a case in Panama City, FL -- quite near here --
where a drug dealer had the charges against him tossed out. He was pretty-clearly guilty of the crime he was accused of, but the Bay County Sheriff's office
unlawfully attached a GPS tracking device to his vehicle -- they failed to get a warrant before doing so
and trespassed to replace its batteries.
That was bad enough but then they
lied during discovery. The operating theory on "why" is that the Sheriff knew damn well that had they disclosed the GPS during discovery and depositions
the evidence was subject to exclusion because it was improperly obtained. Since the Sheriff's Office had no other way to discover
where the marijuana was without the illegal tracking device their case would have collapsed
but for their illegal conduct.
The Judge was having none of that crap and tossed the charges -- properly so.
Contrast this with the Zimmerman case where
Team Skittles has repeatedly tried to muddy the waters and hide behind various ruses. One of the many prosecution games in this case deals with "Witness 8", the infamous "Dee Dee", who it appears
may not in fact be one person but is two or more who have been conveniently substituted as the "prosecution" and their advocates wish. Without "Dee Dee" the gist of the case is that a man was attacked, mounted
and while having his head smashed against a concrete sidewalk and he defended himself by shooting the attacker. This is hardly the stuff of a Murder 2 charge but that's what the
defending party, George Zimmerman, is facing. For those who believe that being mounted and punched repeatedly, having your head bashed upon concrete, is not justification for shooting the attacker in self defense
please read about the soccer refereee who was killed by a single punch thrown by a*****ed-off player.
The prosecutor and "family lawyer" (Crump) have repeatedly tried to obfuscate and
hide evidence, including the contents of the deceased's cell phone
and the judge has been, up until now, complicit in that crap. The 5th District Court of Appeal, however, yesterday
reversed said Judge unanimously and is going to allow Crump to be deposed as to the "interview" he conducted with said witness.
Is justice
beginning to appear in the Zimmerman case? We don't yet know.
But what we do know is that yesterday another case came down from the US Supreme Court,
Marlyland .v. King. King was arrested and charged with assault. Incidental to that arrest his DNA was taken and ultimately matched against a "cold case" file implicating him in a******for which he was tried and convicted.
The question before the court was whether the
forcible taking of DNA evidence from an
arrestee, who remains entitled to the presumption of innocence until tried and convicted, was a
search subject to 4th Amendment protections -- and if so whether that
search in this case was unlawful and therefore excluded.
The hoops the Court jumped through in order to justify what they
admitted was a search,
including outright fabrication, reach the levels found when the PPACA ("Obamacare") was ruled Constitutional.
If you remember the central point of Obamacare was that Congress, supported by a lengthy
Congressional record, crafted the language of the statute to result in the imposition of a
penalty for refusing to buy the allegedly-required health insurance.
Congress did so because the imposition of a direct tax is only legal by Apportionment in Article 1, Section 2. The income tax required a
separate Constitutional Amendment for this reason, as it was not an excise and previous attempts to levy such a tax were struck as explicitly unconstitutional.
When the law was challenged the Roberts Court could not find a means by which imposing a penalty onrefusal to commit an act was Constitutional. Therefore, they simply
re-wrote the law and claimed that in fact the law imposed a tax,
ignoring the fact that direct taxes can only be levied by apportionment and thus the result they reached was explicitly unlawful standing alone!
Yesterday's ruling is no less outrageous
nor any less of an utter fabrication. That the suspect appears to in fact have committed the******in question
is not the issue. The issue is whether or not law enforcement can engaged in
unbridled intrusions into one's
person, say much less property.
If you make me dictator I can stop virtually
all gang-related shootings and drugs, for example. You
merely have to let me search anyone and anything at any time I'd like, and I'll find most of the drugs and guns before anyone can use them.
Yet this is, and should be, blatantly unlawful exactly as was the search by the Bay County Sheriff's office.
Rather than judge the facts what happened here, as with Obamacare, was that
the Court tortured the English language, the facts and the Constitution to reach a pre-ordained result.
To reach that result in this case the court ruled that the statute authorizing the collection of DNA from
suspects was reasonable because:
The Act serves a well-established, legitimate government interest: the need of law enforcement officers in a safe and accurate way to process and identify persons and possessions taken into custody.
That would
sound appropriate on first blush
until one examines the time-line on which the sample in question was analyzed. Specifically, it sat un-processed for
months after the arrest and in fact the defendant was out on bail for an extended period of time before analysis was commenced!
There was no need to collect the sample to identify the defendant; they knew damn well who he was and no processing of his DNA was going to change that. The US Supreme Court invented from whole cloth justification for their ruling through a pure fabrication that was not and could not be reached from the evidence placed before them.
Scalia wrote a
blistering dissent on this opinion, essentially calling out the court's opinion as fabrication founded on fantasy, and with good cause.
But this is not the first such opinion of note recently,
it is the second.
A founding principle of justice is that when one is wronged you have recourse to the courts which exist to provide a check and balance on the improper behavior both of private individuals
and the government. Without that check and balance alleged society is reduced to tit-for-tat recourse, or worse,
preemptive and often violent action taken by those who believe they have been wronged.
It is for this reason that drug dealers shoot one another on street corners rather than sue over contractual disputes or lay charges for theft when one rips off the other; barred from the use of the civil and criminal systems of justice due to our idiotic insistence on prohibiting their trade in the first place
they turn to the only means of justice available to them.
Our civil society
depends on a clean and mature arbitration procedure by which
results flow from acts and principles, not the other way around. To eviscerate that ability is to invite and promote preemptive and retributive violence both against private parties
and against the government as
the civilized alternative and superior means of settling disputes has been corrupted.
Abuse
by the US Supreme Court is nothing new;
Wickard .v. Filburn is one other such "shining" example in which the Court ruled that a man growing wheat on his own land
for his own personal consumption nonetheless "influenced commerce" and thus was subject to regulation
because the farmer would, absent that growing of wheat, be inclined to buy it from an out-of-state supplier. The mental gymnastics and outright invention of facts not in evidence required to reach that conclusion stood as testament to
judgment by desired result rather than judgement through examination of the facts.
Now we have seen not one but
two repeat performances that eclipse even the outrage of
Wickard in just the last couple of years.
No nation's civil order can
or deserves to stand when the people lose recourse to the law.
Kennedy, along with Roberts and the rest who joined in this opinion, have a special place in the 9th Circle of Hell waiting for them, and
when, not if, our civil society dissolves
they should be, and will be, charged with their large part of the destruction of our justice system which led to the inevitable loss of both civil order and our nation.
