vision2020
Re: Final Farewell to the 4th Amendment?
Dear Vision2020:
P C wrote:
> . . . As for your statement about "Rich White People"......can it, that's a racist statement if I've ever heard
> one.....get a grip.
Wake up and take a critical look around you. From years working as a
lawyer in the criminal courts in this country, I wholeheartedly agree
with PC's comment that mine was a racist statement; because we live in a
racist country. The people who protest most loudly against this, often
judges, just provide proof that many Americans will resist equal justice
at all costs. Statistics and facts, never, ever cited by chief justice
Rehnquist, who relies only on his ridiculous opinion that racism has
been eliminated in our country, prove that the poor and non-white in
this country do not receive the same justice as the rich and white. When
the chief justice of this country refuses to hire African Americans as
law clerks, then it is not at all surprising that the rich and powerful
white establishment fails to perceive the problems in front of it. I
suppose, the chief justice sees non-white's working for other people and
figures that everything is OK in the country race wise.
> I just sat through the highly publicized trial of an Air Force Recruiter charged with multiple sexual > harassment offenses. Funny, he had the right to remain silent.....and exercised it.
Good for him! Now, ask Susan McDougal how it felt to spend almost two
years in jail for refusing to testify. Every United States citizen knows
exactly what the right to remain silent means, but for a few appellate
judges who think it means that you can remain silent except when the
government wants you testify. Moreover, chief justice Rehnquist does not
believe that citizens have a right to know their rights. So, if police
and prosecutors want to force you to testify, but do not want to tell
you that you can refuse, then it is up to you to assert your rights --
if you know them. Who knows their Constitutional rights? The rich, of
course. According to the radical, activist chief justice Rehnquist, we
should throw out decisions of past Justices and live in the time of the
Inquisition, where all the technical rules will be strictly enforced
("Innocence? Irrelevant; did the accused file his Writ on time and in
the proper form? No? Then, off to the electric chair; who cares if he is
innocent, we can leave that to the Governor; after all, we are only a
court of Law."), and if the charges are read in Latin and cannot be
understood by the accused, tough! You say that the Air Force Recruiter
exercised his right to remain silent, well good for him! But, do not
pretend that you or your fellow citizens will be allowed to under the
sham the courts call our Constitution.
> He had the right to confront the witnesses against him......and did, through
> his two attorneys.
Unless, of course, the witnesses might find being in the same courtroom
with the accused unpleasant, in which case the government can put the
witness in a special, safe room, with a video camera discretely hidden
behind a mirror, away from the discomforting presence of the person who
is going to be sent away to prison, or from the scrutiny of the jury,
which might upset the witness, God forbid, and make it more difficult to
tell the story the witness has been rehersed to tell. Then, sometimes
with a social worker in the room to help the witness testify, the
accused's lawyer can cross examine the witness via video feed, unless
the questions make the witness too uncomfortable, in which case the
witness can take a break, or be excused, to seek comfort and help before
answering questions. Or, if the witness is a child, then why not just
let the social worker testify for the child, rather than make the jury
consider all that confusing and contradictory and time-consuming
testimony directly from the child. After all, the social worker can
present the facts in a much more concise, efficient, and clear form,
making unnecessary the complication of weighing the actual evidence.
> He had the right to a public trial........and got one -- open seating to the public and attended by the > media.
Unless the witness might be an important government snitch, in which
case the accused should not be able to see the witness, nor should the
lawyer for the accused be able to question the witness before trial or
find out anything about the witness. And, as for civil trials, as well
as most of the important conduct of our government, the right of
citizens to participate and watch has been conceded to the interests of
corporations in keeping their "trade secrets" secret; so, most important
decisions by our politicians and civil courts are being made hidden from
public scrutiny.
> Also, at least the Republican Party is not willing to "give this country away"
> like the Democrats.
Ah, so this is what it is really about; and you are right. The real
question is who has given this country away? That distinction has been
enthusiastically embraced by the Republican Party, who decided to oust
Teddy Roosevelt, a reformer, to become the party of the rich; and, in
doing, so the Republican Party decided to dismantle the Bill of Rights,
in order to create a more controlled, totalitarian state. With
Republican justices like Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor and the
like, they have succeeded.
> Cheers.
>
> PC
Dolors,
Duncan Palmatier
Back to TOC