Whenever there is an opinion piece in the mainstream media about prosecutors doing evil things, there always is the disclaimer: "The majority of prosecutors in this country are ethical and truthful, and we are just dealing with a 'few bad apples' here." Once upon a time, I believed that, too. No longer.
The "tipping point" for me was not simply the Duke Lacrosse Case, but the statements of other prosecutors around the country when the charges still were in play and the story was dominating the talk shows in 2006 and 2007. In particular, Norm Early was especially outrageous.
Early is not a bit player among prosecutors in the USA. While he no longer is a district attorney, for many years he was the elected DA in Denver, Colorado, and was a major player in Democratic politics there. He later served as media director National District Attorneys Association, an organization that serves as “the voice of America’s prosecutors and to support their efforts to protect the rights and safety of the people.”
According to the NDAA's official "mission," the organization professes "to foster and maintain the honor and integrity of the prosecuting attorneys of the United States in both large and small jurisdictions by whatever title such attorneys may be known
." Actually, given Early's conduct as the former face of the organization, perhaps its Official Mission should be "encouraging prosecutors to lie, hide exculpatory evidence, convict innocent people, and get away with it, all while hiding behind the robes of U.S. Supreme Court justices."
If you wish to get a sense of the outrageous conduct of Early in the Duke case, K.C. Johnson's Durham-in-Wonderland blog had an excellent post on the man and his statements that were made while he was a major player for the NDAA. If this guy is typical of prosecutors in the USA, then there is no hope for any of us.
I would urge you to read the post if for no other reason than to understand how these people think and the lies they will tell in order to pursue innocent people. Furthermore, to get a sense of how prosecutors view the rights that Americans have to defend themselves against criminal charges, read what Early had to say about that, too. According to typical prosecutors, we should go directly from accusations to sentencing. Why bother with innocence, since prosecutors tell us there are no innocent people?
For me, the one event that seals my views has been the situation with Carola Jacobson. A prosecutorial office that will engage in the outright murderous assault against a single mother, a good woman who has done nothing to deserve this treatment, is nothing but a den of liars. But, the U.S. Supreme Court says that liars like this are special people who deserve special protection. The SCOTUS, however, does not say how we can be protected against a pack of vicious dogs as make up the Maricopa County District Attorney's office and other prosecutorial offices around the country.
Happy Easter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
The SCOTUS, however, does not say how we can be protected against a pack of vicious dogs as make up the Maricopa County District Attorney's office and other prosecutorial offices around the country.
Why would we seek the advice of that state-enabling body to tell us how to protect ourselves against that very same predatory, criminal entity? That's akin to asking Jeffery Dahmer how to protect our teenage sons against murderous paedophiles. The truth is that most of us know what we need to do to protect ourselves against the depredations of the State's agents. The question is: at what point we have we had enough and decide to actually do what needs to be done?
The point should be now. I'm tired of talking about it, I'm ready to do something about it.
Greetings Dr Anderson,
Shared as 'Bill Anderson on Early lying and late justice'
Thank you for writing this
Doc Ellis 124
Another great blog. Thank you Mr Anderson. I wish we could do something about all this corruption.
I think all this could be ended if we had the same law as England were people that falsely accuse others will have to pay for the whole trial. That would help a lot with even starting the false accusations
Maria - England is RIFE with false rape accusations, with vicitm's compensation being what it is.
Anthony Graves in Texas on 48 hours.
Even the new Texas prosecutor said the other prosecutor did a very poor job on Anthony Graves and more minds on the problem were better than a few minds?
Why, They can read and see the evidence, Why can't they say this is not true. Why would you bring these false charges to us, What is wrong with letting these accusers know they can see through them. instead they railroad Innocent people. The family's they destroy do they not care. how they sleep at night is beyond me. Look as tho it was you or your child. Can they not put themselves there. They are going to stand before God one day Woe beyond to them, they can't lie or have lies told won't work with him.Please People listen to your heart, and fix these wrong's you have done to innocent people.
They are going to stand before God one day Woe beyond to them...
Exactly. If no justice in this world, then definitely in the next.
Amen to that
Your blog just keeps taking those baby steps closer to encouraging one of the posters to become a vigilante. Keep up the good work, hopefully when one of them does "do what needs to be done" the prosecution can tie this back to you and your blog as a RICO case. Oh the irony.
Dear 10:56,
Hope your the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Sincerely,
Vigilante.
10:56, How is it you can see the damage you think Mr Anderson is doing, But you can't see the Damage the prosecutor's are doing,
To Innocent People. You must be one of them, Your time is coming.
10:56, Thank you so much for the laugh today! Do you honestly think we're going to rise up & start taking lives? Do you really understand what you said? To me, your statement says more about your line of thinking rather than ours. Sounds as if you settle things with violence & maybe LE needs to monitor you. What a pitiful soul you are.
@10:56 There are ways to make a stand without violence, look and learn!
So anonymous trolltard 10:56 is fearfully convinced that the readers of a blog that it ridicules with regularity are powerful enough to sow the seeds of said trolltard's own demise?
Amazing. It takes real talent, in an idiot savant sort of way, to craft that sort of "logic."
Anyway, I find it both heartwarming and amusing that statist bullies like trolltard 10:56 are sufficiently fearful and sufficiently aware of the untenability of their position as to give us that much credit, however misplaced it might be.
I think that the anonymous poster gives us the mentality of the worst of the prosecutors. First, I have my doubts that any of the people making comments on my blog are going to go attack someone. Heck, I am defending peaceful people who have NOT attacked anyone!
Second, how one would tie a RICO case to this blog is a howler, although I am sure that there are prosecutors out there who would try to do something like that. I mean, who needs the law when you can make it up as you go?
Oh, the irony, indeed!
Second, how one would tie a RICO case to this blog is a howler, although I am sure that there are prosecutors out there who would try to do something like that.
It's probably a measure of just how far these cretins think they can now go in perverting and subverting the law and just how unaccountable to anyone they feel themselves to now be that they can make moronic statements like that with an air of complete seriousness. I have no doubt whatsoever that our resident trolltard, assuming that it's an actual prosecutard, is absolutely convinced that it could manipulate a grand jury into sustaining a RICO indictment on totally spurious grounds. Given that this lowlife and its cohorts in crime have completely subverted and co-opted the grand jury process (with the result that the average grand juror is about as knowledgeable of the law and as resolute in the face of prosecutorial misconduct as a bowl of chocolate pudding), our trolltard would probably be correct in that assumption.
I know I'm a bit late to the party, but I'd like to address the post by Anonymous Cowardly Troll @ 4/25/11 10:56 PM. It's a classic case of argumentum ad baculum - appeal to force. Logically speaking, the argument goes like this:
1. If A accepts X as true, then Y will occur.
2. Y is a punishment against A.
3. Therefore, X is false.
Of course, people who appeal to force typically aren't doing so because they think it's a valid form of logical argument. They do it to intimidate their opponents into shutting up. So what we see here with Anonymous Cowardly Troll are transparent bullying tactics. Fortunately, Dr. Anderson seems to be made of much stronger stuff.
Very informative Bill....
Great commemts too. kbg
Post a Comment