January 9, 2012: Our court date in Latvia

We have reached another milestone in our process to adopt Sintija into our family. The court hearing for the Latvian adoption will be held January 9, 2012, in Valka, which is a city on the Estonian border. (Yes, we expect that the Latvian winter, especially in a city above the latitude of Moscow, Russia, will be pretty harsh at that time of year. Kind of like Garrett County.)

If the court approves our adoption, then we will return to the USA with Sintija (who is with us now here in the USA), and then we wait until being notified to return to Latvia in order for Sintija to receive a permanent resident visa from the U.S. Embassy in Riga. After that, we can have the USA re-adoption, and then she legally will be part of our family.

Obviously, Sintija already is part of our family and, more important, part of our hearts.

Johanna will accompany Sintija on both trips to Latvia, and I will remain in the USA to be with our other children.

More Ilgi from Latvia

In celebration of Sintija's 13th birthday this past week, I am posting more songs from my favorite Latvian group, Ilgi. Sintija is doing very well, and all I can say is there are absolutely no doubts.

The first is "Labvakar, Rudzu Lauks" (Good Evening, Rye Field). There is a beautiful interlude with the Latvian instrument called the kokle at about 2:21.


The second is "Nesmejieti Jūs Ļautiņi," and I could not get a good translation from the Latvian, except that Jūs Ļautiņi means "You Folks."

Texas prosecutor (now a judge) enables a murderer to kill again (while pursuing the wrong suspect)

It is hard to describe Texas and its system of state-sponsored homicide and its out-of-control prosecutors except to say that prosecutors and judges in the Lone Star State must be taking lessons from Buzz Franklin, Chris "Cruisemaster" Arnt, Len "The Man-Racist" Gregor, and "judge" brian outhouse. However, a former prosecutor who now is a judge, not only engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, but his misconduct virtually guaranteed that a woman would be murdered.

The case centers around the wrongful conviction of a man for murder and, as this article in Forbes demonstrates, by deliberately (yes, deliberately, given the evidence) going after the wrong man, the prosecutor, Ken Anderson -- now Judge Ken Anderson -- made sure that the real murderer was not impeded, and two years later the killer struck again. The article notes:

AUSTIN, Texas -- Caitlin Baker was 3 when her mother, Debra, was beaten to death and left naked in bed in her Austin home. Although the pain of the loss has faded in the 23 years since, her anger that her mother's killer was never caught has not.

Less than two years before that January 1988 slaying, unbeknownst to all but a few people until recently, the mother of another woman bludgeoned to death in bed during an attack at her home about 15 miles away told an investigator that her 3-year-old grandson watched a "monster" do the killing, not his father, as police suspected. She urged him to pursue other leads, but her daughter's husband, Michael Morton, was instead convicted of murder and sentenced to life.

There is much more to this sickening story. In the original case that Anderson prosecuted, there was the usual aspect of the prosecution ignoring evidence that led to another killer. (Like the drunk looking for his keys under a street lamp instead of where he dropped them because the "light is better" under the lamp, Anderson was like most prosecutors in that he went for the easy conviction and the truth be damned.)

Anderson's misdeeds included hiding exculpatory evidence (a favorite tactic of prosecutors throughout this country) and lying (something prosecutors do all the time):

Investigations have been ongoing into the actions (or lack thereof) by the prosecutor in this case because there is reason to believe that evidence which would prove that Morton was innocent was withheld by the district attorney’s office of Williamson County.

The evidence withheld includes: (1) the eyewitness account of Morton’s young son, who said that the killer was not his father; (2) the victim’s Visa card found later at a store in San Antonio; (3) a cashed check, made out to the victim, with an apparent forged endorsement on the back where it was cashed almost two weeks after the homicide; and (4) the bandanna found at the crime scene with DNA evidence on it (which has been the basis of the vacated conviction).

Why did Anderson withhold this crucial evidence? Like any typical prosecutor, he wanted to win and knew that prosecutorial immunity protected him, and once he had focused upon Michael Morton, he wanted to do what he could to pound square pegs into round holes.

So, Morton went to prison where he sat there for 25 years until the courts ordered him to be free. However, this is not a typical story of "new evidence exonerates innocent man." No, it was a case of one of Anderson's successors, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley who, according to Time Magazine, is "a well-connected ally of Texas Governor Rick Perry" and "who fought tenaciously for six years to keep Morton behind bars."

I'll get back to the Bradley-Perry-Anderson show, but in the meantime, there is even more to this sickening story. Two years after the murder of Morton's wife, another woman, Debra Baker, was murdered in the same way that Morton's wife had been killed, a crime that police and prosecutors did not bother to solve. (Was it because in solving it, they would have been forced to take a hard look at the Morton case? I would not be surprised, given the depraved nature of police and prosecutors in this country today.)

Lest one think I am exaggerating, DNA evidence from both crime scenes implicate the same man:

New DNA testing linked the killings of Debra Baker and Christine Morton to another man with a prison record in several states. Police have not publicly identified the suspect, whom they are trying to locate, but his genetic links to both slayings led to Morton's release from prison last week after nearly 25 years behind bars, and his formal exoneration by an appeals court on Wednesday.

However, we are fortunate that Morton's attorneys were able to find the DNA, given the efforts of Rick Perry's allies, of Bradley and Anderson to suppress evidence. Again, the record shows:

In early 2005, Morton’s attorneys sought DNA testing on a blood-stained bandana found outside the Morton home on the day after the brutal murder, which took place on Aug. 13, 1986. Court records show that Bradley, who was appointed by Perry in 2001 and was not Morton’s original prosecutor, sought to prevent that testing from ever taking place and tried to limit its effect on the case.

At first, Bradley argued that testing the bandana would open the floodgates to an indeterminable amount of new evidence. “One has to wonder whether petitioner would file another motion at some future date seeking additional testing of even more items,” he wrote in October of 2005. In a 2009 filing, Bradley argued that the bandana was irrelevant because it was found “a football field’s length” from the Morton’s house, and that if any DNA testing did take place “it should not incorporate the possibility of a match of any DNA profile recovered from the bandana to a known offender.

District attorneys vary widely in their willingness to consider new evidence, but Bradley’s efforts make him an outlier. The Innocence Project says it has to fight a prosecutor’s objections to DNA testing in less than half of its cases, and most resistance dries up quickly. Death penalty opponents are particularly critical of prosecutors who resist DNA testing. Steve Hall, director of the StandDown Texas project, called Bradley’s behavior in the Morton case “abhorrent.”

Morton’s attorneys ultimately prevailed on the DNA issue in May 2010. A 2011 lab report showed that blood on the bandana matched Christine Morton’s DNA, and that DNA from a hair on the bandana matched that of a convicted felon in California, as well as DNA recovered at the site of a similar, unsolved murder of another Texas woman.

DNA wasn’t the only potentially exculpatory evidence that Bradley tried to wall off. Morton’s lawyers had long wondered about the original prosecutors’ decision not to seek testimony from the chief investigator in the case, Sgt. Don Wood of the Williamson County Sherriff’s office. But when they filed a Public Information Act request in 2008 to view Wood’s files, Bradley tried to block the release. TIME reviewed a flurry of correspondence about the records request between the Innocence Project, the sheriff’s office, and the Texas attorney general’s office. A 2008 letter from the AG to the sheriff’s office notes that, “The Williamson County District Attorney’s Office is a party to the litigation and has requested that the information be withheld.”

Again, when Morton’s attorneys ultimately prevailed, they found compelling evidence that their client was innocent: a transcript of a phone call in which Morton’s mother-in-law told Wood that Morton’s three-year-old son had witnessed a different man commit the murder, and a hand-written message to Wood dated August 15, 1986, showing that Christine’s credit card had been recovered at a jewelry store in San Antonio two days after the murder. With the new evidence he sought to block made public, Bradley capitulated and freed Morton last week.

This is depraved behavior from a man voted by Texas district attorneys several years ago as the "top prosecutor" in Texas. (If anything, it demonstrates just how dishonest and utterly depraved prosecutors and "law enforcement" in Texas really are.)

Unfortunately, there is even more, and this deals in the infamous Cameron Todd Willingham execution in which it is strongly suspected that the State of Texas executed an innocent man:

At the same time that Bradley was showing his penchant for stonewalling evidence in the Morton case, Perry appointed him to another sensitive position. By 2009, several studies had been conducted suggesting that the 1991 house fire that killed Cameron Todd Willingham’s three daughters was not arson and that the experts who sealed Willingham’s conviction with testimony to the contrary had based their investigation on outdated techniques.

The Texas Forensic Science Commission, a state organization tasked with ensuring that forensic investigations adhere to the highest scientific standards, began reviewing the evidence. But in late September 2009, Perry fired three commission members, including its chairman, just days before they were scheduled to hear testimony from an outside arson expert who had determined that the evidence against Willingham was based on shoddy science. Perry chose Bradley to take over the commission, and he quickly cancelled the testimony, effectively burying the investigation.

Again, we are dealing with utter depravity and one of the people responsible for the State of Texas covering up its misdeeds is Rick Perry, who now wants to be President of the United States. A well-known Baptist minister recently endorsed Perry from his pulpit, and I have the sinking feeling that the minister is quite aware of the perfidy outlined in this post -- and could not give a damn.

Just like the churches in the LMJC that have helped enable people like "judge" brian outhouse and Len Gregor, we see that the churches in Texas are placing their stamp of approval upon behavior that in the Old Testament would have resulted in men like Bradley, Anderson, and Perry being stoned to death. And apparently, they want those anti-Christian "standards of justice" to be the standard for the USA. All I can say is God help us.

Thank You!

Thanks to everyone who contributed to our fund raising campaign to adopt 12 year old Sintija from Latvia. Sintija is with us now and is adjusting well to her new life as part of our family. While we can't adopt any more children, we want to continue to advocate for orphans to find their forever families. Please see our new fundraising campaign at The Point.

Bill and Johanna Anderson

Eric Holder: Perjury for me -- but not for thee, Roger

Legendary Major League Baseball pitcher Roger Clemens faces a retrial for perjury for allegedly lying to Congress during a hearing. The U.S. Department of Justice and Congress spared no expense to try to put him into prison after he testified that he had not used steroids. (During his first trial, the federal prosecutor brought in hearsay "evidence" that the judge already had ruled inadmissible, which led to a mistrial.)

Fast forward to this year. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who ultimately is responsible for the Clemens prosecution, told Congress last May that he only had heard of the infamous "Operation Fast and Furious" just a few weeks before. However, as this article demonstrates, Holder had been briefed about this program on a number of occasions during the summer of 2010.

So, assuming that both Clemens and Holder have lied under oath, which action was worst? If Clemens lied, it was about something he had ingested into his body that may have let him throw a baseball longer (and faster) than otherwise may have been the case. Operation Fast and Furious, on the other hand, resulted in scores of people being murdered, shot down with weapons that the government purposely made sure got into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

From what I can tell, however, the government thinks that what Clemens allegedly did was much worse. Eric Holder will not face a second of scrutiny, as I am sure that the White House and the New York Times will come to his aid. In fact, the NYT recently had an article that tried to whitewash the whole thing, claiming that only Republicans were making any noise about the memos. Holder will not have to worry about being indicted (especially since prosecutors are not in the habit of indicting themselves). There are "two Americas," but they are not rich and poor; they are the Ruling Political Classes -- and everyone else.

Nancy Grace: Flashing with the "stars"

Last August, I had some commentary about the execrable Nasty Nancy Grace being part of "Dancing with the Stars," and while I mused about someone "dancing with the Devil," no doubt, I had no idea that Her Nastiness also would engage in exhibitionism.

Despite the protestations that she "was not flashing anybody," the photo below (from the UK Daily Mail) shows that Grace was exposing more than just some cleavage.

I include this post not to show off any of the endowment of Her Nastiness, but rather to point out the obvious: despite being cited by appeals courts for lying in court, Grace is one of the most insufferable self-righteous characters on the tube. Had a female accused of a crime ever worn such a low-cut dress in public, Nasty Nancy (or maybe "Nansty") would have been all over her, claiming that the woman's wardrobe was "proof" that she was a criminal.

So, here we have Nansty wearing a dress that shows, well, a lot of stuff, claiming that what we are seeing is not what we are seeing and that she did not "flash" anyone when, clearly, this is the very definition of "flashing." Gee, Nasty Nancy Grace is lying again. Just shocking. Hoodathunkitt?!?!? (By the way, is it just me, or does Nasty Grace look like Miss Piggy -- with no insult intended toward Miss Piggy and the Muppets?)

This reminds me of the "fundraiser" that the LMJC had for the Children's Advocacy Center -- you know, the place that hires high school grads to do fake interviews of children and then claims they have "discovered evidence of child molestation" when, in fact, they have helped fabricate lies? Yeah, that place.

You will remember that prosecutors Chris "Cruisemaster" Arnt and Len "The Thong Man" Gregor and the rest of the Children's Advocacy Center crowd was claiming that a tasteful photo of Tonya Craft in an evening dress was "proof" that she was "narcissistic" and, therefore, a child molester. During the trial, the announcement was made and the sponsors proudly put out a promotion photo of an Elvis impersonator and two "Vegas" women -- wearing thongs. It was the ultimate example of how the LMJC gives everyone else the middle finger.

(After I pointed out that the LMJC was using half-naked women in thongs to promote a fundraiser, the photo was quickly changed and the women suddenly were wearing pink leotards. Yeah, you can't make up this stuff.)

As I see it, this is more of the double standard that those involved with "law enforcement" are promoting. One set of rules for us, and another set of rules for them.

By the way, I doubt that Arnt, Gregor, Tim "Dirty" Deal, and Alan Norton will tell the attendees at the conference this week about those double standards. No, they will pose as people who "care" about the law, all the while crossing their fingers.

NOTE: If any readers attend the conference, please contact me so that I can prepare a report. Unfortunately, I am 600 miles away and cannot attend and listen to these "dynamic" speakers too people how to lie and get away with it.