John Mulkey, Again

Two weeks ago, I wrote about John Mulkey's situation and there have been some developments since then. Yesterday, Judge Ralph Van Pelt in Catoosa County found Mr. Mulkey "not guilty" for a weapons charge, although Van Pelt's editorial comments exposed the mindset of judges and prosecutors in the LMJC, where justice is a random event.

Before going further, I will note that I have heard (through the grapevine, of course) that the judges and prosecutors in the LMJC have been unhappy with my editorial comments. So be it, but I have some advice for them as well: do what is right, follow the law, stop lying and protecting liars, and stop fabricating charges and documents, and I then will stop telling the truth about the daily outrages that occur every day in the courtrooms of that God-forsaken judicial district.

Furthermore, a very prominent attorney told me earlier this year that in judicial matters, "Georgia is Atlanta surrounded by Alabama." I believe that his comments were a grave insult -- to Alabama. At least Alabama authorities refused to bring charges against Brad Wade for lack of evidence, but the LMJC of Georgia did not let non-evidence stand in the way of railroading this innocent man into prison.

So, while Judge Van Pelt and others may not like my comments, I believe they are well-founded, and if these people are not willing at least to follow the law, then perhaps they need to find another line of work for which they will not be subject to public criticism. I know none of these people; I only know their deeds.

So, let us go back to the hearing in which Judge Van Pelt, unlike "judge" Brian Outhouse, at least agreed to follow the law he was sworn to uphold. The judge said that Mr. Mulkey had not violated the law, according to the legislature. However, he added that he did not like the law, so his "not guilty" verdict was given with reluctance.

This brings us to a most interesting point, one that Van Pelt refused to address. Alan Norton, who is bringing charges against Eric Echols in defiance of a Georgia Appeals Court ruling on the very same kind of case originally was assigned to the case. (This is another example of the "We do this because we can do this" attitude that Georgia prosecutors have, despite the code of ethics handed down by the Georgia State Bar that clearly forbids this kind of conduct. However, since the Bar refuses to discipline prosecutors no matter how egregious their conduct, we can expect lawlessness from those who claim to be upholding the law.)

Because Norton could not be there, Chris "Alberto-Facebook" Arnt was the ADA bringing the charges. So, we see yet another example of how Arnt spits on the law. As I noted in my previous post, Arnt and his partners-in-crime Len "The Racist-Misogynist-The Man" Gregor had no problems suborning perjury -- and obvious perjury at that -- along with forging documents. Once again, I find it curious that a man who openly commits felonies -- and subornation of perjury and forging documents are felonies -- is permitted to claim to be "enforcing the law."

In fact, we should look more closely at Van Pelt's decision. Since it was clear that Mr. Mulkey was not breaking the law, Van Pelt should have dismissed the charges and given an apology to Mr. Mulkey for having him dragged into court in the first place. Instead, Van Pelt basically declared that while he wished he could have convicted Mr. Mulkey and sent him to prison -- even though the man is no criminal -- even he could not do that. And we are supposed to "celebrate" these moments of "justice." God help us.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mulkey's ordeal is not over. From another grapevine, I hear that the authorities are unhappy that Mr. Mulkey has chosen to publicly proclaim his innocence, as opposed to being silent and letting the police and prosecutors run all over him and destroy his rights. This is amazing. The authorities have no problem with making outrageous public statements and bringing false charges, but when a citizen directly affected by this illegal behavior speaks up, then the people in the system get up their backs and display their anger.

The "molestation" charges against Mr. Mulkey do not pass the "smell test." Furthermore, their star "witness," Mr. Mulkey's own daughter, has said the charges were not true, and that her relatives in Washington had their own ulterior motives for making the allegations.

Unfortunately, we are dealing with Georgia, and that is enough. Georgia is a state where prosecutors and judges and police are not bound by the law, and where even an admission by a judge that a defendant broke no law is Really Big News.

The players of the Georgia "justice" system remind me of spoiled children who decide to change the rules of games in order to make sure that they can win, and when they lose, they throw fits. With children, however, it really is a game; in Georgia, we are seeing the utter destruction of innocent life.

The Ordeal of John Mulkey

Police and prosecutors in Georgia are out of control. They bring charges where there are no crimes, and then refuse to back off once the charges are debunked, and because the authorities at the state level refuse even to investigate any wrongdoing, these people are free to act lawlessly and ruthlessly as they engage in criminal activity.

Thus it is that John Mulkey of Cartersville, Georgia, is facing the nightmare ordeal that Tonya Craft, Brad Wade, James Combs, Eric Echols and countless others in North Georgia already have been (or are currently) experiencing. The able Dennis Norwood of The Chattanoogan recently had a story on Mr. Mulkey and I urge people to read it to find the facts of the case. I won't repeat them here, but, instead, will deal with some of the reasons that the authorities will not bend to the obvious and end this man's ordeal.

First, I wish to deal with the weapons charge against Mr. Mulkey, a charge into which the ancient doctrine of mens rea factors. Until U.S. Justice William O. Douglas led a "Progressive" charge against this doctrine and eviscerated it at the federal level, mens rea was the bedrock of American and English criminal law.

This doctrine dealt with intent, that is, intent to commit a crime. The great English jurist William Blackstone, who more than any other person influenced American and English law, called it a "vicious will," in which one intends to engage in criminal activity.

Take, for example, two car wrecks in which someone is killed. In the first, everyone can see that it truly was an accident. Perhaps a tire blows out, a deer runs into the road, or something happens that no one expected. In the second, however, the driver of one car deliberately steers his vehicle into the other vehicle and pushes the accelerator, hoping that the end result - a death - will occur.

In the first incident, if no traffic laws have been violated, almost certainly the authorities won't charge the driver with a crime. However, in the second situation, the authorities see that the driver was using his car as a weapon and will charge him with homicide, and the charge would be justified.

In both situations, there is a death, but in the second, one person acted recklessly in order to visit the injury upon the other party. However, if the authorities were to charge the first driver with murder, then there likely would be public outrage, and the person would appeal to mens rea.

Thus, that is the situation involving the weapons charge against Mr. Mulkey (filed, appropriately, in Catoosa County, where the law disappeared years ago and only venal, criminally-minded police, prosecutors, and judges remain). Since he clearly was not aware that there was an outstanding warrant against him, he could not have known that he technically was in violation of weapons laws.

(In fact, he even told the police officer that he had a weapon in the car, which hardly would be the actions of a man who was holding an illegal firearm. Again, the authorities don't care; they just want to throw people into jail, justified or unjustified.)

So, we see just how men like Buzz Franklin and the magistrates and judges of the LMJC really don't care about legal doctrines. However, this story gets worse, at least as far as Mr. Mulkey is concerned.

As Mr. Norwood's story goes, Mr. Mulkey's wife, Casey, died of leukemia. They had a daughter, and Casey's parents wanted custody of the girl. According to Mr. Mulkey, they allegedly convinced the girl to accuse Mr. Mulkey of molesting her, a charge that the child says she never made. (The actual charge came from the in-laws, who told Bartow County police, when then took out a warrant for Mr. Mulkey's arrest.)

So, that is where we stand. For the time being, there has been no indictment, but the authorities refuse to back down. We need to understand that the authorities LOVE to pursue child molestation cases, and from what I can tell, they really don't care if there was actual molestation or not. Why do they love these charges?

First, there is no need for physical evidence. If they can get someone to give hearsay accusations - even if the person who supposedly was molested denies it happens - then they have a basis for a charge.

Second, there is money in it. States and localities receive millions of dollars in federal money to pursue these kinds of charges, and the more "molestation" they "uncover," the more money and prestige for the authorities.

Third, it is a power game. We now are in an age in which people in the legal system no longer care if the charges they pursue are true or not. The usual line is, "We will let a jury decide," but the laws and rules governing judges and prosecutors clearly state that they are to pursue the truth, not what is convenient to them.

More and more, we are seeing narcissistic prosecutors like Len "The Man" Gregor (who constantly bragged on himself during Tonya Craft's trial, wanting jurors to see him as a Greek god instead of the lying fraud that he really was) taking over. These are people who enjoy bullying others, and the more lives they destroy, the better they feel about themselves.

Today's prosecutors, because they almost never are disciplined by authorities, feel free to break the law and to lie constantly about charges or bring charges that the courts already have said are not legal. In John Mulkey's case, the authorities clearly have no legal or moral basis by which to bring charges, yet they refuse to do what is right.

In my devotions this morning, I read Proverbs 14:34, which states: "Righteousness exalts a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people." Indeed, people like those who have authority in the LMJC and elsewhere in Georgia have become a "reproach" in every sense of the word. They no longer care about right and wrong; they just want to win, and all too often the so-called gatekeepers are nothing more than foxes guarding the hen house.

I will say unequivocally that no society can withstand this kind of official misconduct without breaking down and becoming an out-and-out police state based solely upon fear. The John Mulkey case might seem to be just another Georgia "child molestation" case, but it symbolizes much more, for we have a situation here in which the authorities so far have shown no inclination whatsoever to do what is right - and what the law supposedly requires of them.

A society can withstand people committing crimes, as criminals always have been in our midst. No society, however, can withstand those in authority utterly disregarding the law, for that goes to the very heart of the system.