Tag: law

No-Limit, No-Case Nigga

Upon perusing the evidence, Alan Dershowitz concludes Trayvon Martin already received his due justice:

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. Moreover, the New York Times has reported that traces of marijuana were found in Trayvon Martin’s body and that Martin’s father initially said that the voice crying for help was not that of his son. It is also been reported that a bruise was found on Martin’s ring finger that would be consistent with Martin having punched Zimmerman. No other wounds, aside of course from the fatal bullet hole in the front of Martin’s body, were found.

If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

This is hardly a surprise. I haven’t written much about this since I didn’t see any reason to doubt, from the beginning, that given a choice between a white guy who wasn’t a white guy doing Neighborhood Watch in a relatively high crime neighborhood and an innocent Skittles-bearing African child who referred to himself as “NO_LIMIT_NIGGA”, the core situation was anything more than a simple matter of a predatory African attacking someone. The only genuinely unusual thing about it is that in the interests of self-preservation, most predatory Africans have the good sense to limit their attacks to Europeans, Hispanics, and other Africans who are incapable of self-defense. Like all predators who wish to survive, they focus on the sick and the weak. The No-Limit Nigga didn’t abide by those sensible limits of predation and that is why his case, such as it is, has been presented post-mortem.

The African community in America, abetted by the mainstream media, has completely missed a potentially important teachable moment. Instead of attempting to media-lynch a decent Hispanic man who was merely attempting to protect his neighborhood, they would have done much better to teach their young men that in a nation with millions of concealed-carry permit holders, and millions more who carry without bothering with permits, it is not merely criminal, but criminally stupid, to attack even the most apparently indefensible individual. Instead, the well-publicized violence of the idiotic “Justice for Trayvon” attacks has only ensured that even more people will be carrying weapons and they will show even less hesitation about using them when attacked in the future.

In fact, the one thing I did find surprising about Zimmerman is that he only shot Martin once. That alone should have sufficed to prove that he had no intention of killing Martin. I was always taught to fire an automatic three times, starting low and progressing upwards with the muzzle rise, which technique I will confess did not render me popular on the few occasions I played paintball.

Too many lawyers

Even law professors are beginning to think so:

This week I’m planning to write about various widespread but in my view mistaken beliefs regarding the intensifying crisis in American legal education. I’m going to start with this one: The biggest problem with American legal education is that it fails to produce practice-ready graduates.

This claim has been made by critics of the legal academic establishment for roughly a century now (every 15 years or so some sort of quasi-official report reiterates it). It was a topic of discussion at a law school symposium this weekend on the future of the legal profession, and is apparently a theme of Jim Molitenrno’s forthcoming book, A Profession in Crisis, which argues that the fundamental problems with legal education today are in large part products of the fact that more than a century ago “medical schools decided that their mission would be to turn out doctors, while law schools decided that their mission would be to turn out law professors.”

Now the claim that law schools remain largely indifferent to the fact that law school teaches law students almost nothing about the practice of law is itself quite true. What isn’t the case is that this fact has in itself much to do with the increasingly unacceptable relationship between the cost of a law degree and the economic benefits it confers. Making graduates practice-ready is a fine idea in theory — why else are law students going to law school anyway? — but if such reforms do nothing about, or worse yet exacerbate, the crumbling cost-benefit structure of legal education they will do nothing about this fundamental structural problem. … Any reform that doesn’t make legal education less expensive while reducing the number of new attorneys is doing nothing about the real crisis, which is that law school costs far too much relative to the number of jobs available for attorneys.

Of course, unemployment is not the real problem with producing two lawyers for every one legal job. The primary problem is that lawyers are one of the few professions where they can easily create demand for their services at the expense of everyone else in society. It’s as if doctors were out there breaking legs and releasing flu viruses in order to ensure a growing demand for their services.

The exits close

A lot of people failed to understand the point of my controversial column “Against a Fence”, having been distracted by the deportation discussion. Even fewer understood my reasoning behind it; many critics found it hard to wrap their minds around an anti-immigration, anti-border wall perspective. But it has always been a tautological truth that a wall designed to keep people out is just as useful for keeping people in. The proposed law to strip passports in order to better hold Americans hostage to the IRS would appear to be an indication that the time in which one easily leave the United States is rapidly coming to an end.

The Republican House of Representatives may soon follow the Democratic Senate and give the IRS the power to confiscate your passport on mere suspicion of owing taxes. There’s no place like home, comrade.

‘America, Love It Or Leave It” might be an obsolete slogan if the “bipartisan transportation bill” that just passed the Senate is approved by the House and becomes law. Contained within the suspiciously titled “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” or “MAP 21,” is a provision that gives the Internal Revenue Service the power to keep U.S. citizens from leaving the country if it finds that they owe $50,000 or more in unpaid taxes — no court ruling necessary.

It is hard to imagine any law more reminiscent of the Soviet Union that America toppled, or its Eastern Bloc slave satellites.

In a free and well-governed society, exile is a punishment. In an unfree and misgoverned one, exile is impermissible. There is no stronger indication that America is no longer free than the fact that its leadership is seriously contemplating the idea of attempting to imprison its citizens within its borders.

And of course, one tends to doubt that Warren Buffett will lose his passport despite Berkshire Hathaway owing massive back taxes, or that any of the 98,000 federal employees who owe a combined $1 billion in back taxes will be deprived of their ability to travel outside the country. And while the writer is correct to say that “if House Republicans pass this assault on our Constitution, their credibility will be in tatters”, this presumes that the House Republicans still possess any credibility after permitting the continued growth of big government by raising the debt ceiling last year.

For all that the Congressional actions are egregiously unconstitutional and directly opposed to the foundational principles of America, one shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. This behavior is completely typical of financially desperate states that can no longer afford the costs of empire. The collapse of the Soviet Union was only the most recent example; there are many to be found throughout history. “Valentinian III, who remarked in 444 AD that new taxes on landowners and merchants would be catastrophic, still imposed an additional 4% sales tax… and further decreed that all transactions be conducted in the presence of a tax collector.” But however harsh the crackdown, however totalitarian the government, strict tax enforcement never works because its objectives are inevitably based upon a static revenue model that fails to account for Man’s unwillingness to work and to obey the law when the state claims an excessive share on the fruits of his labor.

Enjoy the decline… preferably from a distance.

Criminalizing justice

Guilty for the crime of demanding a day in court:

The jury, which deliberated for more than two days, rejected a bunch of counts against Ravi, including the hate crime charges involving Clementi’s visitor (who testfied during the trial, identified only as M.B.). Because of this selectivity, one juror told the Trenton Star-Ledger, “You feel like justice has been served.” I don’t. Ravi is scheduled to be sentenced on May 21. In addition to a potentially lengthy prison sentence, he faces the likelihood of deportation to India, where he was born. Reprehensible as his conduct was, he does not deserve either of those punishments. Had Clementi not killed himself a few days after what he dismissively called Ravi’s “five sec peep,” leading to the completely unproven conjecture that Ravi’s spying drove him to suicide (a claim the prosecution never made during the trial), Ravi probably would not have faced criminal charges at all, let alone a possible 10-year sentence. Before the trial the prosecutors offered him a deal that involved no jail time and a chance to avoid deportation, which suggests even they do not believe he should be punished as severely as a violent felon. So in addition to all of the questionable crimes for which Ravi is about to be punished, there is one more: insisting on his right to a trial.

Setting aside the absurdity of the “bias intimidation” laws and the idea that the jury was capable of correctly reading, post mortem, the late roommate’s thoughts in the absence of any testimonial or documentary evidence, Jacob Sullum is right to note that the main reason Dharun Ravi is facing jail time is because he refused to be served up as the sacrificial victim demanded by the increasingly gay-influenced mainstream media.

While it makes practical sense to offer criminals far lighter sentencing in order to avoid the time and expense of trying them, it is a complete miscarriage of justice. Such a system rapidly devolves into one where even the completely innocent given massive incentive to plea guilty, not only because they avoid the risk of a disproportionate punishment, but also save themselves the expense of defending themselves.

Autopetard-hoistery

Glenn Greenwald explains why the law demands hanging the anti-speech champions high on their own scaffold:

In June, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in the case of Holder v. Humanitarian Law. In that case, the Court upheld the Obama DOJ’s very broad interpretation of the statute that criminalizes the providing of “material support” to groups formally designated by the State Department as Terrorist organizations. The five-judge conservative bloc (along with Justice Stevens) held that pure political speech could be permissibly criminalized as “material support for Terrorism” consistent with the First Amendment if the “advocacy [is] performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization” (emphasis added). In other words, pure political advocacy in support of a designated Terrorist group could be prosecuted as a felony — punishable with 15 years in prison — if the advocacy is coordinated with that group.

This ruling was one of the most severe erosions of free speech rights in decades because, as Justice Breyer (joined by Ginsberg and Sotomayor) pointed out in dissent, “all the activities” at issue, which the DOJ’s interpretation would criminalize, “involve the communication and advocacy of political ideas and lawful means of achieving political ends.” The dissent added that the DOJ’s broad interpretation of the statute “gravely and without adequate justification injure[s] interests of the kind the First Amendment protects.” As Georgetown Law Professor David Cole, who represented the plaintiffs, explained, this was literally “the first time ever” that “the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment permits the criminalization of pure speech advocating lawful, nonviolent activity.” Thus, “the court rule[d] that speech advocating only lawful, nonviolent activity can be made a crime, and that any coordination with a blacklisted group can land a citizen in prison for 15 years.”

In August of last year, The Christian Science Monitor‘s Scott Peterson published a detailed exposé about “a high-powered array of former top American officials” who have received “tens of thousands of dollars” from a designated Terrorist organization – the Iranian dissident group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) — and then met with its leaders, attended its meetings, and/or publicly advocated on its behalf. That group includes Rudy Giuliani, Howard Dean, Michael Mukasey, Ed Rendell, Andy Card, Lee Hamilton, Tom Ridge, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark, Michael Hayden, John Bolton, Louis Freeh — and Fran Townsend.

For some reason, those who favor an expanded role for government never seem to understand that a government with the power to do things you want necessarily has the power to do a lot of things you don’t want. But it’s hardly surprising that Giuliani, Bolton, and Freeh are legally considered terrorists. They have been for a long time.

It should be interesting to see how National Review reacts to this news in light of their inexplicable cheerleading for the nonexistent political career of John Bolton.

Short-sighted secular aggression

Mario Loyola juxtaposes two Obama administration actions:

So the president refuses to apologize for forcing Catholics to violate their religious beliefs or pay a tax penalty. But he immediately apologizes because a few of our soldiers inadvertently violated Muslims religious beliefs by trying to dispose of already-desecrated Korans.

Well, despite his apology, hoardes of semi-barbarian Afghans went on a rampage, burned Obama in dog-head effigy, and killed several of our soldiers.

And if you think that’s bad, just imagine what they would do if Obama adopted a rule forcing Muslims to violate their religious beliefs or pay a tax penalty.

Of course, even if there is considerable resistance to any such rule, secular enthusiasts will be comfortable knowing they will be able to rely upon the judicial system to protect them from violent protests of the law’s new expanse, right?

Wait a minute….

Guilty of what?

John Derbyshire points out that New Jersey is dabbling with throwing out the rule of law on behalf of a sexually aberrant minority and doing so with the full blessing of Republican governor Chris Christie.

[A] year last September, Dharun Ravi and another freshman, Molly Wei, used a webcam to secretly watch Clementi kissing a young man Clementi had picked up…. Three days after that, Clementi committed suicide by jumping from the George Washington Bridge. Whether this had any connection at all to the webcam incident, is not known. That Dharun Ravi thought his prank might drive Clementi to suicide is preposterous; that he intended that result is preposterosity squared.

The homosexualists were up in arms none the less, and every damn fool politician in New Jersey joined in the hue and cry. Chris Christie, who I think less of every time he opens his fat mouth, quote: “I don’t know how those two folks are going to sleep at night, knowing that they contributed to driving that young man to that alternative.” They don’t know that, Governor, and neither do you, and neither does anyone. They played a trivial prank; Clement killed himself; cause and effect are not obvious, certainly not established to any fair evidentiary standards.

I find it no little amusing that a suicide three days after a minor, if potentially emotionally upsetting event is supposed to be conclusive evidence of “murder by reckless manslaughter” whereas when a doctor injects poison into an infant, who goes into seizures and dies within 12 hours, it is considered impossible to determine cause and effect and the very idea that the poison injection might be responsible is scoffed at as unscientific.

This is little more than a show trial, meant to publicly communicate the message that homosexuals are innocent victims of society and injuring their feelings by failing to approve their actions at all times is evil, bordering on criminal. The irony is that Dharun Ravi is obviously far less culpable for Tyler Clementi’s suicide than those individuals who repeatedly urged a psychologically unstable young man to not only indulge his abnormal sexual desires, but to identify himself by them.

There are more deadbeat moms than dads

At least on a percentage basis:

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support — 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 — give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 “deadbeat” mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media. That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures….

The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent. Not only are the dads paying up more when they don’t have custody, but when the court does hand the kids over to dads, they work more than moms who have custody.

I’d heard this was true but I didn’t have any statistical evidence for it before. I would expect that whereas men who don’t make child support payments are subject to the modern form of debtor’s prison, very few, if any women are similarly incarcerated.

A painful admission

I recently learned that I am a victim of rape. Hold me, Ralph:

Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required.

It’s very hard for me to admit this, or even to come to terms with it after all these years. But, it is very important, so I will be brave and come forward and admit the terrible truth at long last. I am a rape victim.

During my four years at Bucknell University, I was raped on various occasions by a band of serial female rapists whose nefarious actions were known and materially supported by the university administration through its “health office” and enabled by their sorority sisters. Being incapable of giving consent due to the influence of alcohol, I was repeatedly subjected to the most horrific abuse humanity can ever suffer and I am still attempting to come to terms with the psychological damage that has resulted from the delayed post-rape trauma.

There is significant photographic, testimonial, and in one case, even police-recorded blood alcohol content evidence of my inability to provide consent. Therefore, although the statute of limitations has passed concerning any criminal charges, I have contacted a lawyer and expect to be filing a civil lawsuit against the university as well as the sororities Delta Delta Delta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and Pi Beta Phi.

I appreciate your support. I know I am not alone in this, and there are many men who have suffered in a similar manner. But together, we can be strong and fight against the violent, criminal actions of predatory women who take advantage of innocent and incapacitated young men.

The lawless society

I have been saying for years that there is no law in the USA, merely the pretense of law. Now the absence of justice in the so-called justice system is becoming readily apparent to everyone who is paying even casual attention:

Sarbanes-Oxley requires [John Corzine] as the CEO of a company to (1) guarantee that effective risk controls and rules are in place and (2) monitor their compliance. It renders failure to do so — that is, the old-fashioned “I didn’t know” defense that was routinely used after 2000-era failures in the Internet space — a felony.

Now of course Mr. Corzine is entitled to the presumption of innocence and he is entitled to a trial before being pronounced guilty, but the law on this point is clear: Executives, the CEO and CFO in particular, are required under Sarbanes-Oxley to factually know about matters such as this and they are required to attest to that knowledge — and the presence of appropriate and sufficient risk controls under penalty of felony indictment.

It appears that Mr. Corzine has admitted in front of a Congressional Committee that he does not know, and therefore this appears to be a prima-facie admission that he is in direct violation of this law.

If this is not dealt with on an expeditious fashion and the law is not enforced you have just seen proof on national television that there is no longer a rule of law in this nation of any substance.

The incredible thing is that the federal government is prosecuting and jailing hundreds of thousands of people for all sorts of drug “crimes”, but has no interest whatsoever in even arresting a man who admitted to stealing somewhere between $600 million and $1.2 billion dollars.

The USA may not be the most corrupt nation on Earth, but it is certainly among the most structurally corrupted. This is actually a more insidious form of corruption, because the law itself stands in open violation of Natural Law. We rightly condemn National Socialist Germany and Soviet Russia because their governments legalized murder, and while events haven’t yet reached that level of extremis, it should now be clear that the USA has legalized fraud and theft.