Tag Archives: Law

Police State Update: Do Police Officers Lie?

Posted on by

Police officers are widely viewed as honest public servants. Unfortunately, it turns out they lie under oath, possibly on a massive scale. Yes indeed, the police state is alive and well in the United States. Why do some police officers lie you may ask? Simple. First, they can get away with it. And second, they’re rewarded for it. Here’s more on the rising American police state from the New York Times:

…Peter Keane, a former San Francisco Police commissioner, wrote an article in The San Francisco Chronicle decrying a police culture that treats lying as the norm: “Police officer perjury in court to justify illegal dope searches is commonplace. One of the dirty little not-so-secret secrets of the criminal justice system is undercover narcotics officers intentionally lying under oath. It is a perversion of the American justice system that strikes directly at the rule of law. Yet it is the routine way of doing business in courtrooms everywhere in America.”

The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”

(See the rest at the New York Times)

The Switch in Time that Saved Nine?

Posted on by

In 1937, President Roosevelt proposed his notorious “court-packing plan.” It altered the ideological composition of the Supreme Court and singlehandedly changed the course of a nation. What was “the switch in time that saved nine?”

The Four Horsemen vs. The Three Musketeers?

During the 1930s, the Supreme Court contained two voting blocs. The “Four Horsemen,” which consisted of Justices Pierce Butler, James McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter, believed in upholding the Constitution and personal freedom. They generally opposed Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation. The Three Musketeers, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, and Harlan Stone, supported the New Deal. Chief Justice Charles Hughes and Justice Owen Roberts acted as swing votes with Hughes often siding with the Musketeers and Roberts usually finding equal ground with the Four Horsemen.

From 1935-1937, the Four Horsemen and Justice Roberts struck down several parts of the highly unconstitutional New Deal. Roosevelt and his supporters despised the Horsemen. However, unless one of them retired, there was nothing he could do to stop them. That is, until he and his attorney general came up with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.

President Roosevelt’s Court Packing Plan?

This was the infamous “court packing plan.” President Roosevelt proposed that he be given the power to appoint a new justice for every sitting justice that continued to serve six months past his or her 70th birthday. The bill would’ve allowed him to add 44 federal judges as well as 6 Supreme Court justices. It encountered tremendous opposition even from Roosevelt’s supporters. The public lost faith in him and a previously supportive Congress began to question if the President was trying to create a dictatorship.

The Switch in Time that Saved Nine?

Less than two months after the Bill was announced, Justice Roberts joined the Three Musketeers and Chief Justice Hughes in West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which upheld minimum wage legislation. It was a strange vote considering the fact that Roberts had previously been on the other end of several decisions regarding the minimum wage. Since then, it has become known as “the switch in time that saved nine,” alluding to the theory that he switched sides in order to stop Roosevelt from usurping the Supreme Court’s independence.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

Was the Switch in Time that Saved Nine deliberate? Did Justice Roberts abandon his ideology for political purposes? These questions remain a source of vigorous debate to this day. According to research conducted by Professor G. Edward White, the votes were cast a few days before the court-packing plan was announced. Others point out that Roberts wasn’t a consistent supporter of the Four Horsemen and suggest that his ideology, if indeed he had one to begin with, was actually closer to the Three Musketeers.

On the other hand, there’s some interesting circumstantial evidence to suggest that Chief Justice Hughes engineered the Switch in Time that Saved Nine. Knowing that Roosevelt planned to go after the Supreme Court, Hughes took Roberts under his wing and convinced him to abandon his principles. Also, according to Burt Solomon’s FDR v. The Constitution: The Court-Packing Fight and the Triumph of Democracy, even Roberts’ newly-found allies didn’t understand the Switch in Time that Saved Nine. Harlan Stone, one of the Three Musketeers, wrote a letter to Felix Frankfurter in which he called the Roberts’ vote, “a sad chapter in our judicial history” and referenced “explanations which do not explain.”

The Switch in Time that Saved Nine, as well as the subsequent retirement of Justice Devanter, ultimately led to the defeat of President Roosevelt’s court-packing bill. Still, it could be argued that Roosevelt won in the end as he held the office of President for another eight years, allowing him the opportunity to replace eight Justices and in essence, remake the Supreme Court in his image. But if Roosevelt won, then who lost? Some would say the American people themselves. As Judge Napolitano put it in his book The Constitution in Exile:

“Justice Owen Roberts switched ideological sides and brought a conclusive end to the Constitution as protector of natural rights, the free market, and federalism.” ~ Judge Andrew Napolitano

Real-Life Superheroes?

Posted on by

For decades, fans have thrilled to the fictional exploits of superheroes such as Superman and costumed heros like Batman. But such people, who dedicate their lives to protecting the public, aren’t real. Or are they? Meet Phoenix Jones, the most famous real-life costumed hero in America.

Phoenix Jones & Real Life Superheroes?

The United States, and perhaps the world as well, is on the verge of a costumed hero revolution. Across the nation, some 200 ordinary citizens are donning colorful costumes and heading out into the streets on a regular basis, ostensibly to serve the public. However, these people are quite different from their fictional counterparts. They mostly stick to simple tasks…stuff like community service and neighborhood patrols.

And then there’s Phoenix Jones. Phoenix, pictured above without costume, is perhaps the most famous real-life costumed hero in America. His real name is Benjamin John Francis Fodor and he’s 23 years old. He belongs to a ten-member team called the Rain City Superhero Movement. This Seattle-based squad is probably the closest real life example to the Justice League or the Avengers.

While most costumed heroes prefer to remain on the sidelines, Phoenix is best known for wading into the thick of the action. His weapons include a stun baton, a net gun, and pepper spray. He wears a bulletproof vest and stab plating. And good thing too since he’s been hit with a baseball bat, stabbed, held up at gunpoint, and had his nose broken via a kick to the face.

Phoenix Jones…Hero…or Villain?

A few days ago, Phoenix Jones was arrested and charged with four counts of assault. As best as I can tell, a group of individuals was fighting in the street (they claim they were dancing but later one of the girls in the video admitted there had been a fight). Phoenix along with his sidekick Ghost attempted to break up the altercation. The crowd turned on him and he discharged his pepper spray, hitting a young lady in the face. She went ballistic and went after him with her stiletto heels.

Similar to recent comic book story lines, Phoenix’s arrest has raised concerns regarding the legality of costumed crime fighters. The young lady claims that Phoenix’s behavior was irresponsible. And Seattle policemen have expressed their opinion that bystanders should call 911 rather than attempting to intervene in fights (it should be noted that Phoenix and his comrades called 911 numerous times during the fight).

“Just because he’s dressed up in costume, it doesn’t mean he’s in special consideration or above the law.” ~ Detective Mark Jamieson

While some people might agree with Detective Jamieson, a less charitable person would point out that while Phoenix was arrested for the pepper spray discharge, a police officer who did the same thing would receive nothing more than a rebuke. Which, from a certain point of view, places police officers above the very laws they are sworn to protect. As William Grigg put it:

“That’s right: Seattle can’t afford to have oddly dressed people prowling the streets, ready to wade into ambiguous situations and use unnecessary force. Unless, of course, they’re government-licensed purveyors of mayhem, such as Ian Birk – the Seattle Police Officer who murdered local artist John Williams on a street corner in August 2010. Williams, a woodcarver and chronic inebriate, was carrying a carving knife in a crosswalk when Birk pulled up in a cruiser. Seven seconds later, Williams was dead. While Birk was forced to resign from the department, no criminal charges were filed against him. [Phoenix’s] problem, you see, was that he wasn’t wearing a government-issued costume.” ~ William Grigg, Is It ‘Assault,’ or ‘Enforcement’? That Depends on the Costume (Lew Rockwell)

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

Vigilante justice is a controversial topic in America. Many are frightened by the prospect of someone like Phoenix Jones “taking the law into their own hands.” And this is understandable since innocent people will inevitably get hurt. At the same time, our present system of law enforcement leads to innocent people getting hurt everyday. False arrests, police brutality, and police protecting their own from the wheels of justice does happen, perhaps more often than we care to admit.

Modern law enforcement is really just a government monopoly. And monopolies are generally characterized by high costs and substandard service. With that in mind, perhaps there’s room for competition in the law enforcement arena. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a place in this world for costumed heroes like Phoenix Jones.

The Amanda Knox Trial?

Posted on by

On November 1, 2007, an unknown person or persons murdered Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. Italian prosecutors charged Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito, and Patrick Lumumba with her murder. The tabloids quickly erupted with stories of witchcraft and Satanism. Yesterday, after four long years of prison, Amanda was released from jail in a stunning turn of events. Did she kill Meredith? And if not, who did?

Did Giuliano Mignini railroad Amanda Knox?

After Meredith’s murder, Amanda Knox attempted to help the police with their investigation. Little did she know that Giuliano Mignini had already decided she was guilty of the crime. Mignini tapped her phone (one of 39,000 conversations he tapped during the course of the investigation) and learned that her mother was coming to Italy and intended to get her a lawyer. Working quickly, he subjected her to a brutal interrogation which, according to Amanda, consisted of her being hit, shouted at, and denied water and the use of a bathroom.

It should be noted that Mignini, who recorded every other interview connected to the case, claimed that this particular conversation hadn’t been recorded and thus, Amanda Knox’s allegations proved impossible to prove. During the course of this interrogation, she eventually submitted answers to hypothetical questions where she essentially imagined what might’ve happened if her employer and bar owner Patrick Lumumba had been present at the murder. Despite this incredibly weak evidence, Mignini declared the case closed.

The Media Convicts Amanda Knox?

The arrest of Amanda Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba caused a media sensation, especially in Great Britain, the U.S., and Italy. Italy has no laws against pre-trial publicity and jurors are allowed, even encouraged to follow the news while deliberating a case. Thus, Chief Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini immediately took his case to the press, spinning wild tales of witchcraft, Satanism, and a “sex game gone wrong.” Although these theories lacked any sort of factual basis, they were quickly eaten up and distributed without checking by reporters such as John Follain, Nick Pisa, and Libby Purves.

The Arrest of Rudy Guede and Mignini’s Bizarre Vendetta against Amanda Knox?

Two weeks later, Mignini’s case fell apart. Lumumba was able to furnish an air-tight alibi, making Amanda Knox’s so-called “confession” useless. More importantly, the police arrested the real killer, a drug-dealer named Rudy Guede. Guede’s fingerprints and DNA were discovered in Meredith’s room and on her body. When interrogated, he claimed he had sex with Meredith, left the room, and later returned to find someone standing over her with a knife. Months later, he changed his story, claiming that the mysterious man was Amanda’s boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and that Sollecito and Amanda Knox had killed Meredith after a sex game gone wrong.

Despite mounting evidence that he was wrong, Mignini stubbornly prepared his case. Italy’s Supreme Court threw out Amanda’s confession, but Mignini used a tricky legal maneuver to get it admitted into evidence. He also claimed that a knife found at Sollecito’s house was the murder weapon and that it had Meredith’s DNA on the blade and Amanda’s DNA on the handle. Furthermore, he stated that Meredith’s bra clasp contained Sollecito’s DNA. The DNA evidence proved powerful enough for a jury, which had already been swayed by months of Mignini’s leaked stories to the press, to convict Amanda and Sollecito in 2009. After the trial, psychoanalyst Coline Covington decided to add her two cents by comparing Amanda Knox, who she’d never met, to Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann.

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at The Hague.” ~ Coline Covington, Signs that Suggest Amanda Knox is a Psychopath

The Vindication of Amanda Knox

Soon after, the evidence came under heavy fire. A witness who claimed to have seen Amanda Knox and Sollecito near the crime scene changed his story. The knife was found too large to fit the wounds and its blade contained no blood or DNA, in stark contrast to the prosecution’s claims. The bra clasp contained too little DNA to measure and video taken at the crime scene showed that it had been picked up by bare-handed police, tainting the evidence. Further analysis showed that the DNA evidence that convicted Amanda and Sollecito had been caused by lab contamination. Other witnesses came forth to reveal that Guede claimed responsibility for the murder. And on top of it all, Mignini was given a suspended 16-month sentence for “abuse of office” in regards to a separate case. Amanda Knox and Sollecito appealed their convictions and were finally freed on October 3, 2011.

But who Murdered Meredeith Kercher?

So who murdered Meredith Kercher? The most likely suspect is Rudy Guede. He changed his story at least once, his bloody handprint was found at the scene of the crime, and he supposedly told others that he had killed Meredith. But if Guede did it, then how did Meredith’s murder turn into such a sensationalized trial?

According to well-known author, Douglas Preston, the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of Chief Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. While investigating the as-of-yet unsolved “Monster of Florence” murders, Preston ran afoul of Mignini. Mignini had reopened the case and thought that the “killer or killers were Satanists from an ancient cult that harvested body parts.” During the course of is own research, Preston was arrested by Mignini and informed that he had to confess to “perjury or obstruction of justice.” Preston was ultimately given the choice of facing charges or leaving the country. Preston left and proceeded to co-write The Monster of Florence, with Mario Spezi, which detailed the case as well as Mignini’s highly questionable methods and vast wiretapping. In regards to the Meredith Kercher case, Preston has been quoted as saying:

“There was no evidence. I realized it was all bogus. Mignini believes that Satan walks the land and anyone who is against him must be working for the other side.” ~ Douglas Preston

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

It seems clear that there was an incredible amount of prosecutorial misconduct in this case. Mignini had it out for Amanda Knox and Sollecito from the beginning and when his case fell apart, chose to sacrifice their freedom rather than his own reputation. In addition, there are disturbing stories of Mignini and the police deliberately punishing and attacking anyone who tried to question the verdict. The media, outside of a few examples such as the heroic Frank Sfarzo who blogs about the case at Perugia Shock, have been complicit in the whole sad affair. John Follain, Nick Pisa, Libby Purves, Coline Covington and many others bear some moral responsibility for being more interested in creating sensational headlines than in uncovering the truth.

On October 3, 2011, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were finally released from jail. It is believed that Amanda has already left Italy and I’d advise Sollecito to do the same. Meredith’s murder was a sad, horrendous event. Unfortunately, the four-year imprisonment of two people who were in all likelihood completely innocent only made things worse. We may never know the full story of Meredith Kercher’s murder. And the blame for that fact lies solely with Chief Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini as well as the people who aided his vendetta against Amanda Knox and Sollecito.

President Lincoln’s Greatest Nemesis?

Posted on by

If you were to ask the typical American about President Abraham Lincoln’s greatest enemy, he or she would most likely answer with Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederate States of America. But recent scholarship suggests that Lincoln faced a far more hated enemy much closer to home…Judge Roger Taney, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In 1861, Lincoln’s hatred of Taney nearly exploded into a Constitutional crisis of epic proportions.

Judge Roger Taney versus President Lincoln?

On May 25, 1861, a Confederate sympathizer named John Merryman was arrested and charged with treason. He petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, a judicial order forcing the Union Army to appear before a judge and justify his imprisonment. Judge Roger Taney granted the writ.

But General George Cadwalader refused, stating that he was under no obligation to do so since President Lincoln had ordered the suspension of habeas corpus. This led to the famous Ex parte Merryman ruling, in which Judge Taney stated that only Congress had the power to suspend habeas corpus.

“And if the President of the United States may suspend the writ, then the Constitution of the United States has conferred upon him more regal and absolute power over the liberty of the citizen than the people of England have thought it safe to entrust to the Crown–a power which the Queen of England cannot exercise at this day, and which could not have been lawfully exercised by the sovereign even in the reign of Charles the First.” ~ Judge Taney, Ex parte Merryman

President Lincoln orders Roger Taney’s Arrest?

The judgment was an embarrassing repudiation to President Lincoln and Confederate sympathizers seized upon it as an example of Lincoln’s tyranny. In either May or June 1861, President Lincoln’s anger inspired him to call for the arrest of Judge Roger Taney.

“After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him.” ~ Ward Hill Lamon

According to his own words, Ward Hill Lamon, who was a friend and bodyguard to President Lincoln as well as a United States Marshall, was given the warrant and ordered to arrest Roger Taney. Strangely though, the warrant was never served.

Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

Nobody knows for sure why Lamon never followed through with the arrest. President Lincoln certainly wasn’t above arresting his political opponents, as the cases of Clement Vallandigham and Judge Merrick have shown. But we do know that the two men continued their bitter feud over Lincoln’s efforts to curtail civil liberties for several additional years.

I should point out that Lamon is the sole primary source for this story. Interestingly enough, most current Lincoln scholars consider it ridiculous. They dismiss Lamon as an alcoholic and point to the fact that he didn’t include the story in any of his published books (which, by the way, are highly treasured by these same scholars). Still, there is some corroborating evidence. Records indicate that Roger Taney himself as well as a colleague named Judge Curtis were aware of the near-imprisonment.

We may never know for certain how close President Lincoln came to arresting Judge Roger Taney. But we can all be thankful that he didn’t follow through on it. The ramifications might have been disastrous.

“It would have destroyed the separation of powers; destroyed the place of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional scheme of government. It would have made the executive power supreme, over all others, and put the President, the military, and the executive branch of government, in total control of American society. The Constitution would have been at an end.” ~ Charles Adams