From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: Re: Rage (story)
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:46:54 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <19326@plains.NoDak.edu>, hennebry@plains.NoDak.edu (Michael J. Hennebry) writes:
Selected quotes from Michael J.
> 
> What were you shocked about? I thought you approved of RICO.
> 


> 
> Actually item have no rights, so there is nothing to keep the government
> from changing the rules so that it wins every time without any need for
> evidence.
> 
> Pretending to prosecute an item instead of a person is simply another example
> of judicial corruption.
> 


> 
> The amount of governmental enthusiasm, not to mention wanton abandon are new.
> wanton abandon includes prosecuting for crimes that haven't happened yet.
> So far at least they haven't prosecuted livers as items.
> 

> 
> The right to cross-examine witnesses belongs to the defendant not his
> counsel. The questions they would ask can be quite different, especially
> if counsel incorrectly believes the defendant guilty or if they have
> differing ideas regarding the honesty of the prosecutors.
> 


> 
> 'Tisn't neutral. In the real world the right to stand over them with a
> baseball bat belongs to the "child welfare" part of the prosecution.
> The trial doesn't start until the child gives the answers that the
> prosecution wants.
> 
> BTW is there anything in the constitution to keep the state from handling
> all witnesses the same way it does minors below a certain age?
> 

> 
> Can you say non sequitor? Can you spell it?
> 


> 
> The isanity offense is not about error, it is about deliberate misconduct.
> Even when "mere" mistakes are involved, we can at least go for constitutional
> trials. Allowing a conviction to stand, despite admission of perjury by
> prosecution witnesses, despite previous unadmitted contradictary testimony
> by the same prosecution witness, and despite exculpatory evidence not
> shown to the defendant is not the result of honest ajudicating.
> 
> <You seem to believe that we have less rights than we did before. That is simply
> <not true. What has happened is the press has finally gotten around to telling
> <stories about the legal system as it IS, as opposed to how people THINK it is.
> 
> What is new for much of it is the judiciary's effort to legitimize it and
> therefore eliminate the need for the official crooks to hide what they do.
> I suspect this is due to Gideon vs Wainwright (sp?). Once victims of "law"
> enforcement acquired some means to complain about violations of their rights
> continuing current practice required that there be no rights to violate.
> 

> 
> Huh? What plan? There wasn't enough plan to share. I wondered at the time
> I saw it what she had been convicted of. If she'd helped plan I wouldn't
> have wondered.
> 

> <Hope he fries.
> 
> If he does it'll probably be cause he didn't do it. Executions end appeals.
> Drugs and drug money haven't done much for the integrety of "law"
> enforcement.
> 

Gee Mike, I guess you are right. We live in a society where government respects
no body's rights, and the only people who are convicted are the innocent.

I suggest if you are ever asked to pull over by a cop that you flee to Mexico
so they don't place you in an electric chair for ten years.

So, until you can come up with kind of EXAMPLES you can give REFERNCES to,
which can be CONFIRMED, we live in a situation where you believe the judicial
system is horribly corrupt, and I believe it is somehwat flawed but mostly
good.

Now, as this has nothing to do even with rape related issues, there are
forums for your views to be better expressed. 

DC