Nobel prize winning Fredrick Hayek had a favorite quote: …"The House of Representatives," James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but, without which every government degenerates into tyranny."
Source: Hayek's Road From Serfdom Calls for a U-Turn in the Law by L. Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, April, 8, 1992.
Well, that U-Turn is not happening. The result will be TYRANNY.
Larry Fischer, D.V.M.
MAKING GOVERNMENT IMMUNE FROM LAW
Paul Craig Roberts
January 14, 1999
If President Bill Clinton were being tried by the U.S.
10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he would be home free.
In a horrendous ruling devastating for justice, fair
play and the rule of law, the 10th Circuit has ruled (9-to-
3) that the laws of the United States do not apply to offic-
ers and agents of the government unless Congress specifical-
ly designates that the law applies to the government.
"Statutes of general purport do not apply to the United
States unless Congress makes the application clear and
indisputable," says the court, citing a 1873 case that "it
is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any
act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and
particular words."
At dispute in the case, Singleton v. U.S., is the
federal statute that specifies punishment for "whoever"
promises anything of value to a witness in exchange for
testimony for or against another person. Under the normal
reading of the statute, prosecutors who promise defendants
reduced sentences in exchange for testimony against others
are violating the prohibition.
According to the majority opinion, federal prosecutors
are not bound by the law against bribing witnesses, because
they serve as alter ego for the government and "the word
'whoever' connotes a being," whereas " the U.S. is an
inanimate entity, not a being. The word 'whatever' is used
commonly to refer to an inanimate object. Therefore, con-
struing 'whoever' to include the government is semantically
anomalous."
In other words, "whoever" doesn't mean "whoever" if the
"whoever" is an officer of the government. This Clinto-
nesque word-play is necessary because, as the court acknowl-
edges, "no practice is more ingrained in our criminal jus-
tice system" than convicting people with purchased testimo-
ny.
Faced with an emptying of the prisons, the court ruled
that the U.S. government is not a government accountable
to law, but a "sovereign" above the law.
Prosecutors have found that it is far easier to pur-
chase with leniency the testimony of accomplices against
their confederates than to build a case against the confed-
erates. When this practice began it was aimed at known
criminals against whom evidence was lacking. But once the
practice began, it has taken on a life of its own.
Today many innocents are ensnared by untrue accusations
from criminal defendants seeking reduced charges by produc-
ing more fodder for prosecutors. Less and less does the
criminal justice system work by police investigating a known
crime and building a case. All too often, the first knowl-
edge of the "crime" occurs when a defendant seeking reduced
charges accuses others. In these cases, the accusation is
the sole "evidence" of the crime, and prosecutors, who serve
career instead of justice, are increasingly destroying
innocents with purchased testimony.
A recent example is Khem Batra of Burke, Va. Mr.
Batra, married with two children, came to the U.S. in 1974
from New Delhi, India. He has been a U.S. citizen since
1981 and was successfully operating his own travel agency.
His troubles began when the husband of one of his employees
approached him for loans to enable him to purchase dis-
tressed properties at auction. Soon Mr. Batra found him-
self in partnership, pooling money to bid on properties.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Batra, his sometime partner was
illegally obtaining multiple mortgages on the same property.
When the partner was apprehended, instead of being indicted,
he was wired and promised leniency in exchange for implicat-
ing others. The partner managed to implicate some mortgage
companies in technical infractions and apparently made an
unsuccessful attempt to implicate the Burke and Herbert Bank
in Alexandria, Va.
Mr. Batra was never implicated in the illegal financ-
ing schemes, but his partner, desperate to earn his lenien-
cy, testified that his money-pooling partnership with Mr.
Batra was a conspiracy to under-bid the properties. On the
basis of his partner's plea-bargained testimony, Mr. Batra
was convicted in federal court of one count of violating the
Sherman Anti-trust Act.
It is a definite sign of prosecutorial abuse when the
Sherman Anti-trust Act, designed to bust up large monopo-
lies, is applied to a small-time local partnership speculat-
ing in distressed properties sold at auctions where Mr.
Batra and his partner comprised one of many bidders.
Such a dubious interpretation of the anti-trust statute
shows an extraordinary determination to convict. But jus-
tice is forfeited when, in addition, the conviction is
obtained solely through the purchased testimony of a defend-
ant who committed a real crime and is seeking to reduce his
charges.
Until the Glorious Revolution when Parliament estab-
lished the supremacy of law over the sovereign, kings dealt
with enemies by bribing or compelling witnesses to testify
against them. Once law and not the king's government was
supreme, Matthew Hale established the maxim that testimony
purchased with reward has no standing in court.
It is an abomination that the 10th Circuit has enabled
unscrupulous prosecutors to resurrect the ancient practice
of convicting defendants with paid testimony.
COPYRIGHT 1999 PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS DISTRIBUTED BY CREA-
TORS SYNDICATE, INC. ) 1998, NewsMax.com Site Design by
David Grumm/Luke Kelly
------------------
John/az
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
Source: Hayek's Road From Serfdom Calls for a U-Turn in the Law by L. Gordon Crovitz, Wall Street Journal, April, 8, 1992.
Well, that U-Turn is not happening. The result will be TYRANNY.
Larry Fischer, D.V.M.
MAKING GOVERNMENT IMMUNE FROM LAW
Paul Craig Roberts
January 14, 1999
If President Bill Clinton were being tried by the U.S.
10th Circuit Court of Appeals, he would be home free.
In a horrendous ruling devastating for justice, fair
play and the rule of law, the 10th Circuit has ruled (9-to-
3) that the laws of the United States do not apply to offic-
ers and agents of the government unless Congress specifical-
ly designates that the law applies to the government.
"Statutes of general purport do not apply to the United
States unless Congress makes the application clear and
indisputable," says the court, citing a 1873 case that "it
is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any
act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and
particular words."
At dispute in the case, Singleton v. U.S., is the
federal statute that specifies punishment for "whoever"
promises anything of value to a witness in exchange for
testimony for or against another person. Under the normal
reading of the statute, prosecutors who promise defendants
reduced sentences in exchange for testimony against others
are violating the prohibition.
According to the majority opinion, federal prosecutors
are not bound by the law against bribing witnesses, because
they serve as alter ego for the government and "the word
'whoever' connotes a being," whereas " the U.S. is an
inanimate entity, not a being. The word 'whatever' is used
commonly to refer to an inanimate object. Therefore, con-
struing 'whoever' to include the government is semantically
anomalous."
In other words, "whoever" doesn't mean "whoever" if the
"whoever" is an officer of the government. This Clinto-
nesque word-play is necessary because, as the court acknowl-
edges, "no practice is more ingrained in our criminal jus-
tice system" than convicting people with purchased testimo-
ny.
Faced with an emptying of the prisons, the court ruled
that the U.S. government is not a government accountable
to law, but a "sovereign" above the law.
Prosecutors have found that it is far easier to pur-
chase with leniency the testimony of accomplices against
their confederates than to build a case against the confed-
erates. When this practice began it was aimed at known
criminals against whom evidence was lacking. But once the
practice began, it has taken on a life of its own.
Today many innocents are ensnared by untrue accusations
from criminal defendants seeking reduced charges by produc-
ing more fodder for prosecutors. Less and less does the
criminal justice system work by police investigating a known
crime and building a case. All too often, the first knowl-
edge of the "crime" occurs when a defendant seeking reduced
charges accuses others. In these cases, the accusation is
the sole "evidence" of the crime, and prosecutors, who serve
career instead of justice, are increasingly destroying
innocents with purchased testimony.
A recent example is Khem Batra of Burke, Va. Mr.
Batra, married with two children, came to the U.S. in 1974
from New Delhi, India. He has been a U.S. citizen since
1981 and was successfully operating his own travel agency.
His troubles began when the husband of one of his employees
approached him for loans to enable him to purchase dis-
tressed properties at auction. Soon Mr. Batra found him-
self in partnership, pooling money to bid on properties.
Unbeknownst to Mr. Batra, his sometime partner was
illegally obtaining multiple mortgages on the same property.
When the partner was apprehended, instead of being indicted,
he was wired and promised leniency in exchange for implicat-
ing others. The partner managed to implicate some mortgage
companies in technical infractions and apparently made an
unsuccessful attempt to implicate the Burke and Herbert Bank
in Alexandria, Va.
Mr. Batra was never implicated in the illegal financ-
ing schemes, but his partner, desperate to earn his lenien-
cy, testified that his money-pooling partnership with Mr.
Batra was a conspiracy to under-bid the properties. On the
basis of his partner's plea-bargained testimony, Mr. Batra
was convicted in federal court of one count of violating the
Sherman Anti-trust Act.
It is a definite sign of prosecutorial abuse when the
Sherman Anti-trust Act, designed to bust up large monopo-
lies, is applied to a small-time local partnership speculat-
ing in distressed properties sold at auctions where Mr.
Batra and his partner comprised one of many bidders.
Such a dubious interpretation of the anti-trust statute
shows an extraordinary determination to convict. But jus-
tice is forfeited when, in addition, the conviction is
obtained solely through the purchased testimony of a defend-
ant who committed a real crime and is seeking to reduce his
charges.
Until the Glorious Revolution when Parliament estab-
lished the supremacy of law over the sovereign, kings dealt
with enemies by bribing or compelling witnesses to testify
against them. Once law and not the king's government was
supreme, Matthew Hale established the maxim that testimony
purchased with reward has no standing in court.
It is an abomination that the 10th Circuit has enabled
unscrupulous prosecutors to resurrect the ancient practice
of convicting defendants with paid testimony.
COPYRIGHT 1999 PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS DISTRIBUTED BY CREA-
TORS SYNDICATE, INC. ) 1998, NewsMax.com Site Design by
David Grumm/Luke Kelly
------------------
John/az
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."