web analytics

The Equal Rule of Law……. but not for the Judge

By Patrick Van Roy On September 21st, 2018 at 7:49 pm

Acts 25:16 Context

13And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Caesarea to salute Festus. 14And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul’s cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix: 15About whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. 16To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. 17Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. 18Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: 19But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

This has now ventured deep into the very heart of the Law.  As shown in the verse above ALL People have the right to face their accuser. To know the accusations against them. Back to the days of the Romans this has been True.

But no longer.

Judge Kavanaugh is not awarded that basic human right. He must defend himself before he has been accused. Before he knows the true and full nature of the charges being brought against him by his accuser.  High officials our stating his Guilt even before one word has been spoken under oath against him. Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

Senator Gillibrand believes Judge Kavanaugh’s Guilty before ever hearing a single word from Ms. Ford and these are her reasons why:

“I don’t think he’s qualified because of his record on women’s issues, specifically. He doesn’t believe that women should have the ability to make decisions about their reproductive freedom. He believes that your boss should decide whether or not you have access to birth control. And if he has this history, then he is unfit for the court, and he doesn’t have the character or integrity.”

Gillibrand concluded by stating of Ford, “I believe her. Her story is credible. If you listen to everything about it, the fact that she told her therapist about it five years ago, a friend most recently, she told a reporter before Kavanaugh was even named to be a nominee. This is a woman who has endured trauma, and — as experts have said, this is what trauma looks like. These — it gets relived much later in time. A lot of — you don’t remember everything, you remember the most poignant moments.”

Christine Blasey Ford and her Attorney are DEMANDING that this is now the Standard of Law. Her and her team state that she will not testify unless Judge Kavanaugh testifies in his defense first.

Not only are you Presumed Guilty and must Prove your innocence, you must do so before you know the nature of the charges.

That is the Standard in a Totalitarian System of Law NOT our Constitutional System.

We must hear the accusers accusations under oath and hear the defendants defence under oath. Impartially judging each on their credibility. That is the basic standard of Law in all civilised nations back to the time of Rome.

However the Democrats NO LONGER believe a man is innocent in regards to sexual misconduct. He is automatically guilty. He must PROVE his innocence.   Why? Because he is an Old White Male and a Republican. A guilty evil predator no matter what his lifelong record shows.

If we have learned anything over the past 10yrs the Democrats support a 2 tier Justice System. One for them and a Lessor one for everyone else. These people are a cancer. If they are allowed to continue this abuse of Basic Human Rights the Republic is doomed.

JUDGE DREAD?

By David Vance On February 26th, 2013 at 7:46 pm

You would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the latest twist to the Chris Huhne/Vicky Pryce saga;

Britain’s most prominent black judge, Constance Briscoe, has been arrested on suspicion of lying to police about her part in exposing Chris Huhne’s speeding points scam, it can be revealed today.

Constance Briscoe, 55, helped Huhne’s ex-wife Vicky Pryce “cook up” a plan to bring about the former Cabinet minister’s downfall, then tipped off journalists about how Huhne had lied about who was driving his car when he was caught speeding.

But she allegedly lied in a police witness statement by saying she had not spoken to the media about the episode, leading to her arrest last October.

When we start arresting our Judges then we know things must be on the turn. I DO hope she will not be the last Judge behind bars?

YOU’RE AN EMBARRASSMENT!

By David Vance On August 21st, 2012 at 9:32 am

Wonder what you make of this one?

A student facing attempted murder charges over an alleged machete attack can get rid of his “embarrassing” electronic tag for returning to university, a High Court judge has ruled.

Lord Justice Coghlin granted Connor Maskey’s request to have the monitoring device removed from his ankle, but stressed that police must accept responsibility for any consequences.

The 20-year-old, of Bingnian Drive, Belfast, made the application to vary his bail terms as he was embarrassed by wearing the tag, a prosecution barrister said. He is charged with two counts of attempted murder and possession of an offensive weapon in connection with an alleged attack on a father and son in the city. Prosecution counsel Conor Maguire told the court yesterday that police accepted removal of the device would help the accused at university.

I would have thought that attempted murder charges would have inured the gentleman concerned of residual embarrassment but clearly the Judge knows better!

WHEN JUSTICE BECOMES A JOKE….

By David Vance On April 28th, 2012 at 8:50 am

When people wonder why crime keeps on rising…they might want to reflect on this example of non-justice;

Career criminal Jason Reed committed 22 break-ins after the judge failed to lock him up the first time he appeared before her. Reed, who is also a convicted rapist, left victims terrified in a series of crimes after being handed only a three-year suspended sentence by Judge Carol Hagen. Three weeks ago Judge Hagen, who has a history of leniency, finally took decisive action and jailed Reed, 39, for six years. But she brought him back to court after having second thoughts and reduced his sentence by a year. Back in court at the beginning of April, he admitted one burglary and one theft and asked for 49 other break-ins over the past decade to be taken into consideration. Almost half his crimes had been committed since Judge Hagen failed to jail him.

Could we jail Judge Hagen? Over the years, here on ATW, we have continually returned to this theme of weak justice with liberal Judges systematically turning the very concept of Justice into a joke. The problem is that if YOU are at  the recipient end of crime, it’s not a laughing matter.

IF YOU SAY THIS WORD, YOU GO TO JAIL

By David Vance On April 13th, 2012 at 5:29 pm

Quite a remarkable story here reported by my friend Max. In the UK, should you call a Councillor a rude name, you go to jail.

THE THREE PARENT FAMILY TRIUMPHS…

By David Vance On March 14th, 2012 at 8:50 pm

There is nothing like a liberal judiciary to set the standard;

Three-parent families may be as good as two, top judges have ruled as they backed a gay father in his ground-breaking contact dispute with the lesbian mothers of his two year-old son.

Huh?

Observing that “human emotions are powerful and inconstant”, Lord Justice Thorpe said that, despite the women’s desire to create “a two-parent lesbian nuclear family”, the father was “seeking to offer a relationship of considerable value” to his son. And he told the court: “It is generally accepted that a child gains by having two parents. It does not follow from that that the addition of a third is necessarily disadvantageous”.

Why stop at four, M’lud? In fact, why bother having ANY definition of a family, after all that’s soooooo retro, don’t you think?

IS THIS JUSTICE?

By David Vance On January 28th, 2012 at 11:14 am

You decide if this is your idea of justice;

“The parents of a newborn baby left with horrific injuries and fractures all over her body walked free from court today, despite admitting child cruelty charges.  The unnamed infant was just 23 days old when doctors discovered she had suffered multiple breaks to her legs, knees, ribs, right wrist and right hip. MRI scans showed the baby girl had also sustained a skull haemorrhage and trauma to her brain tissue. But her parents were spared jail at Bristol Crown Court today, despite pleading guilty to child cruelty on the basis of neglect – because a judge blamed social services for the ordeal.”

My view? Appalling.

Stupidity

By Mike Cunningham On January 24th, 2012 at 1:29 pm

  • In possession of 13 pounds of marijuana or
  • £200,00 worth of cocaine  or
  • 20 tablets of ecstasy  or
  • if the defendants were ”’Vulnerable”’ or ”easily led”’
The sentences will usually be ‘Community Sentences’
  • or if the defendant was a drug ‘mule’, they will almost certainly get a reduced sentence because they were ‘coerced’, or a ‘Community Sentence and rehabilitation!

Why bother trying to enforce  a law against those whose true intent is to enslave the young, deluded and truly stupid, when the Sentence Council is stating that this is a ‘Deterrent’

We, the People,

By Mike Cunningham On January 23rd, 2012 at 6:50 pm

 

I have maybe said it before, but we really need the pieces of parchment operating in the United Kingdom which allowed the guys in the robes to come to this conclusion in America.

Fair enough, the bad guy is truly a scumbag, but the Law is the Law, and I sometimes wish we had something of similar value in Great Britain.

If we had the protections afforded by those precious documents, we wouldn’t have witnessed this disgraceful perversion of the Law, and we would still be governed under the ‘Double Jeopardy’ rules.

Good Question!

By Mike Cunningham On January 18th, 2012 at 9:50 pm

 

So what exactly had to be the extent of the victim’s injuries to warrant slinging these three scrotes into the slammer?

That is a good question, Judge Martin Steiger!