| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"rob wade" |
| Date: |
25 Oct 2005 03:46:27 PM |
| Object: |
How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court |
How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court
Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - Was the U.S. Supreme Court fooled by a make-believe
sodomy case in Lawrence v. Texas - one manufactured by homosexual
activists to entrap police and ensnare the judicial system in a
conspiracy to change the law of the land?
That is the compelling verdict of a new book, "Sex Appealed: Was the
U.S. Supreme Court Fooled?" by Judge Janice Law.
It was in the Houston courthouse where Law presided as judge that she
first heard rumors that the key figures in what became the landmark
Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case actually invited arrest in a
pre-arranged setup designed from the start to test the
constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. What the
journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found,
after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the
Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme
Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with
virtually no factual underpinnings."
When the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge to Texas
anti-sodomy laws in 2002, the only facts for the high court to review
were Deputy Joseph Richard Quinn's 69-word, handwritten, probable cause
affidavits - written within hours of the arrests of the three
principals in the case Sept. 17, 1998.
There had been no trial. There had been no stipulations to facts by the
state or the defendants. The defendants simply pleaded no contest at
every phase of the proceedings. It was quite simply the misdemeanor
dream case homosexual activists in Texas and nationwide had been
dreaming about. Or had they done more than dream about it? Had they
schemed about it, too?
Nearly everyone familiar with the case that set off the nation's
same-sex marriage craze knows there were two defendants in the case -
two men, John Geddes Lawrence, 60, and Tyron Garner, 36. Forgotten,
until Law's book, was a third man arrested at Lawrence's apartment that
night - Robert Eubanks, who was beaten to death three years before
the case was heard by the Supreme Court.
It was Eubanks who took the fall for calling the police the night of
the "incident." He said he was the one who placed the call reporting a
man firing a gun in an apartment building. When police officers
responded to the felony call, Eubanks was outside Lawrence's apartment
directing police to the unit - still insisting a man with a gun was
threatening neighbors.
When police approached Lawrence's apartment, they found the front door
open. When they entered the apartment, they found a man calmly talking
on the telephone in the kitchen, also motioning to the officers to a
bedroom in the rear.
Despite repeated shouts by officers identifying themselves as of
sheriff's deputies from the moment they entered the Houston apartment,
no one seemed surprised to see them - especially not Lawrence and
Garner.
The veteran police officers who entered the bedroom that night were
unprepared for what they were about to see.
"You could tell me that something was happening like 'there's a guy
walking down the street with his head in his hand,' and I would believe
it," said Quinn, who had 13 years on the force the night he entered
Lawrence's apartment. "As a police officer, I've seen things that
aren't even imagined."
But what he saw that night shocked him, searing images into his mind
that seem as vivid today as the day they happened.
Quinn and his fellow officers, expecting to see an armed man, perhaps
holding a hostage or in a prone position ready to fire at them,
instead, found was Lawrence having anal sex with Garner.
And they didn't stop - despite repeated warnings from officers.
"Lawrence and Garner did not seem at all surprised to see two uniformed
sheriff's deputies with drawn guns walk into their bedroom," Quinn
recalls.
Quinn shouted to them to stop. They continued.
"Most people, in situations like that, try to cover up, hide or look
embarrassed," explained Quinn. "Lawrence and Garner didn't look at all
surprised to see us. They just kept doing it."
Finally, Quinn took action. He told them: "I don't believe this! What
are you doing? Did you not hear us announce ourselves? Don't you have
the common decency to stop?" But still Lawrence and Garner did not stop
until Quinn physically moved them apart.
Lawrence and Garner would be booked that night for a class C
misdemeanor punishable by only a fine. Eubanks was charged with filing
a false police report because there were no guns found. Lawrence and
Garner would become celebrity heroes of the homosexual activist
movement. Eubanks would wind up beaten to death - with Garner a
possible suspect in a case that remains unsolved.
But who was the mystery man on the phone in the kitchen? He was never
identified officially because there was no reason to charge him. Law
believes his identity is key to proving the pre-meditated nature of the
Lawrence case setup. And she thinks she's solved the case. Readers can
be the judge.
The 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court Lawrence ruling favoring the defendants in
the landmark case is the trigger event kicking away roadblocks to
same-sex marriage, says Law.
The justices who voted to overturn the Texas statute and invalidate
anti-sodomy laws in the rest of the U.S. were Justices Stephen Breyer,
Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter
and John Paul Stevens. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision.
Those voting to uphold the Texas law were Chief Justice William
Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
If the Lawrence case were known to be a setup during the five years
following the arrests, then the defendants would not have a
right-to-privacy claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court probably would never
hear the case.
After that historic ruling, Law decided to investigate a case that had
never before been subject to any investigation. By then she was a
visiting judge, sitting for judges who are on vacation or ill.
"I researched and wrote 'Sex Appealed' because I know many of the
Lawrence participants, I had the time, contacts, and the journalistic
background to investigate, and, as a lawyer and judge, I felt an
obligation to history to find out what really happened behind the
scenes in one of the most culture-altering cases in America's legal
history," Law said. "I am the judge who, after the internationally
publicized case was concluded at the highest level, embarked on her own
investigation of rumors about the case assigned to her Texas court."
Along the way, Law is not only persuasive that Lawrence was planned
from the start - that police, in effect, were entrapped into
witnessing a crime because the homosexual activists needed a test case
- but also gets support for her theory from other judges involved in
the saga.
What would it mean, two years after Lawrence v. Texas, if Supreme Court
justices learned they had been fooled, manipulated, played like a
radio?
Did the justices know that a key witness in the case had been murdered
and that one of the defendants appeared to be a key suspect?
Were they aware one of the lawyers that handled the sodomy case for
Lawrence and Garner also represented Garner in the unsolved murder
death of Eubanks?
How could there be an issue of privacy in a case in which police were
invited, encouraged, begged to enter an apartment and directed to the
bedroom where the unlawful sexual activity was taking place?
Law also finds that homosexual activists nationwide and, specifically,
in Houston were actively searching for that "perfect" test case when
Lawrence happened to come along.
As the U.S. Supreme Court is being reshaped through the retirement of
Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of William Rehnquist, some are
wondering if it's possible the court could "second-guess" itself in the
Lawrence ruling - one that turned out to be among the most
controversial decisions in years.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court |
26 Oct 2005 02:04:26 PM |
|
|
On 25 Oct 2005 13:46:27 -0700, in alt.atheism , "rob wade"
<rob_c_wade_01@yahoo.com> in
<1130273187.336147.213230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court
Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - Was the U.S. Supreme Court fooled by a make-believe
sodomy case in Lawrence v. Texas - one manufactured by homosexual
activists to entrap police and ensnare the judicial system in a
conspiracy to change the law of the land?
So what? None of this matters to the legal issues decided. The only
point that I can see is the implicit assertion that it was ok to keep
the law on the books because it was not going to be enforced anyway.
Other than that, setting up test cases is not exactly unheard off. The
Scopes trial is a well known such case.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Chesler" |
|
| Title: Re: How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court |
28 Oct 2005 12:41:49 PM |
|
|
[resending to slightly trimmed list; original fell in a bit bucket]
rob wade wrote:
How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court
Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON - Was the U.S. Supreme Court fooled by a make-believe
sodomy case in Lawrence v. Texas - one manufactured by homosexual
activists to entrap police and ensnare the judicial system in a
conspiracy to change the law of the land?
Just like Scopes. Inherit the wind.
And they didn't stop - despite repeated warnings from officers.
Why was it the business of the officers what they were doing?
"Most people, in situations like that, try to cover up, hide or look
embarrassed," explained Quinn. "Lawrence and Garner didn't look at all
surprised to see us. They just kept doing it."
Finally, Quinn took action. He told them: "I don't believe this! What
are you doing? Did you not hear us announce ourselves? Don't you have
the common decency to stop?" But still Lawrence and Garner did not stop
until Quinn physically moved them apart.
While I would probably cover up, I would certainly take exception
if cops came into my bedroom and physically separated me from my
partner. I would also question the authority under which they
thought they could arrest me for what I was doing with my partner.
Lawrence and Garner would be booked that night for a class C
misdemeanor punishable by only a fine.
Interesting switch to the passive tense. Who was fooled into
doing the booking? Was that misdemeanor being rude to guests
by continuing to schtup?
Eubanks was charged with filing
a false police report because there were no guns found. Lawrence and
Garner would become celebrity heroes of the homosexual activist
movement. Eubanks would wind up beaten to death - with Garner a
possible suspect in a case that remains unsolved.
And this has what to do with the case upon which SCOTUS
hung its arguments?
If the Lawrence case were known to be a setup during the five years
following the arrests, then the defendants would not have a
right-to-privacy claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court probably would never
hear the case.
How do you figure that? The sphere of privacy is not that the cops
were in the house, nor that they were watching, but that they dictated,
thought they had a write to dictate, and backed it up with arrest, what
Lawrence and Garner (better, or at least younger, men than I) were doing.
The Court has long recognized "chilling effect". If they hadn't
wanted to hear the case they wouldn't have heard the case, but
they did want to deal with the issue, and found a case to hang
it on.
Is Janice Law suggesting that all the prosecutors in this case
were also tricked when they didn't use their discretion to drop
the matter at each level of prosecution?
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Bohlman" |
|
| Title: Re: How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court |
26 Oct 2005 10:35:27 PM |
|
|
fester <not@home.com> wrote in
news:ynX7f.17893$pP1.1343384@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The duty of the SCOTUS, like appellate courts, is not permitted to
perform fact-finding. They take the facts of the case as presented in
the initial hearing of the case and decide on the Constitutionality of
lower court decisions. If the facts are wrong/contrived as you say,
blame the TX court that provided the verdict initially.
Actually, no. According to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It's very rare for the SCOTUS to re-open issues of fact, but it has
happened; Dale v. BSA was such a case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "fester" |
|
| Title: Re: How a staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court |
27 Oct 2005 05:19:51 PM |
|
|
Eric Bohlman wrote:
fester <not@home.com> wrote in
news:ynX7f.17893$pP1.1343384@twister.southeast.rr.com:
The duty of the SCOTUS, like appellate courts, is not permitted to
perform fact-finding. They take the facts of the case as presented in
the initial hearing of the case and decide on the Constitutionality of
lower court decisions. If the facts are wrong/contrived as you say,
blame the TX court that provided the verdict initially.
Actually, no. According to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such
Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
It's very rare for the SCOTUS to re-open issues of fact, but it has
happened; Dale v. BSA was such a case.
Thanks for the correction.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
