Posts Tagged ‘Martin’

Miscarriage of Justice

Saturday, July 13th, 2013

Judicial Intemperance

In the case of the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman on Thursday, Judge Nelson stepped out of line.  The purpose for which a judge serves in any trial is to be sure that the evidence is presented, and that a fair trial is conducted that by its processes, procedures, and by the judge’s own conduct, does not prejudice the jury flagrantly either for or against the defendant.  Whether you believe that George Zimmerman had been merely defending himself, or instead that he had shot Trayvon Martin with other motives, he is entitled to a fair trial.  What occurred on Thursday in Nelson’s courtroom was a travesty, and everything about it stinks of corruption or malfeasance on the part of the judge.  There can be no excuse for the conduct of the judge, so that whatever you think of Zimmerman’s alleged guilt or presumed innocence, you ought not be satisfied with the conduct of this trial.  From the very start, the deck has been stacked against George Zimmerman, and to see our system of justice perverted in this manner is one more piece of evidence in the case that we are entering post-constitutional, post-American conditions.

To begin, there should have been no trial.  The trial is the result of a special(read: “political”) investigation conducted by a state government that was seeking a political solution arising from a purely legal problem: The original investigation by Sanford, FL police found no cause to prosecute George Zimmerman, finding there was insufficient evidence to support prosecuting him.  All bizarre conspiracies aside, what Sanford investigators concluded was that George Zimmerman had acted in self-defense when he discharged his weapon, resulting in the death of Trayvon Martin.  At that point, the usual suspects in the unending meme of racial discontent took the stage, including our aggrieved President, who proclaimed “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”  From the moment these words issued forth from Barack Obama’s mouth, the die had been cast, and there could be no fair process for George Zimmerman. For an alleged “constitutional scholar,” Mr. Obama exhibited the prudence one might expect from a drunken lout making off-hand declarations.

The prosecutors spent the course of their case contradicting themselves, putting on witnesses that damned their case against Zimmerman, and mostly making a spectacle of their own incompetence.  If one didn’t know better, one might conclude that the prosecution had given up making any serious case against Zimmerman, and was merely going through the motions as a matter of political obedience to those same authorities, including the governor and attorney general of the State of Florida who insisted on bringing this case despite the clear lack of evidence for prosecution, and in spite of exculpatory evidence and witnesses that would tend to confirm the defendant’s claim of self-defense.  This has been a show-trial in mockery of justice, and throughout the presentation of their case, the prosecution didn’t manage even to put on a good show.

On Thursday, the judge permitted the prosecution to seek a conviction on the lesser charger of manslaughter, a charge that could still carry up to thirty years behind bars for Mr. Zimmerman, despite the fact that throughout the course of the trial, they had been seeking a second-degree murder finding.  While not unprecedented, it shows the degree to which the court has been accommodating to the prosecution’s interests.  It also clearly demonstrated that the prosecution knew it would never get a guilty verdict on the legal standard of second-degree murder, but they are hoping the jurors are willing to play Solomon and cut this baby in two, by finding Zimmerman guilty of the lesser charge despite the fact that their case hadn’t even met that standard.

More, judge Nelson entered into an interrogatory with the defendant in an entirely improper way, using her power of the bench to silence defense attorneys in what can only be regarded as a gross violation of the defendant’s civil liberties.  Zimmerman had the right to remain silent, and he had the right to reserve the matter of whether he would testify until the conclusion of the case being put on by his defense team.  In ordering the attorneys to be silent, the judge effectively deprived Mr. Zimmerman of counsel.  There is no other way to describe this, and it is an unconscionable breach of her duty to remain impartial to either party.  On the one hand, she was sabotaging Zimmerman’s defense, and on the other, she was providing clear appellate cause if there should be a conviction, and she admitted that might be the case in her own remarks to the court, but this did not deter her actions.  Why?

Some suspect foul play, inasmuch as it is not beyond the conceivable bounds of the Obama administration.  By opening his mouth on the matter, Obama now has a huge personal stake in this.  His prestige as President is on the line, and while he is mocked overseas from Europe to the Middle East to Asia, and while our foreign adversaries continue to consider him as a less-than-serious threat who has no credibility, at home he remains something of a cultural icon among minorities and youth.  His credibility is on the line, and if George Zimmerman is acquitted, after all the tampering by he and Attorney General Eric Holder at the Department of Justice, in many quarters, they will lose face on the street.  This may explain why the DOJ helped facilitate anti-Zimmerman protests at the outset of this case. Yes, to add insult to injury, tax-payer dollars went to support the creation of the spectacle of a racially-motivated rent-a-mob at the beginning of this case.

Should Zimmerman be convicted of manslaughter, I would not be surprised if on appeal, he may either get a retrial or have the conviction overturned.  Cynics might argue that this is the intention of the judge: Set Zimmerman up for conviction knowing that he will likely find relief in the appellate system.  In this way, the immediate threat of violence will be deferred so that when he finally finds relief from courts of appeal, people will have forgotten about him and the case, and the specter of riots averted.  If that’s the intention of any person connected with this case, they ought to be disbarred, removed from public offices in any capacity, and prosecuted for their misdeeds.  It is a heinous crime to rig the system of justice on the potentially false assumption that they will find justice at some later date.

Judge Nelson is a life-long Democrat, and a Jeb Bush appointee.  None should be surprised at this since we know Bush is no conservative.  If Zimmerman is convicted on the basis of this sabotage by the judge, Bush may face questions should he seek the nomination of the Republican Party about the quality and temperament of his judicial appointees, as well he should.

As all of this goes on, the same media that worked devilishly to rig public opinion by editing the 9-1-1 tapes is continuing to push the violence meme, replaying clips of the same old garbage, with perpetual vermin like Al Sharpton being looped repeatedly across the networks from the beginning of this case, when he added his voice to those comprising the lynch mob seeking Zimmerman’s blood.  It’s a sorry spectacle, but do not be dissuaded: If an injustice is carried out in this case, it will have been because our judicial system upon which we must all rely for a fair hearing in court has been bastardized and corrupted like so much else in our rapidly devolving culture.

As this goes to press, the jury is continuing their deliberations, and one can only hope that whatever their verdict, that these people will not be swayed by faulty process, misrepresentations, threats of violence, or any other factor except the law and the evidence.  If that is the case, justice will be done, and that’s all we can ask, but given the circus-like atmosphere of the court proceedings, it’s difficult to imagine the jury remaining completely untainted.  With this firmly in mind, like all the world, we must await a verdict, fervently hoping a further injustice will not have been done, but given the conduct of judge Debra Nelson, a grave miscarriage of justice has already occurred irrespective of what verdict may be handed-down by the jury.

Note: Some of the site update work has been delayed due entirely to my work schedule.  As outages are expected, I will let readers know.  Thank you for your patience.

Is Jonathan Martin Stupid?

Monday, August 29th, 2011

Stupid or Simply Dishonest?

Does he think the American people are stupid? In his recent smear of Rick Perry, he poses the question “Is Rick Perry Dumb?”  Having met the governor, I can answer that question easily.  Rick Perry is not a stupid man.  By way of full disclosure, I am one Texan who does not favor Governor Perry even slightly in the upcoming Republican primaries, finding any number of other perfectly valid policy reasons to oppose him from my position as a conservative.  Nevertheless, in the interest of fairness, we mustn’t permit such obvious Obama shills as Jonathan Martin to smear another Republican candidate as “stupid.”  Rather than engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of Mr. Martin, I would like to pose my own question:  “Is Jonathan Martin stupid?”  I submit to you that this is a far more relevant query, and given the media tendency to avoid questions aimed at their own, I intend to ask them mercilessly about such members of the press.

If I ever find myself in close proximity to Chris Wallace, for instance, my first question for him will be: “Sir, are you a flake?” Just as I have challenged the wisdom of others in the media, so too will I challenge anybody who carries out a war of smears against Republicans, Conservatives, and Tea Party folk, all under the guise of “News.”

The media likes to plant these words in association with Republicans and Conservatives(particularly those perceived by the electorate as the latter): Dumb. Stupid. Ignorant. Reactionary. Extreme. Chris Wallace added “Flake” with respect to Michele Bachmann, and Maureen what’s-her-name over at the NYTimes says Tea Party folk are “terrorists.”  Karl Rove added “thin-skinned” to the arsenal of the media in a smear against Sarah Palin.

What none of these people will ever tell you is that Barack Obama is dumb, is an extremist, and has hung out with terrorists, while his wife is a barely-restrained racist.  (“Racist” is another favorite, used most recently by a true dim bulb, Al Gore, to describe the nature of climate change skeptics.)  How many times has Sarah Palin been called “stupid” or “self-absorbed” or dismissed as a “publicity hound?” A thousand?  More?

No, it just won’t do to buy the left’s smears against the intelligence of center-right politicians any longer.  When considering the piece Mr. Martin has written, you might consider this: Virtually every source upon which he relied in order to make the case that “Perry is dumb” was a leftist politico, like Democrat legislators from Texas, and Paul Begala, a longtime political hack for the left.  This then prompts a question:  Does Mr. Martin think we’re dumb?  If so, he’s underestimated the people who read his columns on occasion.  Of course, the real problem is that Martin doesn’t care if you read it, but whether it pleases his masters, and provides another smear.  We’ve been down this road before with Mr. Martin. He certainly must be stupid if he had thought we would have forgotten.

Jonathan Martin has been in the limelight of political smears before, including his attack on Sarah Palin based on a completely manufactured story about Palin allegedly backing out of an interview with Mark Levin.  Levin was livid, and demanded an apology.  In fact, the episode turned into quite a big deal before all was said and done.  True to form, Martin has been involved in many smears against center-right folk, in a number of instances calling them “extremists.”  Not that we didn’t expect this, but to see it played out repeatedly in such a brazen manner suggests that if you ever get inside, you would be stunned at what these people really think.

We might well wonder what sort of surprise Mr. Martin has in store for his next release.  Let me guess: “Sarah Palin lacks gravitas.”  Yes, that would be par for the course, but I think it’s unfair to suggest that Mr. Martin is stupid.  It’s far more accurate to say he’s simply dishonest and incapable of thorough, accurate, and unbiased reporting.  In this whole smear against Perry’s intellect, I could find few things that were not twisted renditions of reality, but one did stick out:  He accurately described Texas Transportation Commissioner Ric Wiliamson as the intellectual force behind Perry’s ill-conceived and ill-fated TransTexas Corridor plan.  This is the most damning thing Martin manages to say about Perry, mostly without knowing it, while scurrying to advance his narrative about Rick Perry’s intellect.   You see, the TTC was a monstrosity, but so thin is Martin’s research that he never really addresses issues of substance, and this is key in understanding leftwing media.  It’s difficult to explain to readers the intracies and many problems with Perry’s ill-fated toll road project, but it’s much easier to imply or simply state the thesis of Rick Perry’s alleged “dumbness.”

For these reasons, I would suggest my fellow conservatives ignore these sorts of smears, against whichever candidate they may be leveled.  Instead, demand that the media provide real information, and real policy positions, and fact about politicians’ records on which voters can make informed decisions.  Of course, in their mission to elect Democrats, this becomes an obstacle to the real objects of the left-wing media scorn: Liberal-leaning voters.  These sorts of attacks on the intellect of center-right folk seem to play well with the liberal audience, and one could only wonder why.

As I said, Mr. Martin is not stupid, but he is artfully dishonest.  Translated, as he would present it for his lefty audience, he’s a “good liar.”