 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||||
|
Although sanity and common sense are frequently lacking... Over the last few years, The Heritage Foundation and a wide-ranging group of partners – including such organizations as the American Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), Washington Legal Foundation, and the Manhattan Institute – have been at the forefront of a bipartisan coalition leading the charge against over criminalization in America. During this time, Heritage has worked to spearhead two congressional hearings on the subject and to co-author a joint report on the degradation of adequate criminal-intent requirements in federal law. With the 112th Congress convening in a few weeks, Heritage and its coalition partners are calling upon both Republicans and Democrats to help return criminal law to the way it is “supposed to work.”
"Only one tribunal ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber." -U.S. v Faretta , 422 U.S. 806 (1975) OUTSIDE IT'S AMERICA. When speech is compelled, additional damage is done. Individuals are coerced into betraying their convictions. Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. -Thomas Jefferson
REPORT A GANG MEMBER.
Look, you know you have to look, there! ABOVE!! It's "a person, on the left," and "the person of another," on the right. Do you understand? No? Still Baffled? Click image below for the answer to the question, "What is a person and what is the difference between a person and the person of another?"
(c)1997-2023 TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. |
A real threat to our constitutional framework of criminal justice. Judge Kozinski’s harsh rebuke of the federal prosecutors: This case has consumed an inordinate amount of taxpayer resources, and has no doubt devastated the defendant’s personal and professional life. And, in the end, the government couldn’t prove that the defendant engaged in any criminal conduct. This is just one of a string of recent cases in which courts have found that federal prosecutors overreached by trying to stretch criminal law beyond its proper bounds… This is not the way criminal law is supposed to work. Civil law often covers conduct that falls in a gray area of arguable legality. But criminal law should clearly separate conduct that is criminal from conduct that is legal. This is not only because of the dire consequences of a conviction—including disenfranchisement, incarceration and even deportation—but also because criminal law represents the community’s sense of the type of behavior that merits the moral condemnation of society. . . . When prosecutors have to stretch the law or the evidence to secure a conviction, as they did here, it can hardly be said that such moral judgment is warranted. Judge Kozinski’s words do much to accentuate a very real problem that is currently undermining the civil liberties of all Americans – the phenomenon of over-criminalization. The exponential growth of the federal criminal law over the last few decades has created a labyrinthine collection of statutes and regulations that allows the government to subject individuals whose conduct is either unintentional or not otherwise blameworthy to criminal sanctions – society’s most severe form of punishment and moral condemnation. This is a fundamental departure from the traditional moorings of American criminal law, and one that has garnered great attention from organizations and individuals on both sides of the political aisle. Over the last few years, The Heritage Foundation and a wide-ranging group of partners – including such organizations as the American Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union, National Ass-ociation of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), Washington Legal Foundation, and the Manhattan Institute – have been at the forefront of a bipartisan coalition leading the charge against over criminalization in America. During this time, Heritage has worked to spearhead two congressional hearings on the subject and to co-author a joint report on the degradation of adequate criminal intent requirements in federal law. With the 112th Congress convening in a few weeks, Heritage and its coalition partners are calling upon both Republicans and Democrats to help return criminal law to the way it is “supposed to work.” To that end, Members of Congress (new and old alike) would be well served to take on the problem of overcriminalization and consider the common-sense, non-partisan solutions offered by Heritage and NACDL in their joint Without Intent report. Former Attorney General Ed Meese discussed one such reform here – a House rule requiring every bill that proposes or modifies a federal crime to be referred to the House Judiciary Committee before heading to the floor. Working to implement that change and the handful of other reform proposals discussed in Without Intent will go a long way toward eliminating the problems highlighted by Judge Kozinski and tempering a real threat to our constitutional framework of criminal justice.
(CENSORED 03.26.2023)
They all ignored their oaths, the facts, the rules, the laws, the 5th and 6th amendment and proceeded forward with a selective persecution in a secret hearing. "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." -Elie Wiesel With the above in mind, could you please help and make a small donation. TO DONATE JUST SCAN THE VENMO OR ZELLE QR CODE BELOW.
MEDIA INQUIRES CLICK HERE. LEGAL INQUIRIES CLICK HERE. TO PURCHASE THIS PREMIUM DOMAIN NAME CLICK HERE. | |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
