6th Amendment: US Supreme Court Affirms Deprivation Of Rights
Date: 3/11/04 11:19:55 PM Central Standard Time
From: avoice@mtangel.net
Reply-to: AmericanPoliceState@yahoogroups.com
To: avoice@mtangel.net
US SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, 30 YEARS SYSTEMIC USURPATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS - HEARSAY, MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS OVER IN THE COURTROOM SAYS UNANIMOUS COURT
Ruling on hearsay evidence guts cases
This is how most children and property are seized in a malicious process today - TIME FOR ALL THE CHILDREN TO BE RELEASED and families reunited NOW
THE SUPREME COURT IS AFFIRMING THE OREGON DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT THAT OUTLINES THE SYSTEMIC DEPRIVATIONS OF RIGHTS
Read the Declaratory Judgement, Default, En banc Review, now on the desks of the Oregon Supreme Court. This case is acknowledged by the Supreme Court in "ex rel", in relation to the sovereign people aggrieved and abused in this unconstitutional scheme.
http://www.avoiceforchildren.com/cases/affidavit_en_banc_review_2-24-04.htm
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/107901035645170.xml
Ruling on hearsay evidence guts cases
Prosecuting abuse and domestic violence will be harder after the Supreme Court's affirmation of the right to face an accuser
03/11/04
ROBIN FRANZEN
One of the most defense-friendly U.S. Supreme Court decisions in years, underscoring the right to cross-examine witnesses, could severely thwart the ability of prosecutors to try certain sensitive cases of domestic abuse and child abuse.
Legal authorities were scrambling to decide the extent of Monday's ruling but said Wednesday that it could gut prosecution of cases in which victims often refuse to testify at trial -- domestic violence being a prime example -- and limit the use of co-defendants' statements in the prosecution of other cases.
The 9-0 opinion potentially disallows hearsay evidence that courts had increasingly allowed as exceptions during the past 25 years and boldly reinforces a defendant's right to confront witnesses under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
"This decision will have a significant impact on criminal prosecution, no doubt," said Kevin Neely, spokesman for the Oregon attorney general's office, which convened a meeting Wednesday to discuss the ruling's effect.
Dana Forman, a criminal defense lawyer, considers the decision in Crawford v. Washington to be the most important ruling from the Supreme Court since the 1966 Miranda decision in terms of preserving constitutional rights for criminal defendants.
"I was blown away by the scope of the thing," she said.
The decision overturned an assault conviction against Michael Crawford of Olympia, who stabbed a man he thought had tried to rape his wife. Crawford claimed self-defense, arguing the victim was going for a weapon when he was stabbed.
His wife, Sylvia, who was present at the time of the incident, did not testify at her husband's trial, invoking marital privilege. However, a judge said the prosecution could use her taped statement to police indicating that there was no weapon.
The Supreme Court ruled that the wife's statement to police was not admissible because the defense did not have an opportunity to cross-examine her.
In overturning the Washington Supreme Court on the Crawford case, the U.S. Supreme Court also abandoned its own 1980 ruling, Ohio v. Roberts, that allowed a hearsay witness statement if a judge found it trustworthy.
Inadequate under Sixth Amendment
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote Monday's opinion, said that wouldn't have been enough for the framers of the Constitution.
"Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty," Scalia wrote. "This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."
Previously, Oregon prosecutors handling domestic violence and child abuse cases did not have an absolute obligation to produce a witness at trial, Neely said. Instead, they could rely on statements those witnesses made to police officers if they were found to be reliable. Typically, in domestic violence cases, those statements had to be made within 24 hours of the incident.
"Now, in those instances, (prosecutors) will not be able to rely on the officer," he said. "They'll be required to produce a witness."
It was unclear Wednesday whether the Supreme Court's ruling would be retroactive. Prosecutors certainly hope not. But they are concerned.
"We had a situation where the law was pretty settled that this was admissible," said Norm Frink, chief deputy district attorney for Multnomah County. "Now, I'm sure every sex abuser in the penitentiary is probably thinking they are going to get out."
Oregon case already affected
Already, the Supreme Court ruling has caused an Oregon criminal case to be dismissed.
When a domestic assault trial began Monday morning without the victim's cooperation, a Multnomah County judge ruled that hearsay statements against the defendant were admissible. But that afternoon, after the high court's ruling, Forman, who works for Multnomah Defenders Inc., successfully asked the judge to exclude the statement. The case was dismissed.
The only way it can be reinstated, Forman said, is if the district attorney compels the victim to testify by issuing an arrest warrant.
Although John Bradley, special counsel for the Multnomah County district attorney's office, agreed the decision will make prosecutors' jobs harder, he cautioned that it might not be as broad as it appears on first reading.
Bradley said the opinion doesn't affect many types of evidence typically admitted at trial, including medical reports or business records. He also said he expected it would take years of litigation to sort out exactly what type of evidence falls under Monday's ruling.
Defense lawyer Larry Matasar said he thought the ruling would, perhaps most importantly, prevent innocent people from being convicted.
"If you believe in the judicial system and the right of confrontation, it's one of the bedrock principles," he said.
Although the ruling was unanimous, Chief Justice William Rehnquist dissented from overturning the court's 1980 decision that allowed some hearsay evidence. He said it was crucial to deal with the unresolved questions raised by the new ruling quickly.
"Thousands of federal prosecutors and the tens of thousands of state prosecutors need answers," he wrote. "They need them now, not months or years from now. . . . The parties should not be left in the dark in this manner."
News researcher Kathleen Blythe contributed to this report.
Reporter Robin Franzen: 503-221-8133; robinfranzen@news.oregonian.com
~~~~~~~~~~ Time to reverse EVERY CASE where the children were removed using hearsay reports. 95% of the seizures no one is charged with any crime.... same with adult "offenders" and "violators", hearsay is the method and operation of malicious prosecutors in the "quasi-judicial administrative courts" of no constitutional judicial due process, as this article states, have been in force for 25 years....
This UNANIMOUS decision by the US Supreme Court dissolves the latest rule making passed in 2002, the DR-102 Disciplinary Rule that makes it "legal" for a state agent or bar member to "lie, perjure and misrepresent themselves and commit otherwise criminal acts" in a courtroom today, Oregon legislator RON WYDEN sponsored the federal 'Kenneth M Ludden Act" and inserted the rule there, compromising the process of law completely by that act.
EVERY CHILD MUST BE RELEASED NOW THAT WAS SEIZED IN THIS MANNER.... EVERY ONE WHO CAN PROVE LIES AND FRAUD WERE USED - AND THAT IS EVERYONE - WHO DID NOT HAVE JUDICIAL DUE PROCESS MUST BE RELEASED IMMEDIATELY - THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND COURT JUST AFFIRMED IT AND ADMITTED THIS SYSTEMIC DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS EXISTS.
NOW WE SEE IT NOW WE STOP IT ..... We must all be vigilant now about how all the prosecutors are going to burn the night oil rewriting the rules to sound like they are complying but really keep the malicious process in place. Right now the DA"s have been enjoying a paradise created in the BAR association Board of Governors meetings, unelected individual money priests write the rules, take them to people like David Hendryckx, Timothy Travis, and Greg Chaimov in the legislative counsel offices who rewrite the rules and then they are made in to statutes, unconstitutional, and used in courtrooms instead of lawful judicial due process.
This is TREASON to the constitutional process GUARANTEED in a Republic, and at this time completely taken over by a statutory corporate regime in all the states, entrenched in Oregon since the 80's particularly. The process in the court IS the acknowledgement of the sovereignty of the people, or not. The Chief Justice and a unanimous court have admitted here that an unlawful process has been used to render people... it has to be retroactive and has to be enforced NOW.
pamela gaston
www.avoiceforchildren.com
http://www.policestate21.com/
THANK YOU FOR TAKING PART IN THE RESISTANCE MOVEMENT.
As you may already be aware, you and your family members
have been moved from the FBI's "blue list" to the ATF's
"red list." In addition, DNA samples have already been
covertly obtained from you and each of your family members
and added to the National DNA Database (NDD). They have
your fingerprints, a strand of your hair and blood samples.
Your house, car and place of business have been bugged.
Satellite surveillance constantly track your every move
through the use of multiple implants inserted without your
consent or knowledge. Please understand that there is
no need to unsubscribe at this point, but you are always
free to do so.
You may unsubscribe at any time by sending an email to:
AmericanPoliceState-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
The preceding comments are, of course, intended to be
funny. What won't be very funny is the day we discover
IT WAS ALL TRUE...! (and then some)
==========================
The Public's Right Not to Know
Posted by Patrick Mattimore
Sunday, March 07, 2004
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=6274
[SNIP]
The U.S. Constitution’s 6th Amendment guarantees an accused the right to a ''…public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.'' Because of the extensive pretrial publicity surrounding this case, the defense’s motion to have the trial moved out of the Modesto area was granted. Now the question is whether Peterson can get a fair hearing anywhere in the state, or indeed, in the country. The overarching question is whether the media should be restrained from presenting billboards and programs which can potentially bias the jurors in a case such as this one.
In a 1976 United States Supreme Court decision, Nebraska Press Assn. Et Al. v. Stuart, Judge, Et Al., the Court considered whether a lower court could issue a restraining order to prevent the press from publishing or broadcasting accounts, in advance, of confessions or admissions by an accused. The case squarely raised the issue of whether preserving a fair trial for an accused might be a sufficient basis for a prior restraint. The Court held that in balancing the rights of the accused against the prior restraint on publication that the heavy burden imposed as a condition to securing a prior restraint was not met, primarily because the trial judge had other alternatives to insure the defendant a fair trial. Among those alternatives was a change of venue, postponement to allow public attention to subside, intense screening of jurors to weed out those with fixed opinions, emphatic instructions to jurors to decide the issues based only on evidence presented in court, and juror sequestration. Unfortunately, none of those measures could inoculate jurors from being exposed to prejudicial outside sources today during the course of the trial, unless the sequestration also included a total media ban, including access to the Internet.
According to Chief Justice Warren Burger who wrote the Court’s opinion in the Nebraska Press case, the authors of the Constitution must have been aware of the potential conflicts between the right to an unbiased jury and the guarantee of freedom of the press. He wrote that ''…they recognized that there were risks to private rights from an unfettered press…'' Quoting with approval the Sheppard case, Burger continued ''…the trial courts must take strong measures to ensure that the balance is never weighed against the accused…'' (from ''Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U. S. 333 (1966)). The prosecution, as well, has a right to an untainted jury.
This case is distinguishable from the Nebraska case and indeed many of the cases that have upheld the First Amendment privilege against prior restraints. In those cases, the media have argued that they are merely presenting the news, albeit with many different slants. No such claim can be advanced as to a dramatic television show designed to capture viewer’s attention or to a phone-in billboard contest. Further, previous 1st Amendment privilege case decisions have depended in part upon the necessity that the news be reported in a timely manner, as the events are unfolding. The only justification for a timely presentation of ''Perfect Husband,'' or indeed public opinion billboards is to bolster viewer and listener ratings respectively for the networks.
The public, including potential jurors, have a right not to know how the media has decided this case before or during the courtroom presentation of evidence. As it now stands, that is a guarantee they will not have.
Patrick Mattimore is a former prosecutor and high school psychology teacher in San Francisco. He receives e-mail at: Psychout@msn.com
===========================
APFN-1 YahooGroups:
Subscribe: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apfn-1/join
Unsubscribe: apfn-1-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
APFN MSG BOARD:
`In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.'
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
APFN CONTENTS PAGE:
http://www.apfn.org/old/apfncont.htm
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
[LEAK-GATE] INVESTIGATING THE WHITE HOUSE
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LEAK-GATE/
Find elected officials, including the president, members of
Congress, governors, state legislators, local officials, and more.
http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/
APFN, PMB 107, 6630 W. CACTUS #B107, GLENDALE, AZ 85304
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/kenvardon.htm
Right to confront accusers upheld — Chicago Tribune, Sat Mar 13 00:32
FBI pushes for broadband wiretap powers — CNET Networks, Sat Mar 13 01:28
Click here to receive daily updates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------