• Home
  • Posts Tagged'constitution'

Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

Prosecutorial Misconduct-A Right According to Some Prosecutors

“Prosecutorial Misconduct-A Right According To Some Prosecutors” by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

My last post was about prosecutorial misconduct and was based on an article by Radley Balco, who writes “The Watch” for the Washington Post. Here’s a followup by the same writer that validates the wording of the title of this post.

When a judge calls a prosecutor on the carpet for misconduct and that prosecutor accuses the judge of bias and asks him to recuse himself from criminal cases in her jurisdiction, something is seriously wrong. Prosecutorial misconduct should be a felony punishable by disbarment and jail time. Bust a few of these arrogant slimeballs and put them in prison with people they’ve convicted and we might see a revival of the quaint concepts of ethics and morality in the criminal justice system.

Here is an article on the topic in The Post and Courier, a Charleston, SC newspaper.

Kudos to South Carolina Supreme Court Justice Donald Beatty; and shame on Solicitor Scarlett Wilson.

 

Are Drug Dogs Unreliable? Yes!

“Are Drug Dogs Unreliable? Yes!” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

The Washington Post just published an article that says that the science on the subject indicates “that drug dogs have disturbingly high rates of ‘false alerts’, sometimes with error rates well above 50 percent”. The article indicates that drug dogs can be deliberately or inadvertently influenced by their handlers. If this is true, the validity of evidence developed from the use of these dogs is questionable, at best. This should be the subject of a lot of discussion in the criminal justice system, especially in the criminal defense sector.

Check these links and others (in the article) collected by Radley Balco, the author of the above noted Washington Post article.

“The Mind of a Police Dog”

“NHP Troopers Sue…”

“Police Dog Named “Bono”…”

“Illinois State Police Drug Dogs…”

Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs…

“Handler beliefs affect…”

 

 

Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct-Another Reason to Kill Capital Punishment

Police and Prosecutorial Misconduct-Another Reason to Kill Capital Punishment by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

Even if you believe that capital punishment is a moral act, this example of police and prosecutorial misconduct should cause you to question its application. This one is from New York; but it happens all over the country.

 

Supreme Court Proves Incompetence Again

“Supreme Court Proves Incompetence Again” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

It’s really disturbing to me to see once again that the “constitutional experts” on the Supreme Court are so ignorant of the concept of human or natural rights. Their decision last summer in the case of Salinas vs Texas, docket number 12-246, shows that they think our rights are given to us by the government.

The Bill of Rights is a statement of HUMAN RIGHTS, not a statement of privileges that can be granted or taken away by a bunch of arrogant political hacks hiding behind their black robes. Are they really that ignorant or are they deliberately subverting the Constitution for the political agenda of their corporate owners?

A post on the blog, Political Irony, pretty much sums things up.

 

Prosecutor to be Jailed for Sending an Innocent Man to Jail?

“Prosecutor to be Jailed for Sending an Innocent Man to Jail?” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator

The Blog headline, “For the First Time Ever, a Prosecutor Will Go to Jail for Wrongfully Convicting an Innocent Man” by Mark Godsey, should astound the general public; but it shouldn’t cause the same reaction among people who work in the criminal justice field or those who have been harmed by prosecutorial and/or police misconduct.

This isn’t the first case where an innocent person has gone to jail under similar conditions. If this is the first prosecutor to be held accountable, it is potentially revolutionary. Prosecutors are now on notice. It’s way past due. I predict (and hope) that we’ll see more of these cases, now that the ice has been broken.

 

Zimmerman: Guilty or Innocent?

“Zimmerman: Guilty or Innocent?” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

I don’t claim to know the answer to the question. It’s obvious that the public, aided and abetted by the media, has already made up its collective mind. ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY AS CHARGED! This was the opinion of the general public even before the trial started. Add to this the general opinion of the masses that an accused person is guilty because the person was arrested and charged.

Wow! Think of all the tax dollars that could be saved if we just substituted the media, leading the masses to popular “opinion”, for the legal system.

But, hold on a minute. Our legal system is based on the practical assertion and principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I guess the media and the masses don’t get it. Here’s a Facebook post you might want to read just to get some perspective on cases like this where a defendant is claiming self defense to justify a homicide. And remember that “homicide” is a morally and legally neutral term. Its meaning is too narrow for making decisions about how to treat the act and its results. Homicide can be “justified”, as in the case of legitimate self defense, or “unjustified”, as in the case of premeditated murder.

 

Sixth Amendment Cancelled?

“Sixth Amendment Canceled?” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator

Sequestration is the most inane excuse for violating human rights and our Constitution. According to the Sixth Amendment:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Sixth Amendment.

Now take a look at this Associated Press article written by Gene Johnson. It appears that justice is now a commodity, just like everything else.

Is there a way that the House and the Senate can be held in contempt for violating the Constitution in such a blatant and egregious  manner?

 

Supreme Court Flunks Test On Privacy Rights

“Supreme Court Flunks Test on Privacy Rights” by John F. Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

Privacy rights were on trial; and The Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 decision that police don’t need a search warrant to take your DNA by use of a mouth swab. What’s next? Fecal and urine samples? Blood draws? Sperm samples? If they get away with that, they can expand the program to requiring the same sampling for people getting driver’s licenses and registering to vote. Think about how many criminals they could find if they did house-to-house searches. Think about how safe that would make you feel.

 

Gun Free Zones-An Oxymoron in the Gun Control Debate

“Gun Free Zones-An Oxymoron in the Gun Control Debate” by John F Hays, a Seattle Private Investigator.

The only real gun free zones are closed and secured locations with controlled access, staffed by armed guards and requiring inspection of persons entering, including anything they are wearing and carrying. Areas marked with gun free zone signs, either required by law or policy, are a fraud on the public and are, in fact, a threat to public safety.

If a licensed citizen carries a gun into such an area, that person commits a crime even though the only crime is violating the law or policy establishing that zone.

If a person with criminal intent wants to go into that zone to actually use that gun to shoot one or more people, what makes anyone think that the sign would deter that person with that intent from that behavior? And, if an otherwise lawful citizen were to violate the law or policy and deploy a prohibited weapon to stop the person with murderous intent, why should that citizen be declared a criminal? Since when is exercising the right to self-defense, a Constitutional and Human Right, a crime?

Irrational, feel-good measures, such as gun free zones do not stop criminals or the insane. Such laws and policies only disarm those who are no threat to anyone. Gun free zones create an illusion of safety only to those deluded enough to believe they work.

Public officials who promote such ideas are either deluded themselves or are acting in a calculated and cynical manner in pandering to the fears of the public they work for. Do you hear me, Seattle Mayor McGinn? And Mayor Bloomberg of NYC and all the other mayors in this country who have joined your club.

 

Understanding the Second Amendment Easy, If…

“Understanding the Second Amendment Easy, If…” by John F Hays, Seattle Private Investigator.

You don’t have to be a lawyer and a constitutional law expert to understand the Second Amendment. The meaning of the Second Amendment is obvious to anyone who knows (1) our history, (2) knows that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not government rights and (3) understands grammar.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment acknowledges our human right, pre-existing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while stating the interest of the government in not restricting or interfering with that right.

A study of our history leading up to the formation of our country and the writing of the Constitution, shows no evidence of government interest in controlling citizens’ possession of arms. If you know of any evidence to the contrary, provide it to me as a comment to this post.

Stipulated: The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not government rights. Any argument?

The action part of the wording of the sentence that makes up the Second Amendment refers to a right that “…shall not be infringed.” This wording obviously recognizes a right that pre-exists the Second Amendment, as you can’t infringe on something that doesn’t already exist. The first part of the sentence does nothing more than state the government’s interest in maintaining and not interfering with that right. Does anyone reading this post claim that our language has changed so much since then that my interpretation is wrong.

If you accept this argument but you believe that the Second Amendment is an anachronism that should be eliminated from the Bill of Rights within the Constitution, good luck getting that changed.

 
  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
© 2012 HSI Investigations, A Seattle Private Investigator