Powerful words about Troy Davis case
October 14, 2008 at 6:10 pm by Mara Shalhoup in NewsI’ve read much of today’s coverage about the U.S. Supreme Court’s deflating decision not to review the appeal of Georgia death row inmate Troy Davis — whose execution the high court halted last month, less than two hours before it was scheduled.
Davis’ case caught international attention after seven of nine trial witnesses recanted their testimony, many of them claiming police coercion. Another three people who didn’t testify later claimed that another man — one of the two who failed to recant his testimony — confessed to them that it was he who pulled the trigger on Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail.
Here’s my favorite quote so far about the high court’s decision, from a verbose but eloquent essay by CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen:
Why the Justices turned away from a case they had sniffed at last month may forever remain a mystery. But what is perfectly clear is that Georgia has now created a virtually unassailable bar to criminal defendants whose shaky convictions are later subverted through the discovery of new evidence.
Thanks, Georgia.
For background on the case, click here.
October 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As the saying goes the Truth eventually Comes Out, Just it seems at this moment not soon enough!
October 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
This hurts my heart.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
I am asking legal professionals, along with everyone else. For what legally, lawful, case supported, justifiable reason[s] is Troy Anthony Davis still behind bars?
This information was sent to a woman named Sara. She is an advocate for Troy Anthony Davis.
It was also published in the Yale Daily News, and a few other places.
The first portion of this comment was published in the Yale Daily News,
on 8:12am on September 18, 2008 http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/comments/25011
This information if applied to the Troy Davis case will free him. That is if his attorney[s] are working for him and not against him.
During this case, at anytime was Mr. Davis informed of his full rights under the constitution, was he ever informed of the facts stated in the decision below, which applies to Troy Davis.
This statement presented in the case of HERSHAL HALE, Defendant/Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent. District Court Number CR-99-0132MJJ. In this case it is stated that…
At the onset, “flimsy criminal indictment.” cf. id., is in question marks to show that Defendant Hale’s supporting evidence of proof, in connection with the underlying fictitious, “flimsy criminal indictment,” rests upon the strength and the dignity of the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America, cf. id., because proof of “massive” flimsy criminal indictment[s,]” is furnished on this record by the President of the United States of America. See The Final Days, 1, 261-62 (citation omitted) (1974; 2006) (quoting Oval Office interview that the U.S. Department of Justice, by the President’s own admission, prosecutes “blind” “pawns” with flimsy criminal indictment[s]
Put cogently, the criminal indictment upon which the court haled the defendant into court is the very beginning, as discussed, supra, is a “flimsy criminal indictment.” Id. Thus, the Court was utterly devoid of subject-matter or in personam jurisdiction in this matter from the very beginning. See Midland Asphalt v. United States, 499 U.S. 794, 802, 109 S. Ct, 1494, 103 L. Ed. 2d 879 (1989) (“Only a defect so fundamental that it causes a grand jury to no longer be a grand jury, or the indictment to no longer be an indictment, gives rise to the constitutional right not to be tried.”).
The case of See Schlup v. Delo, supra, 513 U.S., at __, 130 L.Ed. 2d, at 834 protects Mr. Davis’s “newly discovered” and newly asserted” claim of “actual and factual innocence.” Id.
Pawn, v. To deliver personal property in pledge to another in pledge, or as security for a debt or sum borrowed.
Pawn, n. A bailment of goods to a creditor, as security for some debt or engagement; pledge; deposit of personal property made to a pawnbroker as security for a loan. That sort of bailment where goods or chattels are delivered to another as security to him for money borrowed of him by the bailor. Also the specific chattel delivered to the creditor as a pledge.
Is Mr. Davis a ward of the court? If so, how and when was he made a ward of the court? Did Mr. Davis enter into every situation, every signed document, willingly, knowingly, intentionally, voluntarily, intelligently. Was Mr. Davis ever advised of his rights as a member of the national citizenry of this country? Has this court overridden any U.S. Supreme Court decisions? If yes, does it have the right to do so? Under what jurisdiction is this court operating?
Remember ~ The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239. The “certificate” from the State Supreme Court only authorizes: To practice Law, “in Courts” as a member of the State Judicial Branch of Government. A bar card holder can only represent “wards of the Court”. The state bar card is not a license; it is a Union Dues Card of a Professional Association. There is nothing in this decision that states attorneys are working for the good of the public, the national citizenry of this nation.
It is of the greatest importance that those of us who are actively seeking alternatives to lawyers and the legal system in the U.S., America, federal as well as for the national citizenry of this nation, as it currently exist, are active at putting the entire legal system itself on trial every time the doors of any court are open. Remember, the law is only to be an extension of what each person is allowed to do. “When the law can do what the individual cannot, without that individual being charged with a crime, then we are living in a state of un-lawful law.” ~ Frederic Bastiat
Accept it no more. Seek alternatives to lawyers, those alternatives are here, have been here, are not taught in any American schools, are active, and truly work to make law as it should be, easily accessible and applicable to and for everyone, equally. What the legal profession in America had done and is designed to do is this, created and continues to create a new language, out of words of simple usage, then claim it is just too difficult for the general public to understand, while charging outrageous prices for their services, and making and keeping us criminals at the same time.
The law must be fair, it is not.
The law must be reasonable, it is not.
The law should compensate only for legitimate injury caused by another, it does not.
The law should provide just compensation; it should not unfairly enrich the players.
The law should address the concerns of our citizens, yet it is created and enforced for political gains.
“Any person who will give up a little security for a little security is worthy of neither and will lose both.”~ Benjamin Franklin. The American judicial system and law schools are designed to be sure that we lose both, and for the most part, we have. If not, the two decisions below that are still the two greatest truth of all law would be at the front of all legal decisions made.
1. Article 1 of every states constitution.
2. What is mentioned in the declaration of independence which states [— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.]
The fact that this is not of the greatest importance and at the base of every legal teaching is proof of that point. This is why we are and must continue to develop alternatives to lawyers and law schools in America. This process has greatly begun, and will continue.
“We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men/women who pervert the Constitution.”~ Abraham Lincoln