Skip to comments.How staged sex crime fooled Supreme Court
Posted on 10/24/2005 12:27:04 PM PDT by Hunterb
WASHINGTON Was the U.S. Supreme Court fooled by a make-believe sodomy case in Lawrence v. Texas one manufactured by homosexual activists to entrap police and ensnare the judicial system in a conspiracy to change the law of the land?
That is the compelling verdict of a new book, "Sex Appealed: Was the U.S. Supreme Court Fooled?" by Judge Janice Law.
It was in the Houston courthouse where Law presided as judge that she first heard rumors that the key figures in what became the landmark Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case actually invited arrest in a pre-arranged setup designed from the start to test the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. What the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."
When the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge to Texas anti-sodomy laws in 2002, the only facts for the high court to review were Deputy Joseph Richard Quinn's 69-word, handwritten, probable cause affidavits written within hours of the arrests of the three principals in the case Sept. 17, 1998.
There had been no trial. There had been no stipulations to facts by the state or the defendants. The defendants simply pleaded no contest at every phase of the proceedings. It was quite simply the misdemeanor dream case homosexual activists in Texas and nationwide had been dreaming about. Or had they done more than dream about it? Had they schemed about it, too?
Nearly everyone familiar with the case that set off the nation's same-sex marriage craze knows there were two defendants in the case two men, John Geddes Lawrence, 60, and Tyron Garner, 36. Forgotten, until Law's book, was a third man arrested at Lawrence's apartment that night Robert Eubanks, who was beaten to death three years before the case was heard by the Supreme Court.
It was Eubanks who took the fall for calling the police the night of the "incident." He said he was the one who placed the call reporting a man firing a gun in an apartment building. When police officers responded to the felony call, Eubanks was outside Lawrence's apartment directing police to the unit still insisting a man with a gun was threatening neighbors.
When police approached Lawrence's apartment, they found the front door open. When they entered the apartment, they found a man calmly talking on the telephone in the kitchen, also motioning to the officers to a bedroom in the rear.
Despite repeated shouts by officers identifying themselves as of sheriff's deputies from the moment they entered the Houston apartment, no one seemed surprised to see them especially not Lawrence and Garner.
The veteran police officers who entered the bedroom that night were unprepared for what they were about to see.
"You could tell me that something was happening like 'there's a guy walking down the street with his head in his hand,' and I would believe it," said Quinn, who had 13 years on the force the night he entered Lawrence's apartment. "As a police officer, I've seen things that aren't even imagined."
But what he saw that night shocked him, searing images into his mind that seem as vivid today as the day they happened.
Quinn and his fellow officers, expecting to see an armed man, perhaps holding a hostage or in a prone position ready to fire at them, instead, found was Lawrence having anal sex with Garner.
And they didn't stop despite repeated warnings from officers.
"Lawrence and Garner did not seem at all surprised to see two uniformed sheriff's deputies with drawn guns walk into their bedroom," Quinn recalls.
Quinn shouted to them to stop. They continued.
"Most people, in situations like that, try to cover up, hide or look embarrassed," explained Quinn. "Lawrence and Garner didn't look at all surprised to see us. They just kept doing it."
Finally, Quinn took action. He told them: "I don't believe this! What are you doing? Did you not hear us announce ourselves? Don't you have the common decency to stop?" But still Lawrence and Garner did not stop until Quinn physically moved them apart.
Lawrence and Garner would be booked that night for a class C misdemeanor punishable by only a fine. Eubanks was charged with filing a false police report because there were no guns found. Lawrence and Garner would become celebrity heroes of the homosexual activist movement. Eubanks would wind up beaten to death with Garner a possible suspect in a case that remains unsolved.
But who was the mystery man on the phone in the kitchen? He was never identified officially because there was no reason to charge him. Law believes his identity is key to proving the pre-meditated nature of the Lawrence case setup. And she thinks she's solved the case. Readers can be the judge.
The 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court Lawrence ruling favoring the defendants in the landmark case is the trigger event kicking away roadblocks to same-sex marriage, says Law.
The justices who voted to overturn the Texas statute and invalidate anti-sodomy laws in the rest of the U.S. were Justices Stephen Breyer, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision.
Those voting to uphold the Texas law were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
If the Lawrence case were known to be a setup during the five years following the arrests, then the defendants would not have a right-to-privacy claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court probably would never hear the case.
After that historic ruling, Law decided to investigate a case that had never before been subject to any investigation. By then she was a visiting judge, sitting for judges who are on vacation or ill.
"I researched and wrote 'Sex Appealed' because I know many of the Lawrence participants, I had the time, contacts, and the journalistic background to investigate, and, as a lawyer and judge, I felt an obligation to history to find out what really happened behind the scenes in one of the most culture-altering cases in America's legal history," Law said. "I am the judge who, after the internationally publicized case was concluded at the highest level, embarked on her own investigation of rumors about the case assigned to her Texas court."
Along the way, Law is not only persuasive that Lawrence was planned from the start that police, in effect, were entrapped into witnessing a crime because the homosexual activists needed a test case but also gets support for her theory from other judges involved in the saga.
What would it mean, two years after Lawrence v. Texas, if Supreme Court justices learned they had been fooled, manipulated, played like a radio?
Did the justices know that a key witness in the case had been murdered and that one of the defendants appeared to be a key suspect?
Were they aware one of the lawyers that handled the sodomy case for Lawrence and Garner also represented Garner in the unsolved murder death of Eubanks?
How could there be an issue of privacy in a case in which police were invited, encouraged, begged to enter an apartment and directed to the bedroom where the unlawful sexual activity was taking place?
Law also finds that homosexual activists nationwide and, specifically, in Houston were actively searching for that "perfect" test case when Lawrence happened to come along.
As the U.S. Supreme Court is being reshaped through the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor and the death of William Rehnquist, some are wondering if it's possible the court could "second-guess" itself in the Lawrence ruling one that turned out to be among the most controversial decisions in years.
Why not? The USSC was fooled by a make believe rape and pregnancy in Roe v. Wade...seems they'll believe anything.
Here in Texas, we get a chance to nip same-sex marriage in the butt next election.
So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?
This is pretty common for the left. Stage 'crimes' to advance an agenda. The left can't do anything honestly, they must manipulate.
Griswold was a setup too.
At the least, those involved should have been charged with public lewdness. Why? Are cops not citizens like the rest of us? Like the rest of us, they have the right to not be forced (and they were forced in this scenario) to view such depravity. This charge should have been handled the same as if these degenerates had invited school children into this scene.
Yes, and in my barn too. I want bestiality to be outlawed also.
That begs the question: Doesn't the very definition of "homosexual" (and the fight for "homosexual rights") put everyone into their bedrooms?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Eveyone knows that ruling just sucked!
I said bedroom, not barn, but if you want tyranny in government, you should move to Europe or the middle-east.
In other words, this case captures the gay agenda in a nutshell. For the most part the world doesn't care what happens in bedrooms behind closed doors so they fabricated a reason for the authorities to HAVE to come into their bedroom and get an eyeful.
"Yes, and in my barn too."
LOL - I may have to borrow that line.
Ditto for Doe V Bolton. See URL below.
The entire judicial basis for abortion in America is based on lies. Yet the left doesn't care. Just like Dan Rather, who claimed that even if the National Guard papers on GWB were faked, they were "essentially true."
Alright. The government has no right to regulate sexual acts between two consenting adults. To do otherwise is to support a "nanny-police-state".
If "Lawrence v...." is acceptable to the USSC then my thought the other day that it is up to the Chief Justice to control the USSC docket in the mailroom is certainly workable.
It's common to challenge a law by finding someone willing to deliberately get arrested for violating it. Regardless of your view of the Lawrence decision, this is a non-story.
So you think government is going to force you to have a homosexual in your bedroom.
Whatever you are taking, lay off of it.
Or, do you prefer those cheap propylene things down at Harbor Freight?
When you advocate getting the government out of the bedroom, there are no half-measures. In for a dime, in for a dollar.
Yup. And yet Farah says: ....is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."
It never ceases to amaze me when professional writers make unnecessary and inexcusable mistakes like that one. Sure, I can understand everyone not knowing about Griswold. But I can't understand someone tossing out "possibly for the first time in history" unless he's comfortable enough in the subject matter to have some confidence in what he's saying. Farah obviously wasn't, yet made the assertion anyway. It just makes people who know better lose faith in the accuracy of what he says.
Scopes was a setup too.
Prostitution remains against the law - at least where I live.
I take it you a foolish enough to trust a woman when she says she is taking birth control pills.
I take it you are foolish enough to trust a woman when she says she is taking birth control pills.
Then why is sex and marraige outlawed between family members, like a brother and sister? Even if they are consenting?
"So you would prefer to have government in your bedroom?"
Your reflexive response is completely inoperable. The whole point here is, the cops were MANIPULATED into going into someone's bedroom through a ruse whereby they believed a criminal act that could take a life was about to happen. They could have been manipulated into...the basement...the attic...the linen closet. You miss the point. They didn't want to go into anyone's anything... someone set the cops up.
Not in the state of Navada.
All right. I asked my question respectfully, which you sidestepped. So I'll ask it one more time: Doesn't the very definition of "homosexual" (and the fight for "homosexual rights") put everyone into their bedrooms?
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
And yet women have a reputation for faking it.
Who was the idiot prosecutor who decided to go ahead with this case?
This has been common knowledge for quite some time.
You gonna argue your point or tell us about lunch meat?
Obviously I don't live in Nevada or I wouldn't have made that statement.
When a court departs from the law and becomes a promoter of social agendas, it invites manipulation.
Of course they do. Haven't you been paying attention?
I live in the state of Georgia. We had a case go to state court of homosexuality long before the above case and even the conservative state supreme court of Georgia said that government should stay out of the bedrooms of consenting adults.
Farah is only good for entertainment.
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
Just because it's WND doesn't mean it's wrong. Read the article - we who keep track of such things on FR knew this was a set up at the time it went before the SCOTUS; now here are more facts.
Rick Santorum was right. Just because you've heard the words "slippery slope" gazillions of times doesn't mean they're not true.
We're living in perilous times.
Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.
I'd have to say that 6-3 decision in the Supreme Court was a come from behind victory for the homosexual agenda.
What was Roe vs Wade?
Only if I could sell tickets.
Oooookay! Very understated and sly, but okay.
If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.
Maybe I should go on a bank robbing spree, and call the cops myself while I am robbing the place. Then, if I get caught, I can say "hey, I staged the whole thing, therefore you can't arrest me for it!".
Think that will work?