Posted on 05/15/2006 1:33:17 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp
I am getting ready to file a fourt ammended complaint in federal court on RICO/civil Rights violations. The third one was tossed by the judge i named in the third amended complaint because I caught him committing 4 counts each of obstruction of justice and mail fraud. His order dismissing the third amended complaint ordered the clerk to remove from the court record my third amended complaint.
IOW, there is an order based on a court document that the judge ordered removed from the file. How does that make sense?
He is so screwed.
You make a common mistake. A court's ruling is not the law. The conmstitution is the ultimate authority, then comes the statute if it is not in violation of the law. Any court ruling that is contrary to the constitution is null and void. Enforcing it is another matter, but the mere decision of a court does not make the ruling constitutional.
"What about the rights of the girl he beat to death, which fact was already established at trial"
Respectfully, you miss the point. The point is back when he was presumed innocent, there should have been no trial, because of ex post facto. You see, ex post facto doesn't care if you are guilty, nor should it. It simply could not be less relevant that he was found guilty at the trial. If he were found not guilty, he'd still have the same ex post facto argument - but nothing to appeal - a trial with the opposite result still would have violated his rights.
As to the girl's rights, they should have found the killer within 5 years, or the legislature never should have had a 5 year SOL on murder, that's stupid.
In any event I don't know how I come out on the ex post facto issue here. But I hope judges don't set bad precedent to correct a stupid law. I mean, really, the issue that's being forgotten is why on earth the MA legislature had a 5 year SOL on murder. Jerks.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Reminds me when the Kennedy family called in Burke Marshall (former assistant AG) to help out with Ted Kennedy's statement after Chappaquiddick. It was said that having Burke Marshall help preparing a brief in response to an auto accident was like using the propeller screw of the Queen Mary to churn butter.
I don't think your post was intended for me. I agree with you.
The murder ocurred in CT, not MA. SOLs for murder prior to the mid '70s in most states were similar to that of CT. Can't really be too critical of CT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.