Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is This Woman a War Criminal or a Regular Old Jilted Wife?
New York Magazine ^ | 11/5 | Kat Stoeffel

Posted on 11/05/2013 10:18:49 AM PST by nickcarraway

Finally, a Supreme Court case that can keep my attention: NPR reports that today the highest court in the land hears the 2005 case of Philadelphia suburbanite Carol Anne Bond, who discovered that her husband had impregnated her best friend, and then attempted to poison said best friend. Bond was subsequently convicted under a chemical weapons treaty.

Using chemicals stolen from the chemical manufacturing company where she worked, Bond mixed a compound that can be lethal in small amounts — and is bright orange in color — and put it in her ex-BFF’s mail. The mistress easily noticed the powder (she suffered only a thumb burn), and complained to police, who took no action. But her mailman alerted the the Postal Service, which had videotaped Bond spreading the chemicals on 24 different occasions. The federal government convicted Bond under the chemical weapons treaty, and she was sentenced to six years in prison, three times the sentence she would have received if the state had pursued the case. Bond appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the treaty is unconstitutional because it violates states’ rights to prosecute simple assault.

The government, however, says the treaty was enacted to ban a variety of uses of chemical weapons outside of war. “If Mrs. Bond's actions had ended up killing the victim, or killing a postal worker, or killing the victim's child, I don't think anybody would dispute that this was an appropriate use of this convention," said former State Department legal adviser John Bellinger.

Bond's lawyer, former solicitor general Paul Clement, begs to differ. “Nation states conduct war. They don't poison their husband's lover. [...] I think you could tell 100 people on the street what Ms. Bond did here,” he told NPR, and none of those people would determine that Bond "deployed a chemical weapon." He says his client is “peaceful” by the international law standards recognized in the treaty.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: attemptedmurder

1 posted on 11/05/2013 10:18:49 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
The mistress easily noticed the powder (she suffered only a thumb burn), and complained to police, who took no action. But her mailman alerted the the Postal Service, which had videotaped Bond spreading the chemicals on 24 different occasions.

Huh??

2 posted on 11/05/2013 10:23:23 AM PST by workerbee (The President of the United States is DOMESTIC ENEMY #1!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
She stole deadly controlled chemicals and tried to use them to kill a person. Sounds like a chemical weapon attack to me.

was sentenced to six years in prison, three times the sentence she would have received if the state had pursued the case

You only get two years for attempted murder in Pennsylvania? Remind me to go there if I need to almost kill somebody.

3 posted on 11/05/2013 10:25:17 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

As if there are no laws on the books to cover this, they resort to treaties?


4 posted on 11/05/2013 10:25:41 AM PST by Dalberg-Acton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

So if I spray a cotton field with parathion and some bum that was sleeping in the cotton field gets sick I’m violating a chemical weapons treaty? If I have a couple of gallon of O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite (which is NOT poisonous) am I in violation of a chemical weapons treaty?


5 posted on 11/05/2013 10:25:59 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Mix it with readily-available sulfur then yes, I would say you’ve got yourself a weapons-grade problem on your hands.


6 posted on 11/05/2013 10:28:07 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dalberg-Acton
As if there are no laws on the books to cover this, they resort to treaties?

Apparently, the feds got involved because the Philly police were not interested in pursuing a case as unimportant as attempted murder.

7 posted on 11/05/2013 10:28:32 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dead
She stole deadly controlled chemicals and tried to use them to kill a person. Sounds like a chemical weapon attack to me.

"was sentenced to six years in prison, three times the sentence she would have received if the state had pursued the case"

You only get two years for attempted murder in Pennsylvania? Remind me to go there if I need to almost kill somebody.

**************************

Well said.

8 posted on 11/05/2013 10:29:14 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

What’s the big deal? LBJ sprayed a whole country with the color orange.


9 posted on 11/05/2013 10:30:13 AM PST by South Dakota (shut up and build a bakken pipe line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Think of the opportunity this may represent to the anti-smoking Gnatzis!

“She assaulted me with a chemical fog from her ciggy-butt!”


10 posted on 11/05/2013 10:31:01 AM PST by Don W (Know what you WANT. Know what you NEED. Know the DIFFERENCE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Don’t forget dihydrogen monoxide. That stuff can desolve battleships and kill you as well. And it’s freely available. I think it should be regulated.


11 posted on 11/05/2013 10:32:16 AM PST by SkyDancer (Live your life in such a way that the Westboro church will want to picket your funeral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

If I remember correctly, this is the case that, if the court cites international chem weapons law, will have gone a long way to nullify US or state law and bring us much closer to losing our sovereignity to the UN.

This female’s time in the slammer is irrelevant compared to what this means for us as a nation.


12 posted on 11/05/2013 10:34:51 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (Jesus Christ is not a religion. He's the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
The Feds are arguing that every time a treaty is signed, the Congress obtains all the authority it needs for enabling legislation, regardless of any other Constitutional requirements or limitations.In this case, the Feds are claiming authority over an individual's actions when normally such actions are solely within the purview of the states and not the Federal government.

If the Senate were to approve the recent arms trafficking treaty, they could claim the Congress can restrict firearms in any manner irrespective of the 2nd Amendment.

This is a massive power grab by the Feds and the ruling class.

13 posted on 11/05/2013 10:36:43 AM PST by pierrem15 (Claudius: "Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
"three times the sentence she would have received if the state had pursued the case."

Seems to me the difference is that she sent this in the mail. Making it a federal crime. If Ms. Bond wanted to kill her, she should have spread the chemical over her Victoria Secret catalog.
14 posted on 11/05/2013 10:37:36 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15
Good point, there's more at stake here.

None of this would have happened, apparently, if the Philly police had any interest in doing their job in the first place.

15 posted on 11/05/2013 10:46:25 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
Mix it with readily-available sulfur then yes, I would say you’ve got yourself a weapons-grade problem on your hands.

If I mix it with sulfur, I wouldn't have any problems at all. I'd probably be dead.

16 posted on 11/05/2013 10:49:34 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

I knew a few people personally who have died from prolonged exposure to dihydrogen monoxide.

I myself have had coughing fits and gagging from minute inhalation of the substance.


17 posted on 11/05/2013 10:52:06 AM PST by SpinnerWebb (In 2012 you will awaken from your HOPEnosis and have no recollection of this... "Constitution")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
So if I spray a cotton field with parathion and some bum that was sleeping in the cotton field gets sick I’m violating a chemical weapons treaty?

If your intent was to spray the field, then no. If your intent was specifically to cause harm to a human through the use of toxic chemicals, then perhaps.

18 posted on 11/05/2013 11:01:48 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/02/22/us.scotus.toxic.love/index.html

She's a microbiologist, and a very pissed off woman.

19 posted on 11/05/2013 11:02:22 AM PST by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625; from occupied ga

I think it depends on whether the bum was eating your cotton.


20 posted on 11/05/2013 11:07:51 AM PST by WayneS (No problem is so great that it cannot be made worse by a "progressive" solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
I think it depends on whether the bum was eating your cotton.

So you think it depends on wevil intent?

21 posted on 11/05/2013 11:11:05 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Exactly!

(Good one, by the way)


22 posted on 11/05/2013 11:19:50 AM PST by WayneS (No problem is so great that it cannot be made worse by a "progressive" solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: dead

Wow - I wouldn’t have picked you as a statist.

The feds do not gain jurisdiction in a run-of-the-mill attempted murder case because of some treaty that doesn’t even tangentially pertain to this incident, other than that a chemical was use.

Oh, wait! Gunpowder is a chemical! Should the feds now have jurisdiction for police powers in every case where a firearm is shot?


23 posted on 11/05/2013 11:26:18 AM PST by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

The federal government can legally destroy anyone at any time for any reason.


24 posted on 11/05/2013 11:38:04 AM PST by stinkerpot65 (Global warming is a Marxist lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Remember, they used the anti-mafia RICO laws against pro-lifers sidewalk counseling outside abortion mills on public property.


25 posted on 11/05/2013 12:19:18 PM PST by If You Want It Fixed - Fix It
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: green iguana
The feds do not gain jurisdiction in a run-of-the-mill attempted murder case

Statist? LOL.

As other more helpful responses, indicated there are other issues at play here that would make me not support the Fed's case.

But the federal involvement revolved around the fact that she stole the chemicals from a company she worked at and at which I'm sure she signed some binding homeland security agreements not to abscond with the controlled chemicals with which she had contact. Additionally, when she sent the chemicals through the mail with intent to kill, she opened the door for the Fed.

But I agree it's not a Federal case. The non-working Philly police are the reason it fell to them.

26 posted on 11/05/2013 12:40:09 PM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Would seem that if the law did not come up thru the Constitution by way of ‘we the people’ it is not a legitimate law...


27 posted on 11/05/2013 12:46:07 PM PST by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead

I know you’re not a statist - that was supposed to be a “wake up” slap.

“when she sent the chemicals through the mail with intent to kill, she opened the door for the Fed.”

I thought she put them on the mail that was already in the mailbox, and didn’t send them thru the mail. Still mail tampering, whch it seems would be the rightful federal crime if they wanted to prosecute.

My guess is the Philly cops were in a “no harm, no foul” mood, thinking they had better uses of their time than chasing after an inept jilted wife. Whether that’s eating donuts or pursuing organized crime, I’ll leave to others to decide.

If this doesn’t get shot down (and indications are it will), it would open up a new avenue for a huge federal power grab from the states, giving the feds police powers over any crime they can tangentially link to a treaty.

That was the point of my “gunpowder is a chemical” comment.


28 posted on 11/05/2013 1:04:45 PM PST by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“But her mailman alerted the the Postal Service, which had videotaped Bond spreading the chemicals on 24 different occasions.”

WTF? Were they waiting for her to actually kill the person so they could up the charges?


29 posted on 11/05/2013 1:16:36 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Penn and Teller got dozens of LIV signatures to ban it!


30 posted on 11/07/2013 10:48:35 AM PST by houeto (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson