Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 13 at 4:50 a.m.
This case obviously needs to stop here [an acquittal on one component of a DUI prevents retrial on the remainder], but the community really needs to look deeply into itself and answer the question posed over there for years [maybe decades]: will we tolerated thugs with badges who pretend to serve and protect us, but who really only serve their own agenda? It is a shame that the jury was not more distressed about their thuggish cop, because this should have been a quick NG on both counts, if not on the evidence, then on the jury's power and duty to render just verdicts that might be inconsistent with evidence where the outcome enhances liberty. In the Founders' time, there would have been fast acquittals [if any prosecution at all], and the offending "constable" would have been ridden out of town on a rail. We need not scour the Middle East for terrorism to fight - we have it right here, and daily. Kudos to Genis for the hormones and insight and scholarship to resist the Hun at all turns.
On Mistrial Declared in Tony Denunzio DUI Case
Posted on December 6 at 9:50 a.m.
The question is not whether any agency eventually gets video cameras, but whether they are operational at the time of whatever incident is of concern. Police agencies over the years have gone from having video to not having them to coming back to have them, and they are of uneven mind about such things. As a constitutional defense attorney, I seek out the video on all arrests of clients, and there is ALWAYS a wide divergence between what the cop said in his report happened and what you see in the video, and the cops' versions are ALWAYS more anti-suspect than the truth revealed on the video. Because of that, because truth in police report writing is not an ascendant value, very often, in a critical matter, the video just happened not to be working at the time, or it was aimed in the wrong direction, or something. Your community is especially suspect when it comes to DUI arrests and prosecutions, as I found out this week when I appeared to protect a witness from a phony/baloney contempt charge, the sole motivation for which was to chill the speech of the witness who was accurately revealing the scientific fraud about breath testing. You need to get your "justice" system under control, because it is gravely out of whack compared to that I have have seen elsewhere - many elsewheres. The video program might help, if you get DAs who are honest and judges who are neutral. That's the big "IF." www.kennedyforlaw.com
On Money Approved for Cop Car Cameras
Posted on July 1 at 1:20 p.m.
Do people over there really believe that because a cop says something, it must be true? Proactive constabulary was evicted from these shores in 1776 because it is anathema to the regime of liberty being installed here, and it never slinked back in until after the Civil War, when Lincoln proved that "war" and "emergency" and "public safety" could invite erosions of the anti-government liberty that was the hallmark, and aim, of our Revolution. I had heard things about the rabidness of the "public safety" forces over there, but I did not think such was possible in the western world after the death of Heinrich Himmler. What is wrong with you people, and with the electorate there?
On Judge Finds Lawyer Must Pay for Courtroom Violations
Posted on June 29 at 4:45 p.m.
Does everyone know that "denise" and "legendari" are DAs? That explains their anti-liberty vitriol. [DAs are anti-liberty until they get in trouble, and then they come running for help!] I am certain they are getting their brownie points with the judiciary for their genuflecting and repressive commentary.
Does everyone in that apparently benighted area think judicial abuses of defense attorneys is acceptable in this Republic? Are you all ignorant of the reality that it is the defense Bar that keeps you all safe from overweening government?
It is no accident that it was John Adams, a criminal defense attorney, who was the founder of the American conservative movement, because defense attorneys believe in enforcing the Constitution; prosecutors and their cop chums [and apparently their judge pals over there] believe in enforcing the statutes, and it is the collision between enforcement of statutes ["go to jail"] and enforcement of the Constitution ["back down, Mr. Government"] that keeps our regime of ordered liberty in the proper balance between order and liberty.
And, No, denise, again, I am not Genis; look me up here, if you care: http://www.kennedyroelaw.com
Posted on June 29 at 6:50 a.m.
Denise - I ain't Genis, but where I hear of tyranny, I show up.
Posted on June 28 at 9:01 p.m.
And it is no accident that the amount of the sanction requires Genis to report himself to the State Bar. I am not certain why your community puts up with judges like that, but he would not last a week in our desert courts: we understand that the Framers envisioned a judiciary that would stand against overweening government, not become part of the overweeners!
Posted on June 28 at 8:58 p.m.
Well, let's see; what does the code section read: "A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party’s attorney, or both."
Capturing illicit collusion taking place between witness stand witness and court watcher, when there was a witness separation order in place, with a still photo, against which there was no order, is advocacy, supported by substantial justification, and is not against the express order.
Impeaching arguably corrupt cop with past moral turpitude practices, evils which government-loving judges all too readily hide and protect their cop pals against, is advocacy, and with substantial justification, and with good cause, and is protected by 6th Amendment duties of zealous advocacy.
Being an old desert constitutionalist, I fail to see the wrong - other than the judge's obvious prejudice against a zealous advocate, and the DA's smarmy faux innocence and victimization. I would take Genis's case, if I were closer. And would easily win. And would then flail the skin from the judge and the DA in their respective professional regulatory agencies!!!
Previous Month | Next Month