Archive for the 'Supreme Court' Category

Prison Rape of White Men by Black and Hispanic Men

December 18, 2006

http://www.vdare.com/francis/prison_rape.htm

from Vdare’s Sam Francis

There are more men raped in the United States—about 140,000 every year—than women—a mere 90,000. (figures corrected from Am Ren) Most of the male rapes take place , and good many of them are interracial, with blacks and Hispanics searching out and raping white men. [No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons]

The stories the report recounts, described in a 2002 article in the newsletter American Renaissance, are graphic and repellent. “I had no choice but to submit to being Inmate B’s prison wife,” one white convict said. “In all reality, I was his slave.… I determined I’d be better off to willingly have sex with one person, than I would be to face violence and rape by multiple people. The most tragic part to this is that the person I chose to ‘be with’ has AIDS.”

 

Another white prisoner in Michigan reported that the black inmate who “claimed me as his property” “publicly humiliated and degraded me, making sure all the inmates and guards knew that I was a queen and his property. Within a week he was pimping me out to other inmates at $3.00 a man. This state of existence continued for two months until he sold me for $25.00 to another black male who purchased me to be his wife.” Those are only a couple of the less lurid stories from the Human Rights Watch report.

As the report puts it, “African Americans typically face sexual abuse at the hands of other African Americans, and Hispanics at the hands of other Hispanics. Some inmates told Human Rights Watch that this pattern reflected an inmate rule, one that was strictly enforced: ‘only a black can turn out [rape] a black, and only a chicano can turn out a chicano.’ Breaking this rule by sexually abusing someone of another race or ethnicity, with the exception of a white inmate, could lead to racial or ethnic unrest, as other members of the victim’s group would retaliate against the perpetrator’s group.”

Read it all

See James T. Fulford “Two Words Missing From This Headline”

Death Wish Question by Richard Poe at Front Page Mag

Comments on Poe

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/video.html

http://www.vdare.com/francis/index.htm

http://www.samfrancis.net/

search “No Escape: Male Rape in U.S. Prisons”

Stop Prison Rape

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-636.htm

ACLU argues for rights of black inmate to rape white inmates is in effect what this case was.

Garrison S. Johnson v. California, 03-636

Press Release of ACLU. Sandra Day O’Connor upholds right of black and hispanic inmates to rape whites in prison.

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/13927prs20050223.html

Decision of US Sup Ct.

The victims of this decision were never represented even though the ACLU and possibly Proskauer, Rose, LLP provided pro bono help to Johnson to get his rape shot on white men.

Steven R. Shapiro was for ACLU.

==

No. 03-636
Title:
Garrison S. Johnson, Petitioner
v.
California, et al.
Docketed: October 29, 2003
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Case Nos.: (01-56436)
Decision Date: February 25, 2003
Rehearing Denied: July 28, 2003
Questions Presented
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 27 2003 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 28, 2003)
Nov 18 2003 Waiver of right of respondents California, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 3 2003 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2004.
Dec 8 2003 Response Requested . (Due January 7, 2004)
Dec 31 2003 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 28, 2004.
Jan 27 2004 Brief of respondents James Gomez and James Rowland in opposition filed.
Feb 9 2004 Reply of petitioner Garrison S. Johnson filed.
Feb 11 2004 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 27, 2004.
Mar 1 2004 Petition GRANTED.
Mar 15 2004 Extension of time to file the joint appendix and petitioner’s brief on the merits to and including May 17, 2004.
Mar 15 2004 Extension of time within which to file respondents’ brief on the merits to and including July 21, 2004.
May 6 2004 Further extension of time within which to file the joint appendix and petitioner’s brief on the merits to and including June 4, 2004.
May 18 2004 Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Jun 3 2004 Joint appendix filed.
Jun 3 2004 Brief of petitioner Garrison S. Johnson filed.
Jun 4 2004 Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union,et al. filed.
Jun 4 2004 Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Jun 4 2004 Brief amicus curiae of Former State Corrections Officials filed.
Jun 16 2004 Further extension of time within which to file respondent’s brief on the merits to and including August 6, 2004.
Aug 6 2004 Brief of respondents James Gomez and James Rowland filed.
Aug 6 2004 Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. filed.
Aug 6 2004 Brief amici curiae of Utah, et al. filed.
Aug 18 2004 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Aug 19 2004 CIRCULATED.
Sep 1 2004 SET FOR ARGUMENT Tuesday, November 2, 2004.
Sep 10 2004 Reply of petitioner Garrison S. Johnson filed. (Distributed).
Sep 27 2004 Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. (1 envelope)
Sep 28 2004 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Sep 28 2004 Record received from U.S.D.C. Central California. (1 box and 1 envelope)
Nov 2 2004 Argued. For petitioner: Bert H. Deixler, Los Angeles, Calif., and for the United States, as amicus curiae, Paul D. Clement, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: Frances T. Grunder, Senior Assistant Attorney General, San Francisco, Calif.
Feb 23 2005 Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Souter and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case.
Mar 28 2005 JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Apr 12 2005 Record returned to U.S.C.A.-9th Circuit.
Apr 12 2005 U.S.D.C. record for the Central District of California returned to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the U.S.C.A.-9th Circuit.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Bert H. Deixler Proskauer, Rose, LLP (310) 557-2900
Counsel of Record 2049 Century Park East
Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Party name: Garrison S. Johnson
Attorneys for Respondents:
Frances T. Grunder Office of the Attorney General (415) 703-5723
Counsel of Record 455 Golden Gate Avenue, #11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Party name: California, et al.
Other:
Elizabeth Alexander Natl Prison Project of ACLU (202) 393-4930
733 15th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Party name: American Civil Liberties Union,et al.
Paul D. Clement Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Room 5614
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Party name: United States
John H. Findley Pacific Legal Foundation (916) 419-7111
3900 Lennane Drive, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95834
Party name: Pacific Legal Foundation
David Thomas Goldberg 99 Hudson Street, 8th Floor (212) 334-8813
New York, NY 10013
Party name: National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers, Inc.
Gene C. Schaerr Winston & Strawn LLP (202) 282-5000
1700 K Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Party name: Utah, et al.
Michael C. Small Mr. (310) 229-1000
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.
2029 Century Park East,,
Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Party name: Former State Corrections Officials

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-636.htm

“Antonin Scalia AND Samuel Alito hold you and me in contempt”

October 24, 2006

Scalia Rips Judges on Abortion, Suicide

By JOHN HEILPRIN
Associated Press Writer

Following are comments on
UPDATED: Antonin Scalia AND Samuel Alito hold you and me in contempt
Perhaps the linked post is one that Scalia also objects to on the internet. This explores the hypothesis that during Bush v. Gore John Yoo may have passed embarassing information to Silberman, whom Yoo clerked for, and then to Scalia that Russia had obtained billions in low interest rate loans during the 1990’s from Clinton profs that it had detailed information on.

Yoo was a prof at Berkeley, where a victim of academic misconduct had been for decades and it was well known at the B school, econ dept and law school. Howard Shelanksi got his Ph.D. in econ and JD at Berkeley and clerked for Scalia and is good friends with John Yoo, Yoo thanks him in his book defending torture.

There is a history of circumstantial evidence going back to 1925 of Russia gathering information about possible plagiarism or at least failure to cite prior art and using that to try to pressure profs in physics or economics for benefits. This includes pressuring Niels Bohr during WWII with letters from Kapitza.

There was an investigation of Harvard econ profs with respect to a grant to Russia that started in 1997. Harvard and the Clinton profs were likely not telling whatever they knew of such issues to the USAO Mass. In 1998, Russia got more money while the investigation was going on and Wall Street was trading Russian govt bonds while it knew of some of these issues.

This investigation was still going on during Bush v. Gore and lasted until August 2005. It appears that neither the Bush nor Clinton administration, including profs at DOJ in both, told USAO Mass of these issues.

Scalia may be bothered that speculation and hypotheses on these issues has been posted on the web.

This is all hypotheses and speculation.
==

2nd Comment

Scalia “You talk about independence as though it is unquestionably and unqualifiably a good thing,” Scalia said. “It may not be. It depends on what your courts are doing.”

Scalia added, “The more your courts become policy-makers, the less sense it makes to have them entirely independent.”

Senate Judiciary Hatch with Chief Counsel John Yoo in 90’s, Yoo was also a clerk for Silberman and Thomas, Supreme Court, DOJ, Yoo was a DAAG in 2001, all show the same people moving back and forth. Clerks, judges, staff at Senate Judiciary, DOJ DAAGs, law profs, big law firms are all one group of people. A small group controls all the judicial power in all 3 branches.

Does this group also pass information amongst itself on key issues or at moments of crisis? One of those was Bush v. Gore, and one hypothesis explored above is that there was information exchange on the pending case US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay whose investigation lasted from 1997 to 2005.

If one considers such a hypothesis, and explores its implications, it supports Yoo being willing to write a torture memo. If Senate Judiciary, Sup Ct, DOJ HQ DAAGs and above are all linked together in withholding info about Russia using kompromat to get loans from USAO Mass investigation of Harvard, then they are safe to engage in torture, because they are already joined at the hip.

As some of this is speculated about on the internet, Scalia might get hot and bothered.

This is just a hypothesis and speculation.

==

from American Prospect.

“I’ll bet the deed to my house that ex-parte contacts between Scalia’s office and the Bush campaign in November of 2000 will be established historical fact before my mortgage is paid off in 2020.”

A discussion of this is at the associated URL. In particular, John Yoo may have known that Russia had gotten embarasing info from Clinton profs at IMF and Treasury about whom they had decades of detailed knowledge on. Russia may have applied pressure on relatives of these profs through a conference in Warsaw in 1972 for them to nominate Kantorovich for the 1975 Nobel Prize in economics. Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father may have known that.

Yoo may have heard it himself at Berkeley law school. Profs in Berkeley econ dept and B school knew about some of this. Yoo taught the IMF treaty in spring 2000 at Berkeley.

There was a USAO Mass investigation of Harvard from 1997 to 2005. By 2000, the Clinton team may not have disclosed info to them. Yoo may have passed speculation on that to Scalia through Silberman or Hatch or directly.

More details are at US v. Harvard TOC

==Comment 3

John Yoo by being a clerk to Silberman and Thomas, Chief Legal Counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee while Hatch was chairman, and a DAAG in DOJ HQ leadership himself embodies the lack of independence of the judiciary.  Judge Bybee has a similar record. Moreover, they were part of the transition team at DOJ from Clinton to Bush.  The revolving door, including a small group of large law firms and law profs makes the judiciary a clique with the other 3 branches, Senate Judiciary Committee and DOJ HQ.  There is no independent judiciary.  Many of the judges and justices are former DAAGs.  The judiciary isn’t independent anymore.  Its one group of people in revolving doors.  The law school, law clerk, DOJ HQ, Senate Judiciary, judiciary network is a clique.

The laws have made almost anything illegal if a prosecutor wants to claim it is.  The sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums together with stacking charges penalize anyone who wants to not plea bargain.

Cases like Dr. Thomas Butler and Dr. Steven Kurtz, Sibel Edmonds, etc. are meant to warn insiders in academia, DOJ HQ, etc. to keep quiet and not discuss this openly.
This is speculation and a hypothesis.

%d bloggers like this: