World Court for Crimes of War Opens in The Hague
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Beverly 
To: Taoss - Sherry Swiney ; Candyce J. Hawk ; patrickcrusade@yahoogroups.com ; Charles Lewis 
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade]have to seek JUSTICE from the 'brotherhood of the enemy'

Alabama's Rule 32  really is a joke.  If one is filed, it is returned right back to the hands of the enemy where the malpractice of law began.  What does one expect, that those legal criminals will back up and admit they were wrong?  Not hardly! 
Anyway it is hard to get justice at all, because the only place we have to turn is to the 'brotherhood of the enemy'.  There is no truly un-biased entity for which to turn to voice a complaint about injustice.  The best advice, since I began my public broadcasting of my personal tragedy in January 2003, was from you, Sherry, GETTING LOUD WILL HELP PUT A STOP TO CONTINUOUS BADGERING AND MISTREATMENT FROM THOSE COURT CRIMINALS.
My advice concerning any kind of post-conviction remedy (and I've studied enough law to qualify this advice, ha, ha) is to go ahead and file a Federal Habeas Corpus : 28 U. S. C. S. 2254. I say this because it has to be done within one years of the time of confinement.  That gets your foot in the door and protects you from the statute running out. Of course the state's argument will be that you must first exhaust state court remedies .  However there are some cases that DON'T require state court remedies, i.e. DOUBLE JEOPARDY.  The only reason the state gives that argument is so they can keep themselves out of Federal Court a little bit longer for their crime of obstructing justice and maiming  human lives.  Also it is really a kind of another slap to their victims, putting them through those futile motions!
I like  what you had to say and am in full agreement.  Thank you for letting me step up on my soap box for a moment there!  Injustice is forever on my mind.  I can almost sniff it out like a blood hound and ready to spring up against like a coiled rattle snake against it, no matter what the situation, who when or where.  That is just how strongly I feel about it - the push of the pen thing.
 

 Beverly Brabham

http://beverlyonline.0catch.com/BevWebNow.html

 Taoss - Sherry Swiney <taoss@worldnet.att.net> wrote: 

       Using the logic the Bushes have used, i.e., The International Criminal Court is troubling to the United States, we should be able to say that the United States Criminal Courts are troubling to US citizens and therefore US citizens withdraw from its authority too.  Actually, since many of the US criminal courts practice blatant condoning of judicial and prosecutorial misconduct which violates US citizens' constitutional rights and promotes false arrests, we should be able to say that there is no authority in these courts.  After all, according to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), a law or a rule that is repugnant to the Constitution, is void - see http://www.usscplus.com/online/index.asp?case=0050137
        
       "The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
        
                  I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.
 

       Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him? If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime."

       I would add that, to take or prescribe to this oath under false pretenses, makes the authority of that judge (that US court) null and void.  The courts in Alabama and elsewhere in this country are troubling to US citizens.  In Alabama, a court rule (Rule 32) that violates the US Constitution is routinely considered law when indeed it is repugnant to the US Constitution and therefore should be considered null and void.  Every prisoner in Alabama who has gone through the appeal process, must do so under Alabama's Rule 32, which is not a law and which is unconstitutional.  Alabama's Rule 32 replaced the
       Writ of Habeas Corpus.  According to the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9, "the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
        
       For example, Alabama's Rule 32 on the other hand says, 

             Rule 32.2(a)(2) claims raised at trial are precluded

             Rule 32.2(a)(3) claims not raised at trial are precluded

             Rule 32.2(a)(4) claims raised on appeal are precluded

             Rule 32.2(a)(5) claims not raised on appeal are precluded 

       This court rule (Rule 32) shall remain Law until it is challenged in the US Supreme Court.  If it were ever deemed null and void because of being repugnant to the Constitution, every case in Alabama would have to be retried.  What are the chances of that ever happening in America?  It would be troublesome indeed and according to the Bushes logic, since troublesome, then not to be addressed - to be avoided instead of voided.

       Sherry Swiney
       www.patrickcrusade.org
       "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking 
       we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
       ----- Original Message ----- 
       From: Charles Lewis 
       To: Candyce J. Hawk ; patrickcrusade@yahoogroups.com 
       Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:51 PM
       Subject: Re: [patrickcrusade] World Court for Crimes of War Opens in The Hague

       HEADLINES "LOCAL REPS OPPOSE WAR, SUPPORT TROOPS

       STAFF WRITER

        

       LOS ANGELES - AMERICAN BLACK AFFAIRS (ABA) -- What does that HEADLINE means?  More CIA tactics by Mr. Bush, and/or the old catch 22?  Now that he (Mr. Bush) has "put" poor folk's kids in "Harm-way", we must support our love ones?  The is the very same thing that Daddy Bush did x numbers of years ago.  Who is the fool?  So all the president has to do, is take or make an insane act and force the American people to go along with him.  Might he be using our children in "many" ways?

        

       If the war was a bad idea from the "get-go", then it's still a bad idea.  Loving your children is always in order.  And note, how in each and every speech Mr. Bush reminds the American people that he is "trying to save Iraqi from Hussein.  "But please don't burn those oil wells that too are for the people of Iraqi."  Ya, right.  And he sometimes asks God to help him. My, my.

        

       Please, just think, just think.  Just look at what you really see.  Don't just look at what you are "directed toward".  Iraqi has a lot of problems, to include where it sat on the map and what it has under its land and its neighbor(s).

        

       Post your thoughts at  commetteechair@yahood.com

        

       Just listen to what you "now don't hear! 

       WE SHOULD REALLY, REALLY, WORK TO REMOVE MR. BUSH FROM THE WHITE HOUSE,  THINK FOR JUST A MONMENT. WASN'T A BUSH PRISIDENT WHEN A NOTHOER BUSH WAS INVOLVED IN THE SAVEING & LOAN THING IN ARIZONA? JUST BEFORE THE "DESERT STORM THING'? WAS THIS BUSH'S  FATHER THE DIR. OF THE C.I.A. AND LATER PRESIDENT?

       WAS THIS BUSH IN HOT WATER JUST BEFOR 9/11 TO STEALING THE ELECTION AND THE ENRON THING?  COULD A "C.I.A. MAN KNOW THE RIGHT MOVES TO MAKE TO GET THE HEAT OFF HIS SON?

       ARE C.I.A. TATICS BEING USED ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?  CAN YOU BE SURE?

       REMEMBER GOD HAS NOT YET BEEN ABLE TO RID THE WORLD OF EVIL, HOW DO G.W. THINK HE CAN USE POOR PEOPLE'S CHILDREN TO DO IT?

        

       The nation may be dealing with C.I.A. TACITS, did Poper Bush give up all his contacts when he left the C.I.A.?  Or is it really possible to really leave? Could he still have that knowledge and contacts, thate he once had?  Or was his brain some how cleared? Is the C.I.A. a secret organization, a covert organization? Is it possible that Dady Bush might still remember what he "once" knew?  Is Poper Bush and Baby Bushes and their family involved oil and ordnance? Could $35.00 per barrel oil benfits any of the Bushes?  Would a war make them money.  Please, let us not think about such things.  That couldn't be, after all this war is in self-defense for an act that hasn't yet happen. 
       So I guest it's okay for me to harm my neighbor for he or she might do?  After all they may have some of the weapons Poper Bush gave them.

       E-MAIL COMMENTS TO commetteechair@yahoogroups.com

        "Candyce J. Hawk" <cjhawk@owt.com> wrote: 

             It would be possible, under the rules of the ICC, to bring the Alabama 
             officials before the court except for the fact that Bush withdrew the US 
             from the court's authority this past year. I believe that the US was 
             instrumental in getting the ICC set up in the first place, with the 
             intention of trying international war criminals connected mainly to the 
             Nazi regime and war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.

             Just found this from a Whitehouse press conference on July 2, 2002:

             THE PRESIDENT: "The International Criminal Court is troubling to the United 
             States. It's troubling to the administration, and obviously trouble with 
             the United States Senate as well.

             President Clinton signed this treaty, but when he signed it he said, it 
             should not be submitted to the Senate. It therefore never has been, and I 
             don't intend to submit it either, because it -- you know, as the United 
             States works to bring peace around the world, our diplomats and our 
             soldiers could be drug into this court and that's a very troubling -- very 
             troubling to me.

             And we'll try to work out the impasse at the United Nations. But one thing 
             we're not going to do is sign on to the International Criminal Court. "

             Note how Bush states that the ICC is troubling to the US Senate, although 
             it has never been presented to the senate. I'm sure that Slovadan 
             Malosovich would also not have agreed to the authority of the ICC since his 
             war crimes case has been one of the two major cases handled by the 
             ICC. http://www.un.org/law/icc/

             Candy
 

             At 10:29 AM 3/22/2003 -0600, you wrote:
             >
             >The article below says: <<. Anyone can bring charges, individuals, groups, 
             >governments, and the United Nations Security Council.>> I wish we could 
             >bring charges against former Alabama governors and DOC for the cruel and 
             >unusual atrocities in Alabama's prisons. It probably doesn't qualify 
             >though. I wonder if a collective of the atrocities in all states would.
             >
             >
             >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/12/international/europe/12COUR.html?th
             >
             >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             >
             >March 12, 2003
             >World Court for Crimes of War Opens in The Hague
             >By MARLISE SIMONS
             >
             >
             >HE HAGUE, March 11 - Fiercely opposed by the Bush administration and long 
             >awaited by other countries, a new and permanent international criminal 
             >court for dealing with dictators and war criminals formally opened today 
             >with the swearing in of its bench of 18 judges.
             >
             >The court's task will be to try individuals - not nations or armies - 
             >accused of large-scale crimes against civilians. The judges, 11 men and 7 
             >women from all over the world, will be part of what was called today the 
             >most ambitious initiative in the history of modern international law.
             >
             >Dressed in black gowns, the 18 judges took their oath of office in a 
             >14th-century hall of the Dutch Parliament, before jurists, diplomats, 
             >politicians and government ministers from more than 100 nations.
             >
             >One by one, their right hands raised, the judges pledged to perform their 
             >duties "honorably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously." They also 
             >promised to respect "the confidentiality of investigations and 
             >prosecutions and the secrecy of deliberations."
             >
             >The group elected a president, Philippe Kirsch, a Canadian judge and 
             >international law specialist.
             >
             >Supporters hope the new institution will play a crucial role in averting 
             >as well as prosecuting major human rights abuses. Although the court is 
             >independent of the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan was 
             >present and said he was looking forward to supporting its cause, "which is 
             >the cause of all humanity." He urged the judges to act without fear or 
             >favor. "Unspeakable crimes must be deterred," Mr. Annan said, adding that 
             >deterrence has been missing in the past. "It is needed today as much as 
             >ever, and it will be needed in the future."
             >
             >But the Bush administration, fearing that a politicized prosecutor could 
             >indict American officials or military personnel on missions abroad, has 
             >actively campaigned against the institution and pressed many governments 
             >into deals to disregard any subpoena issued for an American citizen. 
             >Washington has obtained such deals from 21 nations, mainly poor countries 
             >dependent on United States aid.
             >
             >No American officials attended the ceremony, but some American legal 
             >experts did, among them Theodor Meron, a professor at New York University 
             >Law School who was recently appointed president of the Yugoslavia war 
             >crimes tribunal, as well as two elderly lawyers who had played a role at 
             >the Nuremberg trials. One of them, Benjamin B. Ferencz, 82, said the 
             >current American leadership "seems to have forgotten the lessons we tried 
             >to teach the rest of the world."
             >
             >Several speakers tried to dispel the fears of America and others - 
             >including China, India, Iraq and Turkey - who are not among the 89 that 
             >have ratified the Rome Treaty that created the court in 1998. Prince Zeid 
             >al-Hussein of Jordan, who presided over the court's parent body, said the 
             >new court "is not the world's crucible for vengeance" but a "court of last 
             >resort." Its statutes dictate that it must defer to national courts first.
             >
             >The prosecutor, who is expected to be selected in April, can issue 
             >indictments only in cases where national courts are unwilling or unable to 
             >deal with grave atrocities, like war crimes, crimes against humanity and 
             >genocide. The court has no jurisdiction over single abuses, but only over 
             >those that have been "systematic or widespread." A panel of judges must 
             >approve any indictment before it can be issued.
             >
             >The shadow of a possible war in Iraq was also very present today. As the 
             >new court pledged to uphold the rule of law, several speakers expressed 
             >fears of a breakdown of international law if the United States and Britain 
             >waged war on Iraq without United Nations approval. With neither the United 
             >States nor Iraq members of the court, however, it seems unlikely that this 
             >new tribunal will play any role in prosecutions stemming from the war. 
             >British troops however could in theory be vulnerable in case of abuses.
             >
             >The court's jurisdiction covers only crimes committed after July 1, 2002. 
             >Anyone can bring charges, individuals, groups, governments, and the United 
             >Nations Security Council.


Back