“Will white vigilantes take to the streets of Mobile, Memphis, Little Rock, looking for blacks to bludgeon like blacks bludgeoned Matthew Owens?”
WHAAAAAT!?!?!?! I think that you are seriously losing it, because I KNOW that YOU KNOW better than that! Karma between Europeans and Negros didn’t start where your conveniently selective memory says it does!Also, you’ve pretty much become Barack Obama… shape-shifting all over the place… except that in your case, it’s precisely for the opposite reason: You want to piss off everybody at the same time! Well, Señor De Cayo Hueso… you’ve done the deed! Even Sancho is taking his Burro and slowly backing away from you! 
I can’t believe that a smart guy like you hasn’t figured out yet that reality is something people consume… like beer or fried chicken… the nuances of Mormon’s Theology, Catechism… Pantheon, are beyond the span of attention of the average voter… Obama’s campaign knows this!
I told you to let this one go until the dust settles… but you keep going like a wild horse w/o a rider… where are your riders(writers)?
I replied:
Get a grip, Sancho. You write shit all the time that is purely to get a reaction.
You don’t like what I’m writing about Martin-Zimmerman because it does not agree with your viewpoint. Zimmerman backers don’t like what I’m writing about it, either, if any read what I’m writing about it.
Like I, or the angels, give a shit what people like, or don’t like. I never got the impression you gave a shit what people like, or don’t like, about what you write.
If you think I am shape-shifting, you have been sound asleep since you first started corresponding with me. I take no prisoners. The angels running me take no prisoners, starting with me.
They rattle me, they have me rattle other people, because only when people are rattled is there a chance for them to change. When people feel safe, secure in their hardened bunkers or ivory towers, they do not change.
It may well be President Obama comes to wish he had never made a peep about Trayvon Martin’s shooting. It may well be Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to wish they had kept their mouths shut.
It may be the special prosecutor may come to wish she had declined to take Zimmerman case.
Take a gander at this link, which J in Nashville sent a little while ago.
Sloan:
You might find this of interest concerning the Zimmerman Affidavit. With your law background, you would understand his claims better than I.
Dershowitz: Zimmerman Affidavit Is A Crime
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/25/dershowitz-trayvon-prosecutor-overreached-with-murder-charge/
Regards,
J
Legal legend Alan Dershowitz blasted the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case, accusing her of hiding evidence favorable to defendant George Zimmerman and committing perjury.“If I were this prosecutor, I’d be hiring a lawyer at this point,” Dershowitz said of Angela Cory, the Florida state attorney and special prosecutor who Gov. Rick Scott appointed to handle the case.
Dershowitz leveled his bombshell charges in an interview Wednesday with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly. The Harvard law professor, noted for winning an acquittal of Claus Von Bulow in the case that inspired the film “Reversal of Fortune,” said Cory overreached by charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder. And he said the affidavit she filed in support of the charges was illegal because it did not include evidence favorable to Zimmerman.
“If there are riots, it will be the prosecutor’s fault because she overcharged, raised expectations.”
- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law professor
“This affidavit submitted by the prosecutor in the Florida case is a crime,” Dershowitz said. “It’s a crime.”Zimmerman, 28, is a neighborhood watch captain who admits shooting the unarmed 17-year-old Martin on Feb. 26 after a confrontation in the gated community where he lives, but Zimmerman claims he acted in self-defense.ABC News recently aired a photo purportedly taken minutes after the shooting that shows a bloody wound on the back of Zimmerman’s head. That photo appears to support Zimmerman’s contention that he was being beaten by the teen when he shot him.
But Cory made no mention of Zimmerman’s wounds or photos that might substantiate them when announcing the charge on April 11. Dershowitz said she was obligated to include any and all pertinent evidence.
“If she in fact knew about ABC News’ pictures of the bloody head of Zimmerman and failed to include that in the affidavit, this affidavit is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” Dershowitz said. “It’s a perjurious affidavit.”
Even worse, Dershowitz warned that by overcharging Zimmerman, Cory may have planted the seed for riots if he is acquitted, as Dershowitz predicted will happen.
“If there are riots, it will be the prosecutor’s fault because she overcharged, raised expectations,” Dershowitz said. “This prosecutor not only may have suborned perjury, she may be responsible, if there are going to be riots here, for raising expectations to unreasonable levels.”
He said it is quite possible Zimmerman was guilty of a lesser charge, but the affidavit does not support a second-degree murder charge.
“There’s nothing in this affidavit that suggests second-degree murder. The elements of second-degree murder aren’t here.”
Dershowitz is not the first legal expert to question the second-degree murder charge. The Florida statute requires proof that the defendant acted in a manner that was “evincing a depraved mind.” Prominent Miami criminal defense attorney John Priovolos told The Associated Press the charge was a “huge overreach” and said Corey will be hard-pressed to show Zimmerman had the “ill will, spite, malice or hatred” needed to prove a “depraved mind.”
If convicted of the second-degree charge, Zimmerman could face a maximum sentence of life in prison. Cory could still add charges, and a jury could eventually convict him of a “lesser included” charge, such as reckless manslaughter.
When announcing the charge, Cory expressed confidence in her team’s case.
“We have to have a reasonable certainty of conviction before filing charges,” Cory said.
But Dershowitz said Cory is the one who should be facing charges, arguing that her prosecution of the case has already taken a political turn.
“She was appointed to get Zimmerman,” Dershowitz said.
_____________________________
Perhaps Sancho, not being from the Deep South, cannot fathom that some whites are entirely capable of doing to black people what that black mob did to what white man in Mobile, Alabama. Perhaps Sancho, being from the Dominican Republic, cannot see beyond his color line.
I wrote back to J:
Thanks for sending this, I had not seen it. Missed the evening news last night, maybe it was reported then.
I agree, if the special prosecutor over-reached charging Zimmerman with murder, if she doesn’t get a murder conviction, the fall out is on her head.
My understanding is, prosecutors are required by law and legal ethics to disclose to the defense anything prosecutors have that might exonerate a defendant. Failure of a prosecutor to do that is grounds for mistrial and/or dismissal of charges. Failure to do that is a grounds for disbarment and criminal prosecution of the prosecutor.
Also, the prosecutor can be sued civilly for damages, probably punitive damages.
If the special prosecutor withheld exonerating evidence in the Zimmerman case, the State of Florida could be sued, too, since Governor Scott appointed the special prosecutor. However, I don’t know whether the State of Florida has sovereign immunity from civil damage suits, and I don’t know if punitive damages can be assessed against the State of Florida.If I were the judge at the Zimmerman preliminary hearing and the special prosecutor did not show me the photo of the back of George Zimmerman’s bloody head, and I later learned of it, say, on CNN, I would have had the special prosecutor’s head.Perhaps the judge was shown that photo at the preliminary. If so, in his shoes I would have been scratching my head over going along with a second-degree murder charge. I would have told counsel to meet me in chambers.I would have asked the special prosecutor what in the hell was going on?!!!
I would have asked her what in the hell did she think she was doing praying with the Martin family, and then telling the public about it on CNN? I would have told her she was off the case, and I was not doing anything until a new prosecutor had the case.
Yeah, I know the judge was thinking what might happen to him and his family if he did that. I know he was thinking about not being elected the next time his term came up. I know he was thinking about his social life. I know he was thinking about what the media would do to him. Real judges don’t let any of that sway them. Real judges do what the law requires them to do.I don’t know if the special prosecutor was appointed by Governor Scott to get Zimmerman. For sure, she was appointed because she was black and was a State Attorney (prosecutor) with a good reputation. For all I know, Governor Scott didn’t care which way the special prosecutor went. It would be on her and the judge and jury after he had appointed her. He would be Scott-free.
Sloan
Very interesting political analysis that the [Zimmerman] case may influence the federal election. Another case had that effect. I am sure you remember the Elian Gonzales that so incited the Cuban community against the Clinton/Gore Administration. I agree with you that the injection of the race card is unfortunate since there seems to be no evidence of racial hatred in Zimmerman. The problem is that the media plays it as “White Vigilante Kills Unarmed Black Teenager” Martin may not in fact have started the fight but there are no witnesses to dispute Zimmerman’s version of what happened.
Re Romney and your interesting perspective on the Mormon attitude toward blacks. Ironically, after reading your e-mail I ran in to an article by Frank Rich about Romney’s attachment to Mormon religion. (In “New York” magazine.) I am sure you know about the controversy over Mormons baptizing the dead, a strange ritual that has offended many Jewish people.
Re the strange beliefs of Mormonism it was a very enlightening summary and it certainly shows why many conventional Christians would not consider Mormons to be Christians.
That being said, I am not sure that the Presidency should not be open to a follower of a religion with beliefs many (most) would consider bizarre, unless the beliefs would somehow impact the presidency.
But it certainly shows why blacks would be particularly concerned about Romney when his church apparently considered blacks inferior to whites until as late as 1978.
I am certain the Obama campaign could not use such an attack against Romney but it would certainly make an interesting question for a debate moderator.
I do not think the Presidency should be limited to Catholics and Protestants and depending on their respective qualifications and issues I’d vote for a Jewish person over a Christian.
Look forward to the read tomorrow.
Best
Tim
I sent back what J had sent to me and my reply to Jay, not included again here. Then, I said:
On Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, I wrote today that the Book of Mormon is the Mormon bible, just like the Bible is Christendom’s bible. Can you imagine the Baptists, for example, just up and tossing away a core part of the Bible simply because it is politically or socially unpopular?
I think I recall the Mormons gave up polygamy so Utah could be granted statehood. Outwardly, they gave it up. Over time, many of them did give it up, but others did not. Over time, the Jews gave up polygamy, but their Arab Abraham siblings did not.
Polygamy is not on the level of Sin of Cain doctrine, no where near. My foggy recollection is, the Dutch used the Sin of Cain argument in South Africa to justify apartheid. That was, after they concluded the aborigines were human beings. Ref: James Mitchner, The Covenant.
I know Christians who have loosened up some about just how factual the Bible really is. There are two creation stories, for example. In one, there are gods, not just God, who were alarmed that Adam and Eve deigned to be gods like them (the gods).
I know Christians who have loosened up some with ignoring what today seem to the like wrong or ridiculous parts of the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. Homosexuality is an abomination. Eating shell fish, pork, is a abomination. For example. It’s not okay to kill, but it’s okay for God to have Moses send Joshua into the land of Canaan and kill every man, woman and child, and their animals, and salt that land so nothing will ever grow there again.
So far, Romney strikes me as a moderate with a pretty good amount of business savvy, which I found most Mormons to be and have. Like devout Muslims, devout Mormons do not drink alcohol or use tobacco.
Perhaps Romney is a not a Mormon fundamentalist in disguise. I surely hope not, because little disturbs me more than spending time with Bible literalists who say every word in it is God’s spoken Word, even though the disciple John described Jesus as the Word before there even was a Bible.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
As I got today’s post together, I vaguely remembered reading The Sin of Cain apartheid in the Book of Mormon in 1970, which I read because the manager of the Liberty Supermarket in Kosiusko, Mississippi was a devout Mormon, and I wanted to get his business for my father’s Golden Flake potato chips and other snack foods. I remembered thinking to myself as I read it, that the Mormons who wrote it might have gotten along pretty well with the Mississippi KKK.
What’s Romney going to say: That part of the Mormon bible is mistaken? If that part is mistaken, what other parts are mistaken?
I am astounded the national media and blacks and white liberals and/or Democrats have not spread The Curse of Cain all over the Internet. I can only ass-u-me they don’t know about it, or they are saving it for more opportune time.
Sure, any American citizen can run for president, even a Grand Klaxon in the KKK, even a Nazi, even a Communist, even an atheist, even a Satanist. That’s not at issue here. What’s at issues is Mormon teachings and doctrine are deeply instilled in Mormon children starting early on. They are raised to be Mormon priests, according to a young Mormon ex-pat who went by the name Loki, after the Norse trickster God.
I met Loki on Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, Colorado, in 1993. He was homeless, on purpose. His southern California parents had had very high hopes for his elevation in the Mormon priesthood. He would become a Stake, as they call a very high priest level. He rebelled against it all. Started using LSD, peyote, booze, tobacco, etc. Like devout Muslims, devout Mormons don’t use such substances.
Loki was very psychic, and could make things happen by willing them. He looked inside of me once, at my request, told me what he saw, and it changed the way I was going about something, and that changed my life with the spirit realms. He knew the Christian bible better than I knew it.
Anyway, I can only wonder what kind of early and adolescent and teen Mormon training Mitt Romney had. Loki would have killed himself before he would have swallowed The Curse of Cain doctrine. Perhaps he did swallow it for a while. He viewed Mormons as a cult.
Eventually, Loki went back to living mainstream, got a job with a computer company, and was smoking lots of pot and probably had a gentile girlfriend last time he and I talked, which was in the fall of 1999. He was living in Tuscon, Arizona.
When he lived on the street in Boulder, Loki used the Bible on zealot Christians who tried to save him, to get them to buy him a meal: “I was hungry and you fed me not.” He did not say the words, but cited the book, chapter and verse numbers. Hearing that, they surrendered.
Loki was a great name for him. We were very close friends, even though I was more than twice his age. There were very few people I could tell my stories, who did not look at me like I was crazy or the devil. I could tell Loki anything. Maybe in a prior life he was the disciple John, who had some seriously bizarre spiritual experiences of his own, as reported in Revelation.
It was Loki who told me that Jesus actually did deliver the Jews in that time from their enemies, the Romans, which was those Jews’ requirement for their Messiah. Loki said the way Jesus did that was through is followers, who spread throughout the Roman Empire, which eventually adopted Christianity as the state religion. After that, the Romans laid off leaning on the Jews, because in the Christian belief and evolving scriptures the Jews were God’s chosen people and Jesus himself was a Jew. So obvious, but it took Loki to show it to me.
I imagine Loki would agree, if blacks go off the reservation over Travyon Martin’s death, whites will flock to Romney in November and that will the the end of Barack Obama as president, which might not be a bad thing, given how he has gone about things so far.
I imagine Loki would agree, Obama’s economic policy is not the problem; hell, he inherited a national economy on the skids. It’s Obama’s foreign policy and accepting the Nobel Peace Prize he got awarded because he was half African that calls for is ouster, which is the problem. That, and he promised change, hope, and delivered terrible change without any hope.
I imagine Loki would agree, in his own way, Obama is as bad, or worse, than George W. Bush and his gang. Spiritually bad.
I can’t pull the lever for Romney, either. I don’t trust his early Mormon indoctrination to not still be running him. He is no Loki.
And, I don’t know Romney’s foreign outlook; specifically, I don’t know his military outlook, because there was very little said about that in the CNN news reports on the Republican primaries, which strikes me as odd, since over 1/2 of US Government spending is on its military and retired military personnel. Loki was flat against US military adventurism.
I have no dog in the presidential fight, since Ron Paul has no chance of being elected.
As for the young Cuban refugee …
Pulled this from Wikipedia – I remembered the case vaguely.The custody and immigration status of a young Cuban boy, Elián González (born December 7, 1993), was at the center of a heated 2000 controversy involving the governments of Cuba and the United States, González’s father, Juan Miguel González Quintana, González’s other relatives in Miami, Florida, and in Cuba, and Miami’s Cuban Americancommunity.González’s mother had drowned in November 1999 while attempting to leave Cuba with her son and her boyfriend to the United States.
[1][2]The U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initially placed González with paternal relatives in Miami, who sought to keep him in the United States against his father’s demands that González be returned to Cuba. A federal district court‘s ruling that only González’s father, and not his extended relatives, could petition for asylum on the boy’s behalf was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. After the U.S. Supreme Courtdeclined to hear the case, federal agents seized González from his relatives and returned him to Cuba in June 2000.My now foggy remembrance of domestic relations law in Alabama is, absent proof of a surviving parent being a very bad terrible horrible no good criminal and/or immoral person, or legally insane, the surviving parent of a minor child is entitled to legal custody of that child. My more recent foggy recollection is, Cuban boat refugees who make it to American shoreline are allowed to stay, those intercepted at sea by US Authorities are sent back to Cuba. Did Eliian make it to American shoreline, or was he brought there by US authorities?
Checking Wikipedia again:
Cubans who make it to U.S. soil are generally allowed to remain in the country. After a year, the Cuban Adjustment Act allows them to apply for U.S. residency. This differs from U.S. immigration policy applied to refugees of other Caribbean nations, notably Haitians.[3] To monitor whether the returned Cubans are subjected to persecution, the U.S. Interest Section in Havana, in cooperation with international organizations, maintains follow-up contact with the returned Cubans. The result of this monitoring has been a conclusion that there is no systematic legal policy of the Cuban government to persecute those Cubans who have been returned.[4]
In November 1999, González, his mother, and twelve others left Cuba on a small aluminum boat with a faulty engine; González’s mother and ten others died in the crossing. González and the other two survivors floated at sea until they were rescued by two fishermen, who turned him over to the U.S. Coast Guard.
Based on that, and what I am pretty sure is American domestic relations law generally, perhaps Cuban domestic relations law is similar, I cannot argue against Elian being returned to his father in Cuba, Cuban ex-pat relatives’ sentiments to the contrary notwithstanding.
Maybe I should say, WHO IN THE HELL DID THEY THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO TAKE THAT BOY AWAY FROM HIS FATHER, IF HIS FATHER WAS NOT IN ON THE ATTEMPTED FLIGHT TO AMERICA AND WANTED HIS SON BACK?!!!
Maybe my perspective is colored by having handled and seen very nasty child custody cases when I practiced law, and by my own personal experiences with my first wife over her and my children.
If President Obama had any spine, he would tell the Cuban ex-pats it is time for them to get over their, or their parents or grandparents, not wanting to stay in Cuba and fight Castro; it’s time for them to give thanks to God that they were able to come to America and start a new life.
If President Obama had any spine, he would tell the Cuban ex-pats is time for the US Government to establish full relations with Cuba, if Cuba is receptive.
And it is time President Obama tell the the Cuban ex-pats, and all Americans, what they do not wish to hear.
My foggy recollection is, Cuba under Batista, the Cuban ex-pats pole star, wasn’t particularly citizen-oriented, but was a de facto American CEO of a cheap farm labor business colony and Mafia hangout.
My foggy recollection is, America, pressed by Cuban ex-pats who had not chosen to stay and fight, tried to invade Cuba and chickened out – Bay of Pigs.
My recollection is, Fidel Castro then invited the Russians in with ballistic missiles – Cuban missile crises.
My foggy recollection is, JFK then tried to have Fidel Castro killed and that failed, and Fidel then had JFK killed, yes?
It’s long past time for America to stop acting as if it is the boss of this world and can tell everyone else what to do and how to live. What’s the difference between that and religion? I can’t see any difference.
Separation of church and state was a good idea, as was avoiding foreign entanglements. Alas, they were not ready to abolish slavery and prove all men were created equal (women and Native Americans excluded, and later Spanish Americans/Mexicans excluded), and now here we sit wallowing in that very bad horrible awful terrible karma.
Sloan
Tim replied:
Lots of stuff here.
Thanks for the Dershowitz interview. I listened to it. He states that there is insufficient info in the affidavit to support even a manslaughter charge. He states (you and I agree) that given the evidence of which we are aware, no reasonable jury would convict. And as you know even if there is only one reasonable juror there can be no conviction.
I do not know the standard whether a prosecutor must present exculpatory evidence in such an affidavit but I assume AD knows that law and the bloody head is certainly exculpatory. What was the SP doing? I would not go so far as AD and charge her with a crime in submitting an incomplete affidavit. Again, it is always possible the SP has evidence against GM not yet made public but hard to imagine what it could be with no witnesses
AD says that if indeed GZ “stalked” TM and confronted him, he probably loses the benefit of stand your ground but not traditional self defense, a very good point.//
Query, what if GZ provoked Martin by throwing a punch at him, or, say, grabbing him and that’s when TM somehow got GZ to the ground. But there is no evidence to show that he did.
And even if: let’s assume you confront me, even grab my arm, even squeeze it, but I overpower you and start banging your head in to the ground with such force you think it might kill you (which it might indeed) then I think the law of self defense gives you the right of deadly force, even if I was the first to touch you.
Your analysis was so correct and acute: the SP being black could have defused the entire matter by declining to charge.
Did you remember that AD was deeply involved in the defense of OJ Simpson?
I also loved what you wrote re how the judge should have treated the SP for not disclosing all of the evidence.
AD also made an interesting point that in other countries prosecutors are not elected.
Re Elian Gonzalez case
I assert the Gonzalez case decided the 2000 election.
You remember how close the election was, ultimately decided by the U S Supreme Court.
But it was that close only because GB carried Florida.
And he carried it only by (if I recall correctly) 498 votes or so, his best case.
The Gonzalez case just inflamed the Cuban community in South Florida against the Clinton/Gore administration.
Elian’s mother tried to escape to the US with her son but she drowned.
Cuban community strongly wanted to keep Elian with his mother’s relatives in the US.
Ultimately fed agents swooped down on the house where young Elian was and removed him at gunpoint. There is a famous photo (believe it was on cover of Time or Newsweek) of young Elian in a federal agent’s arms, looking just terrified.
Agree with you that father had rights even if one could say that in the long run Elian would have been better off being raised in the U.S.
The Gonzalez story so enraged the Cuban community (again the merits are not relevant) that they voted overwhelmingly for GB. It drove them to the polls.
Quite a good argument that Cubans would not have turned out as they did but for the Gonzales case and without that turn-out GB would have lost Florida and the election would not have gone to the Supremes.
So in that sense the Gonzalez case “decided”the 2000 election.
Does the Zimmerman case have the same possibility in the 2012 election (i.e to “decide” the election) by driving enraged blacks to the polls for Obama or driving whites to Romney if riots ensue? At this point that is only a possibility. I doubt that the case will be tried before the election. But the possible parallel of a legal case deciding an election is an interesting one.
Re Romney and his election. It is interesting that apparently no one has yet raised the sin of Cain doctrine against GR. As you said, it would be difficult for GR to disavow parts of the Book of Mormon. So was he raised believing blacks were inferior in the eyes of God?
Contrast that with the Protestant Sunday school hymn “Jesus loves the little children” which states “Red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in His sight”, a clear message that in God’s eyes all people regardless of race are of equal worth and dignity.
Of course I do not believe that there is any evidence that there is even a hint of racism in GR (at least I have not so read anywhere).
I do not see moreover the issue of that Mormon doctrine, or any other, becoming a political issue. Doubt that Obama or his campaign would assert it or that any debate commentator would dare raise it.
Many traditional Christians view Mormonism as a cult.
(But see: http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/siever-is-mormonism-a-cult.pdf)for good definitions of a “cult”.) Therefore many evangelical Christians accept the GR candidacy only hesitantly. (Of course there are those extremists who think Obama is secretly a Muslim.) Some may not even vote for him and his loss of a significant portion of the religious right may make a critical difference if the election is close.
I do agree with you that GR is a moderate (why the conservative base is not enthusiastic about his candidacy) with very good business savvy, by all accounts.
I am sure you are aware of the importance of a presidential candidate being able to energize his base. I think Obama’s base will be energized, particularly the black vote. I do not see the GOP yet “energized” by GR. Many Catholics and to a lesser extent evangelical Christians are enraged over the Obama mandate that organizations receiving federal funds must endorse programs contrary to their religious belief. One would think that the Catholic vote should be as strongly anti-Obama as the black vote is pro.
My thoughts for what they are worth.
Do you remember the one remark that GR’s father made that cost him any chance at the 1968 GOP nomination and thus helped usher in the candidacy of Richard Nixon?
What would he tell Blacks re Trayvon Martin shooting?
