Mrs. Sotomayor's dealings with diabetes - DO NOT matter to her being on the Supreme Court. That is a human-sensitive issue meant to gain sympathy in her favor and is inappropriate in the Judicial system when evaluating a person based on qualifications - not who feels sorry for her. This is not Mrs. Sotomayor's fault, but the fault of the President, and others, who have felt it was a point of consideration for appointing her.

Mrs. Sotomayor's "Hispanic" origin as a point of consideration for appointing her is both disgusting to me as a fellow brother under the Lord, and appalling as an advocate of equal rights for all people WITHOUT discrimination. But, I suppose that Obama played the African American card like it was an Ace, why not have racial issues in the selection of a supreme court justice, too? And yes people - it is a racial point based on the same 'human-sensitive' platform that I discussed previously.

Mrs. Sotomayor's saving of baseball is another, blatant abuse by her supporters (the President amongst them, who felt that was an important addition to his introduction speech about her - when he couldn't even REMOTELY pronounce her name right - George bush anyone - calling her Sadamiyer (sounds like sodomizer without the z??) - which truthfully degraded every other good thing he had to say by bringing 'baseball,' in as a key point of electing judicial officials to the Supreme Court?) - this point should not even be brought up. She did NOT "save" baseball. She is not a "hero," and saving baseball is not a hard hitting issue that really equates to something such as... the death penalty. And, if you don't get that - and aren't on death row - you don't get to comment.

Mrs. Sotomayor's subtle attempts at dismissing appeals court experience was an example of her lack of experience in a formal, public setting. The truth is - the Constitution does not stand. Contentions to the Constitution do NOT come from those trying to break the law - they come from PROSECUTORS, pushing past the boundaries set by the Constitution to incriminate anyone they can for money, and it is the responsibility of appeals court justices to rule when brought to their attention. It's vital - VITAL to note - that the justice system does NOT rest upon the standards of the Constitution, but upon caselaw and precedence. I was actually glad to see a judge with this type of experience, available to replace the same judge on the Supreme Court (and from the news said - I have no verification on this- the ONLY one) with that type of experience. For Mrs. Sotomayor to dismiss it and try to ease into it with, "I know..." was not wholly appropriate. Yes, we "know," you "know," the truth is that the Constitution is being negated - but that's not what you were being asked!! ARGH!

Enter: America's Worst Media Reporters.

Robert Lovato: "Sotomayor should remember it's not she who is on trial, but the Republican party." He goes on to say that it will be a test of the Republican party to see if they're ready to renew the fundamental principals of justice. WHAT?? What principals? The ones whereby Sotomayor has experience as an appeals judge and the Constitution does not need to stand as law? I'm pretty sure, that's NOT a fundamental principal of justice. Maybe he's talking about pre-constitution times when English Jurisprudence still ruled the land and we had things like the Salem Witch Trials? Of course.. that's what's going on in the justice system today for those who have had the whereforall to watch the news....

Well, thank goodness the Democrats who are in control of Congress have something reasonable to say, like Senator Patrick Leahy, who tells us that it's good that Sotomayor is Hispanic because that will better reflect "equal justice under law." WHAT?? So - are you saying that Sotomayor being Hispanic means she will better handle the Hispanic community? Does that mean that the Supreme Court is expecting a lot of Hispanic people to now be brought before them (and is therefore a racist comment)? Does that mean the other judges, white, oriental and black are racist? Wouldn't that mean that Sotomayor as a Hispanic would be biased against a white? See how this is a STUPID issue that does NOT belong here. And, yet - it IS the consideration of many in Congress, for Sotomayor's appointment. Sorry to say, but even if she is qualified, she now has to be discounted or else we continue to push the issue of segregation in America further.

Perhaps Jennifer Donahue has offered valuable insight by stating that Justice Thomas' statement that he was a victim of a 'high-tech lynching' was the end of a miscarriage of justice against poor, Clarence Thomas? Perhaps, Ms. Donahue's very first coverage of a Supreme Court appointment was about as worthless to her career as 'valuable insight,' as her current article on the Sotomayor debate is to ... um.. reality? Justice Thomas' statement was a racist slam in his favor. There was no, "high tech," involved, he was playing the race card, in hopes of saving face, to "lynch," the Supreme Court and the GOP into a forced appointment lest they now become biggots. She believes the Republicans are only putting up a fight to, "keep the base happy," and maybe she's right. But, then again, maybe Clarence Thomas wasn't playing the race card and was really being threatened with a good, ol' fashion, southern-style lynchin'!! And, maybe - America can quit acting like stupid sheeple and recognize stupidity for what it is - stupidity.

The point is this: while it's been stated that Sotomayor has more experience in her pre-Supreme Court Justice status than any of the others had who currently serve when they were in the same position, less is being said about her qualifications and more about playing a race card, a human-sensitive/sympathy card and a pressure card against Republicans. Why? It would be a waste of space to repost the many concerns here, so I'll reference them for your reading:

The Case Against Sotomayor

Sotomayor's Judicial Record Could be a Battlefield for Critics: "Judge Sotomayor will need to reassure the country that she will set aside her biases, uphold the rule of law and interpret the Constitution as written, not as she believes it should have been written.." (didn't Senator Leahy state that he supported her equal justice stance???? doesn't that seem like he has NO CLUE what he's doing either??)

Sotomayor and Race

Why these issues? Why not just flat out attack Sotomayor, or support Sotomayor for her judicial qualifications? Because, these are the cards that a race-card President and race-card, Democrat President played, and they know it worked. The people voted for it, gave it support like ignorant sheep, and now they're seeing the fruits of their ignorance. Why race? Because I HATE race topics. Race topics SEGREGATE this country, and our people, and are NOT AMERICAN. What to do now? Again, I'll re-emphasize, that I have no doubt that the non-Constitutional issues - NON CONSTITUTIONAL - standards - upon which Sotomayor is being judged, will pressure the Senate into supporting her. I have no doubt that YOUR elected officials (not mine - I DIDN'T vote for them), will fail you, as representatives of YOUR best interest. However, there will be consequences from this decision as well - and we won't get to see the full ramifications of those consequences, I'm afraid, until it's too late. Remember - the Supreme Court is a LIFE position - who we put on now - will be there FOR LIFE - not 2 years, not 4 years - but more like - THIRTY OR FOURTY! We can't make half-cooked decisions from half-summed up information. The vote for a Supreme Court Justice official is a vote of grave importance. What I feel should have been addressed:

• Her support for or against the Constitution (especially as an appeals court judge).
• Her support for or against (or knowledge or lack of knowledge of) the 30% of prison population being INNOCENT and not being afforded their rights.
• Her support for or against (or knowledge or lack of knowledge of) the failure for effective, indigent defense, the failure to hold prosecutors accountable or responsible, the corruption running rampant in law enforcement.

These would have been worthy issues upon which Sotomayor could have stood. Now, it's too late. Now, we're going to see this happen, and we - the people - the ones who make up this country and will be affected by EACH AND EVERY decision this woman makes (including decisions supported by pressure from special interest groups such as the Latino group), will realize, too late, what segregation will do to our Country.

A house divided CAN NOT STAND.

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Let us examine the role of a Grand Jury:

The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon, an 1166 act of Henry II of England. In fact, Henry's chief contribution to the development of the English monarchy was to increase the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of the feudal courts. Itinerant justices on regular circuits were sent out once each year to enforce the "King's Peace." To make this system of royal criminal justice more effective, Henry employed the method of inquest used by William the Conqueror in the Domesday Book. In each shire a body of important men were sworn (jure) to report to the sheriff all crimes committed since the last session of the circuit court. Thus originated the modern grand jury that presents information for an indictment. The grand jury was later recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility. (are we recalling the first post, in which I clearly explained that part of the Constitution’s purpose was to no longer follow European traditions?)

Early in U.S. history, the grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended. But, is the practice of a Grand Jury today, still at as much risk for corruption as they were back then? Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. New Zealand abolished them in 1961 and Canada in the 1970’s.

In fact, only HALF of the States in our Union use Grand Juries. Yes – HALF. What does that mean? That means, that the U.S. is NOT using the fair and equal standard across the Country, meant to Form a MORE PERFECT UNION, as the justice system has slowly come to realize the corrupt and unconstitutional nature of grand juries. – Slowly – As it is, the “other” half of the U.S. relies upon preliminary hearings in which Judges are allowed to be presented with ALL of the evidence, from BOTH sides – to ensure fairness and accuracy of the issues. Where Grand Juries do exist, such as it is in Oregon – the one sided argument – from Law enforcement AND the DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S office (the ever-scrupulous bastions of fairness and hope.. right?), before dragging you into Court – and sometimes – JAILING you – without your even knowing that ANYTHING was going on!!

A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. (a special thanks to Wikipedia, for this information – and references YOU can follow up on to find more arguments defining the unconstituionality of the Grand Jury process).

I won’t even waste the time in this argument to discuss the Double Jeopardy clause, except to say this: the TENS OF THOUSANDS of arguments, in our Judicial system against this practice, is reminiscent of what I said in regards to the Fourth Amendment violations by the District Attorneys- they are NOT upholding the principals of the Constitution as they claim – but are fighting them to their own benefit (see Findlaw for even more, detailed explanations).

''It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.'' (Justice Frankfurter)

Standing by itself, the phrase ''due process'' would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that ''due process of law'' would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. ''It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will.'' (Lessee v. Hoboken) Let us begin by examining the more recent, “Adam Wash Act.”

On December 7, 2006, in U.S. v. Crowell, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio held that the Adam Walsh Act's requirement that specific pretrial release conditions be imposed on all defendants accused of certain crimes violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause, and separation of powers. So, the question presents itself – is the District Attorney’s (and Judge’s) right to impose “pretrial” conditions on an individual’s release, a direct violation of the Constitution? Here’s where the Grand Jury indictments come in – for no person shall be deprived of life OR liberty, without the due process of law. But, in a grand jury indictment, for the few states that still choose to against the WORLD WIDE accepted standard and use this unconstitutional and outdated method, that IS due process. Yes – you are guilty. I define that by: the imposing of legal restrictions, as would be imposed on an individual found guilty of a crime in a court of law. You are guilty, because they impose limitations on you: curfews; use of the internet; the ability to drive; to go to a public bar; to go into certain locations; to possess legal and lawful items; and so on. You are guilty, and these impositions will continue to be placed upon you until such time as you can be proven innocent. Otherwise, if you are found guilty, then these impositions are increased and you are PUNISHED TWICE.

That’s…. real…. Constitutional.. isn’t it?

Finally comes the matter of personal property being taken for public use. Let me put this to you in the most clear and simple matter possible: search and seizure. The taking of your belongings, for examination by law enforcement, use as evidence in grand jury indictments (and court hearings), is a direct counterpart to the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. Perhaps some of you might be thinking: “Well, this means they can’t take your T.V. to watch it for themselves.” Why? That would deprive you of the item’s: 1) ownership, 2) use, 3) freedom of liberty and 4) your Constitutional rights as they apply here.

But, what’s the difference? Whether the State’s taking your belongings to “build a case,” in which they are committing all four infringements listed in the previous paragraph, or to “use it for their own, personal reasons,” – it’s the same thing! Your items are in their possession for their use. Your items will now “profit” them. Not only will YOUR possessions be used against you – but they will be used for THEIR profit. If we were talking something as simple as unlawfully downloaded music, which you cannot legally possess, then, that would be something that could possibly be debated. But, if that music was on your computer, where you also kept your personal files, your letters, your email, your taxes and whatnot – then they are DIRECTLY violating the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution by keeping those items – WITHOUT just compensation.

Let me give you an example: Your computer’s taken under the false pretense of an accusation. But, in Oregon, false pretenses count as probable cause in the eyes of the law (somehow – that too – is believed to be “Constitutional??”). Your tax records are on there and you have them nowhere else. The IRS or Dept. of Revenue come knocking at your door, claiming you made a mistake in your tax filings seven years ago and owe them $50,000.00. The only proof you have is on your computer – but the State, without just compensation (which would mean equal and fair – not of value – of content – clearly stating that ALL of your information could be duplicated and returned to you immediately so you were NOT deprived of your belongings without said compensation), is preventing you from presenting your case. Now, the IRS/DOR, garnish your wages. You lose your home, your vehicle, can’t afford your meds and lose your health.

THIS IS EXACTLY why the Fifth Amendment exists. To overcome such dangerous situations that not only infringe upon your liberty – but YOUR LIFE!! However, the Oregon District Attorney’s Office, even in light of precedence set by the State Courts and multiple other States, will hold onto your valuables and abuse their power and privileges over you. Why? If you simply plead guilty or no contest -  your items are returned. You take the penalty, pay the fines (probably only around $3,000 or so – just losing your car, not your home or health), they get PAID for doing this to you, and the Constitution – well – it means NOTHING.

Does the Oregon D.A.’s office uphold the Constitution, as per their mission statement, the first Doctrine, as it pertains to the Fifth Amendment?

No. They argue and fight and spend OUR taxpayer dollars, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. Once again – we have DIRECT EVIDENCE, that their office is lying, violating our Constitutional rights, and doing so without any manner of checks or balances. Of course, Oregon believes in Grand Juries – the “once upon a time” check and balance to prosecutions, and, in that corruption, has more prosecutions, per capita, than almost EVERY other State in the Union, justifying the taking of children and offering them up to rape, death and abuse; the imprisoning of innocent people, even before trial; and the continued abuse of power that remains unchecked.

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

First, let me point out the emphasis I maid above on: accused. That means: not guilty of, not yet determined to be guilty of, and only by mere “accusation,” has been brought forth for trial (refer to 5^th Amendment post on pretrial punishments). But, Congress HAS instituted laws that directly and blatantly violate the premises upon which the Sixth Amendment rests:

On January 28, 2008, in U.S. v. Winslow, Judge Smith, D. Alaska, found that the government's conditions for the defense's review of the computer hard-drive seized in the case violated the defendant's due process, fair trial and Sixth Amendment rights. As a result, the court ordered the government to provide the defense attorney with a copy of the hard drive, under specified conditions. Is this isolated? No. And, I’ve been trying to avoid ‘specifics,’ to avoid the unnecessary argument as to whether these violations are limited. The fact is, that Oregon has been putting more people in prison, for a violation of the Adam Walsh Act and associated laws, without a trial or hearing, because the Defense Attorneys, even those who are paid, are recommending that their clients automatically say “no contest,” because the Attorneys KNOW, they cannot adequately provide for their client’s defense. You can go to the State of Oregon’s, Public Defender website and read the numerous articles on this FACT, for yourself.

What’s really at the heart of the matter here though, is the violation of the Constitutional Right to confront the witnesses and the evidence. The Oregon D.A.’s office PREVENTS any “accused” individual from confronting their offender, in a court room, for many types of crimes, including sex offense. You cannot force the Courts to have to listen to the possibility that someone is lying, or that the ACCUSORS DON’T EVEN EXIST!! Yes – you cannot even prove that they are NOT REAL!! This has given way to the Oregon D.A.’s office blatantly abusing their power by trying cases solely upon “Circumstantial Evidence.”

In such cases where ONLY circumstantial evidence exists, the idea is to convince the trier of fact (a Judge or Jury), that you are probably MORE guilty, than not. And, in cases of internet pornography, murder, theft, and other such cases, the D.A. will present the so-called “evidence” to the trier of fact to help establish their disgust or anger against you. Do you need to see a picture of a nude child to determine that they are a nude child? Do you need to see the picture of a dead body to determine the individual is actually dead? Isn’t that what evidentiary hearings are for? To prove whether or not the evidence is real?

Here’s the catch. The Sixth Amendment does NOT say you are entitled to ‘competent’ or ‘effective’ counsel. It does not guarantee you protection against attorney’s who just want to take the money and run. Individual States are supposed to do that. And, where the D.A.’s office claims that part of its “mission,” is to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity, the question is whether or not, their trying a case against you where you are not provided with effective or adequate counsel, is within the boundaries of “skill, honor and integrity?” I would argue that clearly, it’s not.

But, how do you even get a “fair” trial in front of a so-called, “jury of your peers?” The mere definition is an oxymoron. A Jury of my peers, that represents the peoples’ choice in this matter, is not 13 people sitting on a witness stand. It’s half a million people, it’s the entire nation. In fact, it goes so far as to be: NONE of the above. The truth is, that Jury, without any factual evidence such as “Witnesses to the crime,” are only being presented with evidence. And, in many cases, it is NOT EVEN evidence that a crime occurred! Ah, there lies the rub that makes calamity of so long life….

In Internet crimes, where the content of an individual’s computer contains contraband, the State and Federal laws BOTH, clearly state, that the crime is not in the mere possession of the evidence, in a digital format (as such would violate an individual’s free right to legally copy music they own and would most CERTAINLY violate the 4^th Amendment right to be secure in your personal and private belongings), but in the knowing downloading, accessing, storing and use (and distribution in certain instances) of that material. If I show you a hard disk with music on it that I believe the defendant had accessed off the Internet, I did not show you their ‘knowing’ download, just my opinion that it “more likely than not, beyond a ‘reasonable,’ doubt, occurred.” But, what is the reasonable doubt? Who determines what’s reasonable? A Jury of 13 people that don’t know me, anything about my values and morals, anything about my history or life or even what actually happened at the time this supposed ‘download’ occurred? Maybe a jury of technically incompetent individuals who don’t know enough to understand the whole entire “hacking/identity theft” industry? And, that’s where the D.A. comes in…

You see, the D.A. is permitted to be involved in the jury selection process. Why? Is that to ensure fairness to you? Of course not, they want to ensure there’s no bias against them, right? What bias is there – when YOU are the accused, YOU are the one being falsely accused of committing terrible and horrific acts against the welfare of those 13 people judging you. The only purpose the D.A. has, and you can read this on the NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S WEBSITE, under the area of articles, where they list a specific article pertaining to the Jury Selection Process in digital crimes. It specifically states that: “Most jurors have an 8^th grade intellect…” it goes on to say that it is imperative that the D.A. see to it that technically savvy individuals NOT be chosen for the jury, because they could identify the holes in the D.A.’s case, where it’s actually impossible to prove an individual was in front of their computer. It also states that: Completely unsavvy people should not be selected either, because their lack of computer knowledge will make it too difficult for you to explain to them that someone is guilty when you can’t actually prove that guilt. Instead, an individual of bare-minimum computer skills must be chosen, as they will be able to only understand that computers contain data, good or bad, but not understand the principals of how you actually “identify WHO” was on the computer and “who” committed the crime.

Okay – unconstitutional?

"....by an impartial jury...."

How much MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL would you like to make this? What about the TV and media CONSTANTLY blasting horror stories about these types of crimes, creating an ENTIRE SOCIETY that is driven to be pre-determinately against the Defendant? If this is not an absolute violation by the D.A.’s office, ESPECIALLY in Oregon, I don’t know what is:

"….Pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity,"

How much MORE against the D.A.’s so-called, “mission,” could this be? In fact – it gets worse. The State of Oregon has had it argued, with the help of the D.A.’s office, to reduce payment for Defense counsel and reduce the amount of financial aid provided by the Oregon Public Defender’s Financial Assistance office, making it virtually impossible for the Defense to adequately mount a case!! Folks – you can go online and read all this for yourself. I, sadly, cannot. As I write this, I do so with a pen and paper, using notes provided for me by my brother, because of some of the very issues that exist in this one, exact violation of the Constitution, and amongst others.

How many more INNOCENT people will have to be released from prison before someone realizes, that the inability to hold the D.A.’s office accountable to their “mission” statement, is perpetuating the violation of our rights?

Has the D.A. upheld the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

No, they haven’t. They have abused their authority to help select bias juries, to falsely and wrongly influence them, in the MIDDLE OF A TRIAL, without punishment for doing so, to prevent the Defense from proving his innocence – and for what? The “pursuit of justice?” When is it a pursuit of “justice,” when you blockade the “accused,” from proving their innocence? When is it a “pursuit of justice,” when you present so-called ‘evidence,’ to a legally unknowledgeable jury, falsely making them ‘believe,’ it’s evidence of a crime? When is it justice when you work to make the jury ‘hate’ the defendant, rather than rely upon facts?

When is it the pursuit of justice with SKILL, HONOR and INTEGRITY, when you try people based on the possibility they committed the crime, not the facts? Is this protecting us? Did this actually protect the crime victims’ rights (that is – going after the wrong person and possibly letting the guilty one free to do it again)? Is this supporting the Constitution of the United States, as claimed by the Oregon’s D.A. office?