Wednesday, May 25, 2011

America, Internationally Lawless

If globally owned corporate banksters can hire mercenaries, assassins, and armies at will, while covertly terrorizing the rest of us, holding their own political prisoners to torture in secret CIA detention camps, all in the name of "America", is there really any "Justice"? Yes, this is a run on sentence ...

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on May 24, 2011

Yemen's security forces clashed with anti-government protesters in the deadliest bout of violence to date, following the collapse of a Gulf plan to ease President Ali Abdullah Saleh out of power. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chided the president of Yemen for the bloodshed, urging him to step down from power. But at a time when the United States needs Saleh to continue its secret war in Yemen, The Nation's Jeremy Scahill says the Obama administration's call for change in that country are nothing but empty rhetoric. Meanwhile, a group of lawmakers wants an explanation of America's role in Erik Prince's latest venture in the United Arab Emirates, where the billionaire founder of the military firm Blackwater has launched a new mercenary force. Scahill, who has reported extensively on Blackwater, reveals how this army could potentially set the scene for a proxy war against Iran.

Rhetoric Hides Dirty Secrets on Blackwater; US War in Yemen



Saturday, May 21, 2011

Obama's Violation of War Powers Act?

Text sent to my Vermont US Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, and to Congressman Peter Welch:

If Obama has violated the War Powers Act, I ask that you act to remove Barack Obama from office. I have posted a video and more information on the internet:

Please review, and/or have a staff member, review, and please give me feedback on the content of the post and links. Thank you, Steven G. Erickson, PO Box Eight Seventy Four, Brattleboro, VT 05302

stevengerickson At yahoo Dot Com

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on May 20, 2011

President Obama said the US would stay in Libya for days. Two months later, however, the War Powers Act says America needs to go to war or get out of North Africa. Can Obama circumvent the Constitution or is the Commander in Chief breaking the own laws he promises to uphold on the campaign trail? RT's Lauren Lyster investigates.

Obama violates War Powers Act?

* * * *

Text with War Powers Resolution (Source Wikipedia):
"War Powers Act" redirects here. For other uses, see War Powers Act of 1941.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,[2][3]some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.[4][5]

[source of above with more text and links]

* * * *

Is there anything to the Obama Hawaiian birth certificate forgery scandal?:



Friday, May 20, 2011

US "Legal System" Melts Down

The topics and events discussed by Alex Jones and his guests, just say it, in the below videos. Can police now just stop you, and then take all of your cash? Can they just rape women? Are all rules and laws thrown out for government, their operatives, and police? Have our rights been stripped?

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on May 19, 2011

Paul Craig Roberts
May 18, 2011

The International Monetary Fund's director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was arrested last Sunday in New York City on the allegation of an immigrant hotel maid that he attempted to rape her in his hotel room. A New York judge has denied Strauss-Kahn bail on the grounds that he might flee to France.

President Bill Clinton survived his sexual escapades, because he was a servant to the system, not a threat. But Strauss-Kahn, like former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, was a threat to the system, and, like Eliot Spitzer, Strass-Kahn has been deleted from the power ranks.

Strauss-Kahn was the first IMF director in my lifetime, if memory serves, who disavowed the traditional IMF policy of imposing on the poor and ordinary people the cost of bailing out Wall Street and the Western banks. Strauss-Kahn said that regulation had to be reimposed on the greed-driven, fraud-prone financial sector, which, unregulated, destroyed the lives of ordinary people. Strauss-Kahn listened to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, one of a handful of economists who has a social conscience.

Perhaps the most dangerous black mark in Strauss-Kahn's book is that he was far ahead of America's French puppet, President Sarkozy, in the upcoming French elections. Strauss-Kahn simply had to be eliminated.

It is possible that Strauss-Kahn eliminated himself and saved Washington the trouble. However, as a well-travelled person who has often stayed in New York hotels and in hotels in cities around the world, I have never experienced a maid entering unannounced into my room, much less when I was in the shower.

In the spun story, Strauss-Kahn is portrayed as so deprived of sex that he attempted to rape a hotel maid. Anyone who ever served on the staff of a powerful public figure knows that this is unlikely. On a senator's staff on which I served, there were two aides whose job was to make certain that no woman, with the exception of his wife, was ever alone with the senator. This was done to protect the senator both from female power groupies, who lust after celebrities and powerful men, and from women sent by a rival on missions to compromise an opponent. A powerful man such as Strauss-Kahn would not have been starved for women, and as a multi-millionaire he could certainly afford to make his own discreet arrangements.

As Henry Kissinger said, "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." In politics, sex is handed out as favors and payoffs, and it is used as a honey trap. Some Americans will remember that Senator Packwood's long career (1969-1995) was destroyed by a female lobbyist, suspected, according to rumors, of sexual conquests of Senators, who charged that Packwood propositioned her in his office. Perhaps what inspired the charge was that Packwood was in the way of her employer's legislative agenda.

Even those who exercise care can be framed by allegations of an event to which there are no witnesses. On May 16 the British Daily Mail reported that prior to Strauss-Kahn's fateful departure for New York, the French newspaper, Liberation, published comments he made while discussing his plans to challenge Sarkozy for the presidency of France. Strauss-Kahn said that as he was the clear favorite to beat Sarkozy, he would be subjected to a smear campaign by Sarkozy and his interior minister, Glaude Gueant. Strauss-Kahn predicted that a woman would be offered between 500,000 and 1,000,000 euros (more than $1,000,000) to make up a story that he raped her.

The Daily Mail reports that Strauss-Kahn's suspicions are supported by the fact that the first person to break the news of Strauss-Kahn's arrest was an activist in Mr Sarkozy's UMP party -- who apparently knew about the scandal before it happened. Jonathan Pinet, a politics student, tweeted the news just before the New York Police Department made it public, although he said that he simply had a 'friend' working at the Sofitel where the attack was said to have happened. The first person to re-tweet Mr Pinet was Arnaud Dassier, a spin doctor who had previously publicised details of multi-millionaire Strauss-Kahn's luxurious lifestyle in a bid to dent his left wing credentials.

Strauss-Kahn could just as easily been set up by rivals inside the IMF, as well as by rivals within the French political establishment.

Michelle Sabban, a senior councillor for the greater Paris region and a Strauss-Kahn loyalist said: 'I am convinced it is an international conspiracy.'

She added: 'It's the IMF they wanted to decapitate, not so much the Socialist primary candidate.

'It's not like him. Everyone knows that his weakness is seduction, women. That's how they got him.'

Paul Craig Roberts: The Amerikan Police State Strides Forward 1/2

Paul Craig Roberts: The Amerikan Police State Strides Forward 2/2

Dr. Steve Pieczenik: State Of Emergency - Alex Jones Tv 1/5

Text with video:

Uploaded by on May 19, 2011

Alex talks with Steve Pieczenik, author, publisher and former State Department official. Pieczenik is one of the world's most experienced international crisis managers and hostage negotiators. He is the critically acclaimed author of psycho-political thrillers and the co-creator of the New York Times best-selling "Tom Clancy's Op-Center" and "Tom Clancy's Net Force" book series.

2 of 5

3 of 5

4 of 5

5 of 5

* * * *


US Police Rape and Exploitation of Women, a New Soviet-type era

I was in parts of the former Soviet Union, not Russia, soon after the wall fell. I heard about organized crime, police, the government, and women who the White Male Police Officers thought were hot, could then be raped by all the police officers in the station, when a woman tried to report being raped. We aren't far away from those scenarios here in the US as policing and the courts have degraded beyond imagination.

The drug cartels, violence, and US military and CIA abuse of the world is a result of the lack of representation for US taxation and because the voting system is rigged.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Government Justification to Rule Over People?

Transcripts for below James Corbett Report video:

Each society tells itself a story about where it came from. These foundation myths are built on our assumptions about the world and about human nature itself, and it often explains why we live in the political system that we do. Today on The Corbett Report we examine various foundation myths throughout history, from ancient Greece to modern America, from the Enlightenment to the post-Enlightenment.

Documentation – Charles Anderson on foundation myths
Time Reference: 08:28
Description: A course on political philosophy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Link To:

Documentation – Ancient Egypt’s view of nature and politics
Time Reference: 15:17
Description: From the same lecture by Charles Anderson cited above.
Link To:

Documentation – Aristotle: Man is a political animal
Time Reference: 25:10
Description: From a lecture by Steven B. Smith in an “Introduction to Political Philosophy” course delivered at Yale.
Link To:

Documentation – Hobbes’ Leviathan
Time Reference: 38:40
Description: Audio excerpt from Bertrand Russell’s 1945 volume “The History of Western Philosophy.”
Link To:

Documentation – Locke: Equality, Freedom, Property and the Right to Dissent
Time Reference: 47:20
Description: From a Yale course entitled “Foundations of Modern Social Theory.”
Link To:

Documentation – Freedom and its Betrayal: Berlin on Rousseau
Time Reference: 1:00:12
Description: Absolutely riveting lecture on political philosophy by Isaiah Berlin.
Link To: Oxford University

Documentation – Sigmund Freud and Irrational Man
Time Reference: 1:12:07
Description: Freud destroys the Enlightenment belief in rational man.
Link To:

Documentation – Alex Jones interviews Peter Joseph
Time Reference: 1:21:25
Link To: Google Video

* * * *
* * * *

Recent videos of Alex Jones interviews the Charles Manson Prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi:


Saturday, May 14, 2011

Permanent US Police State?

Should US citizens act to repeal the Patriot Act?

Text with below video:

Uploaded by on May 11, 2011

Opposition to the Patriot Act has existed since its installment nearly ten years ago. With no evidence that is has ever helped with the war on terror, however, criticism of the legislation continues today as the act is still used with little to show for it. Demand Progress Founder Aaron Swartz says that Americans should be angry with the way the Patriot Act pries into their privacy.

Patriot Act pries into privacy

* * * *

[Click Here] for:

Fox News Torpedo of Ron Paul?

Resistance is Futile

The below is re-posted from the Simple Justice Blog:

Resistance is Futile

In the law, there have been certain very specific places which no court, no judge, is bold enough to breech. The front door of a person's home, his castle, was one such place. No more.

The Indiana Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, has taken the state of law since the King John's signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 and decide that it no longer serves our "modern" world. In Barnes v. State, the court held that the sanctity of our homes is a thing of the past.
We believe . . . that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest— as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (“But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s 'measured‘ response may fast become excessive.”).

The case involved a domestic dispute, where the defendant was confronted by police outside his home. There was no basis to arrest him, any more than there is a basis to arrest a man any time he and his wife have an argument, and so the defendant went inside. He refused the police entry, and when they forced their way in, pushed an officer up against a wall. For that, he was charged with misdemeanor battery.

In defense to the charge, the defendant relied on his right to resist an illegal entry into his home, whether by police or anyone else. But the the entry was by police, officers of the state, made it of particular significance. This was the core evil against which the Fourth Amendment protects. Note the use of the past tense.

But this has now been declared archaic, a relic of a past age, of which modern man, and courts, no longer have need. The court says we have other, better, options than to resist: the exclusionary rule, internal police department review and disciplinary procedures and civil remedies. Perhaps this is a penumbra of the "new professionalism" we've heard so much about, and have yet to enjoy for ourselves.

The gist of the court's ruling, however, is that they're doing this for us, for the children, to safeguard us from violence. Resisting the police escalates violence, and enhances the likelihood that someone will be hurt. They just don't want us to get hurt, and if the front door to our homes is the cost of our safety, then so be it. As the court tangentially notes, it's not like law prohibiting police entry actually stops the police from doing as they please, so better to eliminate the law than mandate police adherence.

There is no line more fundamental than that running across our threshold. Courts have been trying to erase if for a long time, bit by bit. The Indiana Supreme Court seizes upon these "exceptions" to conclude that the fundamental rule has been eroding for so long as to make this final step, the erasure of the rule altogether, merely the obvious last slide down the slope.
Further, we note that a warrant is not necessary for every entry into a home. For example, officers may enter the home if they are in “hot pursuit” of the arrestee or if exigent circumstances justified the entry. E.g., United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 42–43 (1976) (holding that retreat into a defendant‘s house could not thwart an otherwise proper arrest made in the course of a ?hot pursuit?); Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930, 938 (Ind. 2006) (“Possible imminent destruction of evidence is one exigent circumstance that may justify a warrantless entry into a home if the fear on the part of the police that the evidence was immediately about to be destroyed is objectively reasonable.”). Even with a warrant, officers may have acted in good faith in entering a home, only to find later that their entry was in error. E.g., Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 11 (1994); United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922–25 (1984). In these situations, we find it unwise to allow a homeowner to adjudge the legality of police conduct in the heat of the moment.

While it's easy to argue slippery slope in opposition to the creation of any particular exception to a rule, that doesn't mean it isn't accurate and doesn't happen. This is the proof.

The dissent, by definition, disagrees.

[T]he common law rule supporting a citizen‘s right to resist unlawful entry into her home rests on . . . the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980). In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.
In Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313–14 (1958) the United States Supreme Court held that it was unlawful to arrest the defendant on criminal charges when a warrantless arrest was conducted by police officers breaking and entering the defendant‘s apartment without expressly announcing the purpose of their presence or demanding admission. In recounting the historical perspective for its holding the Court quoted eighteenth century remarks attributed to William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the occasion of a debate in Parliament:
The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!
Id. at 307. The same is no less true today and applies equally to forces of the State.
Defiance will no longer be tolerated in Indiana, for our own safety and because we didn't challenge the small slides down the hill along the way. Now that we're at the bottom, should we be surprised?

Saturday, May 07, 2011

Divorced Wilton (Connecticut) father struggling to change system

This post is update [from here]

Francis Knize/photo matthew vinci

The below re-posted [from here, The Wilton Villager]
Check link for interesting comments posted to article


Hour Staff Writer

Divorce is never an easy process, especially when children are involved, and Wilton resident Francis Knize says being a father makes it exponentially more difficult.

Knize went through a nasty divorce a few years ago, and, based on his own experience, he feels judges in divorce cases "have an inherent bias against men."
"Basically the judiciary has worked hard to erode (father's) civil rights on many levels. In my divorce case my person, property and papers were what I wanted protected, and they were all broken in the divorce. There was nothing I could make a free choice of in my life."

Knize said the immediate reaction of the courts is to place children with the mother in the vast majority of divorce cases.

"Basically the child remains with the mother right away until further notice, and the father may not see the child for the first year after the divorce," Knize said. "That's unconscionable."

One of the basic problems, according to Knize, is that divorce cases are tried in civil court, where the burden of proof is far different than that of a criminal proceeding.

"I know lots of men who have serious problems seeing their children because women take the stand claiming severe abuse," Knize said. "They make a criminal kind of charge, without having to support it with any kind of evidence. In a civil court the burden is a preponderance of evidence, and conclusions come much more easily. Women are making claims without corroborating evidence or proof."

Given certain allegations, such as abuse or neglect, divorce cases in Connecticut should require concrete evidence to back up the claim, he said.

"Why can't Connecticut be more like New Jersey, where you need clear and convincing evidence, if not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, like a criminal case?"

To that end state Rep. John Hetherington, R-125, has introduced House Bill 5247 to try and close some of those civil rights loopholes for parents and guardians.

HB 5247, which Hetherington said has passed the Judiciary Committee and now awaits discussion in the General Assembly, is described as "an act concerning the presumption of innocence and protection of Constitutional rights in proceedings alleging child abuse or neglect by a parent or guardian."

The body of HB 5247 reads: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to: (1) institute a presumption of a parent's or guardian's innocence in any proceeding alleging child abuse or neglect by the parent or guardian; (2) require the petitioner to prove a parent's or guardian's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in any proceeding alleging child abuse or neglect by the parent or guardian; (3) require the protection of a parent's or guardian's constitutional rights, as afforded to persons charged with criminal offenses, in any proceeding alleging child abuse or neglect by the parent or guardian; (4) require the dismissal from employment of any municipal or state employee found to have violated the constitutional rights of a parent or guardian in any proceeding alleging child abuse or neglect by the parent or guardian; and (5) ensure that any such municipal or state employee not receive immunity."

Hetherington said this is a "relatively simple" bill that will not apply directly to court proceedings but could prevent a parent or guardian from self-incrimination, or keep them from allowing a Department of Children and Families (DCF) representative into their home without cause.

"I heard a number of complaints from parents and guardians in cases of child neglect or abuse that DCF representatives are rather heavy handed," Hetherington said. "Now the DCF has the right to interrogate, to insist on coming into the home to find evidence of abuse, and what they collect is admissible in proceedings or as evidence to take a child away."

Hetherington admits that the bill does not have much sanction behind it, but it provides some peace of mind to parents and guardians.

"Parents and guardians have rights, and (DCF) can't intimidate people," Hetherington said. "There's no doubt DCF people are good, but they can't make people suspects without some evidence."

Hetherington is not sure how far -- or how fast -- the bill will move.

"It's received a joint favorable report out of Judiciary, and I hope it goes to House floor," he said. "There's such a crowd of bills, you never know."

Knize never intended his efforts to be a mother-father battle. He just wants to see each case, and each parent, judged on their own merits.

"What's the percentage of men that have to pay child support over women? Over 90 percent," Knize said. "My argument is that maybe that should have been the case in the 1950s, when there were different gender roles. In today's world, after women demanded freedom and are working, the payment structure should be more equalized."

Knize said his ex-wife had college degrees and plenty of earning potential and he did not, and while he was self-sufficient, he still was taken for $1 million.

"You're liable for child support and possibly alimony because you have earning capacity, but my wife had enormous earning capacity," Knize said. "A judge can assign an unreachable child support level, and a father who can't pay is in contempt. They're handcuffed, they have their ankles shackled. They throw you in jail until you pay up, like an old English debtor's prison. We're supposed to be above that. We want it to be equal parenting." For more information on some of Knize' concerns, visit

* * * *
* * * *

Connecticut Court Corruption- The Nowacki FOIA Case 4.11.11

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Apr 19, 2011

Citizen Michael Nowacki is exposing how the Conn. Judicial Branch has been illegally engaging law-making practices:

On March 18, 2011, the Connecticut Ethics Commission undertook investigation into Chief Family Judge Lynda Munro's alleged unlawful solicitation for "sponsorship" from members of the Connecticut Bar Association for mandated family court directed training for Guardian Ad Litem G.A.L.s held at Quinnipiac University. They dismissed it.

Audience is asked to respond to as to whether Munro's solicitation of Bar funding for the GAL Program constitutes "making law from her secretive back chambers accountable by some state enforcement agency?

The FOIA Commission hesitates for having jurisdiction, saying Nowacki's contentions are not Administrative as defined by Conn. Supreme Court. (29:40 & 01:05:40) The hearing officer was referring to the 2006 decision, Clerk of GA 7 v. FOIC. That decision expanded the definition of "adjudicative" records to include simple docket sheet data which would become not subject to FOIA. The hearing officer attests @ 27:35 that he needs no coaching on the law by Mr. Nowacki because he's a professional 22 years on FOIA Law. Yet...

Clerk has nothing to do with the Nowacki case because Nowacki is not asking for anything to do with an individual case and privacy issues. He's asking for information on Public Hearings. The Law Tribune writes : "Three of the seven justices in Clerk favored test based on the 1988 case of Bar Examining Commission v. FOIC. Notes: Quinn: March 3, 2008: We do believe that administrative function should be defined as including the management of the internal institutional machinery of the court system, accounting, budgeting, personnel, facilities, physical operations, scheduling, record keeping, and docketing." That statement is answer to Officer Perpetua's J. Quinn question at 45:50.

In the 1983 case of Rules Committee v. FOIC, Chief Justice Ellen Ash Peters noted that the state FOI Act applies only to the Judicial Branch "administrative records" and not to "adjudicative records" that might interfere with the courts' critical function of deciding individual cases. Peters narrowly defined "administrative" matters as the "budget, personnel, facilities and physical operations of the courts." However, that was surpassed as shown above in 2008 by J. Quinn's notes which included all that encompasses internal institutional machinery, the point being Administrative acts as acknowledged by society are quite broad.

At the very least, it can be claimed Nowacki's failed FOIA to J. Munro and others about the GAL program and rule-making procedure was discovering the following: to know about records dealing with GAL budget or sponsorship, GAL personnel and even trainees, facilities at Quinnipiac and physical operations of the courts concerning the GAL. AMC "commando programs". After all, those Public Agency programs are physical operations that accommodate the efficient operations of the court, are administrative; and Nowacki is not seeking "adjudicative records" that might interfere with deciding any individual case.

Rules Committee v. FOIC is not so narrow that it limits the breadth of which administrative functions can still be carried out despite Clerk, thus is still under FOIA juris and oversight.

The hearing officer, Mr. Perpetua, @ 1:51:30 is dead wrong to have gone to such a narrow definition when "internal machinery" is the mantra, and when Nowacki points out the Superior Court and Appellate Court, and Chief Adm. J. Quinn acknowledges their rule-making falls as an administrative act @ 31:15 & 1:12:00. And when the Supreme Ct. NEVER limited Administrative tasks past docket and case sealing. Administrative function should be defined as including the management of the internal institutional machinery of the court system, which must include activity related to Rule-making. Why does Perpetua say different @ 1:21:15 ? Perpetua himself comes under scrutiny for then denying evidence relevance concerning Rule-making 1:15:45 . Judge Lynda B. Munro spearheaded a program aimed at influencing private law firms' hiring and employment practices. This is highly controversial behavior showing impropriety and warranting investigation of a conflict of interest, ethics, and even criminal allegations.

When a judge creates and manages, schedules,and coordinates a program like the GAL (Guardian Ad Litem) or AMC (Atty for the Minor Child) training sessions, a program under great social controversy whether or not it's actually destructive to families, promoted independently by this J. Munro, ... is that or is that not an Administrative function subject to FOIA Commission jurisdiction?

Use YouTube LIKES Vote for YES
Use DISLIKES Vote below for NO

Citizen Reporter

Michael Nowacki

* * * *
* * * *

"In the Interest of Justice", A Documentary Primer

Text with video:

Uploaded by on Oct 7, 2007

more information:
Dr. Richard Codero battles it out with Federal Judge Ralph Winters in Brooklyn, NY, Federal Courthouse on a national hearing on judges judging judges.

* * * *
* * * *

This blogger's email:
stevengerickson AT yahoo Dot Com


View My Stats