Goofy 9th Circuit finds new reason to reverse convictions

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 28 May 2001 10:03:02 GMT

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED SEPT. 15, 2000
THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz
Goofy 9th Circuit finds new reason to reverse convictions

The protections against improper behavior by police or prosecutors which are enshrined in our Bill of Rights once kept this nation free.

How well have our courts done in defending these guarantees, lately?

Miserably. So long as authorities insist that only vast "leeway" will enable them to meet their "compelling obligation" to catch drug dealers, money launderers, and the like, the courts have allowed one safeguard after another to be watered down or stripped away. Our own bankers are now required to turn us in for "suspicious" transactions; the FBI is developing computer systems to scan our e-mail; we can no longer even take a new job without having our names "run" by federal agents supposedly searching for "illegals" and "deadbeat dads."

The courts now find it "reasonable" for police to stop and search virtually any car they wish, any bus or airline passenger. Homes are searched based on the tips of supposed "confidential informants" -- they might as well allow police to claim "The pixies told us" -- and no one was ever indicted for swearing under oath they thought David Koresh and the Branch Davidians had a methamphetamine lab in their church.

If the courts went back to rigorously enforcing the real Bill of Rights -- according to the federal agents' own arguments -- the War on Drugs would quickly collapse of its own weight. For that matter, Article I Section 8 -- which lists all the powers delegated to Congress -- says not a word about delegating any power to regulate drugs or medical or pharmaceutical practice. Therefore, under the Ninth and 10th amendments, the courts could and should have thrown out that entire section of the federal statutes which deals with drug trafficking ... long ago.

Instead, the courts -- most specifically the wacky Ninth Circuit court of appeals, which oversees the nine western states -- prefer to turn the justice system into a bizarre and unpredictable new form of lottery, making up bogus new rights as they go along.

In an opinion filed Aug. 24, the 9th Circuit reversed the cocaine trafficking convictions of Las Vegans Carlos Cabrera and Iran Mulgado, on the grounds that the government's lead witness, North Las Vegas police Detective William Brooks, repeatedly referred to the men in his testimony as "Cubans," going so far as to testify "At this time period, we were working a lot of Cubans in the area."

A three-judge panel found for defense attorney Gregory Denue, who appealed based on the fact that this statement indicated "Cubans were the pre-ordained racial class that was the subject of the police task force."

Well, thank goodness the defendants were too smart to let a few Canadians into their gang!

Mind you, the court did not find Cabrera and Mulgado were arrested merely because they were Cubans, whereupon evidence of drug trafficking was found only subsequent to those arrests on improper grounds -- which would indeed be a Fourth amendment violation worthy of attention. Nor did they throw out the convictions (as well they should) based on the obvious fact that Congress has no delegated power to restrict drug trafficking at all.

No, the court has ordered new trials for the men -- now being held in federal prison in Florida -- simply because the detective referred to them as Cubans, within the hearing of the jury.

Well, aren't they Cubans? The court found presiding U.S. District Court Judge Johnnie Rawlinson -- since elevated, ironically enough, to serve on the appeals court -- erred by allowing this testimony. What should Judge Rawlinson have done -- lied to the jury and told them the defendants are actually Portuguese?

Even the opinion of the Ninth Circuit panel notes that "The evidence was sufficient to convict Cabrera and Mulgado."

This is downright goofy. Does the court really believe an honest citizen jury would convict these men merely because they learned they were Cuban? Does the court believe the jury couldn't have figured out the men were Cuban, all by themselves?

If so -- given that historical prejudice against our black citizens has been very real and far more extensive than any known prejudice against Cubans (I don't remember any lynching threats when Lucille Ball married Desi Arnaz) -- must all black defendants now be set free based on the presumption they can't get a fair trial? Or only those who police officers actually refer to as "black" during their testimony -- on the assumption jurors otherwise might not have noticed?

Must all ethnic defendants now be given made-up Anglo pseudonyms and put on trial with brown paper bags over their heads?

Prosecutors say they may ask for an 11-judge panel to review Judge Nelson's ruling. Good. If there were clear evidence that police singled out these men for prosecution -- while letting equally suspicious Anglos go with a wink and a nod, for instance -- then of course such disparate treatment based on race would be appalling, and should be renounced and reversed.

Instead, what we seem to have here are three black-robed liberals, again ignoring a broad opportunity to restore our Constitution of limited government, instead searching under the cabbage leaves for something new and different to feel guilty about.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and editor of Financial Privacy Report (subscribe by calling Neville at 612-895-8757.) His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available by dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.

Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com

"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken

Add comment Edit post Add post

Previous Posts:
What Bill of Rights?
Of abstinence and the Roman Catholic church
'Resolved from each and every legal consideration'
Pharmaceutical blackmail
Sanctifying the expansion of federal power
Is USDA an 'out-of-control muenster'?
Nevadans may get to vote on state income tax
Voters fail to fall for vindictive union campaign
Were the founders a pack of thieves?
Has your bookshelf been approved by the BATF?

Navigation

History

Quotes

Government doesn't work. Never did. Never will. Can't. But there are lots of good people. Love them.

-- Bill St. Clair

The Atlanta Declaration

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

-- L. Neil Smith

Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings.

-- L. Neil Smith

A Penalty Clause for the Bill of Rights

Any official, appointed or elected, at any level of government, who attempts, through legislative act or other means, to nullify, evade, or avoid the provisions of the first ten amendments to this Constitution, or of the Thirteenth Amendment, shall be summarily removed from office, and, upon conviction, deprived of all pay and benefits including pension, and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

-- L. Neil Smith

Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.

-- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on gun control laws.

Who is a libertarian?

Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

-- L. Neil Smith

(Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP")

Why Did It Have to be... Guns?

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

-- L. Neil Smith

Concise

"Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you."

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Also from The Atlanta Declaration:

... like going to the bathroom, breathing, eating, sleeping, or making love, it turns out that self-defense is a bodily function one cannot safely or effectively delegate to a second party.

-- L. Neil Smith

This does not mean that "Marijuana should be available by prescription." It means that morphine sulfate should be available in five pound bags at the supermarket for a couple of bucks, like sugar... but probably in a different aisle, to avoid confusion.

-- Vin Suprynowicz

If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law.

-- Edward Abbey

The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war.

-- Bill St. Clair

End the War on Freedom

Goofy 9th Circuit finds new reason to reverse convictions