I don't believe that if you are a Defendant that the "State" has the right to make the Trial Non Public 03 02 2020
I believe that the secrecy completely violates your rights to a fair trial.
For when their is secrecy the truth is already being hidden isn't it!
In other words if they find you guilty in such a private trial that was held in secret; the truth was already being hidden; so how can they find you guilty?
Get it? Perhaps I articulated it a little rickety but I believe that it is Consistent with the intent and purpose of the United States Constitution.
Copyright 2020 Thomas Murphy
On the flipside. What about a Senate hearing where they do not want you to know what is going on? Such as the Kennedy Assassination? Somehow the inverse of the above applies? Because it is being held in secret means that the truth is being hidden; because the truth is being hidden it means that some group was found to be guilty in the matter?
And there are other Constitutional provisions that could be applied but I don't have time right now.
*****'
What about Stop and Frisk committed by Mike Bloomberg? To me that is a clear and blatant violation of your right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure. I really don't believe in machiavellian defense, that the ends justifies the means. I have been subjected to enough Corporate mumbo jumbo in my life to be able to speak up and say, If you can't govern within the framework of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land which all other laws created are required to be consistent with; then you should not be able to be voted into office. In other words you have to solve the United States problems by applying the Constitution. "Oh what a headache! You make the job impossible!" And that is just it. If that is what you believe it means you don't belong in that job!
I live in Milwaukee whereperverted Police Officers were stopping women on the street and having them take their clothes off? Where they influenced by Bloomberg?
Not the way it works today but it is the way it should work. And here is the kicker. Someone that would want to discredit this. Do you know what they would say about the Constitution? The same thing that they say about everything else that they can't comprehend the meaning of; "That is an idealism." I find that sickening!
And let's see how I can say this. I would like to know the Demographic of those women who claim that Bloomberg said inappropriate things to them.
*****'
Back to the main article. What would the Founding Fathers say if they heard this? => "It was a matter of national security that we committed a blatant crime against a United States Citizen."
"We had to commit a crime because it was a matter of national security." Isn't that completely pathetic! Ask yourself what the mental age of someone who would say that would be?
I believe that the secrecy completely violates your rights to a fair trial.
For when their is secrecy the truth is already being hidden isn't it!
In other words if they find you guilty in such a private trial that was held in secret; the truth was already being hidden; so how can they find you guilty?
Get it? Perhaps I articulated it a little rickety but I believe that it is Consistent with the intent and purpose of the United States Constitution.
Copyright 2020 Thomas Murphy
On the flipside. What about a Senate hearing where they do not want you to know what is going on? Such as the Kennedy Assassination? Somehow the inverse of the above applies? Because it is being held in secret means that the truth is being hidden; because the truth is being hidden it means that some group was found to be guilty in the matter?
And there are other Constitutional provisions that could be applied but I don't have time right now.
*****'
What about Stop and Frisk committed by Mike Bloomberg? To me that is a clear and blatant violation of your right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure. I really don't believe in machiavellian defense, that the ends justifies the means. I have been subjected to enough Corporate mumbo jumbo in my life to be able to speak up and say, If you can't govern within the framework of the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land which all other laws created are required to be consistent with; then you should not be able to be voted into office. In other words you have to solve the United States problems by applying the Constitution. "Oh what a headache! You make the job impossible!" And that is just it. If that is what you believe it means you don't belong in that job!
I live in Milwaukee where
Not the way it works today but it is the way it should work. And here is the kicker. Someone that would want to discredit this. Do you know what they would say about the Constitution? The same thing that they say about everything else that they can't comprehend the meaning of; "That is an idealism." I find that sickening!
And let's see how I can say this. I would like to know the Demographic of those women who claim that Bloomberg said inappropriate things to them.
*****'
Back to the main article. What would the Founding Fathers say if they heard this? => "It was a matter of national security that we committed a blatant crime against a United States Citizen."
"We had to commit a crime because it was a matter of national security." Isn't that completely pathetic! Ask yourself what the mental age of someone who would say that would be?
No comments:
Post a Comment