What's your opinion of the Duke lacrosse team scandal?

The 2006 Duke lacrosse team scandal demonstrates the hazard of our criminal justice system. Let's leave race out of the picture. No matter the outcome of the criminal trial, the lives of each young man and/or their parents will be forever shattered by the word of the alleged victim to accuse them of the infamous charge of rape.

Each Defendant is entitled to the same equality of treatment as the Plaintiff. The DA has granted the Plaintiff's Civil Rights to petition our government for a redress of grievances. Yet, the DA has deprived each Defendant's Civil Rights of due process to petition our government for a redress of grievances against the Plaintiff for filing a false complaint.

If the DA had followed due process to carryout our First Amendment, then each Defendant would have benefited from a fair and impartial legal process. Our First Amendment grants each civilian his or her Civil Right to petition our government for a redress of grievances by virtue of signing an affidavit of complaint to the DA.

Consider the parents of each of the 3 Defendants. How do you think they may feel that the Plaintiff has exercised her Civil Rights to petition our government for a redress of her grievances, yet their sons can't exercise their Civil Rights? Let me tell you if you don't already know. They feel betrayed by the DA and are miserable suffering the nightmare of a lifetime.

One day it may be your dear son or grandson standing trial. Do you wish for his Civil Rights to be deprived to petition our government for a redress of grievances, same as the Duke lacrosse team players?

Think about it and let me hear your opinion. It may save the career of three young men.

 

Under civil law it is the duty of the grand jury to view evidence to decide probable cause for an indictiment. The affidavit is the first piece of evidence that initiates due process. Each affiant signs his or her affidavit under the penalty of perjury. Civil law mandates that a Notary Public witness the signature of each affiant. Each signature serves as a signature bond (i.e. surety bond).

Criminal Court is bound by civil law to acknowlege each signature bond as legal tender to burden the cost of a criminal trial. If the judge or jury renders a final verdict that the affiant signed an affidavit to make a false complaint, then the Judge is bound to revoke the signature bond and charge the Court cost back to the affiant.

Prosecutory discretion is a concocted legal term. Any lawful American civilian (i.e. of legal age or sound mind etc.) owns the Civil Right to act as an affiant. As a civil servant, the DA doesn't own the legal power to intimidate (i.e. discriminate or oppress) any civilian from exercising his or her constitutional or Civil Rights.

Defendants, who respond to the complaints of the affiants, have been misconstrued by the Judiciary as personal property of the affiants and are ordered to pay bailment (i.e. bail bond or chattel bond) which is relegated for slavery.

Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857 had ruled that property can't bring suit in court (i.e. act as an affiant to petition the court for a redress of grievances). Irene Sandford Emerson could sue Dred Scott, but he couldn't sue her back.

The DA is handling the three young men from DuKe as if each were Dred Scott and treating the stripper Crystal Mangum as if she were Irene Emerson.

 

I presume that Crystal dosen't report the money she earned on her tax returns. She was acting both immorally and illegally. Plus, she initiated the actions that led to the immoral conduct of the young men. Sex is a temptation that victimizes many males, young or old, in our society. Boys are going to be boys. You should know that.

 

Whether or not the DNA matches, these three young men will be traumatized for the rest of their lives. The financial burden will devestate their parents.

The latter could have been averted had the DA followed due process to grant each young man to act as affiant against Crystal. She would have dropped her charges and the Court would have dismissed her case.

 

I am never ashamed to help save anyone. If you recall Jesus saved the wife from being stoned, who had committed adultry. He didn't argue whether she had sinned or not. Rather, he posed the issue of who was worthy to judge her.

You point your finger at the boys for their sin. What about yours?