Guilt and Liability Are What The Court Believes Instead Of What Is Proven-By Harsha Sankar
Dear Citizen, February 2005
In the Michael Jackson molestation case, there is no hard physical evidence or reliable eyewitness testimony which proves he inflicted certain injuries to the alleged victims.
In the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1991, the notorious boxer was convicted on solely his
reputation and past actions. The supposed victim did not suffer any noticeable injury.
In the Martha Stewart matter, there was nothing in writing nor anything recorded which proved she was lying. She is now imprisoned based on one individual’s testimony.
In the Michael Skakel trial in 2002, he was convicted for a 1975 murder on just statements and absolutely no forensic evidence.
In the Laci Peterson murder, her husband Scott was found guilty on circumstantial evidence only. The jurors themselves admitted this.There were no eyewitnesses, no murder weapon, and not even a cause of death.
In the O.J. Simpson homicide trial a decade ago, the former football star was acquitted despite accurate DNA tests of blood, taken at the crime scene, matching his. No amount of contamination can alter DNA tests to match another individual’s DNA. Simpson had also apparently sustained a significant and fresh laceration on his hand, strongly indicating that his blood had been spilled due to strenuous activity.
The first common denominator is there are no standards and consistency.Hand-picked jurors are told by bar association members to decide the issue of guilt or liability based on what they personally believe instead of what is proven to them, based exclusively on the specific and tangible facts surrounding the controversial actions. In regards to Scott Peterson, one's sixth sense and gut instinct suggests he was involved in his wife’s and an unborn child’s death. However, according to the rules of the common law, those sentiments alone should not be sufficient to convict anyone of anything.
The second common denominator is too many cases tried in this era are marked by personal attacks, smear campaigns, prejudicial statements, and irrelevant conjecture. These tactics are only designed to label and brand.
The third common denominator is in the previously mentioned cases, attorneys have “made off like bandits”. They have seized tens of millions for themselves, which is far in excess of honest work and focused time for honest pay ($70.00 to $200.00 per hour).
The law is too important to be forsaken and ceded to a sociopathic elite. Precious democratic liberties are forsaken in the process. The sheer corruption and oppression of the iron triangle of lawyers, bureaucrats,and politicians can only be limited if the significant minority are not allowed to widely accept this. Individual rights are preserved only when individuals seek to protect the rights of their competitors, their opponents, and their enemies.
Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia
In the Michael Jackson molestation case, there is no hard physical evidence or reliable eyewitness testimony which proves he inflicted certain injuries to the alleged victims.
In the Mike Tyson rape trial in 1991, the notorious boxer was convicted on solely his
reputation and past actions. The supposed victim did not suffer any noticeable injury.
In the Martha Stewart matter, there was nothing in writing nor anything recorded which proved she was lying. She is now imprisoned based on one individual’s testimony.
In the Michael Skakel trial in 2002, he was convicted for a 1975 murder on just statements and absolutely no forensic evidence.
In the Laci Peterson murder, her husband Scott was found guilty on circumstantial evidence only. The jurors themselves admitted this.There were no eyewitnesses, no murder weapon, and not even a cause of death.
In the O.J. Simpson homicide trial a decade ago, the former football star was acquitted despite accurate DNA tests of blood, taken at the crime scene, matching his. No amount of contamination can alter DNA tests to match another individual’s DNA. Simpson had also apparently sustained a significant and fresh laceration on his hand, strongly indicating that his blood had been spilled due to strenuous activity.
The first common denominator is there are no standards and consistency.Hand-picked jurors are told by bar association members to decide the issue of guilt or liability based on what they personally believe instead of what is proven to them, based exclusively on the specific and tangible facts surrounding the controversial actions. In regards to Scott Peterson, one's sixth sense and gut instinct suggests he was involved in his wife’s and an unborn child’s death. However, according to the rules of the common law, those sentiments alone should not be sufficient to convict anyone of anything.
The second common denominator is too many cases tried in this era are marked by personal attacks, smear campaigns, prejudicial statements, and irrelevant conjecture. These tactics are only designed to label and brand.
The third common denominator is in the previously mentioned cases, attorneys have “made off like bandits”. They have seized tens of millions for themselves, which is far in excess of honest work and focused time for honest pay ($70.00 to $200.00 per hour).
The law is too important to be forsaken and ceded to a sociopathic elite. Precious democratic liberties are forsaken in the process. The sheer corruption and oppression of the iron triangle of lawyers, bureaucrats,and politicians can only be limited if the significant minority are not allowed to widely accept this. Individual rights are preserved only when individuals seek to protect the rights of their competitors, their opponents, and their enemies.
Very Truly Yours,
Harsha Sankar
908 Valley Ridge Road
Covington, Virginia
posted by Harsha Sankar at 7:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home