Sunday, May 20, 2012

John Edwards Trial: Kangaroo Court Seeks To Direct Jury Conviction

John Edwards on the TV show '.
John Edwards on the TV show '. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Denny:  Here's just a small snippet of how this Kangaroo Court breaks it down to cover their asses, both the judge's and the jury's should they enjoy convicting this man.

The judge is first baffling the jury with so much contradictory bullshit as to confuse and frustrate them into finding Edwards guilty out of sheer exasperation.  Judge Catherine Eagles basically informs the jury to find a way to hang Edwards and the court will give them cover.

Oh, and did I mention that the government never did specify where said crimes were committed and was not even sure when it was supposed to have happened?  How can you bring a case when you can't even nail down the specifics?  You want to send a man to jail for 30 years without any direct proof of said conspiracy?

What's interesting is just how convoluted is this so-called sham of a 45-page "jury instruction" clearly meant to direct the jury to a guilty verdict:

"...In order to prove a conspiracy, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the following three elements:

First, that two or more people entered into an agreement to violate one or both of these federal laws;

Second, that Mr. Edwards knew about the conspiracy and that he deliberately, knowingly, willfully and voluntarily joined the conspiracy; and,

Third, that during the course of the conspiracy, one of the members knowingly performed an overt act in order to further or advance the common purpose of the conspiracy, and that one overt act was undertaken in the Middle District.

So, as to this first element, that there be an agreement, the government does not have to prove there was a formal meeting or formal agreement or indeed the agreement took any particular form.  Similarly, you do not have to find that the alleged conspirators stated in words or writing what the scheme was, its object or purpose, or every detail of the scheme or the means by which its object or purpose was to be accomplished.  

The government does not have to prove that there was a mutual understanding, either spoken or unspoken, explicit or tacit, between two or more people to cooperate with each other to accomplish an unlawful act, either accepting or receiving excessive contributions from Mr. Baron, or concealing a material fact from the FEC.

On occasion, there will be direct evidence of the existence of a conspiracy, where the people involved explicitly say to each other:  Let's commit this crime.  That may exist, but it is not required.  By its nature, a conspiracy to commit a crime can be secret and covert, so there is not always a lot of direct evidence of the agreement.

Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient, if you find it persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt.  In this regard, you may consider the actions and statements of all those you find to be participants in the conspiracy as proof that a common plan existed on the part of Mr. Edwards and the other conspirators.

As to the second element, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Edwards knowingly, willfully, and voluntarily became a member of the conspiracy.  Once that it has been show that a conspiracy exists, the evidence need only establish a slight connection between Mr. Edwards and the conspiracy to support conviction.

For example, a defendant need not have knowledge of all of his co-conspirators, or of the details of the conspiracy, and may be convicted despite having taken only minor actions himself in the overall conspiracy.  Mere presence at the scene of the crime is not enough to make him a member of the conspiracy, and mere association with other members of the conspiracy is not enough, nor is it mere knowledge of an unlawful plan.

Finally, it is not enough if actions by Mr. Edwards merely happen to further the conspiracy, without his knowledge or intent.  It is necessary for the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Edwards participated with knowledge of at least some of the illegal purposes or objects of the conspiracy, and with the intent of aiding in the accomplishment of those unlawful ends.

The third element which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that least one overt act was knowingly committed by least one of the conspirators, or at about the time and place alleged in the Middle District.  An overt act is an affirmative step taken in order to advance the goals of the conspiracy.

The government only has to prove one overt act by one of the conspirators.  It does not have to prove that Mr. Edwards himself committed an overt act in the Middle District or indeed anywhere.  Nor does the government have to prove that the overt act was itself illegal.  Any act in the furtherance of the conspiracy is sufficient.  The government does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the conspirators performed at least one overt act in the furtherance of the conspiracy in the Middle District.

The Indictment alleges that the conspiracy occurred from in or about 2007 until in or about 2009.  While it is not necessary for the government to prove the exact dates, the government does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy began within or reasonably within the time period alleged in the Indictment...."

In fact, the way the judge tells it, Edwards does not have to be a member of the conspiracy to be a member of the conspiracy.  What kind of double talk is that?  You expect a jury to follow such idiot instructions meant to confuse the jury when their hands are tied so they cannot follow the instructions?

Where are the legal scholars in this nation willing to stand up and call this Kangaroo Court for what it is?  This is a political vendetta of the worst proportions.  Quite being such a pack of cowards.  John Edwards stood up against the Republican Jesse Helms' racist political machine and won his seat for the Senate.  The Republicans have never forgiven him for taking away the Senate seat and vowed revenge.

This Republican judge should have recused herself at the very beginning as her husband worked with the current government prosecutors in the same office.  She refused as she wanted to make a name for herself.  Was there collusion conspiracy between and among this judge, her husband and his friends, the government prosecutors?  Why is no one investigating the obvious?

Speaking of jerks, George Holding, the Republican now running for the Senate in North Carolina who also specialized in prosecuting high profile Democrats, was the same guy who pushed and pushed to bring this case against Edwards when he was a prosecutor at the Department of Justice until just recently.  He finally got the ball rolling on this case and then stepped down to run for the Senate seat of North Carolina.  He wanted to make a name for himself in the Republican party that he was the one "who got John Edwards" in the hopes it would get him elected.  Can there be more agendas as the proverbial football "back field in motion" going on here?

So, let me sum it up for you:  If anyone has committed a crime anywhere in North America, and is guilty of breathing the same air as John Edwards, then it's really John Edwards who is to be found guilty for the other guy's crimes.  While we are at it, let's throw in these six counts that Edwards never was found to have participated in, but hey, we want someone to hang for it, we want blood, and John Edwards is now our national whipping boy.

By the judge's definition of a conspiracy, she, the prosecutors and Edwards all conspired to commit this crime in the Middle District.  So, they should all share the same jail cell.  Everyone in North America, especially in the Middle District, is directly or indirectly guilty of being part of this conspiracy to commit this crime.  Remember, it can be known or unknown to be a member of this government contrived conspiracy.  You don't have to know a conspiracy exists to join the party.

Yeah, I'm good; how about you?

Related Articles

John Edwards Mock Trial  (

John Edwards Trial: Smart Brave Move Today by Defense

John Edwards Trial: Prosecution Fail, Dirty Judge, Truth Denied

Obamas Whitewater: Political Vendetta, Persecuting John Edwards 

Obama, Team Obama Unfairly Piling On: Prosecutes Populist John Edwards

Prosecutorial Misconduct Against Senator Edwards? His Funny Mugshots

Time To Fire Atty Gen. Eric Holder: Outrageous Changing The Law to Prosecute Edwards

 Subscribe in a reader to A Truth Journal

* Check out Dennys News Politics Comedy Science Arts & Food - a place where all my other 20 blogs link so you can choose from among the latest posts all in one place. A free to read online newspaper from independent journalist blogger Denny Lyon. * 

*** THANKS for visiting, feel welcome to drop a comment or opinion, enjoy bookmarking this post on your favorite social site, a big shout out to awesome current subscribers – and if you are new to this blog, please subscribe in a reader or by email updates!

Enhanced by Zemanta