Friday, September 19, 2014
Giving the Scots their Due
what I find most interesting from last night was a certain episode in Glasgow. Ten instances of voter fraud were
discovered. Contrast the response
to what would (not) happen in the U. S.:
Police launched an
investigation after the city’s council alerted them to 10 suspected cases of
voters impersonating other people, allowing them to complete two ballot papers.
Under British law, voters are not required to present identification when they
take part in an election.
Stewart Hosie, SNP
Treasury spokesman at Westminster, said it was “very sad that people feel the
need to engage in any kind of impersonation”, adding: “I think that’s a daft
thing to do. The ballot papers have been identified, they will be taken away
and fingerprinted, the police will do their job and I’m sure whoever has done
it will be caught and sentenced….”
made no secret of my disdain for the Leftist politics of Scotland. But at least they actually oppose and vigorously
seek to punish election fraud.
contrast with the ruling political party in the U. S. is stark indeed.
Labels: Scotland, vote fraud
Thursday, September 18, 2014
More on the Hannah Overton Ruling
Yesterday morning, I greatly rejoiced in the overturning of Hannah Overton’s absurd
murder conviction. Now I’ve had
some time to digest it. With the
caveat that I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, I find the following
Colloff, who has done a praiseworthy job of following this story through the
years, posted a good summary of the case and of the ruling yesterday evening. If you are not familiar with this case,
I would definitely start there.
think the opinions themselves are also well worth reading. And they are neither long nor hard to
The lead opinion, to which the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed by a 7-2
margin, pointedly overturns the conviction on narrow grounds as conservative
appeals judges are wont to do.
Judge Lawrence Meyers writes that Overton’s Defense greatly erred in not
presenting Dr. Michael Moritz, an expert on salt poisoning and pica, to testify.
He contends this omission meets the tests of determining ineffective counsel,
and then in effect says that’s all we need to rule.
the conclusion is rather pointed in saying what is left unsaid:
Because we are granting
relief on Applicant’s first claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, there
is no need for us to address the second issue of whether the State failed to
disclose exculpatory evidence. We reverse Applicant’s conviction and remand her
case to the trial court for a new trial.
very interesting concurring opinion by three of the judges just as pointedly
says the unsaid. It in effect says
that the issue of ineffective counsel is enough to rule, but we are going to
talk about the prosecution anyway. In their own words:
The majority does not
address applicant’s Brady claims because it grants relief based on one of her
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. It is helpful, however, to place that
ineffective-assistance claim within the broader context of applicant’s claims
concerning the fundamental unfairness of her trial.
they are withering in critiquing the conduct of the prosecution in the Overton
trial, especially in withholding exculpatory (Brady) evidence from the Defense. They certainly do not hold much back on
the subject of lead prosecutor Sandra Eastwood:
At the habeas hearing, the
lead prosecutor conceded that, during this 2007 trial, she was an alcoholic who
was also taking prescription diet pills that affected her memory. She was later
fired by the District Attorney (who had been the second-chair prosecutor during
this trial) for unrelated ethical violations. During the habeas hearing, the
prosecutor repeated seventy-two times that she did not recall or did not know
the answers to questions concerning the investigation or trial of applicant.
She could not remember documents that she had written during the trial and did
not recognize her handwriting; she did not remember writing the e-mails that
came from her e-mail address, nor receiving other e-mails at that address; she
could not remember if she saw any vomit when she previewed the evidence with
one of applicant’s counsel before trial, and she did not remember asking the
police to have it tested.
prosecutor (later appointed as the District Attorney by the Governor) testified
that the lead prosecutor told her that “she would do anything it would take to
get an advantage over the Defense,” including sending a “spy” to applicant’s
church group to learn the defense strategy. The second-chair prosecutor
testified that the lead prosecutor was not ethical and was “not truthful.” She
said that the lead prosecutor told her that no vomit samples had been saved as
evidence. She said that she was “concerned with the fact that [the lead
prosecutor] was violating the Court’s orders.”
that’s for starters. Again, I am
not a lawyer. But I find it
remarkable the three appeals judges feel it right so to call out the
prosecution when that was not necessary to make the ruling in question. It is safe to say that they were
provoked by the egregious misconduct of the Nueces County D.A.’s office.
only that, the three question (page 2) the jury instructions issued by trial
judge Jose Longoria, although they do not mention him by name. Those instructions have also been an
issue through the years. They
certainly contributed to the over-the-top verdict of guilty of capital murder.
for the two judges who dissented, this is the last straw for me. If they are so blind as to think
Overton received a fair trial….
Given their short opinion, they hardly seem to care and hardly address
the issues raised by the majority.
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is elected. And I will never vote for Judges Keller
(aka Sharon Killer) and Keasler again.
I counsel all Texans to do likewise when the time comes.
ball is now in the court, if you will, of the current Nueces County District
Attorney, Mark Skurka. His options
range from trying Ms. Overton for capital murder again to dismissing all
charges against her.
Overton has already served seven years in prison for a crime she did not
commit. Even if she was criminally
negligent in the death of Andrew Burd – and that is a big “if” not at all
supported by the body of evidence – seven years is certainly more than enough
to serve for that.
Mark Skurka did not do the right thing when her conviction was appealed. He now has the opportunity to make some
amends. Mark Skurka should dismiss
all charges against Hannah Overton post
am among those who will be watching his conduct closely. Eight years of injustice from the
Nueces County D. A.’s office is enough.
Labels: Hannah Overton, prosecutorial misconduct, Texas
The Seriously Nasty Party is Winning Hearts and Minds… or not.
mentioned yesterday that the Scottish National Party has been a Seriously Nasty
Party in the run up to today’s Scottish independence referendum. Their lovely behavior continues.
not all SNP people are acting this way, obviously. But many are. And many feel their breath upon them. A poll has found that 46% of Unionist “No”
supporters have felt personally threatened by pro-independence “Yes” supporters.
The question is will their violence,
vandalism, and threats succeed in scaring “No” voters away or instead turn
people off to becoming an independent state with these thugs in charge.
contend it will be the latter. But
we will find out tonight, won’t we.
Labels: Leftists, Scotland, UK
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
BREAKING: Hannah Overton Murder Conviction OVERTURNED
may post more later, but I just got word that the murder conviction of Hannah
Overton has been overturned by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The court found for her claim of
Labels: Hannah Overton, prosecutorial misconduct
Why I Predict Scotland Will Vote “No” and Stay in the UK
took a while, but now even those on the West side of the pond are aware that
Scotland votes tomorrow on whether to leave the United Kingdom and become
independent. Polls are close with
some putting pro-independence “Yes” ahead and others putting Unionist “No” in
I am confident “No” will win for three reasons.
The Queen pulled off a brilliant exercise of understatement on Sunday. After church on Sunday, she walked over
to well-wishers and told a member of the public, “I hope everybody thinks very
carefully about the referendum this week.”
us Americans may say, “So what?”
But, although more assessable than American presidents, The Queen
usually just smiles and waves at the public. And she takes pains to remain non-political. So her expressing her hope to the
public is unusual, even though she did not explicitly back either side.
the same time, it is well known that The Queen wants the United Kingdom to stay
together. And she is beloved, even
in Scotland. So her statement is a
timely, winsome, and powerful reminder that she wants Scotland to stay.
the way, this illustrates one advantage of The Queen remaining above the fray
and non-political. When the time
comes that she feels she should make her wishes known, she can do so with great
impact, even with her usual reserve.
And I do think her statement is a significant reason Scotland will stay in
The Scottish National Party has more than its share of Leftist thugs, and they
act like it, prompting the label “The Seriously Nasty Party”. There have been stone-throwing,
vandalism, and threats of worse.
They even made it next to impossible for Labour leader Ed Miliband to
talk to people in an Edinburgh mall.
thugs will surely turn many voters off and give them concerns as to who would
be in charge if the SNP gets their way.
I also suspect some are afraid to answer polls honestly for fear of
reprisals. The “No” vote may be
stronger than polls indicate.
3. I expect the undecideds to break for
the Unionist “No” side. If someone
is still undecided, he is probably more likely to vote for the status quo
rather than the brave and highly questionable adventure of Scottish
for my wishes, I have said that I have mixed feelings. I am certainly praying for God’s mercy
on both England and Scotland. Both are going to need it whatever the outcome tomorrow.
Labels: Scotland, The Queen, UK
Monday, September 15, 2014
Dinesh D’Souza, Political Prisoner?
Under Obama, we are
getting more and more of the benefits of Leftist regimes. So why not political prisoners as well?
Dinesh D’Souza has been
convicted of violating federal campaign finance laws. He pleaded guilty in May and has accepted full responsibility
for his violation and that very publicly. If memory serves me right, he even did so in his latest
movie, America. And he is hardly a hardened criminal.
Yet the Feds want to put him in prison for 16 months anyway.
Now if you think that desire has nothing to do with his being compelling
opponent of Obama . . . well then, you probably think the IRS is non-partisan
and doesn’t target Obama’s opponents either. Hey, every Leftist regime needs its useful idiots.
Even if D’Souza does not
become a political prisoner, keep voting Democrat and political prisoners will
Labels: Dinesh D’Souza, Obama, political prisoners, prosecutorial misconduct, tyranny
Friday, September 12, 2014
I am not referring to Obama
delaying an announcement of amnesty until after the election (although I
certainly could). I am referring
to myself and to this post.
I am announcing . . . that I expect to make a big announcement soon, perhaps
Labels: life, this blog, writing