Monday, May 14, 2012


A while back I Posted on an initiative (now implemented) to have all sexual-assaults redefined as ‘rape’ for reporting purposes in the FBI crime statistics. Slyly, this would not (at least in civilian law; the military justice system if becoming far more thoroughly deranged) affect the actual elements of the crime for the purposes of trial-process and Charges, but it would – I said – serve the purpose of ‘keeping the numbers up’ and ‘keeping the ball rolling’ for the assorted sex-offense advocacies that now constitute a ‘base’ for both ‘liberal’ liberationist and ‘conservative’ law-and-order politicians, especially now that it appears that genuine ‘rapes’ are declining (of course, one can always claim the ever-invisible ‘unreported rapes’ are 10 or 100 or 1000 times the number of actual reported rapes).

Just recently the Washington Post reported that the feds are now going after the Missoula, Montana police department, the local prosecutors, and the local University officials for apparent or alleged or possible improprieties in how those authorities handled complaints of “sexual assault and harassment”.

Having perhaps learned a thing or two from the hard-won example of Soviet ‘readers’ of their available media back in the day, the SO community might quickly note that there is no actual mention of ‘rape’, but rather the two hugely elastic terms “sexual assault” and (sexual) “harassment”.

It’s hard to imagine that in the Year of Grace Two Thousand and Twelve – after at least two decades of the full-court press in the service of sex-offense legislation, jurisprudence, and law enforcement praxis – there are still officials holding police, prosecution, or university authority who haven’t swung into the Correct line.

But it is, after all, an election year and from the looks of it the pols are going to need every bit of oomph they can entice out of their bases.

The DOJ’s civil-rights division is going to be handling the “probe”. Apparently, despite all the handy vagueness and overbroad definitions now erected into SO Mania laws and jurisprudence, whatever has allegedly been going on in Missoula is actually going to be further subjected to the even more elastic requirements of the even more elastic ‘civil rights’ approach.

But it does sort of give the hasty and unreflective reader a sense that the great Civil Rights Movement of Dr. King is alive and well and now operating in the SO arena. You wouldn’t want to vote against Martin Luther King, would you?

The conceptual hook is that perhaps the Missoula authorities engaged in "gender discrimination" by not doing whatever it was they were desired to do in their investigations. That might include giving up too easily simply because there wasn’t enough evidence to bring a formal Charge – as if evidence should be allowed to stand in the way. Nowadays you are supposed to focus on 'the story', not the evidence. Such progress.

Clearly, if there were enough credible evidence and the authorities willfully engaged in collective non-feasance by refusing to enforce the law, then you have grounds for a criminal prosecution of the non-feasant authorities. But for some reason – one can only wonder – the whole matter is not being taken down the criminal-Charge route, but rather down the civil-rights route.

Apparently, the DOJ suspects that the Missoula authorities “don’t have a system in place” to handle rape charges and such. Does that mean they have no law enforcement, no criminal legal system, and no judicial authority in Missoula or in that great State? Or does it imply perhaps that the hardy Montana authorities refuse to be stampeded into spending what resources they still have on the Correct (but so very iffy) panoply of SO Mania process?

This will not be a “pleasant experience, but it will be a necessary experience” said the DOJ honcho at the inevitable press-conference. He didn’t say necessary for whom – and thereby, I bet, hangs a tale. I suspect that in the absence of a sufficient number of Correct show-trials, the government will now conduct a ‘show-probe’ to demonstrate to every police official, prosecutor, and university administrator in the viewing audience that they’d better not let still-kicking but oh-so- obstructionist concerns for genuine legal investigation and first principles get in the way of keeping the ball rolling and the numbers up.

The allegedly guilty public officials – all dragooned into standing behind the DOJ honcho (no doubt there was a flag or two in the background for the desired wallpaper effect) – all pledged their undying support. Viewers of a certain age will recall local officialdom dragooned in front of the official cameras during Mao’s Cultural Revolution, that (alas) unhappy world-class historical experiment that – who knew? – wound up going so very badly wrong.

Is it because Montana is somehow a vital state politically?* Or because it is somehow a marginal place that the feds can afford to use as a chewtoy? Or is it because Montana is one of those places where officials who have sworn an oath to the Constitution still seem to think that the first principles underlying that sore-bethump’t document deserve their loyalty and unflagging exertions?

Perhaps the latter. The County Attorney – one Fred Van Valkenburg – refused to wear the Maoist dunce-hat (remember those?) and candidly said that he didn’t know and hasn’t been told just what it was that his Office was supposed to have been doing wrongly, and that he considered the whole thing an “overreach of the federal government”. The man is setting himself up for trip to a re-education camp (although perhaps the SO Maniacs haven’t actually gotten around to getting a couple-three dozen of those set up yet).  Or possibly Homeland Security has something set up for ‘terrorists’ that might fit the bill: I know I’ve seen this and that advocate and cutting-edge thinker claim that patriarchy and sexual-assault (broadly defined) is a species of terrorism and – neatly – such monstrous types of perps don’t deserve any rights at all, civil or constitutional or whaevvvvverrrrrrrr.

Apparently, the County Attorney has had the temerity to opine that if there is insufficient evidence then he can’t very well proceed to prosecution. This is grossly not-Correct in SO Mania Regime theology and the man is clearly a heretic, and perhaps a patriarchal jihadist heretic to boot, slyly hiding behind the Constitution (which, as Catharine MacKinnon – herself a law professor and radical feminist thinker – insists is nothing more than a ‘pact with patriarchy’ anyway).

In what is perhaps the most revealing evidence of the type of dynamics that drive these types of things, the accused officials can’t figure out what they’ve done wrong (and they do have more than a nodding acquaintance with applicable law and praxis). But then, as the DOJ honcho agrees, he doesn’t really know either. You can’t make this stuff up. But it all does bring you into that Looking-Glass world so eerily reminiscent of Marxism (whence – through radical feminism – so much of today’s American stance to law and Constitution derives): Preservation is Destruction, Destruction is Creative.
But there is some question of at least a few sexual assaults (however defined) not having been properly investigated – whatever that might be code for – or having been “improperly reported” (and whatever that may mean and by whom: did the allegant not report it properly or did the police not file it in their database as a ‘rape’ according to the new (and possibly voluntary) guidelines?).

As always in matter SO-Maniacal, you are confronted by more questions than answers.

Apparently one Saudi Arabian student had been notified by police that he was under investigation (although not Charged) and he left the country (as Saudi Arabians have a tendency to do: one thinks of that oh-so-speshull airline flight out of the US the day after 9/11, and one imagines that the gentleman figured that American ‘justice’ in these matters was pretty much akin to the type of ‘justice’ established in non-Constitutionally shaped legal systems prevalent in his original part of the world).

But what then were the Montana authorities supposed to do? Send a secret Montana state sex-offense hit squad to get him back like the Israelis did when they spirited Eichmann out of South America?

A couple of matters involved football players (but no coaches): one was allowed to continue playing football after court-process issued an Order, and the other was allowed to continue playing after pleading Not Guilty and is now awaiting a September trial date. This somehow is indicative of either gender-discrimination or a civil-rights violation – go figure.

Behind all of this, I bet, lies the infamous ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter sent a year or so ago by a bureaucrat in the Department of Education to all college administrative heads, in which she asks them to voluntarily embrace a lower thresh-hold of evidence in collegiate sex-offense cases (despite the fact that the accused might, through the college-run ‘trial process’, be expelled and – one never knows – considered ‘guilty’ enough to be put on a Registry.

But such legal ‘technicalities’ are merely the dodges used by patriarchal officials to hide from the righteous sword of the SO Mania Regime. (As is, of course, the aforementioned and utterly tainted Constitution).

Can anybody really be surprised at how thoroughly the Constitutional foundational first principles are becoming so ruinously debased in this country nowadays?


*A day after putting up this Post I can report that Montana is indeed the scene of a hotly contested US Senate race and that since the State is so sparsely populated (comparatively speaking) any money or resources expended there to woo voters will be tremendously well spent. So you can see how the SO Mania can be useful for political strategy, even if there really isn’t anything substantial to justify its use.

In the matter of the Philadelphia clerical abuse trial, matters have moved into live testimony and cross-examination (after almost two months of trial) and – as one might have expected – there is now a great deal of complication in light of evidence given as to whether the defendants are guilty of the Charges brought against them.

You can follow the trial at the link immediately above, but I will publish here the text of the Comment I put up summarizing my thoughts on the week’s process:

“I have been reading along for the past week as the live testimony proceeds.

First, I want to congratulate Mr. Cipriano for his reporting and I like his vivid imagery, which yet doesn’t become disconnected from the flow of actual events unfolding in the courtroom.

Several points strike me.

From the technical point of view, it is not clear from the report of the trial session (and this perhaps reflects accurately the situation as it unfolded under the aegis of the prosecutors and defense counsel) how the evidentiary-grade factuality of the nun-witness’s rape was established.  

This point may seem irrelevant or worse to those used to dealing with the therapeutic forum, but it remains a vitally necessary point that has to be covered, a ‘base’ that has to be covered – if you wish – in  the juridical or jurisprudential forum.

That being said, it certainly seems that this Cudemo was grossly unsuited for priesthood and if even one of the allegations against him is factual then he committed criminal acts and his conduct was reprehensible from any point of view.

I would add also however, that in light of some of the commentary some incarcerated prisoners – through the curious but very lethally real workings of ‘prison psychology’ – certainly do consider themselves ‘justified’ in taking lethal – and in at least one case that is publicly known  – fatally direct action against inmates bearing a child-sex-offense conviction. Which is precisely one of the reasons why I am very very concerned that convictions in cases such as these be sound: a death sentence, however informally it may be carried out, is indeed hovering over all such cases.

And while I am becoming increasingly accustomed to the reality that some folks comment out of their heart, rather than their head (if I may put it that way and respectfully so), yet the literally death-dealing possibilities that can be set in train by the outcome of this type of trial must never be lost sight of, especially from a professional legal point of view. But also from the point of view of any Citizen concerned for the integrity of the justicial process.

It is rather easy to slide into the more limbic processing of support-group or advocacy-group discussion, but neither attorneys (defense and prosecution) nor Citizens can lose sight of the fact that in every trial – and especially criminal trials – we approach the cage of Leviathan (as indeed, given the crooked timber of humanity, we sometimes must).  

This is first semester of Law 101 stuff, but it remains a vital reality. As I have mentioned in prior comments on this site, the tendency in American jurisprudence (and its shaping legislation) in the past few decades has been to envision the Sovereign authority (and its potential toward behaving as Leviathan) as a more ‘friendly’ and ‘efficient’ bringer of closure and satisfaction, dispensing along the way with the vital protections the Framers very wisely put into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But the tiger, once loosed from its cage, will be no respecter of persons or facts, and it can turn on anybody once it has been released to run (and hunt) freely.   

In that regard, and in light of the Nuremberg references that have surfaced in some commentary, I would submit that the most relevant lesson to be drawn from those trials is that the entire Nazi regime established itself precisely by undermining the vital foundational concepts and first principles of Western law that had been in place in both the Wilhelmine and Weimar governments’ legal systems. It was precisely by making the anti-legal legal that the Nazi regime smoothed its path toward the monstrous history that it then ‘legally’ created.

I would also point out that from the point of view of legal positivism – very much in vogue now in this country – there would be no substantive way of objecting to that development: the regime was properly brought into power (Hitler was formally invited to be Chancellor and duly appointed by the elected President, Hindenburg) and hence – from the positivist perspective – its legislation was inarguably the law of the land. From the positivist perspective there is no Higher Law to judge what that government enacted.

I also note that in the Nuremberg trials the monstrous doings of various honchos of the Third Reich were inarguably demonstrated simply from the history of the prior decade or more, including what was discovered upon the liberation of the camps in 1945. But as even this trial in Philadelphia indicates, such easily-established inarguable demonstration of sustained and premeditated monstrousness rising to a justification of the Charges brought by the prosecution is not so easily available; hence the need for careful and full examination of all evidence relevant to the Charges brought.

Such complications may seem merely obstructionist outside the legal and jurisprudential forum, but I would remind one and all that these ‘complications’ are vital and very real.

For those same reasons, both Nuremberg and Stalin’s trials of the mid-late 1930s were ‘show trials’, although in the former there was more than a sufficiency of relevant and credible evidence, whereas in the latter ‘evidence’ was not even considered a necessary formality.  To the extent that the case at bar is a ‘show trial’ – meaning that it is intended to ‘send a message’ to those who see it or hear about it – it remains to be seen whether the case at bar resembles more the former or the latter type of show-trial.

The criminal justice system or even the civil legal system is not easily or harmlessly envisioned as merely the administrative agent for ‘striking’ (to use Dzherzinsky’s brutally vivid image) those persons who are accused and charged by the Sovereign authority. That is the difference between ‘revolutionary’ law and Western, constitutional law – nor are these two legal universes and systems easily blended.”   

No comments:

Post a Comment