Reply #143: I think some comments here are naive on the political and grass roots...

[Peace Patriot]

...aspects of this case. I have experience as a paralegal in public interest litigation on forestry issues, protection of public trust recources, and the public's right to participate in decisions regarding the use of resources. When the fix is in, the fix is in. There is nothing you can do but proceed with litigation for its educational value (informing the public), and for making the point, however Quixotic it may be, that the law should followed and the public's rights asserted.

I have been involved in cases that were so obviously fixed it was laughable. The corporate forest destroyers' security guards in the courtroom corridor to intimidate litigants. The judge winking and sharing 'ol boy jokes with the corporate attorney. Being unable to find a judge who had not worked for the corporate forest destroyers before they were appointed.

It sure looks to me like this is the kind of atmosphere that Arnebeck is having to litigate in--only probably far worse.

Law firms rarely take up cases like this. It's generally sole practitioners--with no staff, little or no money, few resources, up against virtually unlimited money and resources (there is nothing a corporate forest destroyer won't do, legal-wise, to kill off the public's right to partipate in resource decisions). And almost always with hostile judges.

It's okay by me if a grass roots, sole practitioner attorney understands that the main value of what he is doing may be informing the public. That's often half or more of the battle on public interest issues. So Arnebeck being "out for publicity" just doesn't wash with me, as some kind of charge against him. Publicity is vital in public interest litigation!

So here you have an attorney working under hardship conditions, going after the bad guys--in this case, REALLY bad guys--on a matter of overwhelming importance to Americans, and of worldwide significance, and you're worried that he might want to write a book about it and make some money? Or that contributions from the public might help keep him going?

And you are accusing him of these motives (as if they were necessarily bad) because he has lost a couple of motions in a ridiculously prejudicial situation?

I've seen utterly absurd rulings on things like this--evidence issues and procedures. Totally prejudicial. The judge obviously looking for ANY excuse to rule in favor of the rich and powerful.

The basic Catch 22 they're putting Arnebeck into is that they've denied his motions for protection of evidence and expedited discovery, etc.--the means of building a case--and now are dumping on him for his evidence not being in order. These are highly discretionary calls, and--just like all voting machines default to Bush--all discretionary calls by the court go in favor of Bush and against the voters and the public.

In the case of forestry, the whole forest is basically gone, the endangered species, once abundant, down to ten fish or one bird. They're now going to clearcut that last bit of viable habitat, the trees are falling--and the ol' boy judge rules that there is no evidence.

When the fix is in, the fix is in. You can choose to litigate for other reasons, for the principle of the thing, for publicity. But you know that you are going to be nitpicked to death, and that the truth has no bearing in the courtroom.

I've also reviewed rulings on the death penalty that are similar. Utterly heartless--and almost gleeful--nitpicking by judges to insure that a youngster, caught up in neighborhood gangs, will not just go to prison, he will be executed.

This is not justice or fairness. These are not wise people with good motives, seeking the truth. Judges protecting corporate interests--or enforcing racist policies that serve the ends of the corporate state--are never going to give you justice, and they are not going to give your any breaks whatsoever, any benefits of the doubt, and any ol' boy winks and jokes.

They are the enemy.

This isn't to say that attorneys shouldn't try their best to dot i's and cross t's. That's only sensible--to the extent humanly possible.

But I think the quick judgments here that the grass roots attorney is at fault--and not the vast, greedy, cold, conscienceless, lethal and utterly corrupt legal system that put BushCons in the White House in the first place--is either naive or a deliberate attempt to stir up trouble.

Criticize? Discuss? Yes! Dis the man, impugn his motives with no evidence whatsoever--when he is representing US, and is one our few advocates? Not good.

One of the most eloquent legal pleas ever written--the one that resulted in Miranda rights--was written by hand in pencil by someone who was barely literate. Justice has NOTHING TO DO with dotted i's and crossed t's. NOTHING. And to make such things into matters of importance is, in this case, on this issue--and on others I can think of--a gross IN-justice.