TheBillofRightsFraud Parttwo ThefollowingisgleanedfromabookcalledCasesinConstitutionalLaw,lastpublished1967,LibraryofCongressCard6818704,byRobertEandRobertF Cushman.Itcontains159casesandover100casescommentedonorreferredtointhe159cases.Thebookis1168pages.ThebooktellsyouhowtheBillofRights wasnationalized.. IconversedwithafriendnamedFredandwrotethistohimconcerninganotherpatriotthatdebunkedmyfindingswhenhewouldnotlettruthsinkintohiscorebeliefs. Sincethenhehascapitulatedandnowseesitbutittookhimover6yearstocometotermswiththefraud,realizingithasbeenafraudallalong.AllboldtypeinParttwo isstraightoutoftheBook.Mycommentsareregulartype. HopefullyafterreadingthesetwopartsyouwillcometorealizeSpoonerwasright.Theconjobwasjustthat,aconjobofimmenseproportions.Howthefraudlived solongisonlyduetothefactourfamilytreeparents,goingbackto1776/1787wereledbythenoseasarethepeopleoftoday.Youhavetohaveacorebelief,andthat, myfriendsisbasedonalie.Soasallfoundationsareeithertrueorfalse,hopefullyyouwillfindwhatyouhavebeenbroughtuptobelieveisonehugefraud. TheInformer 11306 HiFred,WellnowthatIletoffsomesteam,hereismoreonBarron.Itwasn'tjustassomeoneweknowsaidthat,thesupremecourtbroughtitupin2001.Theybrought Barronupwaybefore2001.IhaveaconstitutionallawbookTitledCasesinConstitutionalLaw.

ItisripewithcasesonBarronandmanymoreinits1168pagesof knowledge.Therearecasesthattheydidnotbringupthatarejustasimportant,onebeingHepburnandDundasvEllezy,2Cranch445.Theheadingofthecasestates: AcitizenoftheDistrictofColumbiacannotmaintainanactionagainstacitizenofVirginiainthecircuitcourtforthedistrictofVirginia.Acitizenofthe DistrictofColumbiaisnotacitizenofastate,withinthemeaningoftheConstitution. Readingthis,itgoeswayoverpeople'sheadsandtheyarenotaware.AsMontgomeryfoundout,thatPresidentWashingtoncreatedthestatesasdistrictsin1791,hence thephrasedistrictofVirginiaintheabovecase.Itisanimportantcaseandyoumustgetitbecauseitisripewithinfothatwillwipeoutthemyththatpeoplehavehadon thejurisdiction.ApassageinthecasesostatesaftertheCourtgetsridofthenotionthatthepeopleofthestatesareonthesamefootingasthepeopleoftheDistrictof ColumbiaandsaidtheplaintiffcouldnotsueinVirginia.Thisisthedefensepositionstatement. EveniftheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesauthorizesamoreenlargedjurisdictionthattheJudiciaryActof1789hasgiven,yetthecourtcantakeno jurisdictionwhichitisnotgivenbytheAct.I,therefore,callforthelawwhichgivesajurisdictioninthiscase.. AresponsewasgivenbyPlaintifftorebuttheabovestatement.Thecourtthengaveit'sdecisionandsidedwithDefensewhenChiefJusticeMarshallsaid, Theopiniontobecertifiedtothecircuitcourtis,thatthatcourthasnojurisdictioninthecase. SobasicallytheJudiciaryActof1789giveswhatjurisdictionthefederalcourtshave,NOTtheCongressassomanypeoplebelieveandastheDefenseattorney said,ifit'snottobefound(jurisdiction)inthatActthefedcourtdoesnothaveit.Herewehavedirectadmissionthatlawyersbackthenweredictatingthe parametersinwhichthecourtshadjurisdiction.TheInformer,inhisnewhistory,broughtthisupwhenhecitedtheHistoryofTheAmericanBarbyCharlesWarren.I believeyouhavethatbookoftheInformer.MightpaytorereaditinlightofthisrevelationtheguyIwastalkingabouthad. NowbacktoBarron.InthenotesoftheConstitutionalCases(BOOK)printed1968,itstates. WhilemostrightsintheBillofRightsnowdoapplytothestates,theydosoonlybecausetheyareessentialtodueprocessoflaw.Therulinginthe presentcasethattheBillofRightsdoesnotapplydirectlytothestateshasneverbeenoverruled. BrownvWalker(1896)Barronwasagainbroachedonselfincriminationcase.TheBOOKhadhistosay In1956theCourtreaffirmedtheBrowndecisioninU1Imannv.UnitedStates.Itrejectedthedefendant'sargumentthat"theimpactofthedisabilities imposedbyfederalandstateauthoritiesandthepublicingeneralsuchaslossof]ob,expulsionfromlaborunions,stateregistrationandinvestigation statutes,passporteligibility,andgeneralpubIicopprobriumissooppressivethatthestatutedoesnotgivehimtrueimmunity."Thestatute,liketheFifth Amendmentprovision,protectsthewitnessonlyfromhavingtogive"testimonywhichmaypossiblyexposehimtoacriminalcharge." SinceCongressneednotgrantimmunityfromstateprosecutioninordertocompeltestimony,thequestionariseswhetheritmaydosoifitwishes.The controloverevidenceadmissibleinstatecourtsistraditionallyaquestionofstatepower,andeventheSupremeCourtinadministeringthedueprocess clausehasbeenreluctanttointerferewiththisstateprerogative.InAdamsv.Maryland(1954)theCourtheldthatCongresscould,underthesupremacy doctrine,forbidastatetousetestimonygivenbeforeacongressionalcommittee.AdamshadbeensummonedbeforetheSenateCrimesInvestigation (Kefauver)Committeeandhadbaredhissoulconcerninghisboobmakingactivities.ThestateofMaryland,whichhadbeenunabletogetotherevidence againstAdams,readthetranscriptofthecommitteehearingintothetrialrecordasaconfession,andhewasconvictedofillegalgambling.TheSupreme Courtreversedtheconvictiononthegroundthat859forbadetheuseofsuchtestimony"inanycriminalproceedingagainsthiminanycourt...."While Congresscouldnotcompeltestimonyunderthestatute,suchtestimonyaswasgivenwasprotectedandthephrase"inanycourt"includedstatecourtsas wellasfederal.Forbiddingsuchuseofthetestimony)washeldtobeanecessaryandproperwayofsecuringtestimony.TheImmunityActof1954uses thissamelanguage,andtheAdamsinterpretationwasreaffirmedbytheCourtintheUllmanncase. Inthepresentcaseafederalgrandjurywasinvestigatingchargesagainstarailroadthatithadgranteddiscriminatoryratesandrebates.Brown,who wasanofficeroftherailroad,wascalledasawitnessbutrefusedtoanswercertainquestionsonthegroundthattheanswerswouldtendtoaccuseam incriminatehim.Hewasadjudgedincontemptforhisrefusaltoanswer. Mr.JusticeBrowndeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,sayinginpart ItistruethattheConstitutiondoesnotoperateuponawitnesstestifyinginstatecourts,sincewehaveheldthatthefirsteightamendmentsare limitationsonlyuponthepowersofCongressandtheFederalcourts,andarenotapplicabletotheseveralstates,exceptsofarasthe14thAmendment mayhavemadethemapplicable.Barronv.Baltimore[1833]....Thereisnosuchrestriction,however,upontheapplicabilityofFederalstatutes....[The CourtherequotesthesupremacyclauseinArticleVI.] TheactinquestioncontainsnosuggestionthatitistobeappliedonlytotheFederalcourts.Itdeclaresbroadlythat"nopersonshallbeexcusedfrom attendingandtestifying...beforetheInterstateCommerceCommission...ontheground...thatthetestimony...requiredofhimmaytendto criminatehim,etc.Butnopersonshallbeprosecutedorsubjectedtoanypenaltyorforfeiturefororonaccountofanytransaction,matter,orthing concerningwhichhemaytestify,"etc.Itisnotthatheshallnotbeprosecutedfororonaccountofanycrimeconcerningwhichhemaytestify,whichmight possiblybeurgedtoapplyonlytocrimesundertheFederallaw...buttheimmunityextendstoanytransaction,matter,orthingconcerningwhichhemay testify,whichclearlyindicatesthattheimmunityisintendedtobegeneralandtobeapplicablewheneverandinwhatevercourtsuchprosecutionmaybe had.

CourtherequotesthesupremacyclauseinArticleVI.] TheactinquestioncontainsnosuggestionthatitistobeappliedonlytotheFederalcourts.Itdeclaresbroadlythat"nopersonshallbeexcusedfrom attendingandtestifying...beforetheInterstateCommerceCommission...ontheground...thatthetestimony...requiredofhimmaytendto criminatehim,etc.Butnopersonshallbeprosecutedorsubjectedtoanypenaltyorforfeiturefororonaccountofanytransaction,matter,orthing concerningwhichhemaytestify,"etc.Itisnotthatheshallnotbeprosecutedfororonaccountofanycrimeconcerningwhichhemaytestify,whichmight possiblybeurgedtoapplyonlytocrimesundertheFederallaw...buttheimmunityextendstoanytransaction,matter,orthingconcerningwhichhemay testify,whichclearlyindicatesthattheimmunityisintendedtobegeneralandtobeapplicablewheneverandinwhatevercourtsuchprosecutionmaybe had. Butevengrantingthattherewerestillabarepossibilitythatbyhisdisclosurehemightbesubjectedtothecriminallawsofsomeothersovereignty, that...isnotarealandprobabledanger,withreferencetotheordinaryoperationsofthelawintheordinarycourts,but"adangerofanimaginaryand unsubstantialcharacter,havingreferencetosomeextraordinaryandbarelypossiblecontingency,soimprobablethatnoreasonablemanwouldsufferitto influencehisconduct."Suchdangersitwasnevertheobjectoftheprovisiontoobviate. Thesameanswermaybemadetothesuggestionthatthewitnessisimperfectlyprotectedbyreasonofthefactthathemaystillbeprosecutedandput totheannoyanceandexpenseofpleadinghisimmunitybywayofconfessionandavoidance.Thisisadetrimentwhichthelawdoesnotrecognize.Thereis apossibilitythatanycitizen,howeverinnocent,maybesubjectedtoacivilorcriminalprosecution,andputtotheexpenseofdefendinghimself,butunless suchprosecutionbemalicious,heisremediless,exceptsofarasarecoveryofcostsmaypartiallyindemnifyhim.... ...Whiletheconstitutionalprovisioninquestionisjustlyregardedasoneofthemostvaluableprerogativesofthecitizen,itsobjectisfullyaccomplished bythestatutoryimmunity,andwearethereforeofopinionthatthewitnesswascompellabletoanswer,andthatthejudgmentofthecourtbelowmustbe affirmed. Mr.JusticeShiras,withwhomMr.JusticesGrayandWhiteconcurred,wroteadissentingopinion.Mr.JusticeFieldwroteaseparatedissent. InPowellvAlabama(1932)Barronwasbroughtupagain.TheninPalkovConnecticut(1937BarronwasagainbroughtupandthisistheBOOK'scomment. WiththedecisioninPowellv.AlabamaitappearedthatthelongstruggletonationalizetheBillofRightsmightatlastbebearingfruit.TheCourthad acknowledgedthatitnolongerfeltboundbytheHurtadoreasoningtheapplicationtothestatesoftheFifthAmendmentrighttojustcompensationand theFirstAmendmentrightsoffreespeech,press,religion,andassemblyshowedthatsomeoftheBillofRightsguaranteescouldbeappliedtothestates throughdueprocessoflaw.Andnow,inPowell,theCourtforthefirsttimehadfoundoneoftherightsofpersonsaccusedofcrimetobeessentialtodue process. 'ThePalkocase,printedbelow,madeclearthattheCourtwasnotpreparedtoabandonearlierdecisionssuchasHurtadoandTwining.Instead,it undertooktoexplainwhysomerights,suchastherightstocounselandfreespeech,areabsorbedintodueprocessandwhyothers,likejurytrialand grandjuryindictment,arenot.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthecases"absorbing"rightsintotheFourteenthAmendmentdonotoverruleBarronv. Baltimore(1820).TheprovisionsofthefederalBillofRightsstilllimitdirectlyonlythefederalgovernmentitistheFourteenthAmendmentwhichlimits thestates.WhattheCourthasdoneistoreversethepracticaleffectoftheruleinBarronv.Baltimorewithrespecttopart,butnotall,oftheBillof Rights.SomeoftheserightsarestillnotconsideredbytheCourttobesofundamentalastoberequiredbydueprocessoflaw.TheCourtincaseafter casehasbeenclassifyingtheprovisionsoftheBillofRightsintothosewhichareessentialtodueprocessoflawandthusbindthestatesthroughthe operationoftheFourteenthAmendmentandthosewhicharenotessentialtodueprocessandbywhich'thestatesarenotbound.Ineffect,theCourthas establishedan"honorroll"ofsuperiorrightswhichbindbothstateandnationalgovernments.Theopinioninthepresentcaseisimportantsinceitgives anofficialsummaryofthisclassificationupto1937andstatesclearlytheprinciplesuponwhichthe'classificationrests. Inanothersituation,andforaverydifferentpurpose,theCourtclassifiedtheprovisionsofthefederalBillofRights.Infixingtheconstitutionalstatus ofterritoriesafterthewarwithSpain,theCourtheldthatingoverning"unincorporated"territories,suchasPuertoRicoandthePhilippines,Congress wasrestrictedonlybythoseguaranteesintheBillofRightswhicharebasicandfundamental,andnotbythosewhicharemerely"procedural"or "remedial,"suchastheguaranteeoftrialbyjury.SeeBalzacv.PortoRico(1922).ThisclassificationisessentiallythesameasthatinPalkov. Connecticut. OnequestionwhichthePalkocasefailedtoanswersatisfactorilywaswhatwasmeantby"absorption"or"incorporation"ofaBillofRightsguarantee intodueprocess.Diditmeanthattheright,aslistedintheBillofRightsandinterpretedbytheSupremeCourtinfederalcases,wasmadeapplicableto thestates?Orwastherightasappliedtothestatesamoregeneralright,lessclearlydefinedandpermittingmoreleewayanddiscretiononthepartofthe states?Clearly,incorporationoftheFirstAmendmenthasmeantitsapplicationtothestatesexactlyasitisappliedtothenationalgovernment.Justices BrandeisandHolmes,intheirdissentintheGitlowcase,suggestedthatthefreespeechapplicabletothestatesperhaps"maybeacceptedwitha somewhatlargerlatitudeofinterpretationthanisallowedtoCongressbythesweepinglanguagethatgovernsoroughttogovernthelawsoftheUnited States."TheCourt,however,hasneveracknowledgedsuchadistinction,andthesamerulesfordecidingsuchcasesareappliedtothestatesandthe nationalike. Withthegradualextensionofdueprocesstoincludeotherrights,animportantcontroversydevelopedastohowtheserightswouldapplytothestates. Thisproblemisdiscussedinconnectionwiththespecificrightsinthechapterbelow. AnothercaseisUnitedStatesvLanza(1922).ThisiswhatthecourtstatedthenIwillgototheBOOKcommentsandbearinmindwhathappenedattheRubyRidgetrial againstthegovernmentagentandputintothatwhattheBOOKstates. ChiefJusticeTaftdeliveredtheopinion: Wehaveheretwosovereignties,derivingpowerfromdifferentsources,capableofdealingwiththesamesubjectmatterwithinthesameterritory. Eachmay,withoutinterferencebytheother,enactlawstosecureprohibition,withthelimitationthatnolegislationcangivevaliditytoactsprohibitedby theAmendment.Eachgovernment,indeterminingwhatshallbeanoffenseagainstitspeaceanddignity,isexercisingitsownsovereignty,notthatofthe other. Itfollowsthatanactdenouncedasacrimebybothnationalandstatesovereigntiesisanoffenseagainstthepeaceanddignityofboth,andmaybe punishedbyeach.The5thAmendment,likealltheotherguarantiesinthefirsteightamendments,appliesonlytoproceedingsbytheFederalgovernment (Barronv.Baltimore[1833])andthedoublejeopardythereinforbiddenisasecondprosecutionunderauthorityoftheFederalgovernmentafterafirst trialforthesameoffenseunderthesameauthority.HerethesameactwasanoffenseagainstthestateofWashington,becauseaviolationofitslaw,and alsoanoffenseagainsttheUnitedStatesundertheNationalProhibitionAct.Thedefendantsthuscommittedtwodifferentoffensesbythesameact,anda convictionbyacourtofWashingtonoftheoffenseagainstthatstateisnotaconvictionofthedifferentoffenseagainsttheUnitedStates,andsoisnot doublejeopardy.... IfCongressseesfittobarprosecutionbytheFedearlcourtsforanyactwhenpunishmentforviolationofstateprohibitionhasbeenimposed,itcan,of course,dosobyproperlegislativeprovisionbutithasnotdoneso.Ifastateweretopunishthemanufacture,transportation,andsaleofintoxicating liquorbysmallornominalfines,theraceofoffenderstothecourtsofthatstatetopleadguiltyandsecureimmunityfromFederalprosecutionforsuchacts wouldnotmakeforrespectfortheFederalstatute,orforitsdeterrenteffect.Butitisnotforustodiscussthewisdomoflegislationitisenoughforusto holdthat,intheabsenceofspecialprovisionbyCongress,convictionandpunishmentinastatecourt,underastatelaw,formaking,transporting,and sellingintoxicatingliquors,isnotabartoaprosecutioninacourtoftheUnitedStates,undertheFederallaw,forthesameacts.... Judgmentreversed. NowforthecommentbytheBOOK:

wouldnotmakeforrespectfortheFederalstatute,orforitsdeterrenteffect.Butitisnotforustodiscussthewisdomoflegislationitisenoughforusto holdthat,intheabsenceofspecialprovisionbyCongress,convictionandpunishmentinastatecourt,underastatelaw,formaking,transporting,and sellingintoxicatingliquors,isnotabartoaprosecutioninacourtoftheUnitedStates,undertheFederallaw,forthesameacts.... Judgmentreversed. NowforthecommentbytheBOOK: Itwasoneoftheuniversalmaximsofthecommonlawthatnomanshouldbebroughtintojeopardyofhislifemorethanonceforthesameoffense. ProtectionagainstdoublejeopardyisguaranteedbytheFifthAmendmentagainstinvasionbythefederalgovernment,whileasimilarclauseisfoundin thebillsofrightsofmostofthestateconstitutions.Apersonisheldtobeinjeopardywhenhistrialhasprogressedtothepointwhereheactuallyconfronts thejury.Ifconvicted,hemaywaivehisimmunityfromdoublejeopardybyanappealtoahighercourtwhichmayallowhimanewtrialbutifacquitted, furtherproceedingsagainsthimbytheprosecutingauthoritiesarebarred,thegovernmentnotevenbeingallowedtoappealthecaseonthegroundof erroroflaw.SeeUnitedStatesv.Sanges(1892).Moreover,ifheappealshisconvictionandisgrantedanewtrialthedefendantcanonlyberetriedonthe chargeofwhichhewasconvicted.ThusinGreenv.UnitedStates(1957)apersonwhowasindictedandtriedforfirstdegreemurderbutwasfoundguilty bythejuryofseconddegreemurdercouldnot,aftersuccessfullyappealingtheseconddegreemurdercharge,beretriedontheoriginalchargeoffirst degreemurder.Hehadalreadybeenonceinjeopardyforthatcr/meandhadnotwaivedhisprotectionbyappealinghisconvictionforadifferentcrime. Incertainrecognizedcircumstancesacourtcandeclareamistrialandsubjecttheaccusedtoasecondtrialwithoutviolatingtheprotectionagainst doublejeopardy.Thisistruewhereitturnsoutthatajurorisdisqualified,seeThompsonv.UnitedStates(1894)andinUnitedStatesv.Perez(1824)it washeldpermissiblewherethejurycouldnotagreeonaverdict"Theprisonerhasnotbeenconvictedoracquitted,andmayagainbeputuponhis defense.Wethink,thatinallcasesofthisnature,thelawhasinvestedcourtsofjusticewiththeauthoritytodischargeajuryfromgivinganyverdict, whenever,intheiropinion,takingallthecircumstancesintoconsideration,thereisamanifestnecessityfortheact,ortheendsofpublicjusticewould otherwisebedefeated.Theyaretoexerciseasounddiscretiononthesubjectanditisimpossibletodefineallthecircumstanceswhichwouldrenderit propertointerfere."Thedoublejeopardyclausewouldpreventdeclaringamistrialandorderinganewtrialsolelytopermitthegovernmentmoretimeto secureevidenceagainsttheaccused.InDownumv.UnitedStates(1963)thegovernmentaskedthatthejurybedischargedwhenitdiscoveredtwoofits keywitnessesweremissing.TwodayslateranewjurywasempanelledandDownurnwasconvicted.TheCourtconcededthatanewjurycouldbe empanelledafterthedischargeofthefirstwherethereis"animperiousnecessitytodoso,"orin"veryextraordinaryandstrikingcircumstances." Herethegovernmenthadsimplystartedthetrialbeforeithadlocatedallitswitnesses. Amovesuchasthisdoesnot,however,amounttoadenialofdueprocesswhendoneinastatecourt.InBrockv.NorthCarolina(1953)thestatecourt haddeclaredamistrialandorderedacontinuanceofthecaseinordertopermitthestatetodealwithsomeofitsownwitnesseswhohadunexpectedly refusedtotestifyonpleasofselfincrimination.CitingthePalkocase,theCourtheldthatthedoublejeopardyprovisionwasnotincorporatedintothe FourteenthAmendment,andthisparticularactionwasnotshockingenoughtomakethetrialunfair.In1967theCourtdeclinedtodecidewhetherornot thedoublejeopardyprovisionoftheFifthAmendmentwouldbeextendedtothestates.Althoughithadgrantedcertioraritodecidethequestion,onafull hearingofthecaseitagreedthatthestateactiondidnotamounttodoublejeopardyanddismissedthewritasimprovidentlygranted.SeeCichosv. Indiana. Sinceoneisnotinjeopardyuntilhistrialactuallybegins,indictmentforcrimedoesnotputapersoninjeopardy,andthereforerepeatedindictmentsdo notconstitutedoublejeopardy.Moreover,thegovernmentcanappealthedismissalofanindictment,andsuchanappealgivestheSupremeCourtan opportunitytopassupontheconstitutionalityofcriminallegislationwhichalowercourtholdsunconstitutional.SeediscussioninthenotetoMuskratv. UnitedStates. Itdoesnotconstitutedoublejeopardytotryapersoneachtimehecommitsthesameoffenseoveragain.Thusaconscientiousobjectorwhohassewed aprisonsentenceforrefusingtoregisterforthedraftmaybetriedandconvictedagainifhecontinuesinhisrefusal.Thesameistrueofapersonwhois punishedforcontemptforrefusingtogivetestimony.Where,however,awitnessisaskedtoidentifyapersonasaCommunistandinreplyrefusestoso identify"anyone,"sheisguiltyofonlyonecontempt,despitearefusaltoanswerthesamequestionasked11timeswithregardtootherpersons.See YatesvUnitedStates(1957).WhereCongresshasmadeconspiracytocommitafelonyaseparatecrimefromthecommissionofthefelonyitself,a personmaybetriedforbothcrimes.Whetherthesecondtrialconstitutesdoublejeopardyincaseslikethisdependsonthenatureoftheevidenceneeded toconvict.TheCourtinMorganv.Devine(1915)quotedwithapprovalfromBishoponCriminalLaw:"Thetestiswhether,ifwhatissetoutinthesecond indictmenthadbeenprovedunderthefirst,therecouldhavebeenaconvictionwhentherecould,thesecondcannotbemaintainedwhentherecouldnot, itcanbe." Oneoftheobviousresultsoflivingunderourfederalformofgovernmentisthateverypersonissubjecttothecriminaljurisdictionoftwoseparate governments,thestateandthenational.Itisentirelypossible,therefore,forasingleacttoconstituteanoffenseagainstthestatutesoftheUnitedStates andatthesametimetobepunishableunderstatelaw.Thisistrueinthecaseofcounterfeitingthenationalcurrency,corruptpracticesintheconductof congressionalelections,assaultsagainstfederalofficers,thelarcenyofgoodsmovingininterstatecommerce,violationsoftheformerProhibition Amendment,etc.Inthesecasesithaslongbeenheldthatapersonmaybetriedandpunishedbybothgovernmentswithoutviolatingtheprotection againstdoublejeopardy.Thatguaranteeisviolatedonlybyasecondtrialforthesameoffenseagainstthesamesovereignty,notbyatrial/orthesame actwhenitconstitutesaseparateanddistinctcrimeagainstanothersovereign.Thisdoctrinehad,ofcourse,considerablepracticaleffectinconnection withtheenforcementoftheProhibitionAmendment,underwhichconcurrentjurisdictionrestedinthestateandnationalgovernments.Notethesimilarity ofthisruletotheoneappliedtotheselfincriminationcases. InthepresentcaseLanzahadbeenconvictedbythestatecourtsofWashingtonforviolatingthestateprohibitionact.Hewasthenindictedinafederal courtforthesameact,whichalsoviolatedtheVolsteadAct.Thedistrictjudgedismissedtheindictmentonthegroundofdoublejeopardyandthe governmentappealed.TheLanzarule,thoughsharplycriticized,sti11stands.Abbatev.UnitedStates(1959)heldthatamanconvictedofacrimein Illinoiscouldlaterbetriedforthesameact(dynamitingtelephonecommunications)underafederallaw.Lanzawasspecificallyreaffirmedbyasixto threedecision.OnthesamedaytheCourtheld,fivetofour,thatoneacquittedinafederalcourtofrobbingafederallyinsuredbankcouldlaterbetried andconvictedinastatecourtforthesamerobbery.SeeBartkusv.Illinois(1959). WhiletheLanzarulehasalogicalpersuasivenessaboutitandtheCourthasdonenothingtoweakenit,ithasnotbeengivenwideapplication.Itisnot, forexample,followedininternationallaw.Asearlyas1820theSupremeCourtrecognizedthatwhileallstatescouldtryapersonforpiracy,"therecanbe nodoubtthatthepleaofautrefoisacquitwouldbegood,inanycivilizedstate,thoughrestingonaprosecutioninthecourtsofanyothercivilizedstate." SeeUnitedStatesv.Furlong.NorhastheCourtfelttheruleshouldapplyincaseswheretwostateshaveconcurrentjurisdiction,asontheColumbiaRiver whereWashingtonandOregonbothhavejurisdictionovertheentireriversoas"toavoidanynicequestionastowhetheracriminalactsoughttobe prosecutedwascommittedononesideortheotheroftheexactboundaryinthechannel""Whereanactis...prohibitedandpunishablebythelawsof bothstates,"theCourtcommented,"theonefirstacquiringjurisdictionofthepersonmayprosecutetheoffense,anditsjudgmentisafinalityinboth states,sothatoneconvictedoracquittedinthecourtsoftheonestatecannotbeprosecutedforthesameoffenseinthecourtsoftheother."SeeNielson v.Oregon(1909). ThemanifestunfairnessoftheLanzarulehasbeenwidelyrecognized,andfollowingtheAbbateandBartkusdecisionstheAttorneyGeneralofthe UnitedStatesorderedthat"nofederalcaseshouldbetriedwhentherehasalreadybeenastateprosecutionforsubstantiallythesameactoractswithout theUnitedStatesAttorneyfirstsubmittingarecommendationtotheappropriateAssistantAttorneyGeneralintheDepartment."AndinPetitev.United States(1960)Petite,alawyerindeportationproceedingsagainstthesamemanheldinbothPhiladelphiaandBaltimore,inducedhisclienttoswearfalsely thathehadbeenbornintheUnitedStates.ForthissuborningofperjuryhewasconvictedandpunishedinthefederaldistrictcourtinPennsylvania,and laterinthefederaldistrictcourtinMaryland.WhenthecasecametotheSupremeCourttheSolicitorGeneralmovedthatthesecondjudgmentbe vacatedandtheindictmentdismissed.Hecontendedthatthedoublejeopardyclausehadnotbeenviolated,butstatedthat"theinitiationofthesecond

ThemanifestunfairnessoftheLanzarulehasbeenwidelyrecognized,andfollowingtheAbbateandBartkusdecisionstheAttorneyGeneralofthe UnitedStatesorderedthat"nofederalcaseshouldbetriedwhentherehasalreadybeenastateprosecutionforsubstantiallythesameactoractswithout theUnitedStatesAttorneyfirstsubmittingarecommendationtotheappropriateAssistantAttorneyGeneralintheDepartment."AndinPetitev.United States(1960)Petite,alawyerindeportationproceedingsagainstthesamemanheldinbothPhiladelphiaandBaltimore,inducedhisclienttoswearfalsely thathehadbeenbornintheUnitedStates.ForthissuborningofperjuryhewasconvictedandpunishedinthefederaldistrictcourtinPennsylvania,and laterinthefederaldistrictcourtinMaryland.WhenthecasecametotheSupremeCourttheSolicitorGeneralmovedthatthesecondjudgmentbe vacatedandtheindictmentdismissed.Hecontendedthatthedoublejeopardyclausehadnotbeenviolated,butstatedthat"theinitiationofthesecond prosecutioninthiscasewascontrarytosoundpolicyandthatforthatreason,andintheinterestsofjustice,theindictmentshouldbedismissed."The SupremeCourt,withoutpassingonthedoublejeopardyquestion,grantedthemotion. SothereFred,isthestory.NowIthinkthisfellowIwastalkingabouthasalotofcognitivedissonanceandegotogetridofanditjustmighttakehimmorethan3 monthstounderstand.Afterall,Iwouldsayheisatleast12yearsbehindtheInformer'sknowledge.Well,onceheobtainsthelevelofcompetencethatwehaveobtained thenheisontobetterthingsandwon'tbesoegocentered.Itisnicetobeeatinghumblepieonceinawhile.Ithinkeveryonehasalottolearnfromreadingthisandthe casesiftheysochoose.ButtheyneedinterpretationlikethisBOOKgives,becauseafterallit'swhattheyinterpretasruling,notus.Weareonlyslavesremember?