Some people have convicted the Prosecutor, and others have determined that she is innocent, and still others are waiting for the jury decision.    In a political trial is it possible to obtain a fair and impartial verdict?    This appears to be a political trial and thus extreme care has to be taken as to how it is handled.   This is the Supreme Test of the justice system.

Here in Illinois the outcome of the trial would be a foregone conclusion.   If history is any guide, the fix would be in.    The political elite would have gotten together and determined if the prosecutor was guilty or innocent.  As Judge Connors pointed out on page 91 of her evidence deposition = the decision would already be in.

This is an easy fact situation – did the defendant leak secret grand jury materials?

If she did she is guilty, however, if she did not she is innocent.  Her good motivation is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, the judicial system of America is on trial.   Will she receive a fair trial or is this political cover-up or witch hunt.    I do not know the answer and after my experience with Jerome Larkin, the IARDC, and the Illinois Supreme Court my confidence level is not very high that she will get a fair and impartial trial.

Jury selection begins in trial of Pennsylvania’s top prosecutor

We are citizens have much more at stake in this trial that the defendant.   Yes she could go jail and be disgraced, but we can have our Nation’s core values destroyed.   What is important in this trial is whether when the jury reaches its decision the State of Pennsylvania has proven the defendant guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

It is not enough for the State to prove that the grand jury testimony was leaked – the proof beyond a reasonable doubt has to establish that the prosecutor herself leaked the material.   (This is what the press says the charges are – I assume (with great doubt) that they can read and are accurately reporting that fact.

Any loss of the defendant’s civil rights, whether direct or indirect intimately affects YOU AND I.     This is true for the Florida, Illinois, New York ***** citizens.    This case like the Hillary Clinton e-mail case cuts to the heart of the concept of Equal Protection of the Law.    If the prosecutor did the deed, whether it is politically expedient to have a trial or not – this is serious stuff and an impartial trial must occur.   If the prosecutor did not do the deed, whether it is politically expedient or not to have a trial, this is serious stuff and as the grand jury material appeared to be leaked she is entitled to have a trial AND THE STATE PROVE EACH AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CRIME BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

The criminal justice system as it applies to our elected representatives or those who wish to be our elected respectative is not an option or a suggestion.   It must be applied to everyone equally and diligently.

The guardianship cases are NOT criminal cases, but they effect the freedom of individuals.    When a individual is stripped of his or her civil rights = either in whole or in part – the government and the justice system have to prove a speedy trial and a hearing to determine what if any reasonable accommodations are necessary so that the loss of liberty is kept at a mininium.    In the case of the prosecutor the burden placed on the prosecutor is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, and in the case of guardianship the burden is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.    Form does not defeat substance in either case.    In Illinois 755 ILCS 5/11a – 10 provides the jurisdictional mechanism for protecting the senior.    It is routinely ignored nationwide and we have wired judges who toss the civil rights of seniors to the four winds.   (see page 91 of the Maureen Connors evidence deposition taken by the conspiracy headed by Jerome Larkin)

If the AG of PA (defendant) has a ‘wired’ judge who has Judge Connors attitude – we have a problem.   If we allow the ‘fix’ to be accomplished  (either way) in this case (either way) we can kiss out freedom goodby!   This case is an acid test!