The Campaign for Radical Truth in History http://www.hoffman-info.com Visit our bookstore
DOCUMENTATION
The Establishment Media: Whores for the New World Order
One courageous juror took the time-honored judicial principle of reasonable doubt seriously in the trial of three Idaho separatists in Spokane, Washington federal court, resulting in a hung jury. But that's not how the whores for the New World Order viewed him:
ADL asset and Federal government informant Bill Morlin testified for the prosecution in the 1997 trial of three Idaho separatists charged with a series of reprehensible bombings and bank robberies. On April 2, 1997 the jury in the Spokane, Washington trial returned a verdict of guilty for possession of a hand grenade and stolen vehicles. The jury was deadlocked 11-1 on the other charges.
The prosecution witness against the men, Morlin, a Spokesman-Review employee, was allowed to write a "news story" (not an opinion piece on the editorial page) about the verdict, even though he is a pro-Federal government witness in the case.
No caveat to this effect accompanied his article, (co-written with Craig Welch), titled, "Trial Ends in Hung Jury," (April 3, pp. 1 and 8). Yet the bias exhibited by Morlin is unmistakable. Morlin's article was crafted to give the distinct impression that the lone holdout juror had done something wrong.
Morlin and Welch wrote: "One of the jurors who asked not to be identified, later apologized to the region. 'I think those three people were guilty and I want to tell the people I'm sorry..." Morlin also described the anonymous holdout juror as boastful.
In other coverage of the hung jury in the Spokesman-Review, a similar spin was evident. In an article written by Kelly McBride and Kim Barker, with Morlin and Welch contributing, it was stated that the defendants were all "guilty as sin." The holdout juror was said to be "going by his feelings and not by the evidence."
Nowhere in the pages of the Spokesman-Review was any attempt made to understand the holdout juror's views.
However in an article in the Coeur d'Alene Press newspaper (April 3, p. 8), the story was reported without the prejudice and hostility exhibited by the Spokane newspaper.
The Coeur d'Alene Press reported: "This juror was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt,' the Spokane foreman said, 'He took that seriously."
Precisely. Because the concept of reasonable doubt is the core of the issue for a conscientious juror on duty and the government's case was far from ironclad. If there is reasonable doubt, there cannot be a conviction.
The Federal prosecutors, even with Morlin's assistance, produced no conclusive evidence that the three defendants robbed the banks or perpetrated the bombings. One of the defendants had a telephone company employee testify and furnish an alibi for his whereabouts.
The juror who refused to convict on these charges was not a blind fool as Morlin and the Spokesman-Review implied, but a responsible independent who understood that FBI agents and government prosecutors have a proven track record for lying and fabricating "evidence."
In a follow-up April 4 article in the Spokesman-Review, "Prosecutors Seek New Trial in Bomb Case," Mr. Morlin pronounced his newspaper's inimitable presumption of 'guilty before being proven innocent,' concerning the defendants.
Our common law and American jurisprudence decree that all defendants are innocent until proven guilty. But Morlin wrote on April 4, 1997 (p. 12), "The three defendants were caught with grenades and stolen cars on Oct. 8 in Union Gap, Wash. after a squad of FBI agents followed them to a bank in Portland. An apparent holdup was averted when the FBI warned the bankers to lock their doors."
"An apparent holdup was averted"? How does Morlin and the Spokesman-Review know this? This was not the decision of the jury. What is the point of declaring the defendant's guilt in this matter except to suborn the jurors who are to be called in the forthcoming re-trial?
Morlin, by a subtle cue, is telling the jurors how they should vote, by pronouncing the defendants' guilty of attempted bank robbery, when no jury has done so and the matter is still at trial.
Here we observe the violation of the civil rights of these three defendants by the Spokesman-Review, which touts its fanatical commitment to the civil rights of some people from the rooftops.
But civil rights are meaningless if they are reserved for only certain chosen races or victim classes.
Christian defendants who are of that class of dissident known as separatists, have their common law and jurisprudential rights violated by the neo-Bolshevik news media, and it is not an issue for concern or protest. In fact, it is applauded. The exhibition of this double standard is what generates rage against the corrosive hypocrisy of Big Media.
The Spokesman-Review newspaper is losing it. It has become a shrill mouthpiece for the Federal government and the ADL.
whores for the new world order / archives / bookstore / news bureau / home