Chauvin Case: Can There Be Justice in America?

Details

Published: 26 April 2021

Chauvin Case: Can There Be Justice in America?

Derek Chauvin did not receive a fair trial. Considered in the complexity of its circumstantial totality, this entire process emulated a kangaroo court in a non-democratic regime. This moral and procedural calamity occurred because mob terror, Neo-Marxist dogmatic underpinnings (Critical Race Theory), and the leftist conspiracy theory hoax of “right-wing extremism” prevailed and is sadly now the instituted legal norm in America. The valued principle of the rule of law, as the Chauvin verdict has demonstrated, is now subject to the whims of a warmongering left.

Derek Chauvin who served eight years in the United States Army Reserve, including two intervals in the military police, nineteen years in the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in law enforcement from Metropolitan State University, must now face looming sentences for second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. The whole process was stacked up, from the beginning, against the former police officer. Ethical callousness from the political class of the highest level was showcased all along. The corporate mass media did its partisan part by proactively trying and convicting him before he was even fired from the MPD. 

The Chauvin case, The Rule of Law and a fair trial

Irregularities and unfairness plagued the trial from its onset. In the Chauvin case, the defendant had only one attorney representing him during the entire ordeal, Eric Nelson. The prosecution had an active team of twelve lawyers and a complete State Attorney’s Office at their disposal. The twelve-member jury was not representative of the demographics of the city of Minneapolis. It was 50% non-white. According to estimated figures of the U. S. Census Bureau for 2019, whites make up 63.6% of the population and blacks 19.2%. In such a racially charged trial, the jury’s composition would logically work against the defendant.    

Nelson, Chauvin’s sole legal representation, requested from the beginning that the jury be sequestered. Jury sequestration is an attempt to uphold fairness in high-profile legal cases, especially where hefty criminal charges are hovering. In these situations, jurors are not allowed access to media or external contact to preserve unbiasedness and alienate prejudices. The cases of Bill Cosby (2017), George Zimmerman (2013), and O. J. Simpson (1995) are all examples of trials where jury sequestration was practiced. In the Chauvin case, a minutely partial sequestration was allocated, but only after the trial’s end during the deliberating phase. The risk of contaminating the jury’s objectivity was obviously high without that protective measure.

Eminent defense attorney, Harvard Law School professor emeritus, and lifelong Democrat, Alan Dershowitz, told Newsmax TV on Tuesday, April 20, “I have no confidence that this verdict was produced by due process and the rule of law rather than the influence of the crowd.” Referring to statements of both President Biden hoping the jury would reach a “right verdict” and Peter Cahill, the judge presiding over the case, lamenting rants by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) inciting mob violence, Dershowitz commented that an appeal was likely and that the Supreme Court may be the only place capable of fairly trying Derek Chauvin.

“This moral and procedural calamity occurred because mob terror, Neo-Marxist dogmatic underpinnings (Critical Race Theory), and the far-left’s conspiracy theory hoax of “right-wing extremism” prevailed and is sadly now the instituted legal norm in America”. (EFE)

The nation’s highest court exclusively, he reiterated, “holds the best possibility for the defense of getting this conviction reversed, on the grounds that the judge himself suggested the statements made by people outside the courtroom essentially intimidating jurors and telling them that if they don’t come to the ‘right verdict,’ there will be violence and consequences and their own lives may be affected.” The revered and respected lawyer added, “That is not the rule of law. That is the passion of the crowd.”

The jurors in the Chauvin case were browbeaten into a guilty verdict. Every measure of persuasion was employed. Biden’s egregious butchery of legal prudence and presidential conduct, evidenced by his anti-Chauvin pre-verdict comments of “praying” for the “right verdict” and suggesting that the evidence was “overwhelming” is potentially an impeachable offense, given the fact that he is tampering with a jury in a most contentious criminal case. If Donald Trump would have said it, the Democrats would be racking up charges.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa henchmen carried out methodically, for almost eleven months, enough urban terror to remind everyone who is running the show. Clearly, any non-sequestered jury, living in the crime vicinity within the easy grasp of the communist mobs, the rendering of any just verdict was made implausible by the inertia and complicity of the authorities and other agitators. Professional troublemakers like Al Sharpton, and Democratic Representative Maxine Waters, egged on violent revolution unless they received an ideologically validated decision by the juror. Waters openly ranted about defying “curfews” and the need to “get more confrontational”, as a viral video tweet by Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) reveals.

Maxine Waters is marching in Brooklyn Center tonight and told people to take to the streets if Chauvin is acquitted pic.twitter.com/RemfvCCLAn

— Jack Posobiec 🍊 (@JackPosobiec) April 18, 2021

Perhaps the biggest failure of the legal process against Derek Chauvin, was that this trial was never about him. Neither was it about vindicating the death of George Floyd. Both were pawns in a much greater endeavor that saw an opportunity when a black man, who was unarmed and potentially not conservative or Republican, died in the custody of a white policeman. It is the American republic that was on trial. The prosecutor, ladened with Marxist Critical Race Theory weaponry, laid out the false argument of “systemic racism” and of a Blue Anon-cogitated conspiracy theory about “right-wing extremist” forces, which the nation’s police forces represent. 

Today, a jury did the right thing. But true justice requires much more. Michelle and I send our prayers to the Floyd family, and we stand with all those who are committed to guaranteeing every American the full measure of justice that George and so many others have been denied. pic.twitter.com/mihZQHqACV

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) April 20, 2021

Perhaps two people, both from different backgrounds, yet sharing the same objectives, told it the clearest. One was former President Barack Obama and the other, a BLM activist. Obama, the architect of this Fabian/Neo-Marxist ‘march through the institutions’, tweeted out after Chauvin’s verdict, “But true justice requires much more.” The notion of the quest for “true justice” has become a rallying cry by the broad spectrum of American leftism in its quest for further systemic demolition.

The BLM provocateur, in more uncivil language, added emphasis to Obama’s death pill for America. The BLM radical from Minneapolis is captured in this video tweet by Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) saying, “attack [the] system from every f*cking angle”. Was Derek Chauvin guilty of causing the death of Floyd? We will never know. This whole Chauvin case was not about them anyway.

BLM MINNEAPOLIS: “..ATTACK system from every single F*CKING angle WE can...” #DerekChauvinTrial pic.twitter.com/j2QNV66oz5

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) April 21, 2021

©The Cuban American Voice. Originally published in @El American. All rights reserved.

 

Direct link: http://cubanamericanvoice.com/pwa.html

Details

Published: 24 April 2021

Oklahoma House of Representatives Stormed by Group of Aggressive BLM Rioters.

One would not know it, judging from the almost absolute absence of the corporate mass media’s news coverage, but a parallel incident of the January 6^th U. S. Capitol Building siege took place in Oklahoma House of Representatives on Wednesday, April 21^st. Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists stormed the Oklahoma capitol building forcing a lockdown in the state’s House. Why would members of the Marxist group partake in this seditious act?

The reason behind the assault on the Oklahoma House of Representatives

GOP Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt signed HB 1674 on Wednesday, April 21^st, but does not take effect until November 1^st. The law, which was passed by the state’s legislature, including the House of Representiatives, along party lines, seeks to protect Oklahomans from aggression and/or life-threatening situations that stem from violence and other illegal acts in protests and riots. The law would criminally penalize the unlawful obstruction of traffic, while being involved in a riot, making it a misdemeanor crime. 

 

Direct link: http://cubanamericanvoice.com/pwa.html

Read more: Oklahoma House of Representatives Stormed by Group of Aggressive BLM Rioters

Details

Published: 20 April 2021

Woke Capitalism: A Threat to Democracy.

Woke capitalism is a threat to American democracy. It is horrific enough that Big Tech and the corporate media are censoring conservative thought and editorializing speech within the public domain, in a hostile political climate where the Biden-Harris regime is radically shepherding an onslaught of illiberal policies, a prelude to authoritarianism. Big business, once a hallmark of America’s dynamic free enterprise system, has been co-opted by the left and is today one of their most radical activists. 

“Woke” is a vernacular (street talk slang) term concocted by the left to communicate a state of being aware of perceived “social injustice”, as defined by Neo-Marxism’s Critical Theory (CT) baggage of identity politics grievance claims. It has gained notoriety since the Black Lives Matter (BLM) Marxist movement adapted the verbiage, as well as other CT action groups.

The Woke Capitalism 

 

Direct link: http://cubanamericanvoice.com/pwa.html

 

Read more: Woke Capitalism: A Threat to Democracy

Details

Published: 19 April 2021

Will Raúl Castro’s Departure Bring Any Meaningful Change to Cuba?

The Eighth Congress of the Cuban Communist Party (CCP) opened with expected big noise on Friday. Dictator Raúl Castro formally announced that he would no longer be acting as the first secretary-general of the CCP, arguably the most powerful political position within the Marxist-Leninist regime. Pronouncements such as this tend to build high expectations among political pundits, especially novice Cuba watchers who may not command a comprehensive scope on Castro-Communism’s history and empirical experience. Will this be just another CCP congress that comes along every five years, or can this reunion of Cuba’s ruling and only legal party lead to something worthwhile for the Cuban people?  

Paradoxically, this CCP event that marks the first time that a Castro last name will not visibly appear in the top echelon of the party’s power posts, a supposed novelty after a consistent 62-year Castro dynastic rule, is labeled as the “Congress of Continuity”. An apparent oxymoron, yet two important factors dilute the notion that this is a contradiction. This quinquennial congress of Cuban communism’s power structure will serve the exclusive purpose of consolidating the hardline rule within the ranks of power, while it emits to the world’s democracies the false aura of plausible liberalization.  

 

Direct link: http://cubanamericanvoice.com/pwa.html

Read more: Will Raúl Castro’s Departure Bring Any Meaningful Change to Cuba?