One expert compares Circuit Judge Claud Neilson to an idiot and says the judge's actions are "unconstitutional." Another expert says Neilson's actions are "really way out of bounds." And every expert cited in the article says that Neilson is acting unlawfully. But Neilson's name is never mentioned.
"Claud Neilson is essentially the central character in the story," Roger Shuler says. "He certainly is the central bad guy and comes in for extraordinary criticism from those in his own professional field, the law. That The New York Times chose not to mention him by name is one of the most baffling editorial decisions I've ever seen. It would be like a Times reporter covering a New York Yankees game with the Yankees winning on a ninth-inning home run, but the newspaper never reporting who hit the home run. It's strange beyond belief, one of many oddities in a very strange story."
4 comments:
The New York Times newspaper by putting a judicial name and/or face with the unlawful/illegal Shuler prosecution would be same as shining a light in dark closet exposing unknown of before "rats".
These medias have beaten down the value of, equality under the law, thru such inactions seen in the judge's example referred to in
this post, this trivia as it may appear, justifies questioning medias truthful responsibility to the public when involving judicial matters.
But give some credit where credit due, at least NYT gave Shuler some ink, what's has become more than noticeably suspect and suspicious the totally on-interest by all Alabama media regardless newspaper, television, radio. The Alabama political silencing machine has to be working overtime making sure all holds the line keeping Shuler's story away from the public.
What is being allowed to happen, by good people of Alabama, in the Shuler case is simple judicial/political/media stalling
that in time designed to be a past issue having moved forward from.
One would think, regardless political ties to Republicans or Democrats or Independents' parties that after the political persecutions of former governor Don Siegelman there would not be able to exist the corrupt atmosphere that targeted him for political assassination.
Are there no longer any conscious among Alabamians; after knowing of a wrong, and righting it?
Anchors Aweigh
I am sure there are those Alabamians with a conscious, however, they "can't do the time". Don Siegelman is still in jail. Not even Obama has lent a hand to get him out. Shuler is still in jail and who knows when he will get out. the message is mess with us and we will send you to jail.
Most people have families, homes, jobs. It makes it difficult to give it up. What the people of the state need to do is find people who will run in the elections, who are either seniors, who are retired or very young, who haven't started their careers, and have them run for office. Putting seniors in jail is never "photo op" day.
People really need to get organized and run aggressive campaigns against the likes of Luther Strange and his ilk. If people like a democracy, they sometimes need to do things which maybe uncomfortable, such as run for office. You don't need to have any special talents,. Just look at the current crop of idiot in the leg.
Large budgets are no longer actually necessary. There are so many things such as face book, twitter, etc. if you can find some of the documentaries which are currently being run on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, C.B.C., in Canada, about politics in Russia, you can see how the opposition to Putin works in elections. its amazing. street corner speechs, they have gone to a style of campaigning that went out here back in the 50s. Then some of the key organizers get arrested and put on trial. That is a commitment to democracy. if the opposition in Russia can bit the bullet, surely Americans dedicated to democracy can do no less.
e.a.f. @ 2:39 PM 02/11/14
Thank you for catching my error; the sentence was intended to read, "Are there no longer any POLITICIANS WITH A CONSCIOUS among Alabamians........"
According to the Alabama Secretary of State's Office, ALL elected, and employed required are bound by state law[s] to give under sworn oath to the U.S. Constitution as well Alabama's 1901 Constitution which embraces federal.
When comparing official's oaths given to office, and oaths given before the court under penalty
for perjury; therefore when an oath has been violated with intent
whether through an action or inaction whether inside/outside court of law, after having faithfully given oath to uphold the constitution then does not that official himself become guilty of some title and/or code; especially when that official having been provided first hand knowledge of alleged criminal acts; whereby himself complicit, a aiding and abettor for not adhering to the honoring of official oath; furthermore the Alabama Secretary of State's Office via a state code/title requires elected and those employed officials under oaths also be officially bonded.
POINT: Are all these participants officially under oaths and bonded meeting State of Alabama laws?
How many officials' names can you think of, then it should be a matter of public record down there in Montgomery, Secretary of State's Office State Capitol?
What would be interesting the dates filed on these two documents after this comments posting, anything after 02/12/14 would be worthwhile checking into
Alabama law states oaths and bonds have to be renewed every year..............
Is it true that any of the officials in the Shuler case is in violation[s] their oaths and bonding?
Remembering MURPH! The "Little Peoples" motivator.
RWB acknowledges that US Press Freedoms have faced “one of the most significant declines” in the World
By Josh Stearns
Global Research, February 15, 2014
Free Press 11 February 2014
Region: USA
Theme: Media Disinformation, Police State & Civil Rights
7
6 0
24
free media
Global Research Editorial Note: Critical analysis should be used to question the credibility of the news outlets, like the New York Times and the Guardian, being mentioned in this article. What is important for audiences to observe is the fact that there is a growing acknowledgment that the press in both the United States and United Kingdom are not free like they are portrayed.
According to a new report from Reporters Without Borders, there was a profound erosion of press freedom in the United States in 2013.
After a year of attacks on whistleblowers and digital journalists and revelations about mass surveillance, the United States plunged 13 spots in the group’s global press freedom rankings to number 46.
Post a Comment