rapped by judge also

[lord edward coke]

The Jewish Talmud, the “holiest” book of Judaism, says that “All Gentile women, girls, and even little girls, are whores.”  This article in the Kansas City Star reflects the Jewish “Talmudization” of the Courts of Law in America.
 
Now, when a woman gets raped, she’s not allowed even to call it rape!  The alleged perpetrator of the crime gets all the rights and the victim gets none.
 
Judge’s ban on the use of the word ‘rape’ at trial reflects trend

By TONY RIZZO
The Kansas City Star
 
It’s the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.
 
She was raped.
 
But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word “rape” in front of a jury. The term “sexual assault” also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word “assailant” to describe the man who allegedly raped her.
 
The defendant’s presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen’s right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.
 
“It shouldn’t be up to a judge to tell me whether or not I was raped,” Bowen said. “I should be able to tell the jury in my own words what happened to me.”
 
Bowen’s case is part of what some prosecutors and victim advocates see as a national trend in sexual assault cases.
 
“It’s a topic that’s coming up more and more,” said Joshua Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor and a vice president of the National District Attorneys Association. “You’re moving away from what a criminal trial is really about.”
 
In Jackson County, Senior Judge Gene Martin recently issued a similar order for the trial of a Kansas City man charged with raping a teenager in 2000. Despite the semantic restrictions, the Jackson County jury last week found Ray Slaughter guilty of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sodomy.
 
Slaughter’s attorney, who requested the pretrial order, declined to comment because she is preparing a motion for new trial. The judge also declined to comment.
 
Bowen’s case gained national notoriety and drew the attention of free-speech proponents after she filed a lawsuit challenging the judge’s actions as a First Amendment violation. A federal appeals court dismissed the suit, but Bowen’s attorney plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Although he dismissed her suit, a federal judge said he doubted a jury would be swayed by a woman using the word “rape” instead of some “tortured equivalent.”
 
“For the life of me, I do not understand why a judge would tell an alleged rape victim that she cannot say she was raped when she testifies in a trial about rape,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf.

Wendy J. Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law in Boston, is representing Bowen. She said the practice is “absolutely” unconstitutional.

“There’s no law anywhere that allows courts to issue these kinds of orders against private citizens,” Murphy said. “That doesn’t mean judges aren’t doing it.”
Prosecutors may object, but rarely do they have the time and resources to stop a trial midstream to appeal, she said.

But in cases where the defendant’s version of events is pitted against that of the alleged victim, “words are really important,” Marquis said.

“To force a victim to say, ‘when the defendant and I had sexual intercourse’ is just absurd,” he said.
Jackson County Prosecutor Jim Kanatzar said juries are smart enough to understand that in the adversarial system of justice, the state is going to take one position and the defense is going to take another.

“These are common terms that are used both in and outside the courtroom,” he said. “If someone says something that one side feels is prejudicial, it can be addressed in cross-examination.”
The issue is a discretionary call with judges, said Jackson County Circuit Judge Brian C. Wimes, who did not preside over Slaughter’s trial. Wimes said he typically would not grant a pretrial order limiting certain words, but he would verbally tell the attorneys to avoid using words in a prejudicial or inflammatory way.

[lord edward coke]

Under a thin veneer of Law, we are governed by a secret network of traitors, pedophiles, Satanists and criminals, masquerading as prominent lawyers and judges, politicians, businessmen and police chiefs.
 
They are often Freemasons who derive their power from the central banking cartel based in London which controls the mass media and seeks to impose its tyranny in the guise of "world government."
 
If you don't believe me, you've probably never heard the names Renate Andres-Auger, Jack Cram and Bruce Clark. They are Vancouver lawyers who were dragged from the courtroom, drugged, disbarred and committed to mental hospitals when they attempted to expose this clique in the 1990's.
 
CITY CONFIDENTIAL
 
Beautiful Vancouver B.C., site of the 2010 Winter Olympics, was described by the "Christian Science Monitor" in 1997 as "a pedophiles' paradise," a place known for its "notorious sex trade," with an international reputation "as a city where it is easy to find a child for sex." In 1999, UNESCO named Vancouver one of the world's top three centers for sex trafficking, child porn and pedophilia because of "suspected judicial protection for child sex offenders."
 
In 1994, Renate Andres-Auger, an aboriginal lawyer and single mother of six girls, found irregularities in a land claim case that were very damning to the judicial process. She also charged certain judges and lawyers with a criminal conspiracy to aid and protect pedophiles. She and her own lawyer Jack Cram presented evidence, including photographs and eye witness accounts that two Supreme Court judges were engaged in pedophilia and were using their office to protect other pedophiles. She named the prestigious "Vancouver Club" as a center of this pedophile ring. (Kevin Annett, "Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust," p. 147-150)
 
The Judge ordered Auger removed from the court. "The sheriffs dragged Andres-Auger out of the court and you could hear her thumping down the stairs behind the judge's bench." Then the Judge ordered the sheriffs to remove her lawyer Jack Cram. Police were called to clear the courtroom of about 80 supporters. According to a press release (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/cram.html), this is what happened when Cram took the cause to the public:
 
"One night at about 11:30 p.m., after finishing a radio interview, Mr. Cram returned home, parked his car, and while walking to his apartment building five policemen emerged out of the bushes and leaped on him. He was put in an unmarked van and as soon as they got him in they "shot him full of something" and he was transported to the psychiatric ward of Vancouver General Hospital -- as a "no information" patient.
 
SAVING JACK CRAM
 
"When the committee found out where Mr. Cram was, they had to go to Prince George, some 800 kms away, to find a lawyer who would file a habeas-corpus writ to release Mr. Cram but it was never used as Mr. Cram was again, unexpectedly, released after being held this time for 7 days.
 
"Mr. Cram went directly from the psychiatric ward to a meeting of the committee ... He was still under the effects of the drugs that had been administered to him up until about two hours prior to his release. But he was able to explain everything that had happened. It was two of his closest associates, one of which was the one who had bad mouthed him on TV, that signed papers to have Mr. Cram committed.
 
"After a trial, the court disbarred him for a year and fined him $10,000. He was bankrupt and had lost his practice. Cram moved to his ranch in Princeton, a community about 130 km north of Vancouver.
 
"According to Judge Gibbs, in making his recent judgment on Dr. Clark's appeal, said "after [Mr. Cram] received treatment for his paranoid-delusions mental illness, he subsequently dropped all his court cases that he had started in his delusional phase" and one of the conditions for returning to the bar after one year was that he continue to receive psychiatric treatment for that year. Mr. Cram could have been jailed for three months if he didn't receive the treatment or defaulted on paying the fine."
 
Renate Andres-Auger has gone underground. Law Society of BC official James Taylor, who disbarred Andres-Auger and Cram, became a BC Supreme Court judge and issued an injunction in 2002 against mentioning the pedophile charges.
 
Ed John, a native leader accused of using Mafia tactics, and running cocaine and child prostitution rings, was actually named Minister of Child and Family Services in the NDP (socialist) provincial government in 2000. The injunction also covered any mention of these charges.
 
 
COMMENTS ON THIS SHAMEFUL EPISODE
 
Deborah Wade, a founder of Amnesty International in Vancouver, said in 1999 (http://www.preferrednetwork.com/Pedophilia_In_Vancouver.htm):
 
"The Cram/Andres-Auger story, to this day, remains a very strange and fearful tale of alleged corruption and pedophilia in high places. It is also a story which has never yet been completely told. Perhaps if it were, along with a few other strange stories, we as Canadians would have little reason to gasp at the exposure of pedophile rings in Belgium operating in high places two years ago. The matter of cover-ups possibly existing for those in high places in Canada is becoming more and more credible as more and more people speak out."
 
In 2007 Anthony Hall, a professor at the University of Lethbridge, commented in "Canadian Dimension" magazine: <http://mostlywater.org/ the_hauntings_of_colonialism>
 
"No public investigation into the treatment and accusations of Andres-Auger and Cram ever took place. We can only speculate, therefore, on the circumstances behind such a dramatic collapse of dignity and due process in the criminal-justice system. Certainly it is made to seem probable that some highly placed group or individual believed that he, she, or they had a great deal to lose if Andres-Auger and Cram had been able to press charges."
 
Hall relates how in 1995, when lawyer Bruce Clark (http://sisis.nativeweb.org/clark/currvit.html)tried to make a legal argument on behalf of Aboriginal clients, an incident transpired in a rural B.C. court similar to when Andres-Auger and Cram tried to bring their evidence forward. Clark was taken into custody and sent to an institution for a compulsory psychological examination.
 
This is how dissidents were treated in another Illuminati satrap, the USSR. Granted these events took place 13-14 years ago, but you can bet they created a chill that continues today.
 
CONCLUSION
 
The Illuminati has a vital interest in using Native leadership to confiscate Aboriginal land and water, and to operate drug trafficking and pedophile rings. That's why lawyers who attempted to represent ordinary Natives incurred the wrath of these (moral) reptiles. That's when the mask slipped, and we had a glimpse of the ugly reality of our society.
 
Another man to watch is Kevin Annett (http:// www.hiddenfromhistory.org), a United Church (Methodist-Presbyterian) minister who was kicked out of the church for investigating systemic murder of Native children in church-run residential schools. He is leading a crusade to force the Canadian government and churches to acknowledge genocide. Canadians are outspoken about recognizing other nations' genocides.
 
"If genocide can happen to to Indian people today, it can happen to you tomorrow," Annett writes in his book, "Love and Death in the Valley." "Especially if you rely on the government and corporate system that has robbed them for so long."
 
The experience of Andres-Auger, Cram, Clark and Annett shows that when it comes to freedom, truth and justice, we live in an hypocritical and decadent society. Banker-Masonic control infects our society like a cancer paralyzing mind and spirit.
 
--------
 
See also "A Tale of Two Lawyers" http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/Tale2lawyers.html 

[Pheonix Renewed]

Thanks for posting these. Given my own personal experiences, these stories don't surprise me. Sadly, if they weren't attorneys and "important people," no one would listen at all. Maybe if the important people can be heard and can get these kinds of stories out to the public, the corruption that destroys so many "unimportant" and "uninteresting" lives can be ended.

We don't need this kind of thing.