A QUEST FOR JUSTICE. A PETITION TO HAVE CASEY MARIE ANTHONY TRIED IN FEDERAL COURT

There are some rather angry people out there. Quite a few angry people, in fact. These people are angry because they feel that Caylee Marie Anthony did not get justice. These people want “Justice for Caylee.”

One recent avenue that these people are taking is to have a petition drive calling for “Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division: Try Casey Anthony in federal court for the murder of her daughter” as is stated in the header of the petition.

This sort of action is not without precedent. The federal government stepped in during the civil rights era to hold federal trials when the southern states courts either refused to try cases against blacks or acquitted those who were clearly guilty of the crimes they were charged with.

Such as the case with Caylee. The advocates of this petition:

http://www.change.org/petitions/lanny-a-breuer-assistant-attorney-general-criminal-division-try-casey-anthony-in-federal-court-for-the-murder-of-her-daughter

Feel this injustice needs to be corrected as quickly as possible. I have heard experts in the field of law say that it is unlikely that the federal will step in and try Casey for murder nor for any other crime.

These legal naysayers apparently have not heard of advocates like Erin Brokovich who ignored those who said she was fighting a lost cause and wound up winning her battle.

Do not count the Justice for Caylee folks out.  They are a force to be reckoned with. There is a saying out there “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” The Justice for Caylee groups are comprised of a LOT of women!

https://www.facebook.com/KeepingUpTheFight

 

Stay Tuned

 

MURT

 

8 Comments

  • Tammy says:

    Amen to this

  • Beverley says:

    i would love to see Caylee get the justice she so deserves…the drowning theory….is just that, a fabricated theory along with a side of molestation….his opening statement was disgusting, that child died by other means…and the trunk is the answer…the jury failed to look at the over powering evidence, they ran like cowards after the verdict…they can’t even explain how they came to the not guilty verdict…all they say is .,we never said she was innocent…well no shit…the world watched this trial, it captured the united states, a child was missing for 321 days and her mother partied and played house with her boyfriend..all the time telling everybody lie after lie …buying herself time..her poor daughter bagged 3 times and tossed like garbage into a swamp…like Casey said,,,i feel she’s close to home…the only bit of truth out of her mouth….and why would a mother resort to perjury…and proven to be committing perjury..that trial was anything but right…why were Cindy, George ., Lee…allowed in the courtroom during the trial…they were witnesses…that was different…no other witness sat in on the trial..they came in when their name was called….so wrong on so many levels.

  • Beverley says:

    powering evidence, they ran like cowards after the verdict…they can’t even explain how they came to the not guilty verdict…all they say is .,we never said she was innocent…well no shit…the world watched this trial, it captured the united states, a child was missing for 31 days and her mother partied and played house with her boyfriend..all the time telling everybody lie after lie …buying herself time..her poor daughter bagged 3 times and tossed like garbage into a swamp…like Casey said,,,i feel she’s close to home…the only bit of truth out of her mouth….and why would a mother resort to perjury…and proven to be committing perjury..that trial was anything but right…why were Cindy, George ., Lee…allowed in the courtroom during the trial…they were witnesses…that was different…no other witness sat in on the trial..they came in when their name was called….so wrong on so many levels.

  • agranny says:

    Murt ,
    Did you watch the Zimmerman bond hearing? They brought him in shackels to the court room ,Casey got to come in and flirt and be one of the team .What the heck was going on with her trial? She was never treated like a person on trial .no wonder the jury bought it .. Shame Shame .

    • Yes, I was there. The only thing I can figure out is that this is a different court. Seminole does things a lot different. It does help that Casey is a woman and for whatever reason Judge Perry decided that she could com in sans shakles.

      MURT

    • Beverley says:

      Casey got to wear normal clothes because she was in front of a jury….she is presumed innocent…zimmerman was at a bond hearing…no jury…watch when he goes to trial…no shackles…and the best of suits with the money already generated from people donating to his fund….

  • Firstly, I want to thank you for posting this information about my petition. Secondly, I would like to leave a summary of the points contained in the petition itself in case anyone has a question about it. The petition is unique in that it addresses something no other petition has before – the policy that DOJ uses to determine whether or not they will take a case that has already been tried by a state, the Petite Policy, that was established in 1960 in US v. Petite.

    Others have addressed the dual sovereignty doctrine, which is a doctrine that allows someone to be tried by the federal government after being tried by the state; the case of record there is US v. Lanza, 1922. Essentially, it says that double jeopardy only applies to one particular sovereign such that a person may only be tried only once by any given sovereign. The federal government is a separate sovereign from all of the states, which all have their own sovereignty. This is why the federal government can try a person after they have faced charges at the state level; they are a separate sovereign from the state where the trial took place.

    The dual sovereignty doctrine says that they can charge someone with federal crimes after state proceeding while the Petite Policy says whether or not they will do that. The petition addresses that policy.

    The Petite Policy of the United States Department of Justice ( http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/2mcrm.htm#9-2.031 ) states: “This policy establishes guidelines for the exercise of discretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding.

    This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied:”

    1. the crime involves a substantial and enduring federal interest.

    The petition maintains that the protection of those Americans who, because of physical, psychological, or mental deficiencies, cannot protect themselves is and always has been both a substantial and enduring federal interest. Many government programs have been created for just that purpose, and America’s children constitutes one of those groups.

    2. The prior prosecution must have left the stated federal interest demonstrably unvindicated.

    One way this prerequisite can be met is by showing that the jury disregarded evidence in coming to their verdict. Statements given by jurors after the trial prove that they, in fact, failed to go over the evidence.

    Another way this prerequisite can be met is if there was an unavailability of evidence. Judge Perry kept out a lot of evidence that should have been made available to the jury but was not because of his rulings. The petition cites an example of this.

    A third way this prerequisite can be met is if the crime constituted egregious conduct, which the murder of a child certainly is egregious conduct.

    Fourthly, this prerequisite can be met if it can be shown that “…the prior prosecution was manifestly inadequate to protect its….resource.” The petition addresses the prior prosecution’s failure to provide a deterrent to others who might attempt to murder their children in the way Ms. Anthony did, and in order to protect our children, it is necessary for the federal government to send a message of deterrence by prosecuting Casey Anthony.

    3. The government must believe that the defendant’s conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence probably will be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction by an unbiased trier of fact.

    Murder is a federal offense, and there are other charges that are associated with this crime that the federal government could charge her with in addition to or to the exclusion of murder. The petition asks the DOJ to charge any and all offenses associated with this crime.

    The evidence is also there to obtain and maintain a conviction; moreover there is other evidence that can be allowed in on the federal level that was not on the local level that goes towards doing both those.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>