With the furor over O. J. Simpson's new, and now canceled, book and TV interview; an opening exists for me to ask the one question which has troubled me ever since his trial years ago. That question is: Why did the federal government not immediately file charges against O. J. for violating the civil rights of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman after his acquittal?

All citizens have civil rights, one of which might be the right to life. Another might be justice. Had this crime been committed in a southern state by a white person against two black victims, a federal indictment would have been served immediately after the not guilty verdict was read.

These civil rights laws have served the nation very well against crimes of racial hatred. Many a racist murderer would have escaped punishment for their crimes had these laws not been enacted. I am not a lawyer, but to my knowledge the laws apply to, and protect, all citizens. Civil rights laws should protect all of us!

Of course, O.J. searches the golf courses of America for the real killers due to incompetence. That is, had the prosecutors tried O.J. for only one of the murders originally, the state could have tried him on the second count without committing double jeopardy. Once again I'm not a lawyer, but I understand this is generally taught in the first law school class. For example, Andrea Yates was found not guilty by reason of insanity on three of five counts of murdering her five children. Should some psychiatrists and judge decide to release her next week, the state can try her on the two remaining counts if they feel justice has not been served.

I had one question, but while I'm on the soapbox, how about one more - please? There was a case where two young men went on a gambling trip to Nevada. One was a child molester who followed a young girl into a women's restroom where she was molested and murdered. The molester's friend came in a few minutes after his buddy and heard the commotion in a locked stall. Standing on the toilet in an adjacent booth, he witnessed what was occurring and asked his buddy to stop. He left the restroom while the crime was in progress, never alerting anyone to the late night ongoing crime. He simply waited outside for his friend.

The district attorney stated that the second young man committed no crime since Nevada did not have a "good Samaritan" law. That is, it was not a crime to not report the crime in progress. Consequently, the California college which the lad attended could not drop him from the school regardless of the protests of other students.

The second question: Is it legal in Nevada for men to enter women's restrooms and peer at women in the adjacent stalls? Duh? If so, I would anticipate an influx of peeping toms into Las Vegas when this information gets released!

OK, originally it was one, then two, but I beg a third an final follow-up question. Is it true that all really good legal minds go where the big bucks can be found -- the defense teams? Note: I did not count the "Duh?" as a real question.

=================================================================

Click Here for other articles by this author!

FREELY read the truly good news at  http://www.myth-one.com/chapter_1.htm

Email: myth-one@myth-one.com

Comment on this article here!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal).

	Web useless-knowledge.com