northwestern california school of law

northwestern california school of law
many words mean the same thing and can be used synonymously in relation to ideas and concepts clearly in the default font. Some synonyms, however, be used euphemistically to manipulate a reaction from the reader or listener in the context of an explanation. Take the word "lie" for example. The dictionary defines the word lie, "a false statement with intent to deceive." In 2003, the definition questions using the word "lie" is ambiguous when applied to the statements of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney on the imminent threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction into the United States.

We now know that Iraq is not in possession of weapons of mass destruction in the months until the Iraqi invasion, not even the country represent a serious threat to American security. After the Downing Street Memo, which systematically downplayed by the media and ignored by Congress, it is undeniable proof of collusion and conspiracy by Blair and Bush administrations, months before the Iraqi invasion, deliberately to deceive the American and British people in support the expectation of war. Nevertheless, the use of the word "lie" by the media, for the conduct of the Bush Administration, was somehow not considered to be correct.

Instead, the word "prevaricate," which means "to speak, false, misleading, or to avoid the truth, deliberately false, ambiguous, subject to." Although the two words seem to be identical with the definition, not prevaricate with the same dull ring of accusation, which by the word "lie." But is it really something? When I said that Peter has the money from an old man, without permission, with the intention to keep, I could also say that Peter stole the money correctly. Also, if I said that Peter took the money and then does it not, I could also say that Peter the same song about the money. What if I said instead that Peter took the money and then prevaricated do it? What would be the difference between my two statements? Would the use of the word "prevaricate" change of circumstances to mitigate or the Act of Peter denied that he stole the money? I think not.

A standard double room has always been widely used, if the conduct of kings, presidents and prime ministers, in contrast to the ordinary people of a nation-state. And the misuse of words and slang expressions often the means by which the double standard was applied. This is because kings, emperors, kings and others have been historically as a source of law, they were also made as inviolable as incapable, by the people of crimes.

For example, if a divine right king or emperor had the funds for his close aides to evade questioning during an investigation into crimes against the state, the monarch would have been culpable of obstruction of justice? In a story, maybe not. If the rulers claimed sovereign immunity to actions that are usually considered a crime, with total impunity, which many kings, the ruler from adopting a. Then, as an elected president or prime minister in a modern system of laws in which everyone in the state are equally charged to obey the law? Equal protection under the law and equal responsibility for the violation of the right sound good if laws as general principles. But to say that presidents, prime ministers, and citizens are equal before the law, strict application and enforcement of guidelines constitutional principles are ultimately necessary as proof that all people equally judged in a nation of laws.

Thus, the strict application and enforcement of the criminal law of the case in the United States with respect to our President, the Vice-President, U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senators, and all other civilian officials in accordance with Article 1, Section 3 and Article 2 , Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution? From the "infamous" Sixteen federal officials impeached officers since 1789, only one Senator, William Blount, was investigated in 1799 for crimes, but was not convicted because of all things, the Senate declared that they do not have the competence to Try it with its own, which is constitutionally wrong. The two presidents on the list, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton was impeached but acquitted of their charges. Of the nine federal judges impeached, six of them were tried, convicted and removed from office. Three were acquitted. The Supreme Court impeached, Samuel Chase, was acquitted in 1805. No vice president has ever been impeached.

If the above discipline record saying double standards in the Federal Republic of criminal justice system? Is it possible that if everyone called impeachment acquittal was closely examined in retrospect by an honest county prosecutor, in strict accordance with federal law, would Machiavellian skullduggery and political compromise are considered relevant to the presumption of innocence adjudged? A prominent Senator majority leader once said publicly that the President and senators tried for small offenses is a waste of Congress' valuable time.

SANITIZED The Congressional Record is not in any contradiction to this statement, Senator in the Senate floor, so I guess it was ninety-nine other senators who are with him. Perhaps if Richard Nixon had tried to by the Senate for the list of crimes with which he was charged, he would have acquitted. Maybe not. But we know that Gerald Ford pardoned him before he could be accused by the Justice Ministry after the resignation of the presidency.

How about the President, next to Nixon, who has dealt with the obligation during high crimes in office definitely like James K. Polk, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and, possibly, Ronald Reagon and George H. Bush. What Polk has done? He lied to Congress about the war with Mexico in 1848 to a declaration of war against Mexico in the interest of Manifest Destiny. It was General Zachary Taylor, actually with the Mexican war, by one of his soldiers to shoot and kill (murder?) One Mexican riders from across the Rio Grande River. More than two thousand people, the Mexican and American, were killed in this unjust war.

The Americans, who studied history of the Teapot Dome scandal and the well-known ignorance of President Warren G. Harding for the money, the Harding between the Minister of the Interior, Albert B. case, and an oil operator, Henry F. Sinclair. Several people are in the illegal exchange of money, but Harding says he knew nothing about what was going on. Autumn was the only officer in federal court and sentenced for the crime of Conspiracy and Grand Theft. Perhaps, in addition to a failure as president, Harding would have been impeached and tried by the Senate for the presidency on the Teapot Dome scandal, and not do anything about it.

After careful historical research of Dr. Charles Tansill, Distinguished Professor of diplomatic history at Georgetown University, wrote: "Back Door to War: Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941," John Toland, the writer, historian and author of the book " infamy "George Morgenstern, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Chicago, as a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and wrote the book," Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War ", published in 1947, Charles A. Beard, noted the historian and author of "President Roosevelt and the coming of the war, 1941: A Study in Appearances and Realities", and Frederick R. Sanborn, historical writer and author of "Design for War: A Study of Secret Politics, 1937 -- 1941, "Franklin D. Roosevelt covertly planned a surprise for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and knew that at least 48 hours in advance that the Japanese fleet were to devastate the U.S. fleet at risk. Because of the many secret documents and records from the jurisdiction of the Blue Ribbon Pearl Harbor Commission by the U.S. Army Intelligence cooperatives, the Commission was unable to ferret out the facts and the disturbing truth about Pearl Harbor and American entry into World War II .

It was not until the late 1940s that documents were issued by Harry Truman, which showed that the FDR secret negotiations with Winston Churchill, from 1939 until the end of 1940, the British Prime Minister that America would go to war against Hitler . In the knowledge that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had sufficient knowledge to warn the Pearl Harbor Naval command in advance of the impending Japanese attack, but his war department personnel so that the surprise attack to come, there is no alternative but call Roosevelt a war criminal who misled the Congress and the American people. If Roosevelt had Congress about secret negotiations with Churchill and his covert underhanded foreign policy with Japan, there is no doubt that the President would have been impeached for crimes. As a cripple, and the alleged American Economic Savior is not in any way mitigate FDR's coldly calculated strategy to manipulate a neutral nation in World War II.

How can less incriminating words used to euphemize the unnecessary deaths of more than 3,000 American GI's on Pearl Harbor? Is not that what the Nazi leaders tried, in her defense at the Nuremberg Trials to the murder of millions of innocent people? The Iran-Contra scandal of Ronald Reagon and George H. Bush was also a game with words. Oliver North deliberately lied to Congress and became a popular folk heroes of make. In response to allegations that Reagon his shoulders shrugged and said, "I can not remember what happened," and he was freed from all guilt. Vice President George H. Bush, the former director of the CIA, testified before Congress that he made the loop, while the sale of arms for the money to support an illegal CIA war in El Salvador and Honduras was going on. And no one questioned its veracity. Strangely, he was of the opinion, and the investigation in the Iran-Contra came to a standstill.

You do not have to be a conspiracy nut to read between the lines and discover that the current American history shows some amazing facts about corrupt political behavior. Illegal collusion between federal officials to acts that violate the law and the country and the interests of people as criminal conspiracies. In a nation of laws, criminal government conspiracies can not be supported, tolerated or ignored. Even words of the same meaning may not be used to the gravity of offenses committed by supposedly honorable public service. If this is the case, the darkest May triumph of evil under the guise of pseudonyms and aliases.

Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and psr Degree from the University of Texas at Tyler, an advanced paralegal certification, with honors, from Edmonds Community College in Lynnwood, Washington, and a year of Law School of Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, California, USA. In addition to the above academic, Mr. Nowlin has 70 post-graduate semester hours in economics, history, sociology and economics from Pepperdine, and national universities. In 1985, Mr. Nowlin successfully the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff's Academy at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, as deputy to the San Diego County Sheriff. Mr. Nowlin is currently a paralegal specialist for the Board of Veteran's Appeals in the Office of Veteran's Affairs, in Washington, DC, and the father of three adult children. He is married with the physicists, mathematicians and professional coach, Diane C. Nowlin. Mr. Nowlin resides with his wife and two very intelligent cats in Gaithersburg, Maryland.