By Joseph Rorie
rorie8th@bellsouth.net 

This, my friend, is not an ordinary story. And, I must tell you before I even begin it, that my ghost name itself has a ghost name. Furthermore, the latter doesn’t even have a name… If you catch my drift.

Well, now that I’m fully identified, we shall begin with what I overheard just the other day while walking past an outdoor gourmet tuna shop.

"I tried my best!" uttered the voice of a stranger. That’s what caught my attention. Then I noticed this small huddle of what appeared to be journalists, there obviously to hear from (as I soon learned) this highly respected – but at the moment distraught – ace detective. Yes, they were eager to hear his story, drawn to a news pronouncement by his earlier fame. He had captured the notice of our whole city with a reputation for unfailingly bringing criminals to justice no matter how well hidden their crimes. Leaning forward to try and catch some of what was being said, I got quickly shooed away for lack of press credentials. Only pretending to depart, however, I just stepped around the corner.

Peeking back in at length, I caught the gist of our famed detective informing those journalists that he is now ready to nab the biggest criminal ever apprehended! As I watched dumbfounded, that huddle went catatonic with their mikes and cameras, pushing closer for the scoop of their lives. Such a thronging you will not forget.

I could hardly see him, but his voice was clear as a cat’s meow before a can of tuna being opened, if you know what I mean. Well, since further eavesdropping at the time meant hiding where I stood, that was okay because you know what I’ve just said about tuna humming through a can opener and all. At that very moment, much of what might have been heard got muffled out by this big city bus pulling up and letting off some passengers. However, still able to see in, I noticed the cameras begin dropping to their sides; the excitement had gone from those faces. The whole pack of them turned in disappointment, each like a cat denied his wish and realizing his meowing won’t get the tuna.

You know what I’m talking about. Now don’t get me wrong; this is not a cat story, or even a takeoff on tuna. It’s about that biggest criminal of all – and still at large. Those long faces visible on the many cats surrounding us even now as we speak has the same effect; it’s just like with that mob of journalists, a big letdown. Anyway!

I was at the part where this bus engine made so much noise I couldn’t catch any details, but still saw that catlike change of attitude when every single journalist just packed up and gracefully slinked away with piety. They left him like some people leave pets off at an SPCA shelter. If you get my drift. Okay, I will proceed to the point.

Well, the bus drove on, but I did catch just those three words that had suddenly ended the whole announcement. And, like a cat cuddling closer when wanting some tidbit, you know me, I went to the now empty spot where the small group of eager journalists had stood, and approached this detective. "The Fourteenth Amendment?!" I meowed, I mean, asked.

"Yea, the 14th Amendment!" He said, then grew silent, at first not wanting to add anything. But I could read his mind like a ball of yarn, just where it was going to land when pawed by a cat. Okay, so this may be a cat story; maybe not so much about tuna, though. For what our detective had to say really let the ol’ "cat out of the bag." I’m talking here a long-whiskered, high-tailed, real speeding cat, too. Let me tell you what he revealed.

I guess, with no crowd around and his press release dropped like a worn-out mouse carcass, he still had to tell someone about this greatest of crimes, a spectacular case that depended entirely on the media doing their jobs by raising a little public outcry; he could’ve then surely busted it. For the man had come prepared to name his criminal! Yet, since the latter enjoyed political connections, a charged "official" investigation having purred along for awhile discovering nothing, and ordinary citizen jurists unaware of these facts, he couldn’t bring the culprit in for trial and discard.

Well, now I’m wondering: how come such a big scoop was not thronged upon by the media, why those journalists just acted like kittens lying around unconcerned and licking their paws? When I heard his case, it was like the proverbial cat out of a bag – running, racing, darting all over the place with excitement and telling everything. So what follows is that ol’ cat let out of the bag story, just as we have always heard. Today you get to hear one.

Okay, now that our cat is in the open let me get to this detective’s story. It was in 1963, himself then a happy investigator finding satisfaction by bringing in some of the most hardened criminals, each and all clearly guilty. He bragged about producing box after boxful of evidence collected on them, so convincing that they would just willfully confess their crimes – only a few playing hard, and going to trial.

"But, hey!" he exclaimed, "With the proofs I had, there was no way a suspect was going to beat the rap."

He sips his coffee and says, "Look, kitty, I mean Mister…" Let me just get to the bottom of this and skip some of the details. Here’s the story he told me.

That was in 1963. Not having pencil nor paper, recorder or any device that might’ve contained all he said that day, I’ll just begin with this quote from the Sunday newspaper magazine called This Week, February 16, 1964 as written by one George J. Jaffee: "The greatest prison break of all times has quietly been going on for a year in the United States. Hundreds of prison-hardened criminals are walking out of their jail cells scot-free. Thousands of others will be freed soon. The most amazing thing about the great escape is that it’s all legal. And due to a Supreme Court ruling."

That brought back to mind the detective having said some of his work would soon be trashed, and in just a matter of time have no value at all. Sure enough, the article goes on to report: "The prisoners escaping are not minor criminals. They have committed serious crimes in 15 states of the U.S. In Florida, for example, a random sampling of the criminals released would include

· A man, 36 years old, sentenced to 30 years in prison in 1961, for murdering his girl friend with a pocket knife

· A woman, 22, who had been convicted and sentenced in 1961 to five years in prison for armed robbery

· A man, 28, convicted in 1960 to six months to life for assault with intent to murder

· A man, 24, sentenced in 1961 to 20 years for armed robbery."

The article then named all the states that were affected directly by this court ruling, reporting that over 4,200 prisoners were up for release, once their "rehearings" came due on the roster – just for the State of Florida, encompassing more than half of its 8,000 inmates. No figures could be gathered as to all of the releases expected.

Time magazine reported on October 18, 1963: "…In many cases where the courts have granted a new trial, it is virtually impossible for the prosecutor to rebuild the case – records and evidence are gone, witnesses have disappeared. [Florida] Judge Joseph McNulty points to the pending case of a man sentenced to life imprisonment in 1938 for second-degree murder after being tried without a lawyer. ‘He’s pleading not guilty, and it will be impossible to try him. The witnesses are dead or gone and I’m not sure they can even prove there was a corpse.’"

In the Los Angeles Times of December 10, 1964 an article stated, "Forty-six men in San Quentin prison’s death row will be among the most vitally interested parties Dec. 15 when the California Supreme Court takes a new look at two decisions which have helped keep the gas chamber idle for nearly two years.

"On that date the court will hold a rehearing on the Dorado and Anderson cases.

"The state attorney general and 55 of the state’s 58 district attorneys say the original decisions threaten to free at least seven convicted killers and could release thousands now serving prison terms for various crimes..."

The report went on to state that a jump in Habeas Corpus cases soared from a low of 62 to 335 in October alone from the San Quentin prison, all filing with confidence that they would be released, just from the previous court ruling.

The case is well known and quoted across the country as Gideon v. Wainwright 372 US 335, an offspring from the "14th Amendment."

I remember also that very day the same detective informing me how the Supreme Court claimed that the 1868 clause "due process of law" in the "14th Amendment" required indigents to be furnished with free counsel in certain cases. Surely, in 1868, due process did not mean that a person had a right to free counsel when arraigned for burglary. While it was standard practice to help and provide indigent defendants with some counsel when tried for very serious crimes, "requirements" were virtually nonexistent either in the States or by any court opinions.

So, what suddenly brought on a ruling that the "due process" clause really meant, and intended, for counsel to be appointed to defendants on most crimes? Did the words in that "14th Amendment" mean something different than as stated in the Fifth Amendment? Though these phrases are almost identical (the latter, following named crimes, inferring prosecutions and as a form of defense in federal jurisdictions; the former mandating against the States only), in any case, says this detective, our country went from 1792 to 1963 with no repercussions coming from the due process clause.

My detective now moved to the heart of the matter.

"But now we have criminals completely convicted for crimes being released under this new ruling where millions of previous criminals were always convicted without such vagueness of the court’s redefined due process clause as stated in the ‘14th Amendment.’ Not one Senator in the 39th Congress stated in any manner whatsoever that ‘due process of law’ would mean the people owed all defendants free lawyers."

I called the waiter over and ordered a can of tuna, by that time ready to sup and chow with this cat.

As he continued, I thought a lot on what the detective was saying, and listened to many more of his gripes (stashed also in boxes for evidence), instances of how the court has used the "14th Amendment" to turn constitutional principles around. He even spoke of the Miranda v. Arizona case, where suddenly the accused, apprehended in the middle of a crime, had to be given a warning and a reminder about his rights to counsel and his rights not to be a witness against himself. If this little speech weren’t delivered, the court would then claim due process of law had not been carried out!

I asked him whether he was referring to the Fifth Amendment, wherein a person cannot be compelled to witness against himself, or the "14th Amendment," which says nothing about compelling.

"The court," he answered, "has claimed that the ‘14th Amendment’ incorporated the first eight Bill of Rights amendments."

Then, in a voice of sarcasm and with a hand to the side of his mouth, he added: "But, here again, we find that the 39th Congress never mentioned this, either."

"Have you any idea where that court could’ve gotten such a doctrine?" I asked, thoroughly bewildered. "Surely you’ve overlooked a clue somewhere…"

"I am a student of the 39th Congress!" he fired back belligerently. "It never came from that Congress." He sipped his coffee again, looked over at my can of tuna and thanked me for listening, but stated he had to go.

Just as he was leaving, we both heard several times a loud "Meow!" And, gazing to the part from which this had emanated, jumping at us we witnessed yet another cat out of the bag. "The 14th Amendment was never ratified!" exclaimed the fluffed-up herald. Now who’s gonna believe this cat, we both wondered.

The flyer that then fell off a bundle of messages he was carrying strapped on his back made it necessary for me to revise my account as above related, adding quotation marks here and there. Let me tell you what it said under the bold headline, "Fourteenth Amendment Never Ratified!

"A Lawyer by the name of Charles Wallace Collins exposed the fact in 1912 that the ‘14th Amendment’ didn’t pass. Nor was it ever ratified according to the U.S. Constitution’s Article V."

Wow! We sat back down, transfixed by this new lead, intent on finding out more. Our new arrival, purring softly, was eyeing us askance as we continued perusing his captured flyer: "Collins has a book out that he wrote in 1912 exposing those facts…"

Suddenly that cat scurried on past us. "Here, kitty, kitty!" we both called, leaping to our feet determined to run down this most important news just out of the bag. "Here, kitty, kitty!" But he kept on down the street, a really long-whiskered and speeding cat, high-tailing it.

Well, Detective Felix, you have a new trace-down job.

By the way, before finishing, I must tell you that in looking for any further clue, we closely examined this bag that the cat had sprung from. It lay now empty, of course. Printed upon one side was simply

RECONSTRUCTION AND
CENTRALIZATION 1848,
EXPIRATION DATE, NONE
             – signed, Karl Marx

So remember your American Tuna, and don’t leave home without it.

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

The First Freedom