ENDEAVOUR FORUM NEWSLETTER No. 121, FEBRUARY 2006
BOOKSHELF
“Sex Appealed: Was the US Supreme Court Fooled?”
by Judge Janice Law.
Publisher Eakin Pr. 273 pp.
Available from WorldNetDaily.com @ $US19.95.
The landmark Lawrence v Texas ruling is the trigger event that, as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia foretold in his dissent, removed roadblocks to gay “marriage”. Lawrence remains in headlines today, in a larger cultural war, over homosexual adoption, employee benefits, the military’s “Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell” policy and related issues of judicial activism. It is the equivalent of Roe v Wade in the homosexual arena. Judge Janice Law explores pervasive rumors that the events of September 17, 1998, were a prearranged, orchestrated set-up designed to test Texas Penal Statute 21.06 – a too-perfect case. Below are extracts from a review of her book by Joseph Farah, founder, editor and CEO of WorldNetDaily.com
“It was in the Houston courthouse where Janice Law presided as judge that she first heard rumors that the key figures in what became the landmark Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case actually invited arrest in a pre-arranged set-up designed from the start to test the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws.
What the journalist-turned-prosecutor-turned-judge-turned-journalist found, after interviewing most of the key players, including those in the Texas homosexual subculture that produced the case, is that the Supreme Court, possibly for the first time in history, ruled on a case "with virtually no factual underpinnings."
When the Supreme Court decided to hear the challenge to Texas anti-sodomy laws in 2002, the only facts for the high court to review were Deputy Joseph Richard Quinn's 69-word, handwritten, probable cause affidavits – written within hours of the arrests of the three principals in the case Sept. 17, 1998.
There had been no trial. There had been no stipulations to facts by the state or the defendants. The defendants simply pleaded no contest at every phase of the proceedings. It was quite simply the misdemeanor dream case homosexual activists in Texas and nationwide had been dreaming about. Or had they done more than dream about it? Had they schemed about it, too?
Tyron Garner and John Geddes Lawrence
“Nearly everyone familiar with the case that set off the nation's same-sex marriage craze knows there were two defendants in the case – two men, John Geddes Lawrence, 60, and Tyron Garner, 36. Forgotten, until Law's book, was a third man arrested at Lawrence's apartment that night – Robert Eubanks, who was beaten to death three years before the case was heard by the Supreme Court.
“It was Eubanks who took the fall for calling the police the night of the "incident." He said he was the one who placed the call reporting a man firing a gun in an apartment building. When police officers responded to the felony call, Eubanks was outside Lawrence's apartment directing police to the unit – still insisting a man with a gun was threatening neighbors.
“When police approached Lawrence's apartment, they found the front door open. When they entered the apartment, they found a man calmly talking on the telephone in the kitchen, also motioning to the officers to a bedroom in the rear.
“Despite repeated shouts by officers identifying themselves as sheriff’s deputies from the moment they entered the Houston apartment, no one seemed surprised to see them – especially not Lawrence and Garner. Quinn and his fellow officers, expecting to see an armed man or perhaps holding a hostage instead found Lawrence engaged in homosexual actions with Garner. They did not seem at all surprised to see two uniformed sheriff's deputies with drawn guns walk into their bedroom, Quinn recalls.....”
“Lawrence and Garner would be booked that night for a class C misdemeanor punishable by only a fine. Eubanks was charged with filing a false police report because there were no guns found. Lawrence and Garner would become celebrity heroes of the homosexual activist movement. Eubanks would wind up beaten to death – with Garner a possible suspect in a case that remains unsolved.
“But who was the mystery man on the phone in the kitchen? He was never identified officially because there was no reason to charge him. Judge Law believes his identity is key to proving the pre-meditated nature of the Lawrence case setup. And she thinks she's solved the case. Readers can decide for themselves.....
“The 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court Lawrence ruling favored the defendants .... The justices who voted to overturn the Texas statute and invalidate anti-sodomy laws in the rest of the U.S. were Justices Stephen Breyer, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority decision.Those voting to uphold the Texas law were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
“If the Lawrence case were known to be a set-up during the five years following the arrests, then the defendants would not have a right-to-privacy claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court probably would never have heard the case.
“After that historic ruling, Janice Law decided to investigate a case that had never before been subject to any investigation. By then she was a visiting judge, sitting for judges who are on vacation or ill.
"‘I researched and wrote Sex Appealed because I know many of the Lawrence participants, I had the time, contacts, and the journalistic background to investigate, and, as a lawyer and judge, I felt an obligation to history to find out what really happened behind the scenes in one of the most culture-altering cases in America's legal history,’ Judge Law said. ‘I am the judge who, after the internationally publicized case was concluded at the highest level, embarked on her own investigation of rumors about the case assigned to her Texas court.’
“Along the way, Judge Law is not only persuasive that Lawrence was planned from the start – that police, in effect, were entrapped into witnessing a crime because the homosexual activists needed a test case – but also gets support for her theory from other judges involved in the saga.
“What would it mean, two years after Lawrence v. Texas, if Supreme Court justices learned they had been fooled, manipulated, played like a radio? Did the justices know that a key witness in the case had been murdered and that one of the defendants appeared to be a key suspect? Were they aware one of the lawyers that handled the case for Lawrence and Garner also represented Garner in the unsolved murder death of Eubanks?
“How could there be an issue of privacy in a case in which police were invited, encouraged, begged to enter an apartment and directed to the bedroom where the unlawful activity was taking place? Janice Law also finds that homosexual activists nationwide and, specifically, in Houston were actively searching for that "perfect" test case when Lawrence happened to come along.......”
Just like the abortion activists were waiting for the “perfect cases” in Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton in 1973.......
Member Organisation, World Council for Life and Family
NGO in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC of the UN