case states some profound premise, but when I look, I learn that the "quote" is a "misquote" or entirely wrong. PAM is an example of a party who does this.

Frankly, I had rather rely upon what a court has actually stated regarding the Declaration of Independence. For example, the case of Commw. of the N. Mariana Islands v. Bowie, 243 F.3d 1109, 1124 (9th Cir. 2001), concerned the knowing use of false testimony to prosecute a defendant. In vacating that conviction, the 9th Circuit held in its conclusion:

"Such false testimony and false evidence corrupts the criminal justice system and makes a mockery out of its constitutional goals and objectives. Thus, although the truthful testimony of accomplice witnesses will continue to be of great value to the law, rewarded criminals also represent a great threat to the mission of the criminal justice system. It is just as constitutionally unacceptable for the government to put a guilty person in prison on the basis of false evidence as it is to have an innocent person suffer the same fate.

"The authentic majesty in our Constitution derives in large measure from the rule of law -principle and process instead of person. Conceived in the shadow of an abusive and unanswerable tyrant who rejected all authority save his own, our ancestors wisely birthed a government not of leaders, but of servants of the law. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence, nor for that matter in the Federalist or in any other writing of the Founding Fathers, can one find a single utterance that could justify a decision by any oath-beholden servant of the law to look the other way when confronted by the real possibility of being complicit in the wrongful use of false evidence to secure a conviction in court. When the Preamble of the Constitution consecrates the mission of our Republic in part to the pursuit of Justice, it does not contemplate that the power of the state thereby created could be used improperly to abuse its citizens, whether or not they appear factually guilty of offenses against the public welfare. It is for these reasons that Justice George Sutherland correctly said in Berger that the prosecution is not the representative of an ordinary party to a lawsuit, but of a sovereign with a responsibility not just to win, but to see that justice be done. 295 U.S. at 88. Hard blows, yes, foul blows no. The wise observation of Justice Louis Brandeis bears repeating in this context:"

You may read this case on FindLaw here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9910552&exact=1

People should read and study actual cases.

Larry

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

David R. Hinkson's Attorney conducting oral arguments in front of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 7th 2007 in Seattle Washington. This is actually two cases in which both sides give argument and rebuttal.

http://www.binarybit.com/Portals/TheLastOutpost/Audio/davehinkson/David-Hinkson-Appeal.mp3

The above link is the entire audio account of oral arguments in front of the 9th Circuit

I recommend that you go here http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/772/default.aspx, to setup Windows Media Player properly, so that you don't have to download the contents of the entire audio file, before it starts to play. The file size is around 26Mb's.