So Barack Hussein Obama and his chosen Attorney General, Eric Holder, are hell bent on bringing professed Sept. 11, 2001 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and some of his best pals to trial in the USA through the US judicial system.

Where in the world would be the absolute worst place to look for a fair and impartial jury to try these particular terrorists? Is it possible that you can find twelve people in Manhattan who aren't aware that terrorists flew two airplanes into two skyscrapers filled with US Citizens in their city a mere 8 years ago? Can you even find twelve people in Manhattan that not only didn't witness these crimes but weren't touched by it through the loss of family, friends or co-workers? So what happens when the first thing Mohammad does is file for a change of venue?

Next, do we have to allow Muslims on the jury, preferably devout radical Muslims who have taken the "death to America" oath, in order to ensure Mohammad and pals are tried by a "jury of their peers"?

Side Questions: Will trials be interrupted for Muslim prayers numerous times a day? Will the court house be retro-fitted with places for feet washing and prayer mats? Just how much will this criminal debacle cost US Taxpayers? Will terrorists attack the court house, threaten jury members? How many motions for a mistrial will be filed before one is granted and we start the farce all over?

HotAir gives us a run down on Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm as a possible nominee for the Supreme Court opening. Granholm is scheduled to visit the White House tomorrow.

Most eyebrow raising is that Granholm has no judicial experience. And while it no longer raises eyebrows, this would be yet another nominee of the O with tax problems, including a failure to pay unemployment insurance for a nanny and a $19,535 tax lien for failure to pay taxes in 2003.

Granholm was a beauty pageant contestant and also sought a Hollywood career as a young adult; and while she did earn a juris doctorate degree, her only work in law was to clerk for a US Court of Appeals judge in the mid 1980's.

This is becoming such a common theme that I probably should make a category for it.

Yet another American is dead at the hands of yet another illegal and as usual, this illegal had been involved in other crimes in the USA and slapped on the wrist and released.

Of course being PC, we simply refer to this illegal murderer as "undocumented".

"Based on our timeline, that's the last documented person to see her," Carrollton police Sgt. John Singleton said.

Reyes was photographed by security cameras at the convenience store near UNT early Tuesday morning. Police said he was last seen leaving the store with Goodwin in her car. Denton police said it appeared that Goodwin left willingly with Reyes. Their relationship remained unknown.

Goodwin's burned body was found nine hours later near a Carrollton office complex. The Dallas County medical examiner's office was still investigating the cause of death.

When will our government realize that illegals are killing Americans at a fairly rapid rate and that the "catch and release" policy only ensures that Americans have less rights than the "undocumented" who walk amongst us?

Another law abiding American is dead because our Immigration department isn't doing its job and Congress is too busy surrendering the Iraq war to care.

Not only did illegal alien Luciano Melendres kill Danny Sims, but Melendres was no stranger to American courts.

Melendres was just convicted last week on a DWI charge from a March 16, 2006, incident. He was sentenced to probation, alcohol assessment and treatment and community service and was ordered to pay court costs and have a breathalyzer device installed on his vehicle. Police said they didn't find the device during an initial look inside.

Sentenced to probation? Alcohol assessment? Treatment?

Excuse me for asking what seems to be only a logical question, but where do we see d e p o r t a t i o n! Isn't that what should happen with illegal aliens? Exit stage left! Free ride back home.

IF Melendres had been correctly either held for deportation or deported, American citizen Danny Sims would still be alive. Our government failed Danny Sims.

This is a question we need to ask more and more as we see innocent people dragged through hell based on over-zealous prosecutors. What follows is a partial transcript from the April 11th, 2007 Lou Dobbs Tonight on CNN:

DOBBS: Well, joining me now with his analysis of this case and today's events, our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin.

Jeffrey, the attorney general saying not that they just decided to drop the case, saying that these men are innocent.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: This is something I have never heard before, Lou, a prosecutor saying not what they usually say, which is, we don't have enough evidence to proceed.

DOBBS: Right.

TOOBIN: He said, based on our investigation, these three young men are innocent. Those are words -- that's a word prosecutors don't use lightly, and I think it's highly significant.

DOBBS: Roy Cooper, the attorney general, also said this -- if we could roll that, I would like for everyone to have an opportunity to hear it, if we could, in this case, the inconsistencies that he addressed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: In this case, the inconsistencies were so significant and so contrary to the evidence that we have no credible evidence that an attack occurred in that house on that night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: That is about as strong as it could get as well. How in the world with that staring at them could everyone in a prosecutor's office, a district attorney's office, move forward with this case?

TOOBIN: I think you can only make the most cynical interpretation, which was that Mike Nifong was in a contested Democratic primary at the time this case was pending, he had to appeal to the black vote, and indicting these kids, innocent though they were, was the way to get that vote. And I resisted that conclusion for a long time, but based on this evidence, I don't see any other one to reach.

DOBBS: These young men had their lives ruined. The young lady, the stripper, no matter -- you know, whatever comes out of this, their lives have been tortured. They've been tormented for a year. The Duke lacrosse team was torn asunder, their coach fired.

This is not a system of justice that's working. Certainly not in North Carolina.

TOOBIN: You know, Reade Seligmann, one of the three, said something at the press conference which I found very moving. He said, "You know, this had never really occurred to me before, that there are innocent people prosecuted in this country."

DOBBS: Absolutely.

TOOBIN: But there are, and he said, "And not all of them had the kind of resources that we have to hire the best lawyers in North Carolina." And, you know, I don't think it happens a lot, but it sure happens, and it was a chilling thought for me today.

DOBBS: Well, I have to believe that it does happen more often than any of us would like to believe, because the idea in this country that you could take all these lives in this case, the accuser, the accused, all of the people in the legal machinery a year later -- and there had not been movement toward a disposition of this case -- the money that has been spent, the time that has been spent, how can we -- what happens to a person making $30,000 a year who gets ensnared in some madness like this?

TOOBIN: When you combine this story with the work that what Peter Neufeld and Barry Scheck done in The Innocence Project, using DNA evidence to free people from death row and elsewhere, you realize that our system is imperfect, at best. And it's just a chilling message about the cases we don't know about and the people who don't have the best lawyers.

DOBBS: I think at this point, Jeffrey, I would say imperfect hell. It's a mess.

How can you deliver justice with this kind of money required to defend one's self, to -- this much time required to reach judgment? I mean, it's -- it's just unconscionable.

TOOBIN: Unconscionable is what this case was, and at least justice triumphed here, if not everywhere.

DOBBS: We will take that as a point to be thankful for in this legal system.

Thank you very much, Jeffrey Toobin, as always.

Yes, I think in most cases one has to have it happen to them, or work in the justice system itself to know that innocent people are imprisoned. Because of the inability to afford attorneys, people sit in prison without having had a competent defense and a fair trial - so we simply don't know if they are guilty or innocent.

One such case that touches my heart is the case of Kenneth Middleton. Anyone reading the documentation carefully can see that Ken didn't have competent counsel (a judge even ruled this in 2004)and there's just something fishy about the doctored evidence presented by then Prosecutor Patrick Peters.

Judge Messina's order for a new trial was overturned by the a MO Appellate Court - but only on procedural grounds. No court has addressed Messina's findings of fact.

Peters is quick to tell people today that Kenneth Middleton "held his wife up against a wall and blew out her brains", but the truth (not mentioned by Peters) is that the evidence doesn't support this. Mr. Peters also fails to address why a gunshot residue test was altered, why the jury was never told that crime scene photos were really "staged crime scene photos" since the ones presented to the jury were taken after the crime scene was recreated.

The biggest problem is that the Middleton family has run out of money to continue their fight to free Ken Middleton. Their next step would be to go to federal court at an estimated cost of at least $10,000.00.

So what we have folks is a Judge who heard the facts and believes Ken Middleton didn't get a fair trial with competent counsel. The former Governor of Missouri testifying that in his 41 years of involvement with the legal system, he has never seen "such a violation of a defendant's constitutional rights". And, Ken Middleton still sitting in prison 17 years later.

We originally reported on the case of two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in August 2006. Both were convicted for pursuing a drug dealer.

One of the contentions of the agents was that they didn't write a report on the incident because supervisors were present. The jury was told this was not true.

Now we hear from CNN's Jeffrey Tobin on Lou Dobbs:

"The defense says that a document from the Department of Homeland Security confirms, that 2 supervisors were on the scene the day an illegal immigrant drug smuggler claims he was shot in the butt."

Tobin speculates that the border patrol agents may get a new trial because of the withholding of this document by the prosecution. Let's hope so, because there's no question these two men, simply trying to protect our border, were railroaded into a conviction while a drug dealer illegally entering our country goes free so he can continue to sell his drugs; even though American taxpayers got to pay his medical bills. When will this insanity stop?

This is the same type of fight that Ken Middleton is fighting. However, unlike the border agents, Ken has not been in prison for sixteen years.

At a 2004 Hearing (where the judge granted Middleton a new trial but this order was later over-turned on procedural grounds by the MO Court of Appeals) witnesses testified to a gun-shot residue test document altered but never presented at trial.

Then Prosecutor Patrick Peters has been made aware of this document but still cares to do nothing for Mr. Middleton.

In fact, I wrote to Peters and his largest concern seemed to be that in his mind, Ken and his son Cliff have carried on a vendetta against Mr. Peters and his father. I've seen no vendetta, just a reporting of the facts: 1) Mr. Peters as prosecutor had a conflict of interest which should have disqualified him from prosecuting the case. His father's law firm handled both a civil lawsuit and probate matters for Mr. Middleton's deceased wife. 2) In my mind, Mr. Peter's team offered perjured testimony at Mr. Middleton's criminal trial by telling the jury that a telephone was not located where Middleton contended it was; not telling jurors that crime scene photos presented were actually reconstructed crime scene photos.

This "all out to win" scenario happens too often these days whether its a political campaign or a trial. It seems that people no longer care about truth and justice, fair and impartial - rather the important thing is to win.

If you read Mr. Peter's web site, you will see that it's all about winning. He claims to be interested in making sure things are fair - now that he's a defense attorney - but he shows no interest in making things right back when he was "in it" to win.

Saw the film The Breach this weekend about US traitor Robert Hanssen. It's an excellent movie based on the story of Robert Hanssen who worked for the FBI all the while selling US secrets to the Russians.

The movie as intriguing enough to make me go back and read about the actual events that sparked this movie. I do believe that if anyone ever deserved the death penalty, Robert Hanssen was it. At least 50 people were killed based on information Hanssen gave the soviets and it is speculated that his information assisted Bin Laden in escaping US detection.

You can find additional links to Hanssen's betrayal of the US at CNN. The NYJournal has even more detail. You can read more about Eric O'Neil (the FBI employee who helped expose Hanssen)at Boston.com.

I am a firm believer in justice and the justice system. I strongly believe in criminals being locked up and often get very tired of seeing guilty people abusing the court system, with appeals going on and on and on. But today's blog is the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say; and the reason why every possible chance to have one's original trial looked at over and over needs to go on.

This blog will merely highlight just a few of the things that went on in the MO state trial of Ken Middleton, who was convicted of murdering his wife. For full details and to review documents, see Ken's site. Suffice it to say: Ken Middleton did not get a fair trial as promised to him by both the Constitution of the State of Missouri and the Constitution of the United States.

Basically, Ken had ineffective or inept counsel. His attorney was handling 4 capitol murder cases while himself being investigated by the IRS for tax evasion to the tune of $655,000. His attorney called no witnesses and didn't make known to the jury that:

1. Mr. Middleton's medical records (never put into evidence) would reveal that Mr. Middleton was not faking illness as the prosecutor claimed.

2. A gun shot residue test request was obviously altered. The prosecution supposedly ordered the testing of Mr. Middleton's hands (both hands showed no gun powder residue) and the testing of Mrs. Middleton's hands. Only the report of Mrs. Middleton's right hand (no gun powder residue found) was introduced into evidence. However, the original report requesting the test has obviously been altered. A witness who saw the original report has submitted an affidavit stating that the original report was on green paper and was altered with white out to make it appear that no test had been ordered on Mrs. Middleton's left hand. The affidavit indicates that it can clearly be seen under the white out that the request originally was for both the left and right hand. The jury was never told about this altered report.

3. Crime scene photos were reconstructed (jury never told) page 15 starting at line 18. Evidence of a "struggle" was presented by prosecutor based on a button found at the scene. Jurors never told that officers at the scene, undressed and re-dressed Mrs. Middleton and this could be cause for the button. Page 17 starting at line 24).

4. Prosecutor Pat Peters's father was part of the law firm that was handling the probate case and civil case against Middleton while the Prosecutor was prosecuting Middleton.

5. Prosecutor released over $18,000 of jewelry to the only family member to testify (falsely) against Middleton without entering the jewelry on the probate inventory and even though there were 3 other heirs. There was no personal rep. appointed when this was done. It would appear that this witness was "paid" (by the jewelry released to her) for her false testimony.

At a 2004 hearing, former Gov. Teasdale testified that in his 41 years of practicing law, he had never seen such a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights (page 3 starting at line 6). At this hearing the judge granted Mr. Middleton a new trial, stating that he had inadequate counsel who had effectively abandoned Mr. Middleton. However, Attorney General Jay Nixon (MO) appealed , contending there was no showing of a tampered document (not sure what he calls a green document with white out on it changing the document) and the order for a new trial was over turned based on procedural errors - stating the judge had no right to reopen the 29.15 hearing. The MO. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of this overturned order.

So even though a respected judge says someone didn't get a fair trial who has been in prison for 16 years - for procedural reasons, we will just ignore that!

The MO Project Innocence has a back log of over 1500 cases, so the opportunity for them to take on Middleton's case is slim to none since he received a life plus 200 years (not death) sentence. The national organization only works on cases involving DNA

This case needs to come to the attention of someone with the resources to appeal the overturned ruling in Federal Court. Mr. Middleton's family has run out of money and does not have the resources at this time to appeal in Federal Court.

So while I am a staunch believer in justice - I am also a staunch believer in justice for all and in this case, Mr. Middleton has not had justice.