UNCONSTITUTIONAL: The Einhorn Law

If you want to get anywhere, you gotta start somewhere.  Take the unconstitutionality of Ira's retrial.  The weirdness kicks in to over-drive, so read and remember to question authority.  It's the only way.  You can accept what happened and the version you know, but does that truly mean the legal system has not failed at least in some areas?  The Einhorn Law is a perfect starting point because it backs off the main point just long to wonder, consider, think critically about how and why something went afoul. 

1.  The Einhorn Law

The law should apply to [Ira Einhorn].  It should apply not due to the fact that [he's] a good guy or a bad guy.  It is applied to [him] as a citizen who lives under the aegis of a written constitution.  To violate the Constitution in the way described in this article is to destroy the covenant that exists between those who are elected or hired to serve, for our benefit, and the people as a whole.  It threatens the very fabric of our lives and it demeans the union of the people, by the people and for the people that so many have bleed to preserve.
It is Tyranny.
When the American political system was formulated in the Constitution, one of the strongest enabling principles was the separation of powers.
It is a principle reinforced in an early Supreme Court decision: Marbury v. Madison.  It has been held as the LAW of the land since that time.

Ira Einhorn was tried in absentia in 1993.

His decision became final in 1995.

Only a court can open a final decision.

A legislative act can’t tamper with a final decision as it violates the separation of powers and makes nonsense of judicial finality.
The Einhorn Law is a travesty of American Justice.
In addition it violates the jurisdictional nature of a PCRA (Pennsylvania Court Reporters Association). Thus any decision it makes is without jurisdiction and a nullity.
The arguments put forward in response to these facts by the judge and the DA’s office have been puerile.
The Superior Court wrote a decision on the Einhorn Law that was based upon an outright lie, and so twisted a judicial principle that everyone who has looked closely at the reasoning has said: “It isn’t law.”
The Superior Court avoided a decision on the merits of the challenge to the constitutionality of the Einhorn Law by claiming that they could not grant the remedy, therefore they would not rule on the merits.
A first year law student would say: “Duh”.
One only looks at a remedy after one has made a decision on the merits.
This is how the law functions 100% of the time.
For a court to refuse to rule on the merits of an issue declares that due process does not exist for Ira Einhorn.
Pariahs need not apply.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the final arbiter of law in Pennsylvania, has twice refused to rule on a controversial issue of outstanding public interest.
The case has received more publicity than any case in modern Pennsylvania history.  It is sheer avoidance, Chief Justice Castille must be vociferously reminded that there are sins of omission as well as commission – to avoid ruling on the Einhorn Law is to diminish the meaning of law in Pennsylvania and to spatter mud upon his recent pledge that justice will be done in Pennsylvania courtrooms.

From Nayer's Blog