Suggested Discussion Outline

[johnkarls]

.

The following outline is respectfully suggested –


*******************************
A. Comments About Specific Chapters of “Marked for Life” – 60 minutes

Our tradition is to devote the first portion of each monthly meeting to going through the focus book, chapter by chapter, to invite important comments that are specific to a particular chapter. After all, each participant (except, perhaps, “first timers”) have taken the time to read the focus book and her/his opportunity to opine on anything in the focus book should NOT be denied.


*****
Dedication (2 pages before the Table of Contents)

Prologue

Part One Entitled “In” – Chapters 1 – 10 (none of which are titled)

Part Two Entitled “Out” – Chapters 11-17 (none of which are titled)


**********************
B. Discussion Issues – 50 minutes

The following Suggested Answers to this month’s First Short Quiz (viewtopic.php?f=734&t=2316&sid=c0baeb0a ... d12257279a) and Second Short Quiz (viewtopic.php?f=734&t=2322&sid=c0baeb0a ... d12257279a) said – “What Do You Think??? Let’s Discuss!!!”

First Quiz –

Q&A-19
Q&A-24
Q&A-25
Q&A-26

Second Quiz –

Q&A-5
Q&A-8
Q&A-11
Q&A-12
Q&A-13
Q&A-14
Q&A-15
Q&A-16
Q&A-17
Q&A-18
Q&A-21


*******************************
C. Proposed Six-Degree-Of-Separation E-mail Campaign(s) – 10 minutes

[If anyone else would like to propose a campaign, please post it in this section of our website entitled “Discussion Outline.”]


*****
John Karls proposal -- Putting “Murder by Judicial System” on a par with ‘Murder by Gun”


Please see Q&A-20 thru Q&A-26 of the First Short Quiz.

In other words, providing criminal penalties for a willful failure to provide defendants with exculpatory evidence as required by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brady vs. Maryland (373 U.S. 83 (1963)).

[NB: In the case of Isaac Wright Jr., the criminal behavior of the prosecutor and judge would have been exculpatory evidence whose disclosure to Mr. Wright was required by Brady vs. Maryland.]

Technical mechanism --

(1) Amendment of the Federal “Hate Crimes” Law (Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) to include violations of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brady vs. Maryland disclosure requirement.

(2) Criminal penalty -- IAW with the “eye for an eye” principle, the same as the criminal penalty to which the defendant was exposed by the violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brady vs. Maryland disclosure requirement.

Form of our petition --

Letters to the U.S. President and to the Chair and ranking minority member of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees.