A Murder in the Park, by Two US Presidents: What Can Law Do?

Marquam Nature Park, Photo credit: Wikipedia

by Mary Maxwell, LLB, current candidate for US Senate, in NH primary

Pretend we have a current president named Dionysus Smith, and in the past we had a female US president, named Graciella Pink. Imagine that it has recently come out that many years ago they jointly murdered someone. President Pink was in her last year of office when it happened. Dionysius was a professional musician in an orchestra, never imagining that he would eventually be a US president.

The event took place years ago, when Pink and Dionysius were close friends. One night they decided to kill a homeless person in the park, in Maryland. Both used knives to slay the guy, and together they wrapped the body in a garbage bag and then dumped it in a river.

Both Pink and Smith were sober and not on drugs. She was age 45 he was age 49. Now we learn that Pink’s Secret Service bodyguard, Sam, was there too. He did not participate in the violence; he acted as a watchman to see that no person came along that night, at either the park or the river.

Sam did not feel guilty, as he had regularly been at her side to watch out for the safety of this female president. It was his job. Granted, he was also told to wash Graciella Pink’s dress, which was bloody, and to wash Dionysius Smith’s pullover. He was aware that such hiding of evidence made him an accomplice.

Over the years he hushed it all up, as he feared the anger of his wife and kids if it came out. Today Sam is very old and has chosen to blow the story open. What! A current president is a murderer, and a past president is also a murderer? And it was not for a cause, it was ‘just a lark’?

Dear Reader, perhaps you are thinking one of the following commonsense thoughts: 1. No one will bother about this event because it’s in the past. Although there’s no statute of limitations on murder (or anything connected to it, such as the laundering of telltale garments), it’s a “dead issue.” People will prefer to forget it.

2. You may predict, however that Smith, the current president, will resign, or be pushed to resign, as it’s disgraceful for him to continue as president.

3. Maybe you’re under the impression that a 2024 US Supreme Court decision more or less said “We don’t prosecute presidents.” Thus, you may think the case can’t be dealt with by a judge.

4. I bet you’ll say that Sam should not be prosecuted, owing to his age, and because it’s silly to pick on the least culpable of the three participants.

Now I want to confess that the above story is just me setting up a scenario for discussion. I want to state many things that are available for us to deal with the crimes of presidents. I’ll go over several laws, and ways in which laws are handled.

This gig is to help us know what must be done about both Pink and Smith.

Constitutional Authority

The US Constitution has 7 Articles and 27 Amendments. Most are about the limited powers of government. The actual parchment specifies only a few crimes, for example piracy and counterfeit. Later, Federal crimes grew to include many things, such as drug dealing.

Note: In the United States, the making of law is always done by legislators, whether federal or state. The president has zero authority to “make” a law. His so-called Executive Orders can only cover areas in which he, or she, already possesses the relevant authority. I look upon most EO’s as invalid, except, you know, “July Fourth holiday, on a Sunday this year, will move to Monday the fifth.”

(Same for a presidential “signing statement” when he signs a law that Congress has passed. Sure, let him rant on, but his signature to that law makes every bit of that law effective. During Bill Clinton’s administration, the Court also clarified that when signing a law, the US president cannot do a “line veto” -- saying, as it were, that he is signing for everything except the bit about the whatchamacallit).

State Law

Is state law justified by the US Constitution? Yes, the states came first. In 1787 their delegates sat in the Philadelphia Convention and agreed to yield some state powers to Congress, to the President, and to the judiciary. They kept for their state, the right to do anything that the Constitution did not expressly forbid to them to do. The states are sovereigns and their prerogatives, as claimed in the 9^th an 10^th Amendments, are huge.

So we can ask right now, did the murder in the park fall under the federal list of crimes (which are easy to find at 18 USC), or state crimes? I think it is a state crime, for Maryland to deal with. Almost surely Maryland has legislation about homicide.

But even if it didn’t, there is a thing called “the common law.” When a lawyer wants to find it, she goes to case law (aka jurisprudence), including what was written before our 1776 Independence. We quietly inherited English jurisprudence, wholesale, as a British colony. Only if Maryland has specifically legislated that homicide is NOT a crime, would killing be allowed in that state.

“Court” Law

Courts cannot make new law but they do offer interpretations of existing law that may push it in one direction or another. The Framers of the Constitution did not mean to leave us puzzled about who has authority for what. The court’s responsibilities are spelled out in that document.

We often picture the court as a law enforcer. “Oh, you’re planning to embezzle some funds? Watch out, the court will get you.” Not really. The tapping of the gavel that sends you to prison may seem to have come from the court, but it came from a prosecutor who caused charges to be brought against you in the first place.

Note: I’m not talking about civil cases here, that is, lawsuits. Those are not usually brought by a prosecutor, but by a citizen or an organization. You can march straight into the office of the Clerk-of-Court and file a case, say for a broken contract. Both plaintiff or defendant can argue the law and yes, it will be a judge that makes the decision, or a jury if the plaintiff has demanded a jury trial.

As for you trying to get jail time for a violent person who hurt you, no. You can only go to court to seek a payout, known ‘damages’ — which doesn’t cause him to go to jail. Separately. though, you can report him to police.

Who Will Deal with Pink and Smith?

In this article I created a model case that involves a sitting president and a former president. I want to show that their rank does not give them any special protection from the law. Pink was in office before the relevant SCOTUS decision, Trump v US, and even when it did appear in 2024, it protects a president from prosecution only for his/her official deeds. A murder in the park would in no way garner such special treatment.

Let me mention two other famous events. During Nixon’s presidency he refrained from handing over some evidence of a crime that he could be accused of, known as Watergate. It had to do with a break-in at his political opponent’s office. SCOTUS said “Sorry, you have to hand it over” — just like any citizen. We all have to cough up whatever the court subpoenas.

Then there was Clinton’s presidency where a woman wanted to sue him and the Court told her “You have to wait till he is out of office.” I think that was wise, as we need our president to be concentrating on his work. The plaintiff did not lose her chance to sue; it was merely delayed.

Now, how should former president Pink and sitting president Smith be dealt with? The state of Maryland should recognize a duty to get the case rolling against Graciella Pink. Normally, a court likes to do a double whammy where two people worked together. Yet it would be reasonable to forgo that practice, and undertake the indicting of Pink alone. (Lex est dictamen rationis — law is the dictate of reason.)

Note: The Bill of Rights calls for a trial to be preceded by an indictment. That’s done by Grand Jurors; they are tasked with finding if there is at least enough evidence to warrant a trial. The Grand Jury’s work is conducted in secret, to guard against ruining the name of a person who has been accused by mistake, or by a troublemaker.

When a case is federal, the US Attorneys direct the Grand Jury-ing. For specific crimes, such as drug running, the FBI may be involved. In the 50 states, it will be the state’s Attorney General, or District Attorney of a county, whose prosecutors do this. Having then been indicted, the person goes for a trial by a jury of his peers. The Magna Carta of 1215 says so, and it is still in force.

A Side Issue: Impeaching Smith

Note that the trial of Pink will be of great interest, since her co-criminal is sitting in the White House. Indeed the likely thing is that it would all be so scandalous, that Dionysius Smith would be pressured to resign. Granted, the US House of Representatives could impeach him. They would probably impeach him for a misbehavior other than the murder in the park. Any misdemeanour can suffice for an impeachment.

Next, the Articles of Impeachment would be delivered to the US Senate. During President Donald Trump’s second impeachment, the Party controlling the Senate, viz, the Republicans, opted to vote against convicting him, without further ado -- that is, without discussing the allegations. As you know, the so-called conviction in an impeachment case is not a conviction for crime.

I wish the Senate had run an impeachment trial, as it involved the so-called Insurrection of Jan 6. My view is that Trump is innocent of that, but how can I argue for him with no evidence? Since partisan ‘weaponisation’ of the law has become commonplace, we are all disadvantaged.

Back to the park-murder, it could have begun by a civil action, leaving till later any work for prosecutors or Attorneys General. Namely, Sam could have come forward with a cry-baby lawsuit. He could claim that President Pink did him wrong by ordering him, as her bodyguard, to witness her crime and then have to swallow it all his life, for his own protection (and to avoid divorce.)

Don’t think that couldn’t happen. It could. Sam has access to the courts as an aggrieved citizen. I forgot to say earlier that he might have been able to angle a deal, getting immunity from prosecution for his willingness to testify against criminals.

A final point about sitting president Smith. He should not try to pardon himself. (Nemo judex in causa sua — No man can be the judge in his own case.)

My Hand

I now reveal my hand to show that “Pink” stands for many of our previous presidents, perhaps all of the five still-living ones: Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden and Trump. As for “Smith,” he must stand for our actual sitting president, Trump. Naturally, I do not accuse Trump of going to the park to murder a homeless person. But I do see him doing other crimes. Lawyers have identified many of them lately, on social media. So why are we hamstrung about this?

I think the reason people choose not to notice a leader’s crimes is that to do so is very frightening. “Who will protect us?” Also, we tend to assume that there’s some very high-up mechanism for arresting a prestigious official.

Americans have forgotten that no one is above the law. There has been an astounding relaxation of the rules for officials (and billionaires). The practice of impunity – failure to punish – has turned our national life upside down. Please pay attention to this silly development!

The Constitution says, verbatim, “The President… shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” I recommend President Trump arrest himself for fraud -– he fraudulently claimed that he had legitimate power to start the war in Iran. Clearly he has no such power, and has caused men to die unwarrantedly and, thus, unfairly.

To repeat: my murder-in-the-park example was not a true story. There was never a President Dionysius Smith who killed a homeless man. But today’s sitting president has – correct me if I’m wrong – caused the wrongful death of at least 18 soldiers.

Can their families file a lawsuit for wrongful death? Generally, United States law does not allow any member of the military to claim damages for injury or death. Of course that is sensible --- they’re supposed to face all risks to help us defeat the enemy. Protecting one’s society valiantly has been a male duty for millennia.

But no one has a duty to obey illegal orders.

Question: If a president has gone to war in a way that defies the Constitution, what is the status of the whole war? Is it “illegal”? We don’t really have any tradition with which to analyse such a thing.

Since February 20, 2026, I have been running a case in federal court, Maxwell v Trump. It asks for a Declaratory judgment as to the requirement that Congress declare war. Sadly, President Trump is allowed until September 25^th to file his reply. (My response to that delay is “Apices juris non sunt jura” – the niceties of the law are not the law.)

How many wrongful deaths will take place between today, August 13, and September 25? How about fifty thousand?

Oh, and would it be asking too much for Congress to show up and fulfil its constitutional responsibility? Please? Pretty please? Pretty, pretty please?

-- Mary Maxwell’s website is ConstitutionAndTruth.com