Hey guys, sorry, but I've been rather busy of late. Yet another FINAL final complaint is still being edited for the best content, and will be finally, FINALLY filed on Monday. This, according to the court, will be the AMENDED complaint, and will, more than likely, not be changed again. By the way, it is no longer a complaint...it's a claim. You can find that complaint, against the criminal element elected to office in my state...just below this article. The FINAL final complaint, completely edited, will be posted by the end of the day today.
Anyway, I felt it best to write yet ANOTHER article concerning the law itself. In case you missed all of the articles I wrote on this subject, what...3 YEARS AGO? 4? Wow...how fun flies when you're doing time, eh? Anyway, here are the links to those:
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-law-itself-part-i.html
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-law-itselfpart-deux.html
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-law-itself-part-tre.html
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-lawitself-part-last.html
INTRO
Now, let me explain something before you run off, after looking at the sheer size of the content to follow - This article is being written, primarily, not only because all of my new knowledge of "The Law" and all it entails...it's being written because this is probably ALL that you're ever going to want to know about what's REALLY going on...with "The Law"...and our judiciary; as well as point out the mafia con game that's taking place - and believe me, when I get done with you, you're probably going to wish you never had read it. Listed here will be all those things you heard happened, but didn't believe it. Listed here will be all the ways the Government and the Judiciary that serves it is fleecing all....YES, I SAID ALL...of you. You may not, as yet, believe a word of that...but you will. No one is safe, believe it. Worse yet, the more we expose the truth, the faster they move to finish us off. I imagine that it will be more so when you start believing it.
THE CON
Let's start off with the con itself. Now, I'm certain that each and every American in this country knows, is, or is related to someone just like this:
1. Someone that has had their child or children taken by social services in your state.
2. Someone who gets arrested...again, and again, and again, and just can't keep out of jail.
3. Someone involved in a custody or divorce proceeding.
4. Someone who was found guilty of crimes by a jury.
5. Had their house foreclosed on.
6. Someone who you thought was a good person, and who, all of a sudden, turned out to be another way altogether; whether a pervert, a murderer, a terrorist, etc.
If you don't know anyone like this, you're living under a rock, are fast asleep at all hours of the day; never leave your house, watch the news or read the paper; you don't live in the United States; or, worst of all, you are involved in this and are part of the problem. If you really and truly do not know anyone like this, I suggest you do get to know someone like this. If you don't talk to these people anymore, for whatever reason, I suggest you give them a call. Ask them for their story. Ask them what happened. Keep your minds open, and listen to all they have to say. Your very lives may just depend on it.
Fortunately, I've already given you just about all the information I could POSSIBLY give you on cases, people and families involving CPS (social services) and how they operate. If you missed out on the best of it, well, I have written the king of all articles on this and other subjects, right here:
http://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2015/1re,2/the-whole-ball-o-wax-continued-post.html
So what's this scam we mentioned earlier? Well, it involves each and every person I described that you know or met, earlier...and more. Those people will, as time goes by, get more numerous, and closer to you...until it IS you. Yes, I hate to tell you, but someday, it's likely you might get divorced. It's very likely that you might commit a crime that you may not have known was a crime. Don't believe me? Read this story, provided by "Mic", at this address:
https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.1IyPCDbzG
According to Mr. Mic here, felonies are committed in the country by innocent Americans at a rate of...get this...3 a day. Still having a problem wrapping your head around that? Here's another for you, one that I wrote not long ago, while I myself was rotting away in jail for calling someone and simply threatening their life, even though I had absolutely no means with which to carry out such a threat...nor a record of violence...nor the propensity to even think about it, under normal circumstances:
https://themightyswordamericasdeadlysins.blogspot.com/2016/02/rules-ordinances-codes-and-stautes-rocs.html
Rules, ordinances, codes, statutes...these are not laws, nor are the results of these laws (your arrest for breaking them), "lawful". All those things I just mentioned (ROCS, I call 'em) are decided....not by you, the average American citizen...but by our "representatives" in office, in our state and federal capitals. These are the people who are pressured by lobbyists and their peers to write "laws" that are supposed to serve and protect you. What those peers and lobbyists DON'T tell those "lawmakers" is the obvious downside to these "laws;", and neither do the majority of those who produce them have to suffer at the hands of them, as we do. All I have to say is this: If you're going to allow others to make decisions for you when it comes to arresting and jailing Americans,you had best know what you're allowing them to do to YOU as well. You've already read some prime examples, above, in the "8 ways we regularly commit felonies" article I gave you the link to above. Just leave it to me to give you some more.
THE "LAWS", THEMSELVES
Now you and I, in our heads, know what a stalker is. I don't believe I have to inform you of what you know, so let's just assume you do know. Now, here's a copy of the "Statute", in the Iowa Criminal code...which you didn't write, which you weren't asked your opinion on before your "representative" passed it as a "law;", and which you more than likely have never read or seen (what's more, who would want to read this crap, anyway??) Keep in mind, that, in order for you to feel the full impact of this law, you have to also look up and read EACH and EVERY reference to other "code sections"; which generally always refer you to OTHER code sections too. After you're done with all that, the chances that you will be totally lost is usually pretty good. I plan to use just this statute in it's most dire capacity, to show you the scam I mentioned earlier, so print it out (just this code) and keep it in front of you whilst I write, willya? You just have to understand what's happening here.
"708.11 Stalking.
1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:
a. “Accompanying offense” means any public offense committed as part of the course of conduct engaged in while committing the offense of stalking.
b. “Course of conduct” means repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a person without legitimate purpose, repeatedly utilizing a technological device to locate, listen to, or watch a person without legitimate purpose, or repeatedly conveying oral or written threats, threats implied by conduct, or a combination thereof, directed at or toward a person.
c. “Immediate family member” means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any other person who regularly resides in the household of a specific person, or who within the prior six months regularly resided in the household of a specific person.
d. “Repeatedly” means on two or more occasions.
2. A person commits stalking when all of the following occur:
a. The person purposefully engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened or to fear that the person intends to cause bodily injury to, or the death of, that specific person or a member of the specific person’s immediate family.
b. The person has knowledge or should have knowledge that a reasonable person would feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened or fear that the person intends to cause bodily injury to, or the death of, that specific person or a member of the specific person’s immediate family by the course of conduct.
3. a. A person who commits stalking in violation of this section commits a class “C” felony for a third or subsequent offense. b. A person who commits stalking in violation of this section commits a class “D” felony if any of the following apply: (1) The person commits stalking while subject to restrictions contained in a criminal or civil protective order or injunction, or any other court order which prohibits contact between the person and the victim, or while subject to restrictions contained in a criminal or civil protective order or injunction or other court order which prohibits contact between the person and another person against whom the person has committed a public offense. (2) The person commits stalking while in possession of a dangerous weapon, as defined in section 702.7.(3) The person commits stalking by directing a course of conduct at a specific person who is under eighteen years of age. (4) The offense is a second offense. c. A person who commits stalking in violation of this section commits an aggravated misdemeanor if the offense is a first offense which is not included in paragraph “b”.
4. Violations of this section and accompanying offenses shall be considered prior offenses for the purpose of determining whether an offense is a second or subsequent offense. A conviction for, deferred judgment for, or plea of guilty to a violation of this section or an accompanying offense which occurred at any time prior to the date of the violation charged shall be considered in determining that the violation charged is a second or subsequent offense. Deferred judgments pursuant to section 907.3 for violations of this section or accompanying offenses and convictions or the equivalent of deferred judgments for violations in any other states under statutes substantially corresponding to this section or accompanying offenses shall be counted as previous offenses.The courts shall judicially notice the statutes of other states which define offenses substantially equivalent to the offenses defined in this section and its accompanying offenses and can therefore be considered corresponding statutes. Each previous violation of this section or an accompanying offense on which conviction or deferral of judgment was entered prior to the date of the violation charged shall be considered and counted as a separate previous offense. In addition, however, accompanying offenses committed as part of the course of conduct engaged in while committing the violation of stalking charged shall be considered prior offenses for the purpose of that violation, even though the accompanying offenses occurred at approximately the same time. An offense shall be considered a second or subsequent Fri Dec 22 17:58:25 2017 Iowa Code 2018,Section 708.11 (11, 2) §708.11, ASSAULT 2 offense regardless of whether it was committed upon the same person who was the victim of any other previous offense.
5. Notwithstanding section 804.1, rule of criminal procedure 2.7, Iowa court rules, or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon the filing of a complaint and a finding of probable cause to believe an offense has been committed in violation of this section, or after the filing of an indictment or information alleging a violation of this section, the court shall issue an arrest warrant, rather than a citation or summons. A peace officer shall not issue a citation in lieu of arrest for a violation of this section. Notwithstanding section 804.21 or any other provision of law to the contrary, a person arrested for stalking shall be immediately taken into custody and shall not be released pursuant to pretrial release guidelines, a bond schedule, or any similar device, until after the initial appearance before a magistrate.In establishing the conditions of release, the magistrate may consider the defendant’s prior criminal history, in addition to the other factors provided in section 811.2. 6. For purposes of determining whether or not the person should register as a sex offender pursuant to the provisions of chapter 692A, the fact finder shall make a determination as provided in section 692A.126."
Now, re-picture in your mind what you know to be a stalker, out here in the real world; and let's tear this baby apart.
In the first section, it defines terms which are used throughout this criminal code section. Take note that 1.b., which describes the phrase "course of conduct." Note the phrase "without legitimate purpose." Keep that one in mind for a minute. More importantly, note 1.d., which defines for you the word "repeatedly" "Repeatedly" in this sense, and during the course of this section of code (and, probably nowhere else in the real world), means 2 or more times.
Let's move on to section 2, which describes what this lawmaker is about to define as the word itself...stalking. In section a., it says...well, you read it. Please, if you will, keep also in mind, the term "a reasonable person" Now let's move in. It says, first, that a person (you), engages in a "course of conduct" towards another person (your alleged target) that would cause a "reasonable person" (who is?) to be afraid of numerous things, including living, bodily harm, etc...repeatedly (2 or more times.) If you don't see the obvious traps here, let me help you out.
First, we've seen the definition they give for "course of conduct" I suppose I'm OK with that...except for one thing. The words "without legitimate purpose." I don't know about you, but that one leaves things wide open in my head. Let's get an example.
Let's say I'm sitting in my office chair, and I'm staring at, essentially, nothing...but that nothing happens to be in the vicinity of a very pretty co-worker, who, on a daily basis, wears the skimpiest skirts she can find. Let's say I'm staring, and as I am, my gaze just wanders over to her great legs. She turns around and catches me doing it, not just once...but twice. And, by the way, since it doesn't mention a time period that this has to happen in, let's just say that the first time it happened was in 2012, and the next time it happened was in 2015; then you were arrested and charged for it. You just committed "stalking" as per the Iowa Code, and can be arrested for it too, and...trust me...you can and you will, more than likely, be found guilty for it. You laugh. I will make you stop laughing, trust me.
Going back to "without legitimate purpose." You state that you were staring that way, because you were trying to clear your head so that you could think better, and just happened to be staring in that general direction. She says, you stared in that general direction, because of her skirt and her great legs. Who do you believe the jury is going to believe here? What exactly do you think the prosecutor is going to come up with to make them believe it, if they don't?
Let me sum this up for you...your idea of "legitimate purpose" is, more than likely, not going to sound too legitimate in this situation, compared to what that experienced prosecutor is going to come up with in the contrary. Let me give you another try, a REAL example, with a more...convincing way to put it.
Replace in your mind, once again, YOUR mental picture of a stalker.
I once contacted a former friend of mine, who had badmouthed me, not just for a minute or two, but for months. I sent her a message...on Facebook. If you know anything at all about Facebook, anyone can make a profile using any name, or any pictures, even if that exact profile under a real person's name already exists. The only way you can tell the difference, is to go to the bottom of the profile and look for a date when the person you're looking at actually became a member...which, if you're smart enough, you can post a ton of stuff to move that date pretty far down. You can, then, hope that the person looking for that date will just give up and assume that it's actually you...when it isn't.
In this example, however, it was, in fact, me that sent the message. This message was not kind, and, if you are the usual person (The "Reasonable" person), this message might put you in a wee bit of fear of what I might do, because of your actions. However, you have to also keep in mind that this happened BECAUSE of her actions against me...and only happened once, on one day, and not again. I'd have to say that you also have to know that I had NO idea where this woman lived, had NO idea where she worked, didn't have a car, and lived 85 miles away. This was in September of 2015.
4 months later, in January of 2016, I found out this same woman had been badmouthing me AGAIN. I then sent her one MORE message, which, once again, may have put a WEE bit of fear into the average person...but then, as the average person these days, we're so easily offended and sensitive, aren't we? Remember, the conditions I previously mentioned still apply here (living 85 miles away, etc.) I then received 4 calls from her boyfriend, all from a disguised number; which all threatened my life, as well as the life of my wife. These were very real threats, and one or two involved him camping out at my local grocery, waiting for us to come there, following us home and shooting us dead along the way there. This man actually had my phone number, my address, and had a car. I'd say, if anything, that he could be considered a very real threat, and I should now be able to press charges against him....but I had no proof of anything that he had said, since I answered each phone call. Obviously, too, it had been her that had given him my number, since I knew her...and didn't know him.
I then decided (wrongfully, of course), since it was her that had, obviously, given this guy my number; to call HER (since I didn't have his number) and, since I was absolutely LIVID that this man was threatening our lives, threatened her, stating that, if she didn't stop him from calling me, I would then call her 10 times for each and every time he called me, and that I would also come to where she was, and burn her house down with her in it. She of course, recorded each and every call I made on her voicemail. This was, by the way, also done on one day, 4 months after the first time back in September, and never before, or again after that day. Was this for legitimate purpose? The man threatened the lives of me and my wife. I'd say that was indeed a legitimate purpose. Was I, in any way, a legitimate threat to this woman's life? I'd have to shout a resounding no. I had no idea whatsoever where she lived or worked, and I had no car, and lived 85 miles away...I had no violent history on any kind of criminal record.
I was, not long after, arrested for, charged, and convicted for....stalking...by a jury of my peers no less.
I know, I know, I can see your jaws dropping from all the way over here. HUH? How is THAT possible?
Let's first go back to our first example...the office, the girl with the great legs. According to Iowa "statute", the "law", all you have to do is "engage in a course of conduct that would put a reasonable person in fear...", "repeatedly (two or more times, no time limit). That's essentially what this statute is putting forth...as "Stalking". Are you serious? Let me break it down just a little bit more.
If you email someone (yes, this is in there too), twice..."without legitimate purpose" (how do they know, exactly, what your purpose is; and what's more, who decides if that purpose is legitimate or not?)...in ANY period of months or years...and they didn't want you to, and that email caused them fear? YOU CAN BE ARRESTED, AND MORE THAN LIKELY BE FOUND GUILTY OF....STALKING. First, how do you know they don't want you to?? And twice or more? In ANY time period? This is not a joke people. Oh, but wait...there's more. Let's dig into more said in the statute. What's more, friends, all I have to do is go down to the county attorney's office, after I file the report with the local PD, cry a little and claim to be hurt and scared...and POOF, you are now the equivalent of gold in their eyes; an apparently damaged "victim." All you have to do now is file a "Victim Impact Statement," something that resembles an affidavit, but that the jury will never see nor hear. The only people that will hear this "statement", which also contains what the "victim" would like to see done to the threatener, is the judge, the prosecutor and you, the defendant. This, by the way, is a document on the public record, allegedly...but is deemed to be "confidential". When did this start?? Let's keep 'er going here.
In part 2.b., it states that the person (you) knew, or should have known, that the person targeted, or, once again used here, the "reasonable person" (who is who; and is defined as and by who again?) would be in fear of what you did. OKOK, once more for the slow to catch on. You knew, or should have known that throwing rocks at Ginger would cause her to be afraid of you. Really? What if Ginger is your sister, and this is the first time that anyone has EVER thrown rocks at her? What if Ginger is your BIGGER sister, who, incidentally, beats you up any chance she gets? What an absolutely ridiculous thing to say here. I don't think I have to explain how this part is way too vague and ambiguous, as well as describes things that no human could possibly know for an absolute fact: Whether what you're doing or have done should be known, by you as something that would place the person you're doing this to, in in a position of fear. And who "should have known??" Who are any of you to know whether I "should have known?" Who is going to decide that one, and how, I wonder? Let's move on.
Now, I'm about to show you something that may (or rather, should) scare the living daylights out of you.
In part 3 of this statute, you'll read that, if you commit, are caught, and are convicted of this offense three times...you are going to be automatically graduated to felon...though this charge begins as an "Aggravated misdemeanor". This probably isn't as good as an example of what I'm about to show you happens with this sort of thing...but fortunately, I have a much better example, all cued up and ready for you.
According to Iowa Statute, "harassment" is defined as (in three different categories of charges), contacting someone ONCE, (harassment, therefore, is pretty much stalking, without the "course of conduct" or the "repeatedly" parts) and putting them in fear. I mentioned the three different categories, because, depending on the "harassment" used, it can be charged more seriously. Harassment of the kind that essentially puts you in mild fear, or irritates you in any way, is a simple misdemeanor. The max sentence you can receive here is 30 day (the LEAST amount of days ever given anyone for anything), and usually involves a small slap on the wrist, and immediate release by a judge...but also will carry a No Contact Order, as all the classes of harassment and stalking do. If you're caught doing harassment in the 3rd degree a 2nd time, it states, you will be charged with a serious misdemeanor, harassment in the 2nd degree. Harassment in the 2nd degree involves you calling a person,and threatening to do them bodily harm without legitimate purpose (there's that phrase again). Harassment in the 2nd degree is a serious misdemeanor, and can net you up to a year in jail. Then it states that if you're caught and found guilty of 2nd degree harassment a 2nd time, you can now be charged with Harassment in the first degree. Harassment in the first degree is calling someone and threatening their lives; and can get you 2 years in jail; as an AGGRAVATED misdemeanor...and, just so you know, 3 times of that, will be considered a felony.
"708.7 Harassment.
1. a. A person commits harassment when, with intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person, the person does any of the following:
(1) Communicates with another by telephone, telegraph, writing, or via electronic communication without legitimate purpose and in a manner likely to cause the other person annoyance or harm.
(2) Places a simulated explosive or simulated incendiary device in or near a building, vehicle, airplane, railroad engine or railroad car, or boat occupied by another person.
(3) Orders merchandise or services in the name of another, or to be delivered to another, without the other person's knowledge or consent.
(4) Reports or causes to be reported false information to a law enforcement authority implicating another in some criminal activity, knowing that the information is false, or reports the alleged occurrence of a criminal act, knowing the act did not occur.
b. A person commits harassment when the person, purposefully and without legitimate purpose, has personal contact with another person, with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or alarm that other person. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires,
"personal contact" means an encounter in which two or more people are in visual or physical proximity to each other.
"Personal contact" does not require a physical touching or oral communication, although it may include these types of contacts.
2. A person commits harassment in the first degree when the person commits harassment involving a threat to commit a forcible felony, or commits harassment and has previously been convicted of harassment three or more times under this section or any similar statute during the preceding ten years.
Harassment in the first degree is an aggravated misdemeanor.
3. A person commits harassment in the second degree when the person commits harassment involving a threat to commit bodily injury, or commits harassment and has previously been convicted of harassment two times under this section or any similar statute during the preceding ten years.
Harassment in the second degree is a serious misdemeanor.
4. Any other act of harassment is harassment in the third degree. Harassment in the third degree is a simple misdemeanor."
Now, let's recap. According to the statute, if you are arrested AGAIN for that simple kind, where you're just simply trying to annoy someone, possibly? You can now be charged, and found guilty of...the serious misdemeanor, defined as the one where you threatened to do someone bodily harm. It also goes on to say that if you're arrested again, you could, feasibly, be charged with the Aggravated one...where you threatened the life of another person...also, just for doing the annoying thingy. So, you're telling me...that, even though I did no such thing...and got arrested twice, just for being annoying, that you can now find me guilty of threatening another person's life; something that obviously shows a violent tendency, and that will be haunting me in background checks; for what could be a very long period of time...and worse yet, SENTENCE ME ACCORDINGLY, SHOULD I BE FOUND GUILTY OF IT??? Yes, folks, we're talking about a possible sentence now of 2 YEARS...for calling someone and annoying them. Once. Wait...ONCE? No, no, because your charges are being "enhanced"...this is what they call it, and that's because it happened MORE than once, obviously...or they wouldn't be enhancing the charges, you can now ALSO be charged...with STALKING!! Starting to get the picture yet? If not, I beg you....read on. I decided to include this Iowa Statute for you as well. In this statute, also, notice the words "any similar statute." Don't you feel, as a possible lawbreaker, that you should know WHAT THESE SIMILAR STATUTES ARE, AND WHAT THEY SAY??
In the stalking statute, the one we discussed first, if you are arrested according to the definitions used in the statute, 3 times...you can now be enhanced up to a CLASS C FELONY. A class C felony...carries 10 years in jail. Because you contacted someone, 6 times, without "legitimate purpose," and annoyed them.
Now, if these were the only statutes we were talking about, this would certainly be enough, I would think. Funny enough, these are LIGHT and AIRY examples of how the code can be used against....well, ANYBODY, should an ambitious prosecutor have a wont.
But what of the jury? A jury of my peers....that will take care of things for me. THEY'LL surely find me innocent. Justice? WILL BE SERVED.
WRONG. NOT LIKELY, NOT THESE DAYS. Please, allow me, a person that's been through more than his share of unwarranted criminal trials as a defendant, explain this.
First, and obviously....there's jury tampering and jury stacking (I'll define this term better for you in a moment)...and I'm not talking about the kind done by people who threaten jurists...I'm talking about as done by those you wouldn't think would, or would allow that sort of thing...just those people that have been portrayed as reasonable, logical, and morally driven; on TV and in the movies...the prosecutor and the judge. However, to limit corruption to just those two, would be massively unfair. The court reporter for instance. Now, here's a person that is EXPECTED to take accurate record of your proceedings...but how do you KNOW? You don't. Not everyone who works for the city, for the county, and for your state or the feds is undeniably honest...though to think that is more or less programmed into your head unwittingly, by the media, by your TV, and through any other digital means...and you eat those stereotypes for lunch, any day, all day; as absolute FACT. I just hate to burst your bubble - people who work for the city, county, state or federal government are possibly the easiest to consider to be corrupt; and that corruption is more than likely progressively and exponentially higher, at the higher to highest levels. And what about the clerks, those who supposedly keep good track and record of the proceedings? Who's to say they haven't been gotten to?
OKOK, let's put this in a way that you might better get what I'm getting at here. Let's just say we just incorporated as a city, and a county seat. Now let's say that we're in a pretty tightly knit community, and everyone pretty much knows everyone. Now let's say that we know everyone we elected to our newly established offices of our newly defined Government...Joe Bob is the new District Judge, Diana is the county's attorney, Sally is the court reporter, Peggy Sue is the clerk of court; and Jimmy....good ol' Jimmy, is the county's new "Sheriff."
Let's say this bunch, after working together a few years, realizes that the city and county are suffering for cash flow somewhat, due to last year's crop drought, and spending by the local mayor's office. As they sit together for their usual coffee one morning, they discuss this, and realize, due to the power that they wield in all areas of law, or in their respective positions in office, that they might agree on an idea to make things right...but we all have to be in on it, and agree to how it's done, or this might come back to haunt us later. So, Sheriff Jimmy, known only as a moral and upstanding man in the community, will study our local laws, and see if maybe we can find some flaws or loopholes in the standing law; and maybe will start looking for something fairly easy to arrest folks for, according to our poorly written and rarely amended statutes. Once folks are arrested, they will be taken before Judge Jim Bob; using charges brought from the report Jimmy filed, and the charges brought because of those reports by Diana; will find him guilty, regardless of the facts. If anything is said wrong, or wrong things are done in our court proceedings, it will be the job of Sally here to transcribe them in or out. If we don't like how it went altogether, it's all right, we can just all get together, and transcribe a story more palatable to the public eye. It will be the job of the clerk of court, Peggy Sue, to file...or not file, or...better yet, not admit at all, evidence; to alter the record, or admit (or not admit) motions and briefs submitted.
Now, you believe, as an American, that there is oversight to this sort of behavior by these people...but often times, there isn't...or, the oversight consists of people who are of like minded...more attorneys, more judges, or people that work for the level of Government you're accusing of mis-behaving. So where is Justice in all of this? There is none, I'm afraid. Investigation of this sort of conspiracy against you may take years; more than likely long after you've paid your dues.
What you also believe, as a programmed American, is that juries are selected randomly of various Americans, and that each that is asked to appear as a jurist, has to be a jurist; and these 12 people are defined collectively as "a fair and impartial jury", of your "peers." The definition of peers, mind you is this, according to Dictionary.com: People who are equal to others (you), in qualifications, age, background and social status. In case you didn't catch what I'm driving at here - a 65 year old black man making $12,000 a year in salary working for Walmart is not a juror that should qualify as a "peer" to you, a middle-classed white guy working in a position of management at a local software company. But, these are people that are classified as your "peers."
Nor, really, are they ever "randomly selected;" especially these days. First, people that ARE selected have to be stable, have to be listed in some way so that people like the courts can find them using some traditional method of contact, such as mail, etc. These days, most people AREN'T listed, in any fashion. Telephone books showing people with addresses and phone numbers are a thing of the past. More people are losing their homes, more than ever before. People are transient, even homeless that USED to have listings, once...but no longer do. Most that are listed are likely to NOT be anyone that would be the average alleged criminal's "peers." To find that criminal's peers, you would think that they would make the jury up of his fellow inmates. Then, and only then, could you ensure true justice by a jury of his peers.
On the state level, so many jurists are asked to appear to hear any one case, say 20. Out of the 20, only 12 will be asked to be jurists. These 12 jurists are hand-picked out of 20...8 are stricken, 4 by both sides, and asked to go home. Wait...so this is an impartial jury, "Randomly selected"...how again? Let's go back to the striking thing. The prosecutor, likely a county or "District" attorney, is someone who probably handles 15 cases a day (by the way, it was said, of my county attorney, that he handles...not personally, it's also stated...over 1100 cases a month; and that most of these are handled by his underlings, his "assistant county attorneys"), and is someone that is in court all day, every business day of the year. This person knows EXACTLY who they want and who they don't want. Your attorney, a defense attorney, may, if he's good, see 3 cases a month. Who do you think is going to be better at jury striking? And how exactly does this striking work?
Well, you would THINK that it has to do with prejudice against the defendant...it has NOTHING to do with that. Here's what a prosecutor wants (and, this will begin to show you the obvious "programming" of a jury to find the majority of your criminals as GUILTY) - They want those jurors who believe that the law is the law, that they had a hand in making that law, the law, and who believe, absolutely, that if you break that law, you need to see punishment for it. Also what they want, is a jury....that most certainly IS NOT a jury of your peers. A jury of your peers will, of course, be likely to find you INNOCENT. The chances, fortunately, for the prosecution, of the defense gathering together an entire jury of the defendant's peers is astronomically stacked against him. The likelihood of the prosecution finding a jury more to their liking, presents much more favorable odds.
Then, if that weren't bad enough, programming of the jury begins IMMEDIATELY. One of the things I remember most of my judge was this statement - "Here is the law. Here are, to be presented, the facts of what the defendant did. If the facts show that the defendant broke this law, then you MUST find him guilty."
Did you have a hand in creating or passing that law? Maybe you should read the code again. Did your senator (lawmaker) call you personally to ask if you agreed with each and every part of that law? You really didn't have a damned thing to do with the existence of that law then, did you?? Then why MUST you find this defendant guilty of this law the way it is? What the "Court" wants, friends, is a jury that will provide the "State" with revenue, in whatever form it may come...whether through grants/funding from the federal government, or from the "State" and its citizens themselves. Folks, I just have to say this and this alone...Russia. That place where the people are so...so...FORMERLY COMMUNIST...the people we fear most in war...where we're sure people are really bad, bad people. The Russians have a criminal code book....oh yeah they do, that's no lie. Wanna know how big the book is? Around 156 pages. Great book....skimmed through it myself.
You know how many pages of law we have in this country? thousands...no, 10's of thousands...and let's not even BEGIN to talk about CASE LAW, which takes up entire LIBRARIES around the country, and is all, in essence, considered to be LAW! Worse yet, folks, is that the only people that know any part of this law (because there is NO WAY that ANYONE could EVER, in their ENTIRE LIVES know our law completely) are judges...lawyers...AND THAT'S IT. I'll bet you that you cannot quote to me even one code. Not a single Latin phrase that isn't commonplace, or is legally related.
I could memorize the Russian's law in a week. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? Folks, people in the Senate of both your nation and in your states...just sit around every hour of every session day writing up new laws that make your lives more and more difficult to enjoy. Some "Acts" and "laws" are stated by themselves in this legal mumbo-jumbo FOR 1000 pages. How are we ever supposed to read...or understand this stuff? Do you get it yet? YOU'RE NOT. Effectively, these people are employed to do this to us...BY US. Worse yet, we don't know these "lawmakers" personally in any sense of the word. They could be psychotic. They could be as yet to be discovered child molesters..narcissists...MURDERERS and Satanists. We don't know them, or at least, not the way we should! But we allow these same people to "represent" us, and write our laws! Please, America...stop...and think about what we're doing! One out of four people, 26% in this country, are said to have some kind of MENTAL DISORDER! I'm sorry to do this to you....but here it is, since the Government of our country has allowed this statistic out and supported it as real fact...that would mean that one out of 4 police officers is psychotic. One out of 4 lawyers has a chemical imbalance. One out of 4 judges are narcissists. And one out of 4 lawmakers is downright MENTAL.
These are people that, supposedly REPRESENT US and our opinions. Then they should, with each and every law they make, send out copies of whatever law they plan to pass today to 100 REGULAR every day Americans, in their district, and call 100 more to ask if they're OK with this law, before they even THINK about passing it! And if you were to read these laws, in their entirety, you would know that these are NOT LAWS OF THE PEOPLE!!!!
Earlier I mentioned Jury Stacking. Folks, this comes from the American Bar Association...THEMSELVES. Please, PLEASE read it. After you're done, it should be MORE than obvious that juries that are representative of the people, a jury of your "peers" is something we have not seen and will not see for a very long time. These criminals actually call it STACKING THE JURY, and give very good instructions on how their cronies can accomplish it.
https://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/voirdire.html
Finally folks, there is a new practice that has been implemented that none of you are aware of. Did you have any idea that the prosecution now gets...not just one, but TWO chances to close with their arguments. TWO. It used to be one for each...and the last thing the jury heard was that the defendant was innocent. Not any more.
It's been said that the last thing anyone making an important decision hears...is the decision they'll make. If the last thing a jury hears is GUILTY...the chances of that jury finding the defendant guilty is VERY LIKELY. This is not something I'm spouting off of the top of my head here, people....this is FACT. Now, I asked he judge about this...and you know what he said? He said it was because the prosecution had to prove, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that you're guilty....and all you have to do, as the defense lawyer is eliminate "beyond a reasonable doubt"..so to even out the chances for the other side, the prosecution needs this extra closing. Wait a minute...since when do we need to even things out for those whose plan it is to put us in jail??? How many of you had any idea this was the new norm? What happens is, the fact that you're guilty is very much driven into the heads of the jury here.
Here's another one I'm certain you haven't thought of...did you know that all actions are SUPPOSED TO BE civil, even criminal ones? The way it is SUPPOSED to be is that there are two people in dispute...the injured party, and you, the defendant. That's it. Bet this is another one that will get to you, and that's the Judge is NOT the one who has the final say in your verdict...moreover, all the judge is supposed to be there for? Is to be a MEDIATOR. And yet? If the judge decides he doesn't like the way the jury found you to be? There's a little thing called "judgement notwithstanding the verdict", and he can out and out turn that verdict over into a guilty, on his own merits. WHAAA?? So basically...if you, the jury, find the party defending to be innocent, he can now make it a guilty? How is THIS fair and impartial?
Finally, and lastly, did you know that every single matter brought in today's courts is, technically, a conflict of interest? Think about it, and the reason for all of these guilty verdicts becomes very clear. Let's say you're in a state case, defending yourself concerning theft. The Judge is paid by the county you're in; and is given the final say and power to choose the verdict, using the judgement thingy we discussed in the last paragraph. The prosecutor is paid by the same county, and is, supposedly, a representative of the injured party, and, moreover, is said to be representing your entire state in the matter. Really? Not only is he the prosecutor...this man is also, essentially, THE PLAINTIFF. Let's also say that you're being represented by a court-appointed (hand-picked) attorney, who, by the way, is ALSO paid by the state. Now, where is our fairness? Should all decide you're guilty, then you're just screwed, friends.
Do you see it yet America? I don't know about you, but this sounds like real BS to me. What it is, is that the State, or the Feds or whatever...are losing way too much, because we're easily able to prove that we are, in fact, POSSIBLY INNOCENT...and they need a better ratio of guilty's. A better conviction rate. More convictions...more likely to get re-elected or keep our jobs, because it looks like we're doing our jobs correctly...and that we're doing our job at all. And, of course, the almighty dollar for MORE SPENDING!!! YAAAAAA!
Let me, in closing, give you folks the ACTUAL definitions of those involved in "The Law."
Lawmaker: A SINGLE entity, who "represents you"....writing laws up that contain HIS opinion on what law should be, who is, essentially, forcing his views and opinions on what the law should be on the rest of us he represents, who is continuously bombarded (and, more than likely, BRIBED) by lobbyists that might turn his views even FURTHER against you and more to serve those who wish to fleece us of our rights and property.
Judge: A mediator turned Judge, Jury and Executioner, who now has the power to overturn the will of "We the people." if he doesn't care for the way we decide, who stands to gain from us if he gets more guilty verdicts.
Grand Jury De Facto:
In law and government, de facto, describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally recognised by official laws. It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice, in contrast with de jure, which refers to things that happen according to law. Unofficial customs that are widely accepted are sometimes called de facto standards.
Lawyer: Snake.
The "law", the Police force, lawmakers, judges, lawyers....these people need the boot folks, and fast. Next, I swear it, as sure as I'm sitting at my laptop; it WILL BE YOU, defending yourself against the very same sort of crap. :D
