If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable
- Louis D. Brandeis
Isn't it fascinating that Whitey Bulger's judge was Denise Casper , the only black federal judge in Massachusetts. One wonders if Blacky Bulger was on trial he would get a whitey judge. Coincidence? I doubt it.
The courts may say the selection of judges is done by a schedule, so the judge you get depends on when they schedule your trial. They schedule the judge by their timetables of open slots.
If they don't like you, they schedule you for the hanging judge
How many laws have been passed in 300 years. Where are all these laws? No one really knows. Ask a judge, a DA or a lawyer. Watch them cringe.
If only every government at every level could provide us with an updated list of laws each year. The list would take us years to read and each and every law would be really ambiguous. Some laws would be many pages in length.
Have you ever asked yourself where they hide all these laws? Why are they so well hidden. Shouldn't law books be available on line for everybody to see?
The worst part is that it's next to impossible to get rid of old laws that cannot be enforced. Why do the courts continue to criminalize blasphemy , fornicating , and adultery . As time goes by, it only makes the lawmakers, judges and DAs look like completely retarded idiots, and yet they still seem to be oblivious to this issue.
One would think that at the end of the year, we would see a web site somewhere in their realm that examines all the new laws added for the year, and which were removed. We don't and we won't.
Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must be in while committing a crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense.
actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,
the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty
Courts generally selectively ignore this concept in law.
In four decades, the size of government has grown to create regulatory and criminal systems that can ensnare innocent people who have no intent of breaking any laws.
The first step in commiting a crime is to have an intent to commit a crime.
If there was no intent, it is not a crime.
A crime requires a victim.
Unless you can produce a victim, then by definition you have no crime. Of course, none of this is to say that she won't be convicted, as I'm sure the prosecution will have no problem dredging up 6 to 12 dead-eyed sheep jurors who are perfectly willing to rubber-stamp the conviction so that you can get home in time for Dancing With The Stars .
For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party.
Who is the injured party?
And what is and where is the evidence or nature of the injury?
Courts are filled with anachronisms of power. The best is the contempt of court charge. No other state/local agency has such protection. There is no contempt of cop or contempt of public official charge. The judge is given a special power called contempt of court to put you away if he doesn't like your behaviour. This is more powerful than the police's catchall, disorderly conduct . No one is really charged with contempt of court. Contempt of court generally refers to conduct that defies, disrespects or insults the authority or dignity of a court. Often, contempt takes the form of actions that are seen as detrimental to the court's ability to administer their perverted form of justice.
Contempt of court is like being charged with heresy or
blashphemy. It's the judge saying to you:
Immunities aren't all that difficult to grasp. If the law is a vast set of rules defining what we can and cannot accomplish in a court of law, immunity is simply a device by which a judge declares a person off limits.
The U.S. Constitution defines itself as the supreme law of the land in its supremacy clause You can read the U.S. Constitution 150 times until your eyes fall out or until the paper it is written on disintegrates, but you will not see the term sovereign immunity.
The concept of immunity can only be granted to others by those who have already been given immunity by others. Immunity is like Holy Water. Once you are consecrated, you may use Holy Water to consecrate others to protect them from an imaginary god or the law.
When the judge enters or exists the courtroom, the bailiff says, All rise. This seems to be the all time best anachronism of raw power exercised in our society. Nowhere else does one do this. If you don't rise, you get tossed out of the court or get charged with contempt of court.
The judge demands your respect. I always thought respect was something you earned, but if you are unable to earn it, the court attempts to get it with threat of a prison sentence or shoving a gun up your ass. It can be said that arrogance is demanding respect, instead of earning it.
On the same subject, the court security officer doesn't allow someone to read a book in court. You must pay attention to the serious business of the court. The court security officer of course has the IQ of a barnacle. He has a double digit IQ but is paid a triple digit salary. thanks to stupid taxpayers.
This behaviour by the court is arrogance at its best.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
This statement is not applicable in a courtroom. You lose your equality to the Biggus Dickus judge. He is more equal.
Perhaps, we should hang a judge every now and then to remind them that their job is to dispense impartial justice and exercise fairness and not show us how big their dick is. It would remind them that they are overpaid, underworked lazy bureaucrats and not our rulers.
Did you ever notice that when a candidate for a judicial position actually becomes a judge, they immediately become Honorable. I do not know what sort of pixie dust they sprinkle on these people to make them more honorable and how that dust actually works. Perhaps they have a magical handshake with the greater powers, the skies open up, the doves are released and an Honorable judge has arrived..
I suppose we should be thankful they do not take on the more pompous title Lord Of The Realm.
One of the oldest lines you hear about justice is that one is Innocent Until Proven Guilty. If that is indeed a true axiom one has to inquire:
If the judicial system really truly believed that you are innocent until proven guilty, then all suspects would be released on their own recognizance, without any bail. However, this notion of being innocent until proven guilty is a bunch of bullshit in the judiciary.
One has to wonder why any judge or DA is allowed to be religious if their occupation requires them to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt and yet, we can find idiot judges like David W. Cunis within the Massachusetts Judiciary.
Here is the statement that David W. Cunis made to me.
The burden of proof rests exclusively with the Commonwealth to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is a strict and heavy burden. The burden of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This moron is a devout orthodox catholic
What is a reasonable doubt anyway? It is a meaningless term abused by the court.
But it's funny coming from an idiot who really concerns himself with imaginary sky fairies. Has he proven the existence of his sky fairy beyond a reasonable doubt?
What exactly is a jury of your peers? I am an aging retired white male pure atheist software developer. If I were being tried for multiple murders, I would expect a jury of aging retired white male pure atheist software developers who have either been charged or convicted of multiple murders. Only then could I hope to get a fair jury trial.
The process of selecting a jury is really more blatant jury tampering .
The juries are stacked against you. Juries are anything but impartial. More women are picked because more women show up for jury duty. Choosing a jury involves choosing the dumbest people that show up. Depending on the case, where fear might be involved, women will be chosen for their greater fear level.
It is illegal to use peremptory challenges to eliminate potential jurors on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity or religion.
The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government. The Constitution guarantees you the right to trial by jury. This means that government must bring its case before a jury of The People if government wants to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property. Jurors can say no to government tyranny by refusing to convict (Jury Nullification).
When you hear about jury members having to fill out a long questionaire, can you really believe for even a picosecond that they could possibly be impartial. Every question removes more impartiality.
Jurors routinely afford confident scientific experts an almost mythic infallibility (the CSI effect). No credentials are required to be an expert.
Jury selection eliminates all those people who have been victimized by the judicial system. Thus, someone to be tried for murder will never have a jury of his peers (six or twelve other murderers).
Personally, I think juries should be of the same race as the defendant, and should have been convicted of the same crime as the defendant. This might make them more impartial.
Jury Nullification is one tool we have to combat their hostility.
As a general rule, juries are carefully handpicked for stupidity.
We occasionally see people convicted of allegedly henious crimes to 1000 years or multiple consecutive life sentences. It's not enough to sentence him to a simple life sentence? Just to show what kind of idiots these people are, they actually sentence people to multiple consecutive life sentences.
Anyone who is sentenced with these stupid draconian sentences should be offered a euthanasia pill that puts him/her to sleep peacefully.
I would suppose that this guy is not going to a house of correction like the Billerica House Of Correction or a Massachsetts Correctional Institute.
This constitutes a sentence of death by incarceration and this also burdens the taxpayer ($45,000 per year). It's offensive that these dim-witted judges send someone to prison to die without offering him euthanasia.
Suffice it to say, a priest or Reverend is an expert on the will of God, an imaginary sky fairy. Jurors, especially those who have watched CSI (Crime Scene Investigation) can be fooled by just about anyone with a body temperature around 95 degress Farenheit and an IQ over 70.
Always remember that the police, DAs and judges lie all the time. No one is ever prosecuted for perjury.
DNA evidence is invisible evidence. You can't see it, not even with a high powered microscope. You will have to believe what you are told by the DA or judge (basically what the police told them). Are you going to convict anyone on invisible evidence? You will if you are this juror.
This is somewhat similar to burning someone at the stake because senior church officials told you that the defendant was a witch and talks to the devil.
Again, the fundamental problem is that the police and DAs and judges lie thru their teeth.
We've all seen TV shows of how an FBI agent testifies about finding a hair and claiming it solves the crime. According to this story, the evidence was a lie . Some people are sentenced to death on this kind of testimony. This reinforces the concept that law enforcement personnel are quite willing to lie, in order that you die, almost certainly if you're black or latino..
A million Americans a year are arrested for drunken driving, and most stops begin the same way: flashing blue lights in the rearview mirror, then a battery of tests that might include standing on one foot or reciting the alphabet.
What matters most, though, happens next. By the side of the road or at the police station, drivers blow into a miniature science lab that estimates the concentration of alcohol in their blood. If the level is 0.08 or higher, they are all but certain to be convicted of a crime.
But those tests - a bedrock of the criminal justice system - are often unreliable, a New York Times investigation found. The devices, found in virtually every police station in the U.S., generate skewed results with alarming frequency, even though they are marketed as precise to the third decimal place.
Judges in Massachusetts and New Jersey have thrown out more than 30,000 breath tests in the past 12 months alone, largely because of human errors and lax governmental oversight. Across the country, thousands of other tests also have been invalidated in recent years.
In Massachusetts, you will lose your driver's license for a year if you do not submit to a breathalyzer test. This seems like a violation of the Fifth Amendment (self incrimination) of the US Constitution.
Why do they ask you to hold up your hand and place your hand on a bible?
Would it count if the court used an old upside down chinese braille bible with half the pages missing.
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God?
I would tell them as much truth as there is that fictional book called the bible .
There are many references to this imaginary creature called GOD in the Massachusetts state constitution, including oaths taken in courts.
Any jackass judge, including this particular, now retired idiot Douglas W. Stoddart will tell you that you may not question the veracity of a witness who has taken the oath to tell the truth. See if anyone has ever been convicted of perjury.
Police drug sniffing are simply probable cause generators. How do you argue that a dog barking on command is wrong? If the dog cannot understand or respond to an oath in court to not commit perjury, what standing should a multicellular creature called a mutt have in our criminal justice system. The Sixth Amendment allows us to confront the witnesses against us in court. Can the dog speak like that wily talking serpent in the Garden Of Eden that in theory could homeschool my children.
|Send comments to: firstname.lastname@example.org|