[Cons] Article III - Section 1 (5 of 10) Prosecutors

The former prosecutor who went berserk against the Duke Lacross team is one of the few examples of a prosecutor actually being punished for misconduct.  The truth is, as flawed as our system of justice may be against Law Enforcement, it is infinitely better than it is against Prosecutors.  Prosecutors wield tremendous power. 

I've mentioned these in numerous examples, but here are just a few examples.

Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, Here and Here.

And who publishes them? Basically no one.  Judges who arrogant snobs are a problem.  You can fix that with an empowered jury but a prosecutor who uses outrageous plea bargaining is able to wield psychotic levels of power.  The problem is, an institution is going to function how it was designed.  When you have prosecutors as an elected or indirectly appointed office, those officers want to get promoted and will work to show off how awesome they are with high numbers of convictions, not caring whether or not those prosecutions make sense.  We're not talking good or evil here; though there are good prosecutors who help people out when they need it, and evil prosecutors who sell children up the river with corrupt judges; we're just talking human nature.  When a prosecutor is in office, he wants to look good.  By making prosecution a political matter, rather than a matter of justice, at a local level you create problems.  At a federal level, the imperial nature of the US government causes the government to want to wield its power with majesty and awe.  This attitude started with J. Edgar Hoover and it has never really stopped since.

So let's itemize some of these problems, shall we? Specifically at the Federal level.

1) The US Attorney is appointed by and works at the pleasure of the President of the United States.  Furthermore, a federal court will not take a case unless someone has standing, and unless someone can prove specific harm, you can't take the government to court for violating the constitution.  That means unconstitutional acts (like violating a senate ratified Treaty on Torture) are completely and utterly ignored by the courts, because there is no one to prosecute them.

2)  The US Attorney is a cabinet level position, so he's peers with and buddy buddy with the very people he is supposed to able to prosecute if they violate the constitution.  The courts can't act as a check for what the prosecutor won't prosecute.

3) The US Attorney is ALSO in charge of the Justice Department, which includes several premier US Law Enforcement Agencies, including the FBI.  Which means when the FBI goes rogue, there aint no one to prosecute them except in the worst situations because the US Attornies work for the same guy as the FBI.

HOWEVER, as I said, as bad as cops are, internal affairs in this country works well enough that SOME things are not tolerated.  Publicly demanding bribes like they do in Mexico? Uh uh.  That's jail time buddy. 

So how to fix this?

Lots of countries make the justice department separate entirely from the rest of the government? This causes problems in Italy where the prosecutors go after the prime minister all the time.  I might see this is a problem, except that the Italian Prime Minister is the Itallian Rupurt Murdoch, aka fascist Burlosconi.  Maybe having someone file suit against Obama and Bush on a regular basis might make them respect the constitution a bit more.

How would they be appointed?  Lots of ways, but I think it should be a separate branch of the executive, so I'll talk about it more in Article II, but I will say that I think that prosecutors in general should be merged with law enforcement, and that the actual prosecution should be done as a part of law enforcement agencies.

If you just have a prosecutor sitting around 'protecting justice' they choose which laws they enforce, but also have to justify their existence by looking flashy.  Now, this won't be solved if its in law enforcement, but existing internal affairs departments could go after prosecutors rather than a non existent thing like what we have now.  I've been able to find all kinds of abstract reasons why they're supposed to be separate, but the real reason is that modern law enforcement is a modern invention while the King's prosecutor in court is an old feudal position.  When we became a democracy, the idea was to elect or appoint them, but like so much about Article III, so much of our courts was so poorly planned, it was just tacked on as an afterthought and just assumed it would work 'like the English courts.'

More importantly, the US attorney is not a constitutionally protected/defined role.  That means a simple act of congress could merge all US attorney positions into law enforcement agencies by a simple law without having to wait to reboot the constitution or amend the awful current one.

[Rant] Civility, Racism and Bigotry

So I got into an argument with someone on the internet today.  I thought about reposting here, but really, why bother? I try to post at least semi coherant stuff here, not just recycled logic.

The thing is,this person really obviously believed their own internal logic.  I think today was even more proof that the two cultures simply CANNOT be reconciled, and I'll tell you why.

Here's a video from the conservative side here you might watch if you can tolerate it:




I mean it all sounds pretty reasonable right?  Who doesn't like the individual vs the big evil government? And God knows I've ranted enough about the problems with institutions as well.  But the thing is...if you have noticed a single theme I have more than any other it is that of TRUTH.  I lived a lie my whole life until the age of 35.  I swallowed it hook line and sinker, only to discover that the leaders of that lie care only about their own power, profit and personal glory.

I digress. 

The meat of this conversation with the individual in question is that he called me a bigot for putting down people who have a different opinion than them.  This is a branch of the same stupid argument they make about tolerating intolerance, which I addressed here.



The link he posted was right here:

Now I mean, that might be the technical thinking...but is that really what most people think of when they think of the definition...here's the wikipedia entry:

Well that sounds like normal English.  So when you expand the google version, you see its based on a 17th century definition, whereas the one in wikipedia is sourced to a modern Meriam Webster dictionary.  So we see that the person here who is from a movement everyone else but them associates with misogynist assholes, he insists that their movement represents the interest of ALL blighted XYZ.  And to prove that, much like the GOP that trots out women who say, "There is no war on women!"  These collaborators say, "Nuh uh! #NotUsingMeAsAnExcuse!" And then idiot and many like him can point to him and pretend that they're not hanging out with mysogonist assholes.

He demands proof.  Then he says I'm being uncivil.

So what is this CIVIL thing they keep bringing up?

We'll use the google definition, since apparently that's what contards like.

"formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech."

Where have I heard that before?  Oh yes....



Is the incredibly racist slave owning psychopath CIVIL? Can we not at least be CIVIL to each other?

Of course, God FORBID you take offense at anything THEY might say, because you see, to a contard, it is not about what YOU find civil or what society finds civil but what THEY find civil.  If they feel civil toward you, if their gloves are still on then they are being civil.

Thus, it isn't YOUR definition of bigotry that matters, its THEIR definition.  Where have we heard this before? Oh yeah...













So...let's see here...you have to believe you're racially superior to others or that your race is better than others...and as long as you don't do that, you're not racist!  Cause...

You know...by that definition as long as there is ONE PERSON who you like and get along with in that race, who is tame and have the same beliefs as you do politically or socially and you believe that 99.9% of the people of that race aren't like that, then its AOK.  You can tell that off color joke because you're  NOT BEING RACIST.

Now, never mind that the vast majority of the population finds something like this incredibly racist...

"1 in 10000 negros is actually capable of acting like a white man...." but so long as you don't believe ALL of them are that way, YOU'RE NOT RACIST.

It all makes sense when you think about it.  If you define your own words and you don't have to care what 'the collective' thinks, then you can do whatever you want.

Get that? 

Where else have we seen it? The Austrian School of Economics which believes that ITS ideas matter more than science.  Science is merely part of the "collectivist" paradigm otherwise known as reality.  I've already established that by definition conservatives lie more and have a reason for society to tolerate their lies.  Libertarians ARE conservatives for purposes of truth.

And thus we see that even the words we use, the conversations we have can't hold them accountable unless society makes LYING a crime if isn't for fiction or parody.  Our very dialog, the very words we use, markets (which require truthful information to function) or government simply cannot work if we cannot talk to one another and until the individualists stop using 17th century definitions of words or care that while the REST of us call Racism "Someone else being offended about your stereotype about race" rather than your hypertechnical obscure definition (that happens to be an outdated dictionary definition) then we're all going nowhere.

[Humor] Republicans are People too...despite all evidence to the contrary.

Hilarious video and commentary here.

A Republican cult leader defines a relationship as "toxic" as one that might dare reflect too much of reality vs quietly pursing your lips or smiling painfully while listening to more crazy lies about Glenn Beck. :D

[Phi] Capitalism Works Pretty Good Until You Run Out of Other People's Money to Pay for It

There is an Elizabeth Warren quote I like a lot.

Or for those who don't want to read the tiny writing:

"“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Now, for equal time to our contard friends, this is their response...

Because...HITLER.

Note....that's not an actual Hitler quote.  They say its parody.  You know "Entertainment" just like Fox News.

So the reason I'm writing this post is I saw this in the news today:

Georgia dealers want Tesla store shuttered for selling too many Teslas

That's right folks.  The successful entrepreneur Elon Musk, our reality's Tony Stark, is being Tuckered  by businessmen who don't compete in business but by going to the corrupt "Pro Capitalism" GOP government.  But what about our Libertarian friends? What about them?  First, show me a libertarian government that can actually get elected and then I'll care, and then remember that in a libertarian government there's nothing stopping them from bribing China or other countries to prevent Musk from being able to build the car in the first place, or just hire folks to burn it down.  Oh, Libertarians will say that law enforcement in their world will work....but look at how much they pay for their own party.

Capitalism in the United States involves Public Risk for Private Profit.  The Fed pumped literally trillions of dollars into the economy to prop up failed too big to fail banks, but were any held criminally accountable? No.  They just had to pay some fines of a few billion dollars.  What is the contard reaction to this by the way?

Poor corporations.  They're so put upon.  I mean, they're people right?

I have one contarded sibling who has severed ties with part of the family because we dare question her reality of Glenn Beck and Mitt Romney.  The lies told by contards don't just polarize political environments, they sever families, cost us billions.

Contards wrap their very identity in letting the rich get away with murder.  There's a name for this, and its called Afluenza.   But what about those who aren't rich?  Why would they buy into the lies?

Because of the other lies they're already believing.  The belief that Christ will redeem your sins for no effort but a few words whatsoever, that Love is a distant commandment, and that it is OK to harm children so long as they're not contard children.

Capitalism is an inherently flawed system as has now been mathematically proven not to work except for the rich.  It WILL create stratification unless stopped.  DRASTIC stratification.   How do we fix it? I'm working on lots of ways, but THIS is the most brilliant idea I've seen in a long time.

From their website: "

Our Ultimate Goal:

To restore true, representative democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Legislators to pass a much needed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to our Constitution.  There are only 2 ways to amend the Constitution. (1) Go through our Federal Government  (2) Go through our State Legislators via an amendments convention of the states. 

Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our Federal Government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money.  We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a sufficient measure to solve this problem.   We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money and might actually do what 96% of the country wants...take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.  

Their extremely well thought out plan can be found here.  

 Even conservatives and libertarians (as compared to contards and libertarians) are getting on board with this.  Two states so far.  

This is good for many reasons, but for me the most important reason is that if we can have a limited Section V conference for one issue, we can do it for more later.  Washington is totally and fundamentally broken and so are most of our states, but we have to start somewhere and this seems like a good place.

[Cons] Article III, Section 1 (4 of 10) What role the judge?

So in this empowered jury world, what role does a judge play?

Let's start with what they don't do.

They do NOT cite contempt.  That's for the jury.  That means the court rises when the jury enters.  That means that people refer to jurors as 'the honorable' etc.

They do NOT determine the opportunities for opposing council.  "Approaching the bench" means approaching the Jury.

They do NOT cite what evidence is seen.  The jury sees that.

They do NOT determine what law or explain the law to the jury.  The law is simple enough for them to understand (see the next post for that.)

But the thing is, if the Jury is made this powerful, then someone must hold the JURY in check.  The Jury cannot be racist, cannot lie, cannot be sexist or make decisions based on religion or social status.  The jury must serve justice and be fair.  And thus, the greatest and most important power a judge has is to REMOVE a juror who is behaving with conduct unbecoming a public servant.

There must be serious consequences for this.  If a judge does this, a majority of the remaining jury can remove the judge and get a new one subject to their approval.   A judge removed must face a review by another jury about whether or not they get to keep their judgeship.

An honored judge could have powers delegated to him by a jury, but it should be THE JURY'S choice about whether or not they choose to do so and they should be able to take it back at any time.

A judge is honored in court because they are supposed to represent justice, but the political decisions made by conservative judges in US courts are anything BUT honorable or just.  Perhaps after a few centuries they might deserve the honors they receive, but not now.

[Cons] Article III, Section 1 - An Empowered Jury (3 of 10)

So how exactly would this work? I think as far as selection is concerned, most jurisdictions already have pretty good randomization methods in place; often using voter registration or the like.

1) I think the first fix we need is to remove the ability of prosecutors and defense attorneys from being able to remove jurors.  Jurors should have a questionnaire on a trial and be able to recuse THEMSELVES, but there is a definite conflict of interest when a prosecutor is able to remove someone because they might be too smart, too informed, or biased against law enforcement.  An excellent protection against prosecutor over reach or failure to disclose sufficient evidence to the defense is to remove their ability to tamper with the Jury.

A stronger argument could be made in the case of the Defense in order to avoid a prejudiced jury, but given how things are already rigged in favor of the prosecution, removing the prosecutions ability to do this helps the defense, and it will be easier to maintain this state of affairs if the defense can't do it either.  More importantly, juries lie all the time.  If evidence comes to light that a member of the jury lied about certain prescreening questions that they voluntarily answer, it becomes grounds for appeal and the juror is convicted for felony perjury.

What does not happen anymore is that just because someone knows something about a subject they are instantly removed from a jury.  Our justice system should not be the lowest common demoninator, it should be the greatest most intelligent people we can get.  Random selection and intelligence are hard, but at the least we can stop the brain drain.

2) The Jury should set the length of the trial.  Look, you can argue legal quandries all you like, but the fact of the matter is, ultimately its the jury that decides what goes on.  In our current system, judges can shanghai people for weeks at a time while the lawyers go back and forth with mind numbingly complex testiomony with conflicting witnesses and they're just a pair of eyes in a box.

The best, most important way to empower juries is to ensure that THEY set the length of the trial and that they determine the length of testimony presented to each side.  Note, the defense should always get at least as much as the prosecution, but if the prosecution can't make its case in a week, then the Jury should get to tell them to go to hell.

3) The Jury can ask as many questions as it likes and see whatever evidence it wants.  Lawyers and judges pretend they know more about 'fairness' but in reality they lie all the time, twist evidence that would determine a trial if the jury could see it, and generally make juries stupid.  Even beyond this, Judicial 'instructions' to juries often tie their hands so much that the trial is a farce.

The jury should be allowed to ask questions, with a certain amount of time given to each Juror to speak to any witness or the defendant.  By placing the investigation in the hands of CITIZENS, it means that the law must be simple enough so that anyone can understand it; not just lawyers.

4) All appeals must be to juries, not judges.  A jury should determine if another jury has followed the law, not judges.  Judges can and are bribed and corrupted, destroyed by their own sense of entitlement and power.  A randomly selected jury is there to ensure that a trial is properly conducted.  After the behavior of our Supreme Court, I have more faith in a federally selected jury than I do in judges that have to bypass the gauntlets of corrupt conservative legislators.

[Rant] Why Reason with Conservatives Is Impossible

On Facebook the other day, on a liberal page I saw a conservative lady DEFENDING the following statement from Rush Limbaugh.  Not all conservatives love or defend Rush, but the majority of them do.  But even those who do not take their talking points from Rush.  This man is human filth, saying more and more monstrous things and has poisoned the political well in this country for close to two decades.

Until conservatives stop tolerating this monster or tolerating conservatives among their own number who defend him, peace and reconciliation is impossible.  And I for one don't even intend to try.