Wednesday, January 19, 2011

11-01-20 Fraud on the Courts and Framing in Criminal Courts in Iowa // El fraude en los tribunales penales en Iowa // 在爱荷华州的欺诈刑事法院

The conditions, described below, were described by the official Blue Ribbon Review Panel report (2006) as routine conduct of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office in the Los Angeles Superior Court:

06-07-15 Rampart Reconsidered: LAPD's Blue Ribbon Review Panel Report (2006)


Yahoo! Groups

Monday, January 17, 2011Protecting the Worst Among Us: How the U.S. Supreme Court Rewards Prosecutorial Misconduct William Anderson

Camille Tilley, the mother of wrongfully-convicted Courtney Bisbee, sent me the link to a stunning article that has appeared in the Los Angeles Times about how the U.S. Supreme Court protects prosecutors who lie and deliberatly hide exculpatory evidence. If you want to know why people like Chris Arnt and Len Gregor are willing to lie openly in court, hide evidence, suborn perjury, and fabricate documents during a trial, this article lays it out for you.

Perhaps the most chilling paragraph in this excellent story is found here:

Last year, the court heard the case of two Iowa prosecutors who were sued for framing two black teenagers for the murder of a security guard even though witnesses had pointed to a suspect who was white. In asking for the claim to be tossed out, the Iowa prosecutors asserted "there is no freestanding constitutional right not to be framed." (Emphasis mine)
I want readers to sit back and contemplate what the Iowa prosecutors are saying: Because the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly say that prosecutors are not to frame innocent people, therefore, prosecutors are permitted to do so. (However, I suspect that many of those people would claim that even though the Constitution does not specifically say that women have an untrammeled "right" to an abortion, nonetheless the Constitution guarantees that "right.")

While the argument these people used was extreme, nonetheless I believe that it reflects the mentality of prosecutors around the country. Because they know that they won't face any legal consequences for their misdeeds, they feel free to do whatever they want, even if they know they are lying.

Furthermore, keep in mind that the consequences of prosecutorial misconduct are horrific. People are wrongfully sent to prison. Families are destroyed. People are executed for crimes they did not commit.

This sorry state of affairs continues because the Law-and-Order Conservatives believe that prosecutors should be able to conduct their operations without any worries at all, and that no one should be permitted to impede their actions, even if they are pursuing innocent people. Furthermore, the same people who believe that a business should be destroyed because an employee acted wrongfully refuse to hold that same standard to the agents of the state. The LAT article notes:
The high court has taken a dim view of suing prosecutors, and in Thompson's case, the court's conservatives led by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. questioned whether the district attorney's office should be held responsible for the misdeeds of a few prosecutors. (Emphasis mine)
Would Alito hold to that same standard if Wal-Mart were being sued? I doubt it, and his words send a very clear message to prosecutors everywhere: Lie, lie, and lie some more. The Supreme Court has your backs.

I would like to say that a free society cannot withstand this kind of assault, but Americans long ago threw away their freedoms. Instead, we have a surveillance-police state that empowers some of the worst people among us.

Last May, a Catoosa County jury acquitted Tonya Craft of child molestation charges, and jurors even remarked afterward that Chris Arnt had openly lied to them during closing arguments. We witnessed Joal and Sarah Henke committing perjury, unqualified prosecution witnesses testifying, the fabrication of documents, and more perjury from Sandra Lamb and Sherri Wilson.

In other words, in order to bring criminal charges against Ms. Craft, Arnt and Len Gregor committed crimes, and helped others commit crimes along the way. Jurors and others in the courtroom witnessed criminal behavior, yet not one person who lied and broke the law faced any sanctions.

Arnt, Gregor, Tim Deal, and "judge" brian outhouse are still on the job. No one who lied faced any punishment, and no one will be punished for what they did.

Why? They knew that they were perfectly secure in their lawbreaking because the authorities will not do anything about it. For that matter, the authorities WERE the lawbreakers. Let me put it another way, one that perhaps puts all of this into perspective:

Lawbreaking by government authorities is legal because it is the "Law of the Land." The U.S. Supreme Court has said so.

11-01-19 Financial Recklessness - Official US Government Policy // Imprudencia financiera - política official de EE.UU. Gobierno // 财政鲁莽-美国政府官方政策

Of note
  • Until 2008, no US national bank was permitted to hold over 10% of total consumer deposits. 
  • The precautionary measure was adopted following the Great Depression. 
  • The policy was lifted, as a key provision of the US government coerced Bank of America- Countrywide merger agreement in January 2008.  
  • No reasonable explanation can be found for the current US banking regulation policy that is consistent with stability of US financial markets.
  • The current policy materially increases risks and volatility. 
Information Clearing House Newsletter
News You Won't Find On CNN
January 19, 2011

Trillion-Dollar Banks Could Get Bigger Under Financial Overhaul Law:
The nation's four biggest banks can grow even bigger, with the potential to add at least another trillion dollars onto their balance sheets before they even reach the limits imposed by the Obama administration, according to an administration study released Tuesday.

11-01-19 Torture in US Prisons // La tortura en EE.UU. Prisiones // 在美国的监狱酷刑

Information Clearing House Newsletter
News You Won't Find On CNN
January 19, 2011
In Case You Missed it
Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons
Video Documentary By Channel 4
They are just some of the victims of wholesale torture taking place inside the U.S. prison system that we uncovered during a four-month investigation for Channel 4 . It's terrible to watch some of the videos and realise that you're not only seeing torture in action but, in the most extreme cases, you are witnessing young men dying.

'I Wake Up Screaming': A Gitmo Nightmare

By Carol Grisanti and Fakhar ur Rehman
Saad Iqbal Madni looks decades older than his 33 years when he shuffles into the room, head down and eyes averted. "There are a lot of times I start to cry. I still feel like I am in Guantanamo," he says, his voice cracking and hands trembling. "I have memorized the torture. I wake up in the middle of the night screaming."
The Lonely Battle Against Solitary Confinement
By James Ridgeway and Jean Casella
The punitive incarceration of alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning is cruel, certainly, but far from unusual in the US.

Fired Up! Missouri

Another DEAD inmate, The Killer Cold of Missouri's Jails

Another Inmate DIES at the hands of Sheriffs Deputies
Not a very Christian County Missouri

To Jenifer Placzek At Law
In connection with the DEATH of your clients son, Mr. Davidson, PLEASE Interview ALL the inmates from 2001 til today about the COLD in the Christian County Jail. Kevin McBride, Mr. Faruq, Judson Witham, and lets not forget the Public Defenders, Bond Agents, State Police and other County Deputies. EVERYONE KNOWS about the COLD used in OZARK.
DEMAND State Police Investigation and POLYGRAPHS FOR EVERYONE !!!!

11-01-18 Request Filed to Inspect and to Copy US Supreme Court Electronic Records // Solicitud presentada para inspeccionar los registros electrónicos de la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. // 要求提交视察美国最高法院的电子记录

The outcome of petitions and applications by individuals against government or corporation remained vague and ambiguous.  The Office of the Clerk sent invalid letters, as notices of "denial", while no judicial records were found in the paper court files as valid foundation for such letter. So far, no public access was permitted to the judicial records in the electronic case management of the US Supreme Court.


Los Angeles, January 18 – George McDermott of the People of the State of Maryland has filed request with the office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, to inspect and to copy paper and electronic court records. [[i]] The request pertained to applications and petitions by individuals in cases against government or corporations.
In some of the cases letters have been previously received by the individuals from the office of the Clerk of the Court, which purported to notice the denial of the petitions or applications.  However, the letters were issued by unauthorized court personnel, in other cases were unsigned, or included invalid signature boxes.  Therefore, the outcome of such cases of the Supreme Court remained vague and ambiguous. [[ii],[iii],[iv]]
In some of the cases, attempts have also been made to access the court’s paper files, to inspect and to copy.  In cases, where access was permitted, no valid judicial records of court orders or decisions were found as the legal foundation for the denial letters.
Therefore, it was assumed, that if any valid judicial records existed in such cases, they would be found in the electronic case management system of the Supreme Court. However, like all other courts, which were examined, the Supreme Court of the United States has never published Rules of Court to establish its electronic case management procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights and the Rule Making Enabling Act.
Moreover, so far the public has not been permitted access to the records in the electronic case management system of the US Supreme Court, in alleged violation of First Amendment rights.
In part, McDermott’s request states:
The public at large and computing professionals, in particular, must assume their civic duties in ongoing monitoring the integrity of electronic court records. The common law right to inspect and to copy judicial records was reaffirmed by the US Supreme Court in Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) as inherent to the First Amendment. In doing so, the US Supreme Court said that the right was necessary for the public "to keep a watchful eye on government". Today, the public must keep a watchful eye particularly on electronic court records. No other measures could substitute for public scrutiny of court records in safeguarding the integrity of the courts and Human Rights in the Digital Era.
Human Rights Alert (NGO) has previously identified the offices of the clerks of the US courts and their electronic case management systems as key to conditions that now prevail in the courts and called upon the US Congress to perform its duties and initiate corrective actions:
·        Restoring key provisions of the Salary Act of 1919   the clerks of the US courts under the authority of the US Attorney General:
At the time, conditions in the US courts were described in the US Congress as "a burlesque", and the Salary Act was credited as a key measure in restoring the US courts integrity.  It replaced the clerks as checks and balances vis a vis judicial corruption, which was the reason for existence of the clerks since the late middle ages. 
By the mid 20th century the clerks were again placed under the authority of the judiciary.
·        Enactment of federal rules for electronic court records:
The evidence shows that the clerks of the US courts today do not deem themselves accountable for the integrity of electronic court records of both the case management systems of the courts and the online public access systems.  The systems were implemented over the past two decades in the federal courts. In the process, a sea change was introduced in court procedures, which had been established for centuries, and were the core of Due Process. However, all courts that were examined, without exception, failed to publish Rules of Courts pertaining to their new electronic procedures, in alleged violation of Due Process rights.  Moreover, all the courts that were examined deny public access to various records in the electronic case management systems in alleged violation of First Amendment rights.
Therefore, the US Congress should perform its duties and establish the systems by law. 
Implicit in such law should be the requirement for publicly and legally accountable validation (certified, functional logic verification) of such systems prior to their implementation.
[i] 11-01-18 McDermott's Request to access US Supreme Court records to inspect and to copy:
[ii] 10-07-01 Complaint against US Supreme Court Counsel Danny Bickell Alleging Public Corruption and Deprivation of Rights, In re: Fine v Sheriff (09-A827):
[iii] 10-08-01  Further Evidence for Fraud, Misprision of Felonies at the office of the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, in re: Fine v Baca (09-A827): 
[iv] 10-11-25 William Suter - Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States - Evidence of Public Corruption:

Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
Locations of visitors to this page