denniscomments

political and social commentary about the flat earthers and other ridiculous subjects

WINNING ELECTIONS MORE IMPORTANT THAN INTEGRITY

JOHN MITCHELL LIVES! FEAR AND LOATHING IN BOULDER.

Truth disappears with war on drugs. D.L.Blewitt, J. D.
Claire Levy was a newly elected state representative from Boulder. Posing as a liberal progressive, show introduced a police sponsored bill to make driving under the influence of pot a crime because the police asked her too. Such a move gives additional revenue to police power to discriminate, power to lie and profile and is contrary to current scientific evidence. We have propaganda-based policy rather than evidence based policy which allows elected officials to pander to interest groups, rather than educate and stand up for the people and our rights.
I can’t believe Claire Levy is from Boulder. Or should I say I can’t believe that Claire Levy was conscious while living in Boulder. If she were conscious, she wouldn’t have sponsored the marijuana driving bill. Her proposal for the war on marijuana is that anyone who operates a motor vehicle with a certain amount of nanoliters of THC per milliliter of blood is guilty of driving under the influence of drugs. Note that the proscription does not apply to prescription drugs. It only applies to the drug of choice of the peasantry. She even posted some stale research on her website to justify her fascist position.
Why, one might wonder is there a problem all the sudden. It is obvious. The law enforcement-prison industry created by Nixon and Mitchel, artfully disguising class and racial warfare and oppression under the rubric of “law and order,” needs more oppressive legislation to keep up its revenue stream. No one but a “neo-liberal” would consider such a move against the people, particularly when there is no noticeable problem or any evidence-based reasoning to do so. Many medications have a warning that a driver may become drowsy or unco-ordinated and warn people to adjust to the medicine before driving or operating machinery.
Why is marijuana so different? Because there is so much ignorance and prejudice out there in addition to propaganda to keep the privatization feeding frenzy going. Clearly, the ignorant and prejudiced do not accept the medical model of drug policy. They prefer the fascist policy of oppression to keep the peasantry and “the other” in their place. Scare them into compliance is the motto. It is a form of terrorism that has been applied by some agencies of the Government such as the IRS very successfully during the last few decades. Fear is a powerful weapon on the ignorant. Hitler found that out.
For years, Dr. G has been against ignorance and prejudice. Claire Levy exemplifies both traits. It is inconceivable how any person could have lived in Boulder unaware of the numerous drivers that drive after tasting their favorite drug of choice. Maybe she was too stoned herself to be aware of it, although she stated to the press that she had tried marijuana only once. Kind of like our former president who, while at Oxford University in England smoked but did not inhale. However, she is throwing stones from her glass house. Why? Because she has total disdain for the law, and as a member of the ruling class is above it. If she had any regard for the law, she would have abstained from the weed . However, she, like others tried it, and now sees its evil potential. Never mind that the proposal would require drivers to give blood and possibly expose themselves to aids, hepatitis, or other diseases. After all, there are over 100,000 cases of MRSA, the antibiotic resistant bacterial infection, reported every year. Policy makers have ignored that for years, why should public health and constitutional awareness interfere with the States oppression engine to make money. Never mind, that there are no reported cases of emergency room admissions for smoking pot, while there are 10,000 crib injury admittances reported each year. Her aim is not to protect, but to grab headlines and curry favor from ignorant and bigoted. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, she claims to be a progressive. Anyone believing that is a good candidate to buy a bridge in Brooklyn. Enlightened people should contact her and tell her we are not as stupid as she would believe. Nor are we falling for the scare tactics of the police state anymore.
Years ago, there was a defense attorney’s conference at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. This was era where ponytails, sideburns, beads, and colored shirts set the tonsorial standard for lawyers. Almost all defense attorneys had long hair of various lengths and there wasn’t a crew-cut or flat-top in the group. The convention discussions were about the upcoming fight for the Constitution against the prosecutors, Nixon, and Attorney General John Mitchel, all of whom were advocating preventive detention, involuntary extraction of body fluids, mass arrests, and other fascist-like laws to keep the blacks and anti-war protesters in line and to show the public how patriotic they were. It was bad enough these weird people were voting but demonstrating was another matter. The issue that the right wing was using to show patriotism and conformity was the drug war. Henry Anslinger had softened the minds of the people with reefer madness stories about wild pot parties descriptive of Sodom and Gomorra. People were afraid because there was no unity in the country, and Nixon-Mitchell knew how to capitalize on that fear. They changed the medical model of the drug laws proposed by President Johnson to a law enforcement model, demonizing anyone who even thought of taking drugs. These were the topics of the Defense bar. When the defense attorneys left, the prosecutors checked in. Not a long hair in the bunch.
The convention’s contrast was vividly described by Hunter Thompson in a book describing those times. He took literary license to show the contrast in the two dichotomous views. Hollywood later took up Thompson’s description, portraying the drug, sex and rock and roll and totally ignoring the political-social theme of the writing. The non-thinking readers and the non-reading viewers missed the point totally. There was no comprehension of the cultural war in process or the wholesale attack on the Constitution and the traditional freedoms in either of the movies. Ask someone today about the book and they will not even mention the John Mitchel symbolism or official oppression. They didn’t read the book, they saw the movie
So, some fascist, posing as a democrat proposed a bill to extract blood from a driver, analyze it for THC and use the results to convict the driver and take away his license. After all, pot is bad. But I have to wonder why other drugs such as Xanax, Nembutal, Ephedrine’s, other relaxation, and calming drugs. Or for that matter, cough syrup, that have warnings on them about operating machinery are not getting the same treatment. Well, the answer is complicated and has little to do with health, safety, or welfare. It is entirely about sustaining the Police State under which we are now living and the modern politician’s contempt for the public and the law. Ms. Levy told the press that she had used illegal drugs. She was not punished and there were no consequences. Now, she has seen the light and wants to put others in jail. Talk about hypocrisy!
So, let us look at the dynamics or driving while stoned. First, you can’t smell dangerous pharmaceuticals on drivers, but you can smell marijuana. Secondly, if a legislator pulled this inane shit on Merck, Ciba-Geigi, Merck, or some other big Pharma, there would be a contract put out on the legislator. However, the potheads don’t have that kind of power or resources. Only large industrialists and the CIA have any access to organized crime figures, especially hit men. Additionally, there is not the opprobrium attached to barbiturates and other drugs hyped by the big companies and prescribed by physicians. Finally, pot smokers don’t have billions to sell their position to the public.
But the main reason for such a law, is that someone can show disapproval, while at the same time court the police state and the bankrupt policies of privatization. The system is running out of cannon fodder. DUI clinics are folding (and can be replaced by marijuana treatment clinics). They have lowered the permissible limit of alcohol to the point of prohibition. Additionally, the fodder cannot continue the financing for the privatized alcohol therapy and counseling. So, private enterprise must look at new markets and new revenues. What better than marijuana.
It seems more that coincidental that a law was originally passed aimed at Hispanics, is being revitalized while all the vigilante activity against Hispanics is increasing and various states are demonizing “illegals,” who just happen to be predominately Hispanic. Of course, years ago, the Boulder “liberals” outlawed lunch pails in the city, and engaged in urban renewal by tearing down shanties and building a wide highway that dead ended into a shopping center. In any event, the proposal should greatly increase the county coffers and help support privatization of government.
When a driver who has smoked marijuana in the last week is pulled over, the odor lingers. Police can then use this as probable cause to insist on a “voluntary roadside” test to assure the officer that the motorist is safe to continue to drive. The roadside test is performed without any way to verify the results. The officers, who we are repeatedly being seen on YouTube beating citizens, have the motorist perform tests. There is no record of the test, and the tests cannot be repeated by an independent researcher. There is a test of the eyes, one of balance, and one of speech. The honorable Brutus like police officer reports that the behavior is inconsistent with sobriety and can then demand those fluids be drawn under the express consent law to be used to convict a driver. Because driving is so dangerous, the legislatures have seen fit to disregard the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to give powers to the Government. However, if a motorist is involved, the Government just grabs the power anyway. Since the officials view driving as a privilege, the Constitution does not apply. Just to ensure a conviction, and thus revenues, arbitrary blood percentages are set which are then supposed to be conclusive of intoxication.
Although the Constitution was intended to curtail State action, the totalitarian advocates have devised a con-voluted circumvention. The Anti-constitution position is that when a driver applies for a Driver’s license, he waives his forfeits his right to be protected by the Constitution. If a driver believes in the Constitution, he cannot drive. The case of Schmerber v. California, which initially held that fluids were not covered by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments became the law of the land, upsetting centuries of precedent, mocking the Magna Charta. This is easy for the modern politicians to do because they have no ideology or beliefs. What really matters is getting elected and staying in office so the People can worship and adore their legislator. Principal means nothing. Results are what matters. Just look at Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, and CIA assassinations.
Any fascist claiming to be progressive can stay in office so long as the image can be maintained. Of course, the “me too’s” have it even easier. They can listen to what their Public is saying and then, conveniently say “me too.” In that manner, they don’t risk their position. I have no doubt that Claire Levi has no idea that she is a fascist. She believes she is doing good by protecting people from stoned drivers. She even put some articles on her website to justify her position. Never mind that real scientist have discredited most of those articles. She can claim balance, and because she sites some articles, she is good and righteous. This reminds me of the Chad Mitchel Trio song, “I Was Not a Nazi Polka.” So, we are targeted by potential legislation that is based upon fear and ignorance, calculated to appeal to the Chicken Littles and distract the public from real problems such as the homeless, the sick, the unemployed, and others.
The legislators must realize that four decades of drug war with extremely high casualties has tired the public. The public realize that reefer will not turn their daughters into prostitutes and their sons into fiends. They have started to realize that, compared to MRSA, crib deaths, and other calamities of the Industrial multinational State, the drug war is insignificant. The only real thing it does is provide an excuse for the police to bully people, beat them up or kill them with the blessings of the Courts. After all, we privatized much of government, and we need to keep the idea alive and well fed. This can only be accomplished with the help of the ignorant and prejudiced. I wonder how Ms. Levy would react if the rationale for Constitutional contempt were rephrased from “it is worth it if we can save one life,” to “it is worth it if we can increase the profits of Intervention, BPI, or Correctional Corporation of America.” After all, we cannot let something like the Constitution and freedom interfere with the exploitation and incarceration of the peasantry.
I hope everyone writes their legislators and tells them to vote the marijuana driving down. Tell them to support the Constitution or resign. The legislators can sponsor a voter’s initiative, rather than passing legislation. In the meantime, send copies of the Constitution to your legislators and express your position. Tell them that we are tired of the drug war in all forms and that we want our roads, bridges, health facilities, and other infrastructures fixed before being shaken down for protection.
Gonzo slays the dragon

Many of you are disturbed at the condition of my ramblings. More specifically, you are disturbed about the spelling, malapropism’s, wrong words, and other errors that appear in my writing.
Therefore, I have decided that I need more deviance in my approach. For years, I have dictated everything that I have done. That is, until my assistant, who put up with me for over 30 years developed carpal tunnel syndrome and decided to retire. Until she was gone, I never fully appreciated what she did for me. She would take a tape of dictation, which was nearly illiterate, in comprehensible and sometimes downright stupid and and turn it into something which made new a good. Of course, my ego would allow me to admit that the product was a mine, but in fact it wasn’t like to dictate something like, “tell this guy to go screw himself,” which would turn into a one page letter explaining why is there my client or I would not comply with his request or any further request. I could see to the tape recorder, “do a motion to suppress,” and their lengthy motion reciting the facts in my most recent case and reasons why evidence should be admissible turned up on my desk for signature. Not only would not occur, but at times, I would say one thing when I meant another. Still, my documents turned out to way that I wanted them to.
When I closedown my office, I still dictated everything. But, instead of having a live person process what I had said, I bought an awfully expensive of dictation software package called the dragon NaturallySpeaking. Argues the program in the past, however it was in conjunction with a live person translating my ramblings and incoherent mutterings somehow turning of a product which are recognized. I used several generations of this software in the past, but always had somebody taking the result either from the tape or from Iraq draft. Well, the salespeople said the new software was 99% accurate and did not need to be trained. That might be, but I needed to be trained. You have seen the result of plain dictatorship and in my prior writings. These were done in the fashion of the last 40 years arising. I would talk into a machine, a product would be printed and appear on my desk, and I sent it out. Simple. No problem. However, the product is of the same. The voice recognition software not only does not always recognize the voice, but never makes the voice seam other than stupid, alert, and hallucinogenic. It is for this reason that I have decided to slay the dragon. Time permitting, I will attempt to proofread, reorganize, correct the spelling, and do other things to the words and the page. Hopefully, this will not interfere with the free association of the thoughts. I thought the mistakes made by the translation or dictation software could simulate those hallucinogenic past which we are all nostalgic for. Like Lieut. Kiji, the dragon must die, but won’t be immortalized by Prokofiev.
Years ago, in what seems like another lifetime and in a different Country, I was a judge. Not much of a judge in status or duties, but a judge, nonetheless. Every week, I would drive to my municipality and judge. However, the experience was not like I thought it was going to be.
Colorado had Justices of the Peace or J.P.’s previously, which had been replaced by municipal judge. For some reason, the JP system was unpopular. Probably because no one was found not guilty. It was immensely popular with the JP’s and the policemen, however. The way it worked was that 1) a motorist was stopped almost at random; 2) the motorist was issued a summons to appear in Court or could be taken in front of the JP; 3) the motorist was found guilty and fined, which went to the municipality, and 4) the motorist was assessed “court costs” which the JP got to keep. Everyone liked the system except for the poor unfortunate driver who happened to get ensnared.
Colorado was just recovering from the Denver Police scandal, where many officers were sent to prison for burglary. Additionally, the press would bring up the matter of the Klan, which existed openly until 1959, even producing a Mayor in Denver. To top things off, many cities were put on a list of places to avoid by AAA motor club because they were known speed traps. So, the JP’s went and salaried municipal judges were created. They did not have to find people guilty to get paid, they could find people guilty for the hell of it. At least that is what the police seemed to believe.
To compound matters, “hippies” were invading the county, making the natives restless. It was like a perpetual costume ball. With the creation of Law Enforcement Assistance Agency, police could submit a dream list to the Government and receive lots of toys to play with. My municipality wanted a water canon vehicle or a converted tank. It would serve dual purposes. It could quell hippie riots if such occurred and, at the same time, give the hippies baths, washing the smell of ganja or patchouli oil off their clothing. They already had some old mechanical sheep shears to cut the hippie’s long hair.
To make sure there was enough revenue, the speed limit was posted at 15 miles per hour through the town, which was a major tourist route in the summer and ski season. On a good day, they could ticket every 20 minutes or so. At $40.00 per, that was significant revenue, especially since the average worker made approximately $350 per month. They also used to double the fines for drivers with out of state licenses. What could they do but pay?
However, there was a fly in the ointment, so to speak. That was me. I just couldn’t see it the way the police did. I actually thought that I should judge the cases rather than put a rubber stamp of approval on the officer’s decision. Particularly irksome was the treatment of drivers who drove over 15 miles per hour. I was sensitive to the fact that municipal judges were created to change the corrupt judicial system that existed in traffic courts before then.
Speeding was particularly problematic. The posted limits were mere guidelines. The offense of speeding actually occurred when the speed of the driver was not reasonable and proper. To convict a motorist, there had to be some testimony that the speed was improper and constituted some danger to the public. I ruled that a reasonable and proper speed through the town was 30 miles per hour, which immediately cut out about 70 percent of the Town’s revenue. Talk about a hostile work environment. I had one. Needless to say, that I was young then and proud of my fairness. I had not a clue how unpopular I was. Motorists who had appeared in front of me would introduce themselves on the streets and tell me how much they liked my Court and my appearance of fairness. In the municipality, no one would speak to me, especially after the police didn’t get its water canon because it could not fund the co-payment required to buy old military equipment.
Years ago, in what seems like another lifetime and definitely in a different Country, I was a judge. Not much of a judge in status or duties, but a judge, nonetheless. Every week, I would drive to my municipality and judge. However, the experience was not like I thought it was going to be.
Colorado had Justices of the Peace or J.P.’s previously, which had been replaced by municipal judge. For some reason, the JP system was unpopular. Probably because no one was found not guilty. It was extremely popular with the JP’s and the policemen, however. The way it worked was that 1) a motorist was stopped almost at random; 2) the motorist was issued a summons to appear in Court or could be taken in front of the JP; 3) the motorist was found guilty and fined, which went to the municipality, and 4) the motorist was assessed “court costs” which the JP got to keep. Everyone liked the system except for the poor unfortunate driver who happened to get ensnared.
Colorado was just recovering from the Denver Police scandal, where many officers were sent to prison for burglary. Additionally, the press would bring up the matter of the Klan, which existed openly until 1959, even producing a Mayor in Denver. To top things off, many cities were put on a list of places to avoid by AAA motor club because they were known speed traps. So, the JP’s went and salaried municipal judges were created. They did not have to find people guilty to get paid, they could find people guilty for the hell of it. At least that is what the police seemed to believe.
To compound matters, “hippies” were invading the county, making the natives restless. It was like a perpetual costume ball. With the creation of Law Enforcement Assistance Agency, police could submit a dream list to the Government and receive lots of toys to play with. My municipality wanted a water canon vehicle or a converted tank. It would serve dual purposes. It could quell hippie riots if such occurred and, at the same time, give the hippies baths, washing the smell of ganja or patchouli oil off of their clothing. They already had some old mechanical sheep shears to cut the hippie’s long hair.
To make sure there was enough revenue, the speed limit was posted at 15 miles per hour through the town, which was a major tourist route in the summer and ski season. On a good day, they could ticket every 20 minutes or so. At $40.00 per, that was significant revenue, especially since the average worker made approximately $350 per month. They also used to double the fines for drivers with out of state licenses. What could they do but pay?
However, there was a fly in the ointment, so to speak. That was me. I just couldn’t see it the way the police did. I actually thought that I should judge the cases rather than put a rubber stamp of approval on the officer’s decision. Particularly irksome was the treatment of drivers who drove over 15 miles per hour. I was sensitive to the fact that municipal judges were created to change the corrupt judicial system that existed in traffic courts before then.
Speeding was particularly problematic. The posted limits were mere guidelines. The offense of speeding actually occurred when the speed of the driver was not reasonable and proper. To convict a motorist, there had to be some testimony that the speed was improper and constituted some danger to the public. I ruled that a reasonable and proper speed through the town was 30 miles per hour, which immediately cut out about 70 percent of the Town’s revenue. Talk about a hostile work environment. I had one. Needless to say, that I was young then and proud of my fairness. I had not a clue how unpopular I was. Motorists who had appeared in front of me would introduce themselves on the streets and tell me how much they liked my Court and my appearance of fairness. In the municipality, no one would speak to me, especially after the police didn’t get its water canon because it could not fund the co-payment required to buy old military equipment.
JOHN MITCHELL LIVES! FEAR AND LOATHING IN BOULDER
I can’t believe Claire Levy is from Boulder. Or should I say I can’t believe that Claire Levy was conscious while living in Boulder. If she were conscious, she wouldn’t have sponsored the marijuana driving bill. Her proposal for the war on marijuana is that anyone who operates a motor vehicle with a certain number of nano-liters of THC per milliliter of blood is guilty of driving under the influence of drugs. Note that the proscription does not apply to prescription drugs. It only applies to the drug of choice of the peasantry. She even posted some stale research on her website to justify her fascist position.
For years, Dr. G has been against ignorance and prejudice. Claire Levy exemplifies both of these traits. It is inconceivable how any could have lived in Boulder unaware of the numerous drivers that drive after tasting their favorite drug of choice. Maybe she was too stoned herself to be aware of it, although she stated to the press that she had tried marijuana only once. Kind of like our former president who, while at Oxford University in England smoked but did not inhale. However, she is throwing stones from her glass house. Why? Because she has total disdain for the law, and as a member of the ruling class is above it. If she had any regard for the law, she would have abstained from the weed . However, she, like others tried it, and now sees its evil potential. Never mind that the proposal would require drivers to give blood and possibly expose themselves to aids, hepatitis or other diseases. After all, there are over 100,000 cases of MRSA, the antibiotic resistant bacterial infection, reported every year. Never mind, that there are no reported cases of emergency room admissions for smoking pot, while there are 10,000 crib injury admittances reported each year. Her aim is not to protect, but to grab headlines and curry favor from ignorant and bigoted. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, she claims to be a progressive. Anyone believing that is a good candidate to buy a bridge in Brooklyn. Everyone should contact her and tell her we are not as stupid as she would believe. Nor are we falling for the scare tactics of the police state anymore.
Years ago, there was a defense attorney’s conference at Caesar’s Palace in Las Vegas. This was when lawyers with ponytails, sideburns, beads, and colored shirts set the tonsorial standard. Almost all defense attorneys had long hair of various lengths and there wasn’t a crew-cut or flat-top in the group. The convention discussions were about the upcoming fight for the Constitution against the prosecutors, Nixon, and Attorney General John Mitchel, all of whom were advocating preventive detention, involuntary extraction of body fluids, mass arrests, and other fascist-like laws to keep the blacks and anti-war protesters in line. It was bad enough these people were voting but demonstrating was another matter. The issue that the right wing was using was the drug war. Henry Anslinger had softened the minds of the people with reefer madness stories about wild pot parties descriptive of Sodom and Gomorra. People were scared, and Nixon-Mitchell knew how to capitalize on that fear. They changed the medical model of the drug laws proposed by President Johnson to a law enforcement model, demonizing anyone who even thought of taking drugs.
The convention’s contrast was vividly described by Hunter Thompson in a book describing those times. He took literary license in order to show the contrast in the two dichotomous views. Hollywood later took up Thompson’s description, portraying the drug, sex and rock and roll and totally ignoring the political-social theme of the writing. The non-thinking readers and the non-reading viewers missed the point totally. There was no comprehension of the cultural war in process or the wholesale attack on the Constitution and the traditional freedoms in either of the movies. Ask someone today about the book and they won’t even mention the John Mitchel symbolism. They didn’t read the book, they saw the movie
So, some fascist, posing as a democrat proposed a bill to extract blood from a driver, analyze it for THC and use the results to convict the driver and take away his license. After all, pot is bad. But I have to wonder why other drugs such as Xanax, Nembutal, Ephedrine’s, other relaxation and calming drugs. Or for that matter, cough syrup, that have warnings on them about operating machinery are not getting the same treatment. Well, the answer is complicated and has little to do with health, safety, or welfare. It is entirely about sustaining the Police State under which we are now living and the modern politician’s contempt for the public and the law. Ms. Levy told the press that she had used illegal drugs. She was not punished and there were no consequences. Now, she has seen the light and wants to put others in jail. Talk about hypocrisy!
So, let’s look at the dynamics or driving while stoned. First, you can not smell dangerous pharmaceuticals on drivers, but you can smell marijuana. Secondly, if a legislator pulled this inane shit on Merck, Ciba-Geigi or some other big Pharma, there would be a contract put out on the legislator. However, the potheads don’t have that kind of power or resources. Only large industrialists and the CIA have any access to organized crime figures, especially hit men. Additionally, there is not the opprobrium attached to barbiturates and other drugs hyped by the big companies and prescribed by physicians.
But, the main reason, is that someone can show disapproval, while at the same time court the police state and the bankrupt policies of privatization. The system is running out of cannon fodder. DUI clinics are folding (and being replaced by marijuana treatment clinics). They have lowered the permissible limit of alcohol to the point of prohibition. Additionally, the fodder can not continue the financing for the privatized alcohol therapy and counseling. So, private enterprise has to look at new markets and new revenues. What better than marijuana.
It seems more that coincidental that a law was originally passed aimed at Hispanics, is being revitalized while all the vigilante activity against Hispanics is increasing and various states are demonizing “illegals,” who just happen to be predominately Hispanic. Of course, years ago, the Boulder “liberals” outlawed lunch pails in the city and engaged in urban renewal by tearing down shanties and building a wide highway that dead ended into a shopping center. In any event, the proposal should greatly increase the county coffers and help support privatization of government.
When a driver who has smoked marijuana in the last week is pulled over, the odor lingers. Police can then use this as probable cause to insist on a “voluntary roadside” test to assure the officer that the motorist is safe to continue to drive. The roadside test is performed without any way to verify the results. The officers, who we are repeatedly being seen on YouTube beating citizens, have the motorist perform tests. There is no record of the test, and the tests cannot be repeated by an independent researcher. There is a test of the eyes, one of balance, and one of speech. The honorable Brutus like police officer reports that the behavior is inconsistent with sobriety and can then demand those fluids be drawn under the express consent law to be used to convict a driver. Because driving is so dangerous, the legislatures have seen fit to disregard the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution is supposed to give powers to the Government. However, if a motorist is involved, the Government just grabs the power anyway. Since the officials view driving as a privilege, the Constitution does not apply. Just to ensure a conviction, and thus revenues, arbitrary blood percentages are set which are then supposed to be conclusive of intoxication.
Although the Constitution was intended to curtail State action, the totalitarian advocates have devised a con-voluted circumvention. The Anti-constitution position is that when a driver applies for a Driver’s license, he waives his forfeits his right to be protected by the Constitution. If a driver believes in the Constitution, he can’t drive. The case of Schmerber v. California, which initially held that fluids were not covered by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments became the law of the land, upsetting centuries of precedent, mocking the Magna Carta. This is easy for the modern politicians to do because they have no ideology or beliefs. What really matters is getting elected and staying in office so the People can worship and adore their legislator.
Any fascist claiming to be progressive can stay in office so long as the image can be maintained. Of course, the “me too’s” have it even easier. They can listen to what their Public is saying and then, conveniently say “me too.” In that manner, they don’t risk their position. I have no doubt that Claire Levi has no idea that she is really a fascist. She believes she is doing good by protecting people from stoned drivers. She even put some articles on her website to justify her position. Never mind that real scientist have discredited most of those articles. She can claim balance, and because she sites some articles, she is good and righteous. This reminds me of the Chad Mitchel song, “I Was Not a Nazi Polka.” So, we have some potential legislation that is based upon fear and ignorance, calculated to appeal to the Chicken Littles and distract the public from real problems such as the homeless, the sick, the unemployed, and others.
The legislators have to realize that four decades of drug war with extremely high casualties has tired the public. The public realize that reefer won’t turn their daughters into prostitutes and their sons into fiends. They have started to realize that, compared to MRSA, crib deaths, and other calamities of the Industrial multinational State, the drug war is insignificant. The only real thing it does is provide an excuse for the police to bully people, beat them up or kill them with the blessings of the Courts. After all, we privatized much of government, and we need to keep the idea alive and well fed. This can only be accomplished with the help of the ignorant and prejudiced. I wonder how Ms. Levy would react if the rationale for Constitutional contempt were rephrased from “it is worth it if we can save one life,” to “it is worth it if we can increase the profits of Intervention, BPI, or Correctional Corporation of America.” After all, we can’t let something like the Constitution and freedom interfere with the exploitation and incarceration of the peasantry.
I hope everyone writes their legislators and tells them to vote the marijuana driving down. Tell them to support the Constitution or resign. The legislators can sponsor a voter’s initiative, rather than passing legislation. In the meantime, send copies of the Constitution to your legislators and express your position. Tell them that we are tired of the drug war in all forms and that we want our roads, bridges, health facilities, and other infrastructures fixed before being shaken down for protection.

WHEN YOU HAVE POWER AND AN IGNORANT CITIZENRY, WHO NEEDS TRADITION AND LAW?

COMMENTARY by Dennis L. Blewitt, J.D.

It has been almost 50 years since I was first introduced to the Magna Carta.  And here was I, viewing one of four remaining copies of the document penned in 1215.  It wasn’t until I finished law school that I was able to appreciate the significance and impact that it has had on Western civilization since its signature.  It challenged the divine right of kings and was signed by a king of England at sword point.  It eventually caused a schism in the Church, ending in the founding of the Anglican religion, with the King as the head of the church.  It was a rebellion of the Barons which was quickly repudiated by the King.  The signatory barons were promptly  ex-communicated by the Pope and the document repudiated by the King.  However, approximately 10 years later, another king agreed to the conditions and it has been part of our Anglo-American law since then.  Next year, Salisbury will celebrate its 800th anniversary.

            While England prepares to celebrate the 800th year celebration of the document that established right to jury trial, judges learned in the law, right of women to inherit, due process, trial by peers, etc., the United States is participating in an Orgy of destruction of the document.

            Many of the provisions of the charter had been put in place by the Saxons, before the Norman invasion.  When the Normans conquered the land, Norman or Roman law was foisted upon the people, and not without resentment.  Saxon law had worked for centuries and had different basic assumptions than Roman law.  Roman Law was the law of conquest since before Caesar and the people were considered a threat.  As expressed in the Saxon spiel, accused were entitled to a trial, to have bond and their house, no matter how humble was inviolate.

            Under Roman law, the conquered were considered potentially dangerous, their homes may contain weapons used against the Normans, and the conqueror should control all property in its descent and distribution, including the Droit du seigneur, the Lord’s right to try out the bride before the husband.  This caused much friction between the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans. 

            With King Richard playing in the Holy Land, and John raping and pillaging the land, the conquered people exhibited their frustrations by holding King John at sword point and making him sign a Charter of Rights, which the pope promptly nullified and John promptly repudiated.  However, the thoughts and ideas have existed since that time and were enshrined in the first ten amendments of the Constitution of the United States.  These rules and ideals have existed for centuries and are quickly being destroyed by our corporate masters, through turning the nation’s police into a conquering army.

            Granted, employers don’t demand the right to try out their subjects before marriage, but the droit Seigneur has often been manifested with power over employees (Sexual harassment).   However, there are still many ways in which the Government and corporate masters have destroyed or attempted to destroy the social contract.

            Bail was an absolute right, as was the presumption of innocence.  No longer is this the case.  In 1980, fearful lawmakers.  For centuries, the idea of preventive detention was something associated with the inquisition.  The right to seize homes and property became tenuous, with confiscation laws.  The people began to be viewed as the enemy by the rulers and viewed each other with suspicion.  The mantra became protect us and fear reigned over reason.  Younger judges and prosecutors thought the Constitution a cute anachronism, to be ignored or side-stepped.  The conventional wisdom was that people were innately evil and should be watched and locked up if there were any POSSIBLE threat.  To prove the evil nature of people, sting operations were invented.  Informers were recruited and fears were manufactured.  No more Brave New World.  Instead there was a fearful old world reminiscent of the ages of the Black Death.  However, instead of blaming witches for an epidemic of death, we blame drugs, hippies, non-whites and workers.

            Consequently, we lock up more people per capita than any other country.  We have inferior education, health care, housing and a massive wealth grab by the powerful.  And the press inflames the fear.  A controlled press indoctrinates us and a military police keeps people in line.  Citizens killed by police outnumber the casualties in the Afghan and Iran wars.  The only prosecutor with integrity and courage enough to charge a policeman, was Stan Garnett of Boulder, who prosecuted a cop for shooting an Elk in the city, obviously more important to the citizenry than a minority teenager.

            It is obvious that the people believe a teenager is dangerous and should be killed if there is any doubt in the mind of the policeman, or even if he is pissed off.  An elk, however, is an entirely different manner.  The elk won’t rob or harm you like the teenager could.  If the teenager is a minority, he is even more dangerous because of the way he has been treated over the years and everyone in the Anglo community knows that they are just looking for an excuse to get even.

            Even though John Mitchel thought that the people would never accept preventive detention, we have it.  Better safe than sorry.  Except, they can’t be locked up forever.  Even though illogical, this shift reflects a completely different mindset in the thinking and actions of America. 

            We traditionally had a Common Law system.  That is no longer the case.  At common law, people were presumed innocent.  They were given the benefit of the doubt.  There was a certain degree of trust that bound the people.  Common Law was common to the citizenry.  Not all the citizenry, but a consensus did exist concerning what was right and wrong.  There were shared folkways, mores, rules, taboos, conventions, etc.  There was agreement in principle, interpretations varied.

            With a power shift, Common Law was abolished, along with the presumption of innocence and other protections of the citizens.  One must realize that it is unlikely a dictatorship or totalitarian government can exist in a common law system.  Not so under Roman Law (Napoleonic Code or Civil Law).  This was law imposed upon a conquered people.  Rulers suspected the citizenry, because they were the “other.”  They had a different cultural generally as well as linguistic variances.        

            When the Normans tried to impose strict Roman Code on the Islanders, they rebelled.  They refused to fulfill their duties as liegemen for a despotic and unfair king.  The notion of social contract was in the infancy and would flourish in later centuries only to be imperiled in modern times.

            For over seven centuries, bail was an absolute right.  There were not any bond conditions outside of appearing in court when ordered.  People were considered law abiding and viewed as straying from the path of righteousness and given the benefit of the doubt.  Then came Ronald Reagan.  Everyone was a suspect.  Offenders must be locked up to protect the community, even if not convicted of a crime.  This preventive prevention was a scam to make the people feel safe and transfer wealth to corporations without accountability.

            People on bond now have to report to supervisors, just as if they had been convicted.  Not only do they have their right to bail abridged, they get to pay some private company for the privilege of taking their Constitution away.  Since corporations have no consciousness, they can’t take an oath to abide by, defend and protect the Constitution.  Their only duty is to increase corporate profits.

            Since most judges have had little experience outside the prosecutor’s office and have isolated themselves from the commoners, they have no idea what impact they have on the people.  They ignorantly assume that the only things that the people care about are personal safety and material gain.  Since they have very limited conscious or interaction with the poor people, they have no way of understanding.  They brag how they are attuned to the needs of minorities and women, but see things in an upper-class bias.  Their circle that influences their views are officials, politicians, businessmen and police.  They are like the white southerner in the 60s who believed that the blacks were all contented and happy and stirred up by “outside agitators.” 

            As the people become more insular, they are more resistant to change.  For years the police complained about “how they worked their asses off to put bad guys in jail, and the Courts just let them go.  Many of us believed that they thought judges were soft on sentencing.  This was logical because the police felt that probation was devaluating their worth as police.  However, the police weren’t talking about sentencing, they were pissed off at the fact that the arrestees were being admitted to bail.  Most of us couldn’t imagine that to be the position of the police because, they, like lawyers took an oath to support the Constitution and right to bail was an absolute constitutional right. After years of bitching and fear mongering, the prosecutors, judges and legislators capitulated and defacto abolished the common law right to bail, substituting a Roman Code variant.  This policy impacted the poor the most, forcing them to plead guilty to charges in order to be released.  The number of trials diminished and the number of guilty pleas skyrocketed.  This lead to a ratcheting up of sentencing and loss of power to judges and defense attorneys.  Plea bargaining became a matter of accepting an offer by a prosecutor, generally an under thirty law novice trying to make a name for himself on the backs of the poor.  These then are appointed to a lower judge position, and depending upon how supportive they are of the police state, get advanced in the judicial system.

            Run like any business, the goal of the system is to process as many cases as possible with the fewest obstacles.  The main impediment this goal is the Constitution.  The next is any awareness of individual rights.  Fairness and justice only interferes with the efficient running of the assembly line in the Courts.  So, the poor are jailed and not bailed.  They are forced to consider obscenely long mandatory minimum sentences, calculated to extort guilty pleas.

            The police are aware of the assembly line nature of the courts.  Not one judge evaluation questionnaire asks about fairness or justice.  The pollsters are concerned with docket or case management. However, the poor do communicate and realized how badly they are exploited and victimized.  The rulers all consider them ignorant peasants.  Not so.  That is why the simultaneous demonstrations in Ferguson MO after a youth is assassinated by a policeman.  The cops know they can get away with it.  So do the citizens.  However, like PT Barnum said, in paraphrase, “you can’t screw all the public all the time.”  It is somewhat encouraging that the outside agitator moniker isn’t selling and that the people are exhibiting their displeasure.  Some bemoan the damage by fire and the looting.  They don’t seem to realize that this is a moderate response to the frustration and abuse of the poor compared the Guillotine. 

            But all this begs the question of “Why?”  For that I need to go back into history before we in the US became apocalyptic paranoids.  When I started out, there was a bond schedule.  Accused were arrested, bondsmen notified and accused posted bond and was released.  The whole procedure took about 3 hours.  This was the procedure for the first 20 years of my practice.  Since people were constitutionally deemed innocent, and there was the common law requirement that officials have probable cause to detain a suspect.  The world didn’t end with this procedure.  When preventive detention was instituted, this all changed.  The danger to the public didn’t change.  The religion of privatization replaced reason and logic.  Government was bad.  The government wasted money and private industry could do it better.  But of course, private industry must be compensated and there must be incentives.  Governments started giving guarantees to prison builders, probation providers and others in the private sector.  Government saved money, Corporations made money and the public got screwed.

            One of the scariest aspects of religion of privatization is that it has to exist in an atmosphere of apocalyptic thinking and competition has to be on a war footing. Darwin enters the picture and social Darwinism thrives.  To make the police state more efficient, forfeiture laws, contrary to Magna Carta, were enacted and the Wiccan belief that the object of harm should be punished thrived in this environment.  So, we arrive at the present situation, where police have become defacto lynch mobs and the poor he object of a scared society’s fear and loathing.

            We not have the benefit of procedures which has in many cases replaced justice, common sense, fairness and Constitutional governance.  Fair or just doesn’t count.  We hold accused until a judge can decide if the accused MIGHT be dangerous.  The absolute right to bail has been replaced with the Napoleonic concept of “peace bond.”  In order to be admitted to bond an accused is then given bail conditions and is ordered to report to a private fee collector to make sure there are no violations.  Typically, there is an order to have no drugs or alcohol, whether or not such was involved in the case.  There are other restrictions that performa pre-printed orders required, all flying in the face of Magna Carta for the sake of safety.  We have been conditioned to believe that everyone is a potential threat. 

            So, when a paranoid policeman is faced with a decision and is “dissed,” like my criminal clients, he has to strike out in anger.  As an early Criminologist, Edwin Sutherland, commented, to correct criminals, one has to teach them that murder is a worse crime than running a stop sign.  With apocalyptic thinking, this can’t happen.  When this type of thinking is combined with zero-tolerance and “broken window” policy, a perfect storm brews disaster.  Order takes precedent over peace, law rules.  To the newly indoctrinated policemen, a violation is a violation, no matter what.  There is no prioritization.  There can be no oversight.  Enforcement is the most important thing and those that disagree do so at their own peril.  When citizens are murdered by police, the police rationalize by saying that “the citizen should not have resisted or he should have followed orders.”  When confronted, officials excuse the murder by telling the public that the murderous officer was just following training.  No one on the numb nut journalist core thinks to examine that training.

            Training is just part of the problem.  There needs to be a whole new mindset.  A human life should be valued.  If there is a law breaker, the violation must be put in perspective.  The question asked, “Is this act so dastardly that it is worth taking a life?  Is property worth more than life?  How much harm will occur if a perpetrator is arrested later, rather than killed or even injured now?

            So far, the flat earthers are winning.  They are turning the issue into one of race, not religious or faith attitudes of the new religion of free enterprise coupled with apocalyptic thinking.  I don’t know if this is a function of dumbing down America, but I suspect it is more a function of lazy journalism and corporate control.  Analysis doesn’t sell papers.  Most people are too impatient to understand.  Most don’t care as long as they aren’t affected.  I wonder how many see the storm clouds gathering over the injustices caused by the new Paradigm.  I have a notion we will soon find out.

DON’T TAKE ANY SHIT FROM ANYONE

A recent you tube video reminded me of one time I was searched.  If you are squeamish or lack sugar coat or not use my usual vocabulary in this piece.  It will not be politically correct, fit for innocent minds, have a modicum of sensitivity or any special consideration for the reader.  A story like this can’t be censored or edited. The story is true.  Only the vocabulary has been changed to amuse the reader.  This is your last chance.

DANGERS OF A SEARCH,  If offensive language bothers you then GO NO FURTHER

            This memory was the result of watching a cavity search of a motorist in Texas after a citizen had been stopped.  The officer stated he stopped the car because the driver tossed a cigarette but out the window.  After the lecture, he inquired about drugs.  When the two women in the car expressed ignorance about marijuana, he informed them that his old infallible trooper nose smelled marijuana and they would have to be searched.  The video then showed a front and back cavity search of the two women in the car, resulting in nothing being found.  I just had to relate my tale of my trip to Canada.

The trip to Vancouver Island started out inauspiciously.  I had just acquired another car and was set for a road trip.  However, although the car performed marvelously, I can’t say the same for myself.  I was in need of massive doses of Kaopectate.  Between Sinclair, Wyoming and Little America, I changed shorts 2 times.  The afternoon of the second day, the situation abated and the shorts were tightly packaged in triple plastic shopping bags and packed in a trash bag in the trunk, to be dealt with at our destination where there was there were laundry facilities.  Because I felt better and the underwear was well packaged, I forgot about it in the trunk.

            We proceeded to Annacortes, Washington and spent the night after parking our car in the ferry line, ensuring our passage first thing the next morning to Victoria.  It was a great trip, whales in sight, no clouds or wind.  We stopped at Orca Island and two other small towns before approaching Victoria.

            There was a customs inspection point and most cars were waived on through after showing identification.  However, I had to toy with the customs agent.

            “You’re an American?

            “Yes, that’s what it says on the passport.”

            “Have you ever been in Court on a Driving Under the Influence charge?”

            “Yes, several times.”

            “Were you convicted?”

            “No but many of my clients were.  I’m a defense attorney.”

            For some reason the Mounty wasn’t amused.  “Over there, smartass” he commanded.

He informed his comrades in red

“We have a smart-ass defense attorney here.  Be thorough with him.  You know how tricky they are.”

So, I was going to be subjected to summary punishment by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for being a smart-ass attorney.  I watched while the 7 or so officers climbed all over my car, taking out suitcases and rummaging through them.  They were thorough indeed.  The Mounties were having fun joking with each other as they rummaged through the car.

“Open the trunk!”

I complied and watched as more suitcases were taken and opened.  Nothing.  Then he came to a plastic garbage bag.  Inside were some white plastic bags from grocery stores.  He lifted the bag out of the trunk. And the Mounties gathered around.

“What’s in there,” he demanded.

“That’s our laundry.” 

He started taking clothes out and examining our dirty laundry.  He then came to the white grocery plastic bag. 

“What’s in this one,”

“You really don’t want to know, I wouldn’t open that if I were you,” I emphasized, shaking my head no.  However, curiosity got the best of him.  They gathered around the garbage bag as the Mounty reached down into the bag, bringing out my excrement saturated underwear.

“Shit!!!” shouted the Mounty, while his comrades laughed hysterically.  His face matched the crimson of his uniform and his fury was hard to conceal.  He wielded his authority in a retaliatory way and had paid the price.  I suppose it was a shitty thing to do, but what the hell. The delay was annoying and his retaliatory show of authority was over the top.  But his surprise and humiliation in front of his crew was well worth it.  I didn’t plan to return to Victoria in the near future

LIES MY GOVERNMENT AND POLITICIANS TOLD. FORFEITURE FOR LYING OFFICIALS!!

TIME TO STOP THE LIES Commentary by DL Blewitt, Esq., J.D.

            My first criminal case involved lies told by the Denver police.  They testified that they smelled marijuana smoke emanating from a third floor of an apartment house while walking down an alley.  I told the judge that I wasn’t upset that the cops thought I was dumb enough to believe their absurd story when they lied, because I was a small town bumpkin, but if I were the judge, I would be pretty insulted that they would think the judge was dumb enough to believe their story.  The judge took note that smoke rises and suppressed the illegal search of the police.   He told officers that he resented their assumption that he would ratify such blatantly stupid testimony.  He did not cite them for contempt or perjury though.

            That’s how my career as a defense lawyer started. I believe that after all these years, I have a pretty good idea of the police sub-culture.  I tutored young lawyers at one time.  I remember an incident, after an officer’s testimony in a suppression hearing, when a young lawyer requested a brief recess.  “What for,” asked the judge.  “Well,” answered the lawyer, “the officer told the truth and I  don’t  know what to do next.”

            The amused  judge asked me if I wanted a moment to talk to the lawyer, during which I told him we won and the judge was going to rule in our favor and to keep quiet.  That is what happened.  I admit, I was mildly surprised, but things like that did happen, especially with older police officers- the ones who prided themselves with making it to retirement without ever drawing their guns and older judges.  However, such candidness is rare.  Most cops are more concerned with convictions than with the truth, particularly when both the primary and secondary reward systems are predicated on prevarication.

            In another instance, a judge gave his court seal to a detective sergeant so that he would not have to be bothered reading affidavits and warrants.  The norm was for the judiciary to support every cock and bull story concocted by the police.  It was as though there was a contest among the cops to see who could tell the biggest whopper.  This was a time of  showing of patriotism.  There were un-American anti-war protesters out there who had to be punished.  Cops, sporting flags on their uniform sleeves to show their patriotism, became militarized, and freaked out over the presence of hippies.  It was them or us.  The stories became more and more ridiculous as the judges kept countenancing the culture of lying.  People first believe, then they see.  Judges, as former prosecutors,  rarely interact with the citizenry.  Their social circle is law enforcement related.  And their belief system is the paranoid one of John Mitchel.  The Hippies are coming, the hippies are coming became the greatest fear, more than the potential black revolution.  They perceive and interpret as they were conditioned to, and they condition themselves identifying with good short hair Americans.  That is their constituency.  They bathe and cut their hair.

A good example of the permeation of the police sub-culture in the judiciary  is recent exposure of the two judges in Ft. Collins, who, while prosecutors, framed an innocent man for murder.  As a reward, they were given judgeships.  When the `perjury and frame-up came to light and the county had to pay off millions of dollars, the citizens revolted and voted them both out of office.  An historical moment.  It is too bad that I takes $8,000,000 to open the public eye.  That could put a lot of students through CSU without burdensome student loans.

            On the opposite side of the coin, there is legislation, both Federal and State, that make it a felony for a person to lie to an officer of the law.  The Federal law appears below

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001

 § 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

 (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

 (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

 (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

                There is a similar law in most states.  Additionally, the Government can classify documents and records under the cloak of national security, which generally means disclosure will be embarrassing to some agency or employee. Classifying information rarely has anything to do with national security Thus, we are continually deceived.  One cannot run a free democratic nation that way.  However, it does make it hard to criticize officials and public employees.

            After watching recent videos taken in New York, Denver, Boston and Oakland, I have decided that it is time to dust off one of my old proposals for the regulation of officials and governments.  The concept is simple.  After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Under the basis of equal protection or fairness, I drafted a state Constitutional amendment following section 1001.  I calls for felony prosecution of any government employee to lie to a citizen.  If he is a sworn employee, then his sentence is increased and he must forfeit his pension.  A liar is not entitled to benefit by his lies.  This is particularly true for elected officials.  Imagine a politician trying to justify his inherent right to lie to the people during a campaign.  Fantasize about forfeiture happy law enforcement officers having to worry about jeopardizing their own pensions.  What about entrapment?  Testimony about down drifting smoke might result in an pension forfeiture.  Predatory cops could not man speed traps without jeopardizing their retirement.  The “drop piece” that the police carry to plant on crime scenes when they murder someone would disappear.   An epidemic of truth might break out.

            Politicians would  have to tell why they voted for or against things, or keep quiet, which, for a politician is a virtual impossibility.  Newspapers would have to change their scandalous priorities because the mud-slinging would diminish.  Science could no longer be denied.  Green tongue disease would disappear.

            There was a time when driver sobriety tests were recorded on video.  The cop would testify.  Then the jury would see the video.  Inevitably, the video conflicted with the testimony.  So, the cops and district attorneys, rather than risking the quota problems that occur with acquittals,  abolished videos of suspected drunks and elected to batter the public with needles, trashing the 4th, 5th , and 6th amendments to the Constitution in the process.  This was much more fun for the police and less embarrassing when their exaggerations were exposed on video.

A look at the footage from the various occupy encampments show why videos of suspected drunk drivers were abolished.  It is much easier to get a conviction on prejudice than it is with reality.  The system needs cannon fodder to support all those predatory privatized programs supported by the law-enforcement complex with which the executive and judicial branches are so enamored.  Acquittals are bad for business.  However, the oppressors still  don’t yet get it.  Lies are churned out wholesale the police and reinforced  by police chiefs, mayors, and other city officials who believe we are stupid and can’t see and believe it is their sworn duty to perjury themselves to get criminals or other bad guys.  IT IS TIME THEY FORFEITED PAY AND PENSIONS.  If the oppressors want to serve the 1%, then let the 1% pay them and give them pensions.  Then maybe they will appreciate the term “fat chance.”  At least they might begin to see how corrupt the system is.

            They can’t describe the occupy scene as a bunch or long haired radical hippies, smoking dope, dancing and fornicating on the lawns.  Many of the participants are beyond Viagra.  The only thing hard is the riot baton used on them.  If the cops had any sense of humor, they would shoot laughing gas at the demonstrators and make them exhausted from laughter.  Maybe the protesters should get some and shoot it back at the cops.  The lies the police tell which is vomited by the press, is contradicted by the video record.  Only the blind and ignorant can now believe the police or officials.  Note the vet put into a coma by a teargas canister.  When people tried to help him, they were bombarded with flash bang grenades. 

            Look at the numerous photographs of the people shot with rubber bullets.  They look awful.  Additionally, what kind of person would fire a weapon at their neighbors or fellow citizens.  What were they not thinking.  A psychological barrier has been breached in demonizing the people.  The cops are out of control.  The establishment rewards their brutality and dishonesty.  Cops thrive on their deceit.  To paraphrase the hawks of the Viet Nam days, “if we don’t stop them here and now, we will have to stop them at the doors of our wives bedrooms.”  It is the modern version of the domino theory.

            How could officials honestly justify shooting at fellow citizens, gassing them and beating the shit out of them?  They could not claim that the non-violent demonstrators threw something at them without risking their future.  They could not say that they showed up in riot gear to observe and not start a riot.  They could not say that jobs trickle down like urine from  a man’s member at the latrine.  They have to perpetuate the myth or they could not extort money out of us for imaginary boogey men.  They could not say that their toys were non-lethal.  Governors could not cook crime statistics to support the private prison industry.  Ankle monitors would have to be explained in terms of effectiveness rather than used as a foil to convince the public that something is being done in order to satisfy the MADD advocates.

            Imagine what would  happen if the Government had to justify its drug laws and its involvement in drug trafficking to support off budget clandestine activities.  The oppressors would lose their toys.  The 1% should support this.  The amount collected from the liars’ forfeitures  will greatly exceed the proposed tax increase on the super-rich. 

            Recently, the press has reported that police have planted drug evidence on people to make their arrest quotas.  Police have given immunity to murders like Whitey Bolger so he could do their bidding.  Police have assaulted citizens brutally as though they have a license.  The CIA has controlled the drug trade to fund covert operations, some of which are against us.  The government has effectively repealed the posse commitatis act by allowing guardsman to augment police forces nationwide and collect intelligence data on us.  Police consistently lie.  Politicians consistently lie.  Officials consistently lie.  Judges let them get away with it.  IT IS TIME FOR THIS TO STOP.  ENOUGH. 

            In France, the fed up people used the Guillotine when they weren’t fed.  Worthless, stupid, unthinking heads were removed from the people who weren’t using them.  I say to use the Constitution and the power of the people.  Make our public servants serve us, not enslave us.  The rulers have tried to take away our pensions, healthcare, homes, and freedom to pander to the rich and garner campaign funds.  This modest change of forcing truth and, if lying, taking such funds would them at risk.  The contributors could be charged as accessories and their property confiscated.  The present mess could not have been created and maintained without the complicity of state and Federal workers, paid by us.  Our government has become punitive and predatory.  They have created an occupation force to keep us enslaved and docile.  Tell them to stop.  Make them tell us the situation honestly, not  using propaganda, lies, misstatements or other deceptions.  Don’t commit us to war to enrich the powerful and corporate America.  Don’t  let the oligarchs tell us that multimillion dollar “compensation” checks are for any other purpose than to buy influence of politicians and policy makers.  Demand that the lies stop now.   End the corruption.  Stand up and be counted.  Make them be truthful.  Make them serve rather than enslave us.  Circulate this among as many as you can and see if we can start something.  Make this message go viral.

IS THIS GOVERNMENT REAL, OR A POST-MODERN ILLUSION? 3-30-17

Who’s in charge? Bureaucratic war leaves us at the mercy of snake oil salesmen and spooks

According to Corporate Watch’s profile, Hill & Knowlton opened offices all around the world from the mid-1950s. Susan Trento, author of The Power House, a biography of Hill and Knowlton’s Robert Keith Gray, writes that they opened many overseas offices on the advice of then CIA director Allen W Dulles. Gray also used to brag about checking major decisions personally with CIA director William Casey, whom he considered a close personal friend. Hill and Knowlton’s overseas offices were perfect cover for the ever-expanding CIA. Unlike other cover jobs, being a public relations specialist did not require technical training for CIA officers. This, in its description. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe we are witnessing an all-out bureaucratic civil war between intelligence gathering factions.
While editing my memoirs, and reflecting upon this year’s bizarre election, a speculation occurred to me regarding the FBI’s interference with the election and the democratic process. Now I admit my theory is somewhat far-fetched, but there is ample evidence to support it. Several assumptions regarding her postmodern society need to be made as does an understanding of the works of modern-day social and political theorists.
My first assumption is that the elected leaders of this country are not the real policymakers or power in our government. They reign over a government which functions by itself and operates cultures that, over the decades and centuries, define the particular department, bureau, or agency. Of course, elected officials have us some influence but only to the degree they are allowed by the culture of the institution or the leaders that make most of this of the decisions. What I am speculating here is that because of security clearances, culture of fear and other reasons, no outsider could fully control a particular agency or department.
One of my first clients was a woman named Gayla Tannenbaum. She was referred to me by a friend who practiced law in Chicago. That experience was to define my career and life since that fateful day.
The saga of Mrs. Tannenbaum and another of my clients named Professor Riha was in the news for over a year. Much has been written about the Riha affair. The affair exposed myriad intelligence activities and agents at the University of Colorado, including a story that the CU president was an agent of some sort. There were stories about infiltration of student groups by CIA operatives; there were stories about agent provocateurs; there were stories of death and destruction of student activist; and there were stories about massive conspiracies and gemstones.
Those of you that have known me over the last four decades realize how devastating this affair was, not only for me, but for the nation. Briefly, the following events occurred. Thomas Riha, a University of Colorado Political Science disappeared after marrying the niece of the Czech STB, (equivalent to Russian KGB). Many incidents were reported in the local papers. Mrs. Tannenbaum, some sort of operative either for ONI or some other military intelligence unit was accused of causing Riha’s disappearance. Police and prosecutors in two jurisdictions got involved and Mrs. Tannenbaum was prosecuted for related offenses in Denver and Boulder. She was declared insane in Boulder District Court and sent to the state hospital in Pueblo, Colorado.
David Wise of the Washington Post wrote about this in his book, Politics of Lying, that this scuttled the Huston plan to combine all intelligence agencies and brought down the Nixon Government. Several Senate and Congressional committees investigated this including the Pike and Church committees. After publishing several reports on abuses of citizens by the U. S. intelligence agencies, congress legislation saw to it that we would never find out as much as we did at that time about Government misconduct. Several other congressional investigations further chronicled governmental misconduct which was promptly ignored by the press or buried in the papers. We are facing a similar situation between the House and Senate intelligence committees, gridlocking any investigations.
The result was that the FBI-CIA war was left behind in the news in favor of Super bowl, Dancing with the Stars, other TV shows and trivia that sells news and advertising. However, the battle raged with the FBI losing with the loss of J. Edgar Hoover and various revelations by congressional committees and investigative reporters who lived long enough to report, unlike Gary Webb and Danny Casolaro who died of mysterious suicides.
With the Trump candidacy, the FBI saw their chance. The campaign made an issue over Mrs. Clintons emails while Secretary of State. She had used a private server which may not have been secure. Driven on by cheerleaders crying “lock her up,” the FBI dreamt up a way to capitalize on the issue and sabotage the CIA. The CIA was probably blackmailed into not interfering with the Clintons since, according to Terry Reed’s Compromised, the CIA ran an Iran Contra cocaine-weapons operation out of Mena Arkansas when Bill Clinton was Government. Leaks and slanderous allegations against President Clinton didn’t’ seem to weaken the CIA’s position. Nor did various investigations. The “Octopus” or “Enterprise” was making too much money from operations and proprietaries to be shut down. Essentially, they were too big to control and too secret to govern. So, the FBI bided its time until recently.
Now, dear reader, I ask you to suspend preconceived perceptions, views and prejudices and let your imaginations roam, just as Eco has you do in Foucault’s Pendulum and just look at events in historical context. Suspend judgment on conspiracy theory, speculation and the view of a benevolent government run by altruistic citizens, and ask the question of “Who Benefits?” There are no conspiracies. That is a fiction sold by the masters to conceal the fact that all the bad things we see are structural.
Many want to believe in conspiracies. This is what the rulers want, because it keeps the citizenry from thinking and talking about “structure. “When I first identified participants in the practice of packing corpses of soldiers shipped from Viet Nam to the states, I thought in terms of conspiracy. Now, after four decades, I see the same behavior with different players. That must be structural.
How can such a thing be structural? Because we allow it to be so by our neglect and selfishness, encouraged to be ignorant and amused with games and trivia. We are distracted and encouraged to be ignorant.

DISSAPEARING COMMON LAW BLUES

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

DL Blewitt, J.D., Jan, 2021

The following is a case that I handled in 1970. It was one of many marijuana cases that I worked over a half-century, including Mich., Ill., Wisc., Neb, Wyo., Az., Cal., Mont., Okla., Kans., Texas, N.M., and Miss. I also used my experience in these jurisdictions to study similarities and differences between them. At the same time, I was doing research on jury behavior, organized crime, and social and legal theory. I taught courses throughout the decades and wrote the occasional editorial and news piece. I was Council to the Colorado Organization for Drug Abuse, a Head Start program, (HEW) Community free school, (Boulder) and other organizations. I somehow pissed the government off and was subjected to a visit from the IRS for 87 weeks in an attempt to scare men and destroy my practice.
This experience led me to study, organized crime, intelligence community, law development and other black subjects. My younger brother was a member of Green Hornets USAF-NRO and holder of two DFC’s. When a superior officer informed him that his career might be slowed, he innocently commented, “I thought freedom of speech was one of the things that I am fighting for.” and came up with many of the same conclusion as I did. That is that the intelligence community controls the drug trade internationally and prohibition’s primary function is price control for its source of clandestine funds for clandestine projects. I made this accusation when I ran for District Attorney in 1972, when I announced that I would call a grand jury to determine why a certain faction did not seem to get arrested. During that time, I taught a Sociology of Law class and a Drug Policy class, during that time. Later, I taught other classes and was on some Ph. D. Committees involving policy, drugs, victimless crime, and other subjects.
Many fools have referred to me as a conspiracy theorist. My personal experience, confirmed by others, indicates that the drug trade problems are structural. People I first identified as operators in the drug industry, are dead or retired, but the business is thriving 50 years later with the same structure. I will discuss several of my cases, experiences, and beliefs in this series. I have no staff, have a thousand dollars a month social security income and am self-funding because I truly believe this story(ies) must be told.
In the following, the prosecutor tried to have me indicted for bribery, theft, witness tampering and other skullduggery. They triggered the audit and other harassments, not knowing that I had friends in high places. However, from that point on, I have dedicated my existence to shedding light on this opportunistic self-righteous group of royalistic, elitist ignorant fools who put ideology and ignorance in front of logic and justice.
I have tried to enlist help and interest and have held off, hoping for something. Since there none, I will proceed to the best of my ability. Those of you who are more concerned with cosmetics, grammar, style, and spelling should stop right now. I have too much to say to have to worry about style, and too little time to say it. I want to present content.
I also have a sociology of law manuscript that I would like to finish, but it must again be postponed. I intend to explain events as I related to Mr. Jenkins of the District Attorney’s office. It is not fiction, although it may seem that way

People v. Henderson
487 P.2d 1108 (1971)
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William M. HENDERSON II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 25027.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
August 16, 1971.
Stanley F. Johnson, Dist. Atty., Robert M. Jenkins, Chief Deputy Dist. Atty., Boulder, for plaintiff-appellee.
Blewitt, Bisbee & Geil, Dennis L. Blewitt, Boulder, for defendant-appellant.
ERICKSON, Justice.
This interlocutory appeal was initiated by the defendant, William M. Henderson, after his motion to suppress evidence was denied by the District Court of Boulder County. The evidence in issue was seized as a result of a warrantless search of the defendant’s car after the defendant was arrested without a warrant.
A chronological statement of the facts preceding the arrest and seizure of evidence provides us with a proper foundation for the application of well-established search and seizure law. On July 16, 1970, undercover agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs were taken to a cabin west of Boulder for the purpose of buying sixty pounds of marijuana. Soon after arriving at the cabin, the undercover agents were supplied with ten pounds of marijuana and were told that an additional fifty pounds of marijuana was then on its way by automobile and would arrive shortly. Minutes later, a Mercedes Benz automobile entered the driveway in front of the cabin. One of the suspects, while getting out of the car, recognized one of the narcotics agents and gave the alarm to the occupants of the cabin. Most of the individuals in the cabin and all of those in the Mercedes Benz fled into the woods that adjoined the cabin. Within a few minutes, all but one of the *1109 suspects were captured and returned to the cabin. The suspects were immediately arrested and advised of their rights, and arrangements were made to transport the suspects to detention facilities. Approximately thirty to forty-five minutes later, while everyone was still in the cabin, a second car arrived. Its occupants were also arrested, and both the occupants and the automobile were searched. No evidence of narcotic drugs was found. Thereafter, two more vehicles arrived at separate times, and again, both the passengers and the vehicles were searched. Search of the defendant’s vehicle, which was the third automobile to arrive at the cabin, resulted in the seizure of a small quantity of marijuana that is the basis for charging the defendant, Henderson, with a narcotics violation. A later search of the Mercedes Benz, which was the first car to arrive, produced the sought-after shipment of fifty pounds of marijuana.
The defendant contends that his motion to suppress evidence should have been granted, because the police officers did not have probable cause to believe the shipment of marijuana was in his vehicle. Moreover, he argues that the search of his automobile without a warrant was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Since this case contains facts establishing exigent circumstances which would require the police officers to either seize the vehicle and hold it until a search warrant could be obtained or search it without a warrant, Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1970), supports the conclusion that given probable cause a warrantless search was permissible. See also, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, (June 21, 1971), 403 U.S. 443, 91 S. Ct. 2022, 29 L. Ed. 2d 564. Consequently, the decisive question is whether the police officers had probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle.
The District Attorney contends that the order in which the vehicles were searched is crucial to this case and supports the search. He urges us to hold there was probable cause to search the defendant’s vehicle, because at the time of the search, the shipment of marijuana had not yet been discovered. In view of the factual sequence of the events which preceded the search, we find this argument unpersuasive. Clearly, the police officers had probable cause to search the Mercedes Benz automobile and no other. Facts sufficient to provide the police officers with probable cause to search the Mercedes Benz automobile include the arrival of the vehicle at the time the shipment of marijuana was to be delivered, the recognition of the car’s occupants as traffickers in narcotics, and the flight of the occupants upon recognition of one of the purchasers as an undercover agent. Confronted with these facts, no reasonable man could believe that the shipment of marijuana was likely to be found in the defendant’s vehicle, which arrived long after the aforementioned events had occurred and after the search of another vehicle had proved fruitless.
As an alternative argument for upholding the search of the defendant’s vehicle, the District Attorney cites People v. Collman, Colo., 471 P.2d 421 (1970), in which we upheld the arrest and search of an individual who entered premises being searched for narcotic drugs pursuant to a warrant. The District Attorney contends the Collman case stands for the proposition that there would be probable cause to search all persons and vehicles arriving at the cabin site for an indeterminate period. We find this interpretation of the Collman case to be overly broad. In the Collman case, we were dealing with premises which were being utilized as a “secret rendezvous or hideout for illegal activities.” Police officers had purchased drugs at the premises on several occasions and during the course of their investigation had observed numerous individuals enter and leave the premises in a clandestine manner through the rear door. Essential to our finding of probable cause therein was the defendant’s surreptitious entry onto the premises at night through the rear door.
*1110 Similarly, in People v. Lujan, Colo., 475 P.2d 700 (1970), we upheld the warrantless arrest and search of a person who arrived under suspicious circumstances at a remote location where drug traffic was known to be carried on. There, we stated:
“Where, as here, police agents are conducting a search by warrant for narcotics in the early morning hours in a place where they have reasonable grounds to believe drug traffic is carried on; they in fact do find drugs and paraphernalia used in drug traffic; a person drives up at 2:00 a. m., parks his car and turns off his lights, all in close proximity to the premises being searched; there is certainly probable cause to believe that that person was a participant in drug traffic. * * * Clearly, all the surrounding circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officers, when measured by the standard appropriate for a reasonable, cautious and prudent officer engaged in a narcotics investigation, indicate that there was probable cause for an arrest.”
Here, none of the undercover officers had been to the cabin in question previously. Nor did they have any knowledge of prior narcotics transactions occurring at the cabin site. Without clear evidence that the cabin was being used as a secret hide-out for illegal purposes, the police officers did not have probable cause to believe that persons arriving at the cabin were participants in criminal activity and, more importantly, that they possessed or were engaged in the sale and delivery of narcotic drugs.
Contrary to the District Attorney’s argument, we are of the opinion that this case is governed by People v. Navran, Colo., 483 P.2d 228 (1971), in which we held that the mere arrival of a person at a residence where a shipment of marijuana is to be delivered is insufficient to provide probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime or that a search of his car will reveal the presence of narcotic drugs. Furthermore, we stated unequivocally in People v. Feltch, Colo., 483 P.2d 1335 (1971), that mere association with guilty persons does not amount to probable cause to arrest. See also, Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1968); Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 80 S. Ct. 168, 4 L. Ed. 2d 134 (1959); United States v. DiRe, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S. Ct. 222, 92 L. Ed. 210 (1948); Gallegos v. People, 157 Colo. 173, 401 P.2d 613 (1965); Commonwealth v. Reece, 437 Pa. 422, 263 A.2d 463 (1970).
We, therefore, conclude that the defendant’s motion to suppress should have been granted. Accordingly, we reverse the ruling of the trial court and direct it to order that the evidence seized from the defendant’s vehicle be suppressed.
PRINGLE, C. J., and KELLEY, J., dissent.


This is the first installment of my research into Government and Drug trafficking. I need your support, so please circulate generously. Tell me if you would like to have more.

CORPORATIONS: DESTROYING OUR LEGAL SYSTEM

NAPOLEONIC LAW TAKES                                                                                                                                                                                         pPOWER FROM THE   PEOPLE 

               dl BEWITT, Dec 2020

The Following is inspired by a 30-year-old thesis of mine entitled :March to Martial Law’

 I DIDN’T PUBLIISH IT BECAUSE I RAN OUT OF MONEY AND THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH INTEREST,  HOPEFULLY, ENOUGH PEOPLE WILL BE INTERESTED NOW TO ENCOURAGE PUBLICATION.

Two decades ago, I theorized paradigm change by comparing civil Napoleonic or Roman law with that of English common law. I analyzed the structure and composition of English Law systems and Napoleonic Roman law systems, referred to as civil law systems, and attempted to show the differences in institutional behavior under the operation of each one. I traced the historical development of both systems and the philosophical premise or basis of each, referred to as jurisprudential, I then analyzed the basis of basic construct of the premises of the system and why it was that a Napoleonic code differed so much in both procedure and substance from a common law system

One of the main differences was that the Napoleonic system had no recognition of precedent, division of power, buffering official action, mitigating results of decisions, various civil rights enjoyed by a common law system resulting in a complete difference in the power dynamics of the systems.

It is the power distribution that I now discuss. Common law basis and its legitimacy is from the bottom up. Power was recognized as coming from the collective or citizenry. It is based on precedent from or similar to the same situation that occurred in this past. In Napoleonic law, there is no concept of precedent or redemption, or “once a violator, or criminal, always a criminal,” whereas under the English system, a miscreant shows some sort of penitence to society, the debt that is paid, and he is allowed back into the society. In the common law system power is divided between the sovereign, the courts, and parliament, a collective of citizens making decisions are law in the Napoleonic system the magistrate or its equivalent has power that is not shared with anyone. The magistrate or the courts from the police investigations can hold inquisitions there is no presumption of innocence or other constitutional rights and the citizenry is ruled by decree or a code. The code is all-inclusive and does not include has no room for interpretation. Everything must be defined in the code. If not in the code it does not exist.

In my research, I could not find an example of any common-law jurisdiction turning into a dictatorship or oligarchy. The most extreme examples of Napoleonic law were that of Spain, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Soviet Russian. They are all based upon a Napoleonic code system. Russian developed a Napoleonic code under Katherine the Great who imported French jurists to devise the Russian code. Thus, under the Napoleonic system whoever achieves power can use it without restriction until something or someone intercedes. Only martial law in the U. S. is a Napoleonic code system.

For quite some time, Congress has been abdicating its power to the executive branch. The Constitution states that Congress and only Congress shall declare war. However, the Vietnam conflict occurred without any declaration of war by Congress. Disputes since then have lacked congressional declaration also. Did pass of legislation or resolution like the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and authorized executive power pursuant to limit but has not declared war on anything or anyone or any state since World War II

In the last half-century, as a people we have been indoctrinated and inculcated with corporate ideology and belief to the detriment of democracy, voters have been conditioned to think about efficiency, size of government, taxes, and self-interest, rather than in the interest of society or community in which they live. So, this country structured its lower courts and police system as a revenue generator. Policemen typically are revenue operatives, in which an exceedingly small percentage of them are employed by enforcing or investigating crime. Unlike Europe where police are visible to the public and give confidence to the public that they are safe, the police in the United States lurk behind billboards, disguise their vehicles, and focus on violations that generate revenue. The citizenry is indoctrinated to be concerned about income tax while the privatized enterprises surreptitiously tax them in other ways like penalties, fines, fees, and inflation, none of which is for the benefit of the people or citizenry.

Because of this orientation and things like management by objective, our common law system has been consistently eroded by uniform Law movements, sentencing Reform, the codification of the rules of evidence, and other things. Jury trials are pretty much a thing of the past as his any corroboration between defense attorneys and prosecute

Discouraging jury trials, extorting guilty pleas, and lengthy incarceration, if pleas aren’t accepted, is the new standard of Justice in this country. For that to have occurred, we had to move into a Napoleonic system. For instance, the precise presumption of innocence exists mostly in theory. Because of movies and TV shows, the public is conditioned to believe that as soon as an accused is arrested, he is guilty, and a failure to punish or convict is a miscarriage of Justice. Justice is no longer perceived as a balance between interests or even fundamental fairness but perceived as punishment only.

Another example of the attack against common law is the altering of the concept of intent. Under a common-law, a criminal must intend to commit a crime and render the consequences. The person did not commit a crime if he knowingly did an act but did not intentionally harm anything or anyone at common law only to misdemeanors and administrative actions did not require specific intent

The result of all of this is that power has been abdicated to the executive branch of government. The Legislature has not rained in the executive branch and allows it to essentially operate at will. The courts are reluctant to rule on political issues and rely upon the disorganized and politicized Legislature to do that and are unwilling to fill that void.

So, we have officials now in our country that have preached and ruled executive supremacy. We have an attorney general espousing a unified executive theory which was of executive superiority contrary to the balance of power. The Atty. Gen. of the United States has pretty much promoted the idea that the King could do no wrong, similar to the status of the law right after the Norman invasion. It is as though the leaders are trying to re-feudalize the country

The guiding principle behind Italian fascism was the rule of corporations which consisted of 12 divisions was based on efficiency and centralized rule or governments for the alleged benefit of the people that realistically for the benefit of the corporation and businesses.

The same was true of Nazi Germany. Various functionaries were punished in Nuremberg for war crimes, but the industrialists that benefited and funded the rise of National socialism or somehow ignored. The concentration camps started out as labor camps to provide cheap labor for German businesses became too costly to feed the labor, they devised other means resulting in places like Auschwitz.

In my work “March to martial law” I explained all of this in much more detail. I dusted the work off lately because of the manifestation in the trump administration and the corporate ruled republican party. The citizenry has taken second-place to commerce. Activities specifically defined by the Constitution have been privatized allowing tax revenue to become profits for corporations thus redistributing the wealth of the population. We no longer have citizens but are regarded as consumers with government is a merchant.

Thus, when you have unrestricted power, the stacking of the court system with ideologues, the fault of Congress, and millions spent on political campaigns the concept of democracy suffered the people should look at this and determine what should be done. We cannot exist as a nation much longer if this is allowed to continue.

I HAVE A DRAFT OF MARCH TO MARTIAL LAW

PRIVATIZED GOVERNMENT ENRICHES THE CORRUPTION

A GOOD BRIBE
HOW WE LOST CONTROL OF OUR GOVERNMENT
Dennis L. Blewitt
I attended law school in Chicago, an immigrant from rural Colorado to the big city. At first, I was overwhelmed, then I adapted. As a social scientist, I observed and took note of what was occurring around me. I was amazed by what was accepted by my classmates as common knowledge and the amount of cynicism they exuded, particularly when it came to government.
They were exiting and interesting times. There was a war, a free speech movement, drugs, sex, and rock and roll. Chicago had its 100th gangland slaying and police corruption was rampant. O. W. Wilson, a criminologist from Berkeley was brought in to re-image the Dailey administration and its police.
So, I guess I was less than shocked when my criminal law instructor one day lectured us on the practicalities of a criminal practice there. The husband of one of my classmates was made famous for his handling of the Escobido case, there was unrest in the South with the disappearance of civil rights workers, and fear in the North of blacks and other poor people. In a lecture on practicalities, not theory, he told us how to survive the snake pit of Cook County criminal practice.
He advised us that “You can know all the criminal law in the world, but never underestimate the power of a good bribe.” He then went on to explain his comment using a form of exchange theory. His believe was that the whole world worked on exchange, whether it was money, favors, commodities, sex, or favor. We had to understand this in order to adequately represent our clients. Getting bribes was a perquisite of power. Unless one had a position and something of value, he would not be bribed. Therefore, if you wanted a file from the clerk, you showed your appreciation by leaving some dollars under your briefcase when the request was made.
But this was the simple way. Life in the Courts was much more complex than that. Money wasn’t the only medium of exchange. There were an unlimited variety of currency. Our job was to find one that worked, or to sabotage the bribery of the opposition. For instance, State’s Attorneys could bribe a judge in several ways. He could co-operate in docket control so that the judge could play golf in the afternoon, or fill his day with trivia. The judge could help out a young deputy by praising performance in the right places. But, the real challenge is to find a way as a defense attorney to derail the perceived inevitable. That could be done through a clerk, a prosecutor or a judge. One of the best ways is praise or kissing ass. Prosecutors are generally egotistical enough to believe that flattery is sincere and the currency is relatively cheap. But, we have to learn that the currency should not be wasted. If nothing is gained from the client, then don’t waste the social capital. Of course, because the subject is taboo, it isn’t discussed. Hence, no one can understand the lack of respect for the public defender. Social capital is expended without the expectation of being repaid by the client and power is referent, or equal to that of the client.
Applying these lessons and observations, it becomes apparent what is happening today. The people have no social capital with which to purchase justice, fairness, or integrity. The people can’t keep politicians in office, they can just withhold support. But that is not even a contest when it comes to the Government. We elect our officials, but they don’t work on our behalf. They can’t afford to have beliefs or integrity and still hold their jobs. For instance, we elect a legislature. We expect them to look out for us and represent our views. Beliefs, and desires. We expect integrity and to look out for our best interest.
But look what happens. Someone in a massive Bureaucracy decides that speed limits should be cut. Most people on the East coast have no idea of the vast expanses of the West and Texas. So they dictate to the people that the speed limit shall be 55 miles per hour. A revolt started in the West and with the truckers. Some states, like Wyoming and Montana declined to pass such laws. Consequently, they had Federal highway funding cut. The rest of the states were successfully bribed. The citizenry was told that we didn’t want to miss out on Federal money without questioning the ethics of using our own money to circumvent the democratic process. Other examples exist. Policy is dictated by faceless drones dreaming up schemes that will benefit their narrow bailiwick, but not the people as a whole.
Now they rulers have taken things a step further. They cook the books. They manufacture data to support positions or use semantics to avoid the truth. For instance, we were told that privatization of government functions is good. It saves the people money and it is efficient. However, look at the facts. Prisons are being built by private companies who are awarded contracts guaranteeing that they will be kept full, no matter what the crime rate is. So, there is an incentive for keeping things criminalized even though the public doesn’t want it. The Department of Transportation is granting a contract to sell a freeway to a private company with a guarantee of income, without the profit to the investment bank disclosed.
It seems to me that any politician with the IQ of a Chimpanzee can obtain data from State employees to see that crime rates vary with age of population. As population ages, crime rates decline. When that happens, prison demand declines. Yet, legislators continued to authorize private prisons, when they should have known they might be un-needed. The private prisons could forecast, hence the demand for guarantees. Since I can’t believe anyone who can run a campaign for public office can be that stupid, I assume that money or favors had to have been exchanged.
The state has gone a step further in its deceptive practices. The legislature authorized privatized treatment programs for drug and alcohol offenses. The numbers had to be kept up to keep clinics and programs from bankruptcy. The “customer” pool had to keep increasing. Hence, the level of detectible substances in the body kept declining as problem drivers disappeared. Behavioral evidence used to be needed to convict. Officers video recorded suspects while taking tests and being questioned. However, when these were shown to juries, acquittals occurred, wrecking the profits of the private treatment programs. Fluid samples were required to be preserved for retesting. Because of alleged certification, that was abolished. Tests were used that could not be duplicated. Nor were they recorded. Samples were not required to be verified. “Experts” were created in the police force to testify at trials where there was no way to refute or even question evidence.
Courts allowed this to occur because it encouraged convictions or guilty pleas and moved cases through the system into the profitable programs in an efficient manner. A well-greased machine was created to screw the driving public. So, people had to plead guilty to something even if that weren’t so because it was virtually impossible to challenge.
The “recognition experts” attended classes taught by non-credentialed teachers, based upon little science and anecdotal beliefs. In Colorado, the State’s forensic chemist was shown to be a perjurer and fraud. The lab was placed in question. The officials hid this from the people as long as they could and the situation existed for years. The chemist bragged to co-workers about how she “got that scumbag defendant” and taught the dumbass defense attorney a lesson. Although it should have been obvious, no deputy district attorney challenged the situation, many delighted in obtaining easy convictions in marginal cases.
The reason that fluid or breath samples were no longer preserved is because the instruments measuring the fluids were certified. Now we find out that the certification is flawed and signed of as a matter of course rather than actually complying with testing. Additionally, it was found that the course to train police “drug recognition experts” was based upon non-scientific methodology, anecdotes, and being taught by frauds and un-credentialed instructors. When this was pointed out to the Federal Department of Transportation official, he stated he would correct the manuals. He did not and people are still being imprisoned by bull-shit testimony and evidence. All to keep private monopolist criminal justice enterprises profitable. The most unconscionable thing is this is perpetrated upon the poor. The government has become predatory. The faceless bureaucrats in the Federal Government set policy and enforce it by bribing or withholding funds from state legislatures.
Our highways are sold to private foreign entities with income guarantees. Prisons are being built with income guarantees, while workers’ wages and pensions diminish in buying power or disappear. Now a new crime of driving under the influence of marijuana has been invented by the Government which the states have to enact and enforce in order for the state Constitutional amendments not be challenged by a Federal agency. State judges, rather than telling Feds to use their own Courts are using the Supremacy Clause of the Constitutional to ignore state Constitutional amendments. All to grease the wheels of corruption. It is time we put a stop to this.

STOP TOTALITARIANISM

TOTALITARIANISM RETURNS
Early in my career, my practice and even my life was defined by Washington politics way beyond my comprehension or control. Due to Viet Nam, an administration who believed that any dissent must be “leftist” and inspired or funded by communists, in a complete denial of reality, a culture of fear and suspicion became instilled into our culture. This ignorance and prejudice result in the toppling of a Government over an illegal break-in by the president which exposed a whole corrupt and out of control administration, resulting in years of hearings by both the Senate and House into illegal activities of the intelligence communities. This denial of truth or just plain ignorance almost wrecked our government and left us with a legacy of distrust, revenge, and rejection of the notion of a society or a people, replaced with selfish individualism, devoid of character or compassion.
This came to light because of brave civil servants, courageous protesters, and the underestimation of the intelligence of the general public. During that time, in order to sell an unpopular war, Psywar was waged against the citizens with law and order propaganda tv programs to push a non-democratic agenda. Many brave people exposed the crimes of the officials and stopped the march to a totalitarian government.
The situation today is even worse. Fear permeates our society. Any criticism of the Government’s misconduct or crimes is met with prosecutions such as espionage. War criminals are protected instead of exposed. Scientists are ridiculed rather than believed. Truth is stopped with the politicization of officials sworn to protect us and our Constitution. Critics are not criminals. Scholars and intellectuals sre not enemies. So, I ask you to read and weep. Don’t let the selfish and greedy win Don’t let ignorance rule and lies and propaganda shape our future. Think and act. What happened to me a half century ago is repeating even more venous and dangerous. Act like a people, not a herd.
This is from the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on Government misconduct and criminal activities. It is discouraging that we still haven’t learned in a half a century. Please think about the following. Pay attention.

Moreover, in the spring of 1970 the FBI severed its formal liaison to the CIA in reaction to a CIA-FBI dispute over confidential sources in Colorado. 33 Though hostility between the two agencies had surfaced before with some frequency over matters such as disagreement regarding the bona fides of communist defectors, this particular dispute was “the one straw that broke the camel’s back.” 34 The incident in Colorado, now known as the Riha Case, involved a CIA officer who received information concerning the disappearance of a foreign national on the faculty of the University of Colorado, a Czechoslovak by the name of Thomas Riha.
The information apparently came from an unnamed FBI officer stationed in Denver. Hoover demanded to know the identity of the FBI agent; but, as a matter of personal integrity, the CIA officer refused to divulge the name of his source. Hoover was furious with Helms for not providing the FBI with this information and, “in a fit of pique,” 35 he broke formal Bureau ties with the Agency. 36 To many observers, including Huston and Sullivan, the severance of these ties contributed to the perceived inability of the Bureau’s intelligence division to perform their task adequately.
In this context, a special meeting was called on April 22, 1970, in Haldeman’s office. In attendance were Haldeman, Krogh, Huston Alexander Butterfield (who had responsibility for White House liaison’ with the Secret Service), and Ehrlichman. The purpose of this gathering was to improve coordination among the White House staff for contact with intelligence agencies in the government and, more importantly, as Huston remembers, to decide “whether — because of the escalating level of the violence — something within the government further needed to be done.” 37

1960’s DENVER POLICE HAD THE BURGURLY SCANDAL. WILL THIS BE THE POLICE BUGGERY SCANDAL

WATCH: Student Left Hemorrhaging After Cops Allegedly Sodomize Him With Baton VIDEO OMITTED

Denver, CO — The Denver police department has opened an internal investigation into their officers after a man claimed he was forcibly sodomized by a cop during an arrest.
According to police, 23-year-old Michael Jacobs was being placed under arrest during a protest near Civic Center Park on July 29 for disarming a police officer. Police claim Jacobs attempted to take an officer’s pepper ball gun — which is not backed up by video evidence and disputed by Jacobs and his attorney.
Jacobs disputes the claim that officers had probable cause to arrest him at all. The college student says he was rattling a fence during the protest to get an officer’s attention when he was taken down from behind.
“I was grabbed from behind, it felt like it was from my neck, no warning, no ‘you’re under arrest,’” Jacobs said.
A portion of the video shows people shaking a fence near the park and then the takedown. Exactly what transpired before this video is unclear and is a matter of Jacobs’ word verses the police.
As the video shows, an officer runs at Jacobs as several other officers pile on top. In the brief video, you can see an officer use his baton against the student.
During his arrest, Jacobs said that an officer came up to him as he was face down on the ground and sodomized him with an object he thinks was a police baton.
“As I was on the ground, and as I was completely helpless, someone took what felt to be a nightstick and just shoved it up my butt. After that it was pretty much done,” Jacobs told KDVR.
“It was the traumatizing experience I’ve been through in all 23 years of my life.”
After the arrest, Jacobs went to the hospital where he conducted a rape kit and says doctors who evaluated him two weeks later found evidence of rectal and anal hemorrhage, KDVR reported.
“I’ve been having to go to GI doctors since and have them explain to me why I have hemorrhoids bleeding out of my [sic] rectum,” Jacobs said.
“I mean, the people that are there to protect you, to do something so wrong, it’s like I have panic attacks now, which I’ve never experienced before.”
Jacobs now faces charges which his lawyer has dismissed as bogus.
As the Denver Channel reports:
A probable cause statement released by the Denver Police Department claims Jacobs was part of a group trying to push down a gate at Lincoln Park and adds that they managed to bring it down and get inside.
But in the video, Jacobs is outside of the fence.
The police report states Jacobs violently resisted arrest and even grabbed an officer’s pepper ball gun. It’s a claim Jacobs and his attorney, Dr. Matt Greife, dispute.
“That could not be further from the truth,” Jacobs said.
“This was a cover charge,” Greife told KDVR. “They have to charge him with something to justify why they went to him in the first place.”
“To say that he attempted to disarm a police officer off their pepper gun or pepper ball gun, that’s nonsense, he was on the ground way too fast,” Dr. Greife said.
Griefe told the Denver Channel that cops have refused to release the body camera footage he says would exonerate his client.
“We should know what the police reports say. We should know what the body cams tell us,” Dr. Greife said.
Jacobs is now facing a felony charge of attempting to disarm a police officer and is due back in court at the end of the month. Greife is now moving to have the charge dropped against his client, noting that their failure to release the body camera footage means they have no evidence to convict him.


IN THE SIXTIES, THERE WAS police scandal that rocked Denver.  Police would investigate a robbery and what the burglars didn’t take, they did.  Soon, they started to stage their own robberies.  Some actually did time when the scandal broke.  One of the lawyers I worked with was acting governor when the scandal broke and appointed the special prosecutor.  The investigation was going real high in Colo politics, when the Governor, upon returning to Colorado shut down the investigation  An understanding of Denver police behavior would not be relevant without studying the political structure and the influence of Federal Intelligence Agencies upon policy.

When the hippies arrived, and, with the anti-war movement, the police were given a pretty much-unbridled privilege to attack what they perceived as deviance, lack of patriotism, evasion of barbers, and other objectionable qualities which offended local citizens. For instance, I had clients takeen to jail, stripped down, and hosed with cold water from fire hydrants. In a court in which I was a judge, from drugs came in, seized the hippie with the intent of cutting his hair with their sheep sheers. Many arrests in Denver and the surrounding areas were enforced with the sundown intent to encourage miscreants to leave before the Sunset.

In one of mine more notorious cases, a sheriff’s officer chased my clients on his motorcycle of Boulder Canyon firing at him.  This crime, driving a motorcycle without a helmet. The jury acquitted him of the charge that the judge found them guilty. Nonetheless. In sentencing, the judge took judicial notice that the gun was a 22, which nobody used to hurt anybody. He called it an aggravation weapon. After arguing with the jury foreman and chasing me out of the courthouse, demanding that I come back and I can like a man, he sentenced my client to jail. The judge was a big act like that of supporting his local police. That has been entrenched in the law enforcement culture of Colorado for the past 50 years. 40 years later, the hippie’s body was discovered in a mine shaft in Nederland Colorado, the officer who chased by client admitted that he had shot the hippie because he didn’t like them. Since the old policeman was dying of cancer, nothing was done to him. I have been studying this issue for half a century. As long as district attorneys feel that they represent to the police establishment which they identified as their constituency, and the judges are appointed from district attorney’s offices, there will be very little change. The law enforcement culture today, has evolved into a them v. us dichotomy. Because of the socioeconomic bias and recruitment from upper classes, there is a piss on the peasant environment in law enforcement. With a broken windows policy,, and in many cities, the racist – the elitist view of the police is not seen for what it is. No mention is made of the fact that many people living in certain areas To afford to repair their windows, sometimes, and view the action as good law enforcement.

Of course, law enforcement is that conditioned to be the poor as potential criminals. In our society, a high percentage of the poor are black. To blacked out any conversation of economic elitism, or discrimination. The debate is deflected to one of race and is exclusive of institutional racism.  This is but one factor to consider in a complex analysis. We have to examine are reward system, or the secondary reward system, are values, our tolerance, our patience, and other factors. All I can say to the attorney representing the sexually assaulted protester’s that he had to be thankful that the police are now murdering his clients.

THERE WILL BE NO POOR IN BOULDER

In 1992, Colorado enacted a constitutional amendment to the state Constitution labeled the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, also known as the Bruce amendment.  It was part of a movement by the tea party, to cut spending on government and encourage business-government partnerships and privatization of a government function.  It was sold to the voters as an amendment or method to restrict government waste and promote efficiency.  This was in conjunction with a campaign in the Southern states, labeled a contract for America, referred to by some as Contract on America.

                In any event, the outcome was pretty much a disaster.  The bill provided, among other things, that any monies not spent by an agency had to be returned to the taxpayer in any given year.  It also provided that any taxes or increase in revenues were subject to a vote by the public.  So slowly but surely state revenues declined as expenses increased.  At the same time.  This insidious group of neo-liberals started campaigning for the privatization of anything and everything they could possibly think of.  So, for instance, if somebody wanted to look at a public record such as a court file, a clerk would charge a fee to retrieve the file.  If the defense attorney wanted copies of documentation or evidence that a district attorney based prosecution or policy decision on, the defendant, typically a lower-class worker, was charged a fee for photocopying, although police records were publicly funded, investigators were publicly funded as were district attorneys and judges.  Although they were funded, because of this amendment revenue was collected in the manner favorable to the wealthy and detrimental to the poor. Agencies became merchants selling items to the public that they had already paid for.

                Likewise, the bond concept.  A system was changed so that it took 10 times longer to make bond than previously, bonding was more expensive unless one waited a day in jail for a judge to set Bond.  Jails became more crowded, holding unconvicted citizens awaiting trial, necessitating contracting to private enterprise to build more jails.  The privateers sold the politicians on the fact that privatized managers were more efficient because they can open and shut as supply and demand required.  However, being profiteers, they soon demanded that the State give them guaranteed contracts, allowing them to extort profit from the taxpayer’s in a monopolistic manner.  It’s ironic, the taxpayers restrict raising funds through taxes to support their government and, in the same breath, attacked the poor by charging them for the cost of government and reward stockholders and executives of corporations.

 One of the biggest crimes against the public or the people, and particularly against the poor is the privatization of the jail telephone system.  In the system, every phone call made by any inmate or detainee of a jail facility has to pay a fee per call.  At the time that payphone call for $0.10 a call, the privatized phone companies operating monopolistic franchises in the penal institutions were charging $2 a call.  The rationale was that jails needed to be secure and phone calls should be monitored and even recorded, and by the exploitation of labor, the service could be done more cheaply.  Ever since I first watched police programs on TV in 1954, I was inculcated with the notion that upon arrest a person was entitled to a phone call.  I was also taught that everyone was entitled to a lawyer, whether or not he could afford one.  Also, I was told that communications between lawyer and client were sacrosanct and could not be intercepted or other ways read or heard.  Of course, I was told that since Magna Carta all accused were innocent until proven guilty, and that of bonds’ sole purpose was to ensure a defendant’s presence in court.  Anything else, was contrary to common law, and only existed under the Roman code law, such as used in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia.  It’s ironic, that the anti-Communist super-patriots were the ones pushing for preventive detention, and all these restrictions under the guise of safety.  Apparently constitutional rights don’t apply to the poor and disadvantaged as long as the ruling Elite can subjugate them.

                Meanwhile, judges. hand-picked from the ruling class, ignore the problems of constitutional violations, because they are minor, don’t apply to their class, and the public wanted safety over liberty.  They are indoctrinated with the idea that government is bad, commerce is good, businesses good, and poor people must be controlled, especially ones that belong to an ethnic or racial minority.  I suppose that makes sense, because if I were in their position might be nervous about members of the mass also.  The ones that live in gated communities have less to worry about than those that live in Fancy neighborhoods.  It’s not that judges don’t care; they just have never been arrested or jailed.  They don’t know how humiliating it is for someone in custody to call a potential employer, while seeking a job and having the potential employer here “this is a collect call from a correctional institution.”  The poor just have their pride, but the privilege to have more; or money; or clothes; or status; more toys; more education; and more opportunity.  They can’t understand the problem.  Hopefully, they don’t push the people to the point where they find out.  The hard way.

                Thus, it came as no surprise that the elitist city of Boulder, Colorado announced that it would lower their speed limits to 20 miles an hour.  The city has been essentially closed because of the virus scare or plague and revenue were dropped.  Most municipal revenue is dependent upon sales tax, and when you have distancing orders, stay-at-home health regulations, or orders, and other instruments of regulation that close establishments that generate income tax, the municipalities are going to hurt.  In a democratic society, the taxpayers could raise taxes later in payback emergency funds if necessary and keep the Government’s operating at the same capacity.  Or they can design other methods of raising revenue other than targeting the citizenry.  Having had the experience as a municipal judge ruling on traffic cases and being discharged because I did not collect enough revenue for the city, I have had reason to study the functions of municipal courts over 5 decades.  But that is for democracies, not plutocracies.  From my perspective, this is nothing but a revenue generator.  However, most of the residents of Boulder are Young, physically fit, wealthy, self-centered, and have tunnel vision.  They have no empathy for working people that must get from point a to point b with time constraints and who are paid by the hour, rather than by the dividend clippings.  Many of them ride bicycles because they are physically able.  In Boulder, a mortgage payment, the loan without taxes and insurance for the typical house starts $3000 a month.  However, the majority of the houses in Boulder cost twice that.  So, what do these people know about having to pay $2 a phone call, not being able to leisurely stroll or ride a bicycle between 2 points are getting a disproportionate amount of traffic tickets.  For them, is a minor annoyance for the non-Elite, it may mean missing a meal or to a house payment, insurance payment, dental expense, or some other semi-necessity.

                But raising taxes is unacceptable and unnecessary as long as the poor can be whacked without recourse.  It’s not callousness by these people, it is downright ignorance.  Although commonly thought of as being self-centered or egotistical, these people are genuinely nice.  They care about others but limit themselves to the thinking of people like them not “others”.  In the meantime, the beautiful residents of “liberal” Boulder can go about their business and their beautiful perfect city devoid of old, crippled, workers, or minorities, believing this is the way.  Other people live.

KILLING IS PATRIOTIC, THEREFORE CHRIST APPROVES

The Sixties were a time of turmoil, conflict and change. Nowhere was it more pronounced or exiting than in Boulder. There was an invasion of “hippies,” much to the consternation of the town’s founders and power structure. It is still going on today.
Before I left town for law school in Chicago, I did an analysis of the Boulder power structure, using a recent fluoridation referendum as the subject. Since there was a large Adventist hospital in Boulder, I assumed, that group was in the leadership position. Essentially, it was an attempted application of net theory. The reader should be aware that we were just coming out of the McCarthy era and the loyalty oaths were a subject of much debate among the faculty. The University was viewed as a fantasy land, inhabited by Communists and other threats to patriotism. I was at my first anti-discriminations rally at the Woolworth’s store at Broadway and Pearl streets.
To my surprise, I discovered a different group, led by small businessmen ultra conservatives, agitating against fluoridation, and more, such as impeaching Earl Warren, getting out of the UN, firing a left-wing professor who described J. Edgar Hoover as the biggest threat to democracy that existed in the world at that time. He was opposed by as naturalized “patriot” who traveled the state, addressing legionaries and others who feared politics of change. This paranoia increased with the start of the Viet Nam conflict and the draft and anti-war resistance movement.
So, after a three-year absence for law school, imagine my surprise to find how the city had changed. Turmoil prevailed. The old guard was still there, but circling the wagons. They were threatened. The Impeach Earl Warren billboards were still up going South out of town. Outsiders were barely tolerated, unless they were famous. The founding fathers viewed hippies as commies and traitors. The police now harassed those who looked different rather than thought different. The university loyalty oath became less important, at least to some. Hippies were now the clear and present danger. When arrested, they were given haircuts for “sanitary” reasons by the jailors. It took a lawsuit to stop that practice. However, the jailers substituted hosing down with garden hoses in the booking center as a substitute. It was more fun to watch. Sometimes, the arrestees had to strip and be hosed down in the showers, general in front of a full audience. It was explained that it was for the prisoner’s protection. From what, I never discovered. Fear and loathing was the general condition. The conservative founding fathers led the charge against hippies and change. The culture war was on. Sides were chosen. And some were drafted, just like in Viet Nam.
The main stage for this war was marijuana. It was the symbol of choice for those against the status quo, the establishment, the war machine. However, the forces for change lost with the convention of 1968, there were riots in Chicago at the democratic convention where a police force ran rampant over the constitution to stop the infestation of hirsute youth. There was a revolution by a younger generation. They lost. My belief was that the only logical political position was that of a counterrevolutionary. Otherwise, the pro-police state maniacs would win. The election of Richard Nixon confirmed my analysis.
There hordes of “hippies” arriving in Boulder, dressed in colorful costumes in unconventional styles. There were the Hare Krishna’s robed in Saffron and beating drums or chanting. There was the activist. There were the stoners. And, also, there were a group, led by a robed hippie calling himself John the Baptist, preaching from the flatirons about love, sex, drugs and resistance. He made Timothy Leary seem like a reactionary.
In any event, one of his followers wandered into my office, after being caught in possession of over a pound of weed, in a grocery bag, tucked under his arm like the ghost of the London Tower. He was arrested in that hotbed of communism and drugs known as the “hill,” adjacent to the University, over-run with University Students and other suspicious persons. A good percentage of law enforcement hung out there, municipal, state, and federal, where it was easy to bag their quotas of pot smokers and other non-patriots.
The client was of Hispanic origin from Harlem, New York. His New York accent was hard to miss. I had known his wife prior to his marriage. She was related to a prominent Southern Senator at the time and came from a long, established Southern family. She escaped to Boulder to explore life. Her relative, when he heard I was representing her husband, offered me a sum of money to take a dive. I declined. I wasn’t a big fan of Southern Democrats. I ended up defending him for free, but it was worth it.
The new DA was a former FBI agent who practiced law in the town. He was an Easterner and therefore felt compelled to wear cowboy boots to show he was one of us. He was going to rid the town of the scourge, and the most obvious way was to prosecute all marijuana possession cases. The judge was the just defeated DA. He was WW2 disabled Navy vet who ran as a democrat after the Chicago police riots. He was friendly
The new DA was full of himself, but had the support of the law enforcement community. His new policy was to try every case. Be tough on crime, especially that evil marijuana. Show hippies who we are. I was batting a thousand in losing drug cases thus far. However, since no other lawyers would go near them with a ten-foot pole, I was relatively safe. That was until it was discovered that many “hippies” had substantial trust funds and I was getting paid for some of my cases. In the meantime, those of us who objected to the oppressive and punitive conduct of the police and Courts, decided to clog the docket. This we did without effort. The only way that it was stopped was by the institution of a Public Defender’s office.
Marijuana was extremely divisive among the townspeople. When I was growing up, it was referred to as “loco weed,” favored by Mexican immigrants and seasonal workers. Nobody seemed to pay any attention, until it started being associated with draft and war resistance, Commie politics, and flat-top dodging young men who burned draft cards and protested the war. The weed became a problem because it became associated with everything feared by the young people’s parents. They survived a depression, World War, rationing and recovery. The wanted better for their children. They wanted obedience, conformity, loyalty. Ozzie and Harriet were their model. Beaver was what they expected in their children.
There was no dialogue, just demonstrations of power. It was “my way or the highway” as far as the Government was concerned. Dissent wasn’t to be tolerated. Patriotism was an imperative. The children had to be saved from themselves. The hippies must die. So, must dissent and disorder. One of the most hated was the “STP” family. They were colorful and predated the rainbow coalition. There was a case in our office involving one of their members who was arrested for having an upside United States flag sewn on the seat of his pants. That one was in the appellate stage. STP John preached from the flatirons every day, extoling the virtues of the Leary hallucinogen.
That was the climate when Carlos got caught with his kilo of marijuana. An Hispanic from Spanish Harlem, he had the New York attitude that cold piss off any cop. He had a ponytail and beard together with outrageous consuming, consisting of beads, bells and other bobbles. From the town’s elite, it was worse. He had a white wife. He was exactly what Boulder didn’t want. Image conscious Boulder was afraid of what the STP family would produce. Why would parents send their kids there, when there were draft dodgers, draft card burners, hippies, intellectual Marxists and other undesirables. I had a choice. I could plead Carlos guilty in exchange for a prison term not exceeding 5 years, or I could go to trial on what appeared to be an open and shut case.
At a suppression motion, the arresting officer testified that he observed Carlos in a high crime area. (It was “the hill,” a student area, infested with students, hippies and other young people. It was adjacent to the University and was were the students went to shop, eat and drink.) It was the happy hunting grounds for training new narcotics officers. It was impossible to be there for more than one half hour before an arrest could be made. Students and hippies were fair game for the police.
The arresting officer testified at a preliminary hearing that it was a high crime area because drugs were a crime and over half of the people in that area were in possession of the same. (He failed to testify that 90 percent were youths and college students.) He stated that the defendant had a Safeway bag under his arm and seemed nervous. When he approached Carlos, he noticed that the bag was leaking a brown leafy substance. His experience and training told him that the defendant had marijuana. The defendant stated he was picking up trash and on his way to a trashcan on the corner when he was accosted by the officer. The evidence was ruled admissible. (My client said that the hole wasn’t in the bag when the officer took it. I asked the officer if this were the case, and stated that the bag was exactly like it was when he took it and turned it into the evidence locker.) He said that my client was probably lying to me. A polygraph indicated differently. So, we went to trial.
However, at the trial, another version was told. The Courtroom was packed. It resembled a clown convention or a Halloween costume party. There were festive ornaments on the multi-colored garments. Bells rang and bracelets rattled. The hippies were in force to watch American justice in action. The defendant’s story was unlikely, but it was plausible, but just barely. I didn’t think I could sell a jury, so additional tactics were in order. I believed that if the jury thought I was a court appointed red-neck bigot, they might feel sorry for Carlos for having to be defended by such an ass hole. I scowled at him in front of the jury. So, when picking the jury, I had Carlos sit away from me and I looked at him with disdain, as though I were court appointed to represent him. The jury looked formidable. Not a hippie among them. They looked so serious. I felt they were making plans to build a scaffold while sitting there. When the DA questioned, they smiled and nodded like good little robots. They all had short hair.
The DA was a smiling glad-handing yuppie. He was young and dynamic. He was likeable. The judge was a WWII vet from the navy. He was wounded at Normandy and had a bad back. He had just been defeated for DA even though I worked for him on his election campaign. He was sort of fair, but not exactly a model of liberalism. He was better than the alternative. He allowed most questions and sat there looking judge-like.
My turn. When I got up to interview the jurors, I sighed and tried to do my job. The reception was more than hostile. These were solid, middle-class, white, patriots of the white middle class community. It was hard to discern what was hated more, the hippies, the students or Hispanics. I was pissing into the wind. There were no students on the jury. Few young people were in the pool. They were all in the audience. They couldn’t vote yet. So, I shook things up a bit. When questioning the jurors, I asked, “Do any of you have an opinion of Spicks?” Those jurors that were shocked, I left on. The ones that snickered or laughed, I threw off. However, there was one man from a small town who was on Social Security that I could not get off the jury. I was out of challenges. So, the trial began. All I could do is try or cry.
Some preliminary witnesses established the substance and the analysis. Finally, it was the policeman’s turn. His testimony was essentially the same as earlier, except for one minor point. He had previously testified that he saw a hole in the bag with green leafy substance seeping out, which, as a trained police officer, knew was marijuana, although it was dark with little light. At the trial, he testified that as he approached Carlos, Carlos shifted the bag on the other side, using his body to shield the bag from his light.
Now, the reader might ask, “why did the officer change stories?’ He obviously saw the hole in the story he gave at the preliminary hearing. It looked suspicious when the hole in the marijuana bag was the approximate size of a pencil. In the cultural war, no one in the policeman’s circle of friends would have assumed any hippie would carrying a bag would have anything else. “Yes, you may say, but why would he obviously tell such a lie?”
Now that is something more complicated. Testimony is tailored to specific results. At the suppression hearing, the officer was charged with justifying his stopping of the defending, the questioning and the subsequent search. It was important that he establish probable cause to look into the bag. The only possible reason was that there was marijuana coming out of the bag. That necessitated a hole from which some mysterious substance could leak. The reader must realize that, to the police, the biggest threat to society, other than stopping commies in Viet Nam rather than at the Golden Gate Bridge, was the scourge of marijuana use, causing all the political and social turmoil. Marijuana caused rebellious youths. Marijuana caused daughters to have sex out of wedlock. Marijuana caused antiwar protests. Marijuana killed patriotism. Marijuana was a communist conspiracy to undermine the youths of this country and sap their vital bodily fluids. Marijuana was evil. So were the users. So, since police always believe the ends justify the means, the officer felt justified in lying for the greater good and said what he wanted. At the trial, he had to justify some sort of guilty knowledge. Therefore, blocking the light with his flashlight so that the officer could not examine the bag was conceived. It showed that Carlos had guilty knowledge of the bag’s contents.
However, I left comment for later. After a denied motion to dismiss, I gave an opening statement and presented my defense– my client. He was dressed in what he described as “West Harlem Pimp” finery and was applauded by my audience, which I generally attracted in those days. The audience were mostly members of the STP family, with court regulars and colleagues hoping to see me get chewed out by a judge or other entertainment that might occur.
Defendant stated his name and his address as “the streets and mountain campgrounds.” I asked him to tell what he remembered of the night of his arrest.
“Wha chu mean, mon, about that night? How could I forget it, man? I was on the hill minding my own business when I noticed this bag in the gutter. I stooped over to pick it up and take it to a trash container when I am confronted by this racist pig. He asked what I was doing there and if I was a citizen. I said that Puerto Rico qualified me for citizenship last I heard and told him he was a racist pig.”
“Why did you say that?”
“Because he was. I know the way these guys think, whether its New York or Boulder. If you white, that’s alright, if your black, get back, get back, get back. All you have to do is read the papers to know that. I’ve experienced it my whole life. This town ain’t no different. They just hide it better.”
He then testified how the officer asked about the bag, and when the defendant told him he could not look in the bag, the cop poked the bag with a pencil. Then the cop told him it looked like marijuana coming out and he was under arrest. And, he said, “Here we are.”
He was then cross examined by the DA. After several questions, that got him nowhere, the district attorney asked, “Do you expect this jury to believe that you came across two pounds of marijuana just lying in the streets and you were going to throw it in the trash?”
“I grew up in Harlem, man. You country clubbers haven’t experienced it. There was trash everywhere. In the streets, in the gutters, on the sidewalks and just everywhere. I vowed that if I ever was able to escape, I would never again tolerate trash anywhere I lived. So, when I saw the bag, I picked it up to throw it away. On the way, the pig stopped me, questioned me, stabbed the bag and arrested me.
“Are you saying that the office is lying.”
“He don’t look like no George Washington to me.”
At that point, he sat down, and the court was adjourned until the next day where we would the jury instructions would be read, and our closing arguments given. That night, we both went out and got drunk together.
The next morning, I was raring to go, but the DA overslept and was hung over. That was one defense tactic he wasn’t taught, but I educated him in a hurry. When he arrived, he didn’t look too good, but told the Judge that he was ready to proceed.
We gave final arguments. My opponent argued that it was the jury’s duty to stop the marijuana scourge and clean up the town. We should not tolerate drugs or the people that it brought to the town, pointing to my client’s supporters assembled in the back of the courtroom, in a rainbow of colors and beads. He summoned moral outrage and told the jury that it was there duty to protect the community from such trash. Then it was my turn. I slowly arose, shaking my head, looking bewildered. I slowly addressed the jury, starting in a soft voice, making them strain to hear me.
I agreed with the district attorney. Cases like this were significant and would define our community. But it was up to the jury to determine what type of a community we wanted to live in. Since the district attorney brought up the subject, I thought I would comment on the subject.
“What type of community do we want,” I asked rhetorically? I then described the dream middle class existence, with all white people, no crime or delinquency and with all youths with close shaved haircuts.
“There is ample precedent for such communities or societies. My father risked his life in a war to with such a society that wanted to discriminate, euthanize, and exterminate all the ‘others,’ to purify people and thoughts. That was what the DA was describing. But, is that what we want?
Or, do we want a society based upon tolerance and truth. I agree that my client isn’t the type of person that I would like my sister to marry. However, I don’t make decisions for her. Will we tolerate prejudice and lies to protect our daughters and sisters? Do we want police that believe that they can get away with lying because of the nature of the offense or the offender? Or, will we believe any person who has a uniform or a badge? Does a certificate of truth come with the badge? I want you to go into the jury room and look at the evidence. Calculate the probability that a pencil hole just happens to be in a bag, or was it added later? Pick up the flashlight. Shine it around. Point it at you fellow jurors and see if the flashlight is an x-ray flashlight. Can it see through a person? If, not, there can be only one conclusion. My client was right. He, ain’t no George Washington. So, if that is what you want, go ahead a convict the defendant. Very few people would care, and many would rejoice, not because of what he had done, but because he looks different, talks different, and is offensive. I don’t care. A year from now, I will be at some University teaching. So, the future is up to you.” I then sat down.
The jury was back in three hours. Surprisingly, the verdict was not guilty. I waited around the courthouse to talk to the jurors. One of the jurors whom I tried to exclude from the jury and started to talk. He was a farmer from Louisville, a small neighboring town. He looked old enough to be retired, but said he was still farming. I asked him, “Why the hell did you find the defendant not guilty? He looked at the district attorney and replied, “shit, we just couldn’t convict someone of having anything that grows wild in the ditches around here. We all agreed on that.
The next day, the District Attorney’s office announced that it was impossible to obtain a marijuana conviction in Boulder County. That was his conclusion. His mind just wasn’t clear enough to see that maybe the problem was his constituency, not the community. No community likes a police force that bullies or allows perjury. Of course, one who worships law enforcement and owes his political existence to police would never think of that. Oh, well, at least I won.

STOP THE RICH FROM KILLING US

Text Box: 1DLBLEWITT, May 2020HOW LONG DO WE LET THEM STEAL, CHEAT AND I INJURE US BEFORE WE SAY ENOUGH?      

                It is extremely interesting how the public has become brainwashed to believe that we do not deserve anything, while the Rich and privileged deserve everything.  We are conditioned to believe that anything that trickle down from above his largess that we should appreciate.  We are conditioned to believe that the people that allow anything to trickle down are magnificent and generous precluding us from any criticism.

                It is time for us to wake up.  When this country first started, to escape liability, corporations were formed and allowed to exist as long as they benefited the people.  The purpose wasn’t for profit.  It was hoped that profit would occur, but the main reason for incorporating it so that an investor would only lose what he put into the venture and not his whole estate.  Initially, corporations were created to build turnpikes, canals, and other works that serve the people.  Various ventures were incorporated such as mining interests, utilities, distributors, etc. a corporation was a good way in which to develop and expand our country and incentives were given for that purpose.  For instance, the Constitution says that the government shall create and maintain post ways post offices post roads, etc.  This was a constitutional mandate to connect the country and to connect the people.  When railroads entered the picture, they are perceived as the best way to connect the country and to move people and goods around.  So, in order to finance the great cost of building roads, Congress gave Landgraf’s to the railroads to pay for the cost of the railroads.  However, after the railroads were est. and operating well and starting to get costly to maintain, railroads turned into real estate development companies, tour of the tracks and sold land profiting by the land grants contrary to the reason for them to have been granted.

                , And the main advantages of railroads were to move mail and cargo from one point to another arose had mail cars and they were contracts with the railroad to transport mail.  It was sorted on the cars and delivered at various locations.  As in Europe, roads and railroads were created for the purpose of communication, mail be in one part of it.  Later, Airlines came into being.  They were developed and subsidized by contracts to carry the mail.  It is necessary for a nation to exist as a nation to be able to communicate from region to region and person-to-person and group to group.  However, there seems to be a conscious effort to sabotage that: to about to divide and conquer; to so dissension; to promote isolation is him, thus fragmenting our society.  It seems to be working. 

Propagandist have been trying for decades to blacken government mischaracterizing democratic functioning as inefficient inefficiency.  We have been conditioned to believe that a government as the enemy interfering with all kinds are greedy bastards, who want to make a profit at our expense.  We are taught to believe that is better for an entity, like Raytheon to reap billions and profits for Rich people who can invest rather than provide for a workforce which now is viewed as expendable.  Even in the Middle Ages, the nobility had an obligation to the peasantry.  Enterprise is destroyed that.  Commerce is destroyed that, leaving as in a state of nature referred to as Neal liberalism, where money and economy counts, but people and civilization don’t.  We are now not even afforded the status of surfs.

                If you look at Europe, there are old buildings preserved through the ages and still in.  My grandfather’s church in England, for instance, was built by Saxon’s in the year.  850.  It still in use.  There are many castles and large edifices in Europe that are decaying, but there are also many that are still functioning and used.  The Europeans didn’t have the luxury of throwing a thing that he didn’t need because they were plentiful.  They had to conserve and reuse things, not only raw material, but people.  However, in this country, we could import immigrants and use them or consume them at will, readily replacing them with others.  While I don’t feel I’m expendable.  I don’t believe that people should soil so that others can sit on their assess in a comfortable fashion, supported by the blood, sweat, and tears, of the people.  Our elected leaders are whoring themselves to the ruling Elite, allowing the citizenry to become ill and maybe even die corporations who can raise money by issuing stock selling assets or loans are getting subsidized while waiters, bartenders, tradespeople, construction workers and other laborers are allowed to suffer, starve, lose their housing, and contract plague I suppose I would feel differently if I perceived in the guilt or embarrassment by these people.  But I see no evidence of such all my sense is a sense of entitlement that was there is theirs and what’s hours is theirs for the taking.  I don’t think we the people of the United States should eat cake because there is no bread.  I honestly believe that if they don’t want to share, they don’t deserve to be members of society and should live beyond the bounds of society in a state of nature.  I believe they should be held up to ridicule and abuse, and forced to wear masks like sheets and greedy people that in the Middle Ages

                I don’t think reparations should be only for blacks brought here as slaves, but anyone brought here in a state of certitude.  This is not a racial matter, but a class matter an economic matter, the Rich would just as soon spread liability to a whole race or culture in which they can hire people to get them out of their obligation and impose the obligation on those who can least afford.  They ignore those that may have benefited, they should pay, they got Rich taking our resources from the ground, leaving us with the tab for cleanup.  They consolidate and make things efficient for the sake of profit only, neglecting what is good for the society in general.  I read in the paper about this crook or that crook making millions of dollars from foreign governments for selling our country out or screwing the citizenry, or other heinous things which the privilege class get away with. Society does not exist for the benefit of the privileged, but for the people I say enough is enough.

A LAWYER’S VIEW OF JUSTICE

 


 

Judge in Lyons

A NAIVE IDEALIST LAWYER’S INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND SOCIETY

  DLBlewitt, 4-2020

AS A town activist molded in the civil rights era and the post Assassination era, I had a different view of the legal system and how it related to the people and society than most freshly minted lawyers. I now know I was naive and gullible, as my early memories remind me. Most lawyers went to law school to become rich and famous, for prestige or other similar reasons. I was motivated by Kennedy’s inaugural address and the vision of a crusader. Over 50 years of law practice hasn’t changed that but has made me a little less conspicuous. Many lessons learned by me are ones that most practitioners don’t see or analyze., which is unfortunate.
While other lawyers are rich or at least well of by pecuniary gain, I am rich in experience and in the friends I have made along the way. One such experience was mu appointment as a municipal judge in a small town transitioning from a Justice of the Peace system administered by politicos compensated by assessing court costs on the convicted, which was 100 percent of the accused, to one paid by a municipal salary.
When I was appointed judge, I was probably untrained and full of all kinds of delusional idealism. I was the first municipal judge with a law degree to be appointed to serve in a small municipality. Before that, small municipalities had a system called justices of the peace. These members of the Justice system were caricatured with the Chief of Mayberry and Gomer Pyle, comedic characters from early TV programming. They arraigned and heard traffic cases brought to them by the Police Department’s and made their money by charging “court costs.” These were ten dollars to the Justice of the Peace (JP), and the fine went to the town. If the police brought 80 cases, that meant the magistrate or justices of peace would make rake in $800 in 1960 dollars. (Remember, this was in the late 60’’s. When the statutes changed creating municipal judges instead of justices of peace, the towns, and especially police, resisted.
The change occurred because the State was developing a reputation as a speed trap. Lafayette Colorado was listed as a town to avoid by AAA. The legislature decided to change the image. When the law made judges salaried and their pay wasn’t dependent upon whether or not they found somebody guilty, the number of acquittals miraculously went up dramatically in the Municipal Court. Of course, this did not make the police exactly ecstatic, particularly in smaller towns. The police desired money in their coffers to do things and buy toys such as tanks, water canons and Uzi’s. And they looked at the courts as the revenue generator. The police truly believed that they were doing a good thing by sticking it to the motorists for the benefit of the town. It also paid their salaries and gave them some degree of legitimacy, if not examined too closely. It was the classic form of corruption, a la Sheriff of Nottingham. The real tragedy is that the town officials didn‘t view the situation like that. They believed that it would teach motorists a lesson, and the fines were the equivalent of tuition.
However, nobody in the system really expected fundamental change. It was just political expediency for an extremely touchy situation that was attracting nationwide attention. Older lawyers knew better than to tarnish their images as a whore for a small town. When the doors to the town hall were not exactly kicked down with applicants, I was called. Wow, I thought. A judge already and I have only been sworn in for a month. I was going to be able to use my training as both a criminologist and a lawyer. I had assumed that the appointment was because my father had owned a movie house in the town. Well, I was mistaken. It was not quite what I expected.

Unfortunately, I learned that too late. As young judge, I tried to do what was right and, if I thought somebody wasn’t guilty, I would say so the cops who would take offense of my opinion as a personal attack on their integrity and honesty. To complicate things further was that speed limits, that is speeding over a posted limit, which constituted most offenses, were only prima facie indication of guilt. Speeding was defined as going as speed that was neither reasonable nor proper. The speed limit was suggested, but not absolute. That is, the determination of whether the speed the defendant was traveling was unreasonable and improper could be rebutted by testimony or other physical evidence.
For instance, in my jurisdiction, the speed limit was 10 miles an hour and road was designed for cars to go 30 miles an hour. 30 miles an hour then would be a reasonable and proper speed, depending on other conditions. That ambiguous clause about other attendant circumstances was generally used to find guilt. Judges knew why they were costumed in robes to impress citizens of their abilities, when, it was for image to allow the judges to screw the citizens.
The towns then set up a 15 miles an hour speed limit through the town, not so much as a traffic rule or for the protection of the pedestrians are other citizens, but as a speed trap to generate revenue and to placate my opinion of a 10 mile per speed limit. . One of the first things I did which when I took office and which endeared me to the citizenry’s and got to the hearts everybody victimized by the random tag team of JP and police was to indicate that I thought 25 miles an hour was a reasonable and proper speed for going through town. Of course, the police were terribly upset about this because it cut out revenue substantial. No more toys for the officers to play with. They wouldn’t be getting their tank or water cannon.

At night after I held court, I would take the officers to coffee. I wanted feedback from the officers; criticisms and the opportunity to educate them. a little bit about criminal law. They understood all right, but they took a more pragmatic approach. The town needed the money and it really wasn’t hurting anybody to issue traffic tickets, especially if the transcripts which were sent to the motor vehicle department rarely affected driving rights. Besides, the town was small and there wasn’t much going on, so the only thing police had to do was to write traffic tickets. When I found cases or drivers not guilty, it took away from whatever little status I had and that branded me as “liberal.” That was about this time when antiwar press or protests started to escalate a little bit, the hippie movement was getting into full swing, and the stream of patriotism was running rampant within the police. In the spirit of patriotism and as their symbol of backing Nixon, they all showed up wearing American flags on their sleeves. Ironic because while the police started wearing flags on their sleeves as a sign of patriotism, hippies were being prosecuted for wearing flags on the seat of their pants for flag mutilation and disrespect, like one of my clients. He was arrested and prosecuted for desecration of the Flag. The arresting officer had a flag sewn on his sleeve. Flag desecration depends on who’s wearing the flag and where it is worn.
The main lesson that I learned was that officials viewed a Court as a profit center and not a place where fairness is demanded or even expected. I learned that there were outsiders who were generally regarded as fair game. The interesting thing I learned was that the agency who raises the money gets to keep the lion’s share. The town really needed other things rather than riot gear and cop toys. Many school children had no lunch, there was no public health official there, and the infrastructure was in need of repair.

However, fear and prejudice trumped reason. The townspeople were willing to sacrifice to make sure they had a police department and no
Hippies” would come to their town. There was also an extreme amount of bigotry within the police force, particularly against the hippies were moving in fact and flouting social convention such as haircuts, clean clothes and other conformist behavior. In fact, the whole town was somewhat prejudiced.
One night when I was holding court some local townspeople showed up to watch the proceedings. There were a few disturbing the peace tickets issued against hippies; not that they were disturbing the peace, but their hair disturbed some of the people and the towns-people want to see how tough I was on the hippies. Well, the real problem that evening was that the townspeople were a little bit inebriated. So, they showed up drunk and were making a lot of noise and being rowdy. The week before, they had captured a hippy and cut his hair off with sheep shares, not the electric ones either. The Boulder County Sheriff hosed them down with garden hoses when they were arrested and jailed. They believe that the arrest empowered them to assume and treat for lice and other insects. The treatment while stripped down, the sheriff could justify this based on a health precaution. They also gave a few haircuts to arrestees on the basis that long hair was unsanitary. There was a court case pending in District Court brought by the ACLU against the sheriff’s office for the practices. So the spectators were there to see how I would treat the hippies and what would happen to their buddy who was charged with misdemeanor assault for cutting a hippie’s hair and to the hippies up there for walking in public with long hair. As court was getting ready to start, the Cowboys started shuffling coins around and making a lot of noise. I asked them three times to put the coins away, quit making noise, and the be silent because I was trying to run a court. After 10 minutes of attempting to get them quiet, I ordered the Chief of the police to arrest them and haul them away until they promised to behave. This really did not make me extremely popular with townspeople. Particularly after I had to find the noisemakers in contempt of court. I gave them suspended jail sentence. Meanwhile, I found the hippies not guilty and the cowboy the who had cut the hair was fined $100. He was lucky I didn’t send him to jail, except I knew that the town had to pay the jail costs, which brings us to another point of corruption.
The city policeman would never write anybody up for driving under the influence because it mattered in whose court it was brought because the county took half of the funds. Therefore, they always wrote them up for reckless driving. In fact, that’s what the reckless driving offenses were. Real reckless driving charges were rare in town because it was really extremely hard to drive reckless within the city limits because the town was so small. It was well-known that anybody charged with reckless driving was probably drunk or at least well on his way to being so. When found guilty of reckless driving there was a pretty stiff fine penalty. However, the citizens were quite happy because they didn’t lose their driver’s license with a reckless driving charge as they would with driving under the influence.
Until the end of my tenure, there was a constant battle between the town the police because the revenues were down. Soon, however, the court wasn’t even making enough to pay for itself. The city, rather than kicking loose from the general fund started paying me and warrants which could be redeemed when the court bank account got to the point where it could pay them. This went on for approximately 8 months until I was elected out of office. The lesson I learned from this experience is that administrators view courts as a revenue source, not as a separate branch of government. People care less about justice than supporting good government. Most people are so prejudiced against taxes and supporting their government that they would rather impose injustice on others if it saves them money. Our priorities are way out of whack.

BOULDER DA OPENS INVESTIGATION ON 50-YEAR-OLD CASE

DENNISCOMMENTS
April, 2020
ADDENDUM TO RIHA’S GHOST
BOULDER COUNTY DA APPARANTLY RE-OPENS A 50-YEAR-OLD COLD CASE
FIFTY YEARS AGO, I WAS INVOLVED IN A PERPLEXING MYSSTERY THAT TOPPLED A GOVERNMENT, SPLIT FBI AND CIA, MADE NATIONAL NEWS FOR DECADES, AND WAS COVERED UP BY POLITICIANS AND OTHERS. I BELIEVE THAT MY CLIENT WAS MURDERED AND THERE HAS BEEN A COVERUP SINCE THEN.

Many of you know this story, but for those that don’t, I will briefly explain.  Early in my career, I had two clients, Mrs. Tannenbaum and Professor Riha.  They each had curious connections to separate Government clandestine agencies.  The war was raging, and they were all sorts of agents investigating students at University of Colorado, a hippie and activist paradise, riddled with Government operators and other drug dealers.
When one client was accused of offenses against another, I felt I had a conflict of interest.  This also was made clear to me by some agents who visited me at my office to explain the consequences of not recognizing this.  So, I referred one client to Mike Kokish, a Denver Journalist who had just opened a practice in Denver.  Mrs., Tannenbaum liked the idea because she was in PR.  Fred Gillis of the Denver paper, David Wise of Washington Post, Senate Select Committee (Watergate) investigated and reported on the incident.  After a trial in Boulder that was unsatisfactory to a mysterious force, Mrs. Tannenbaum was prosecuted a second time in Denver.  Two CIA domestic services agents and one FBI agent visited Denver DA Mike McDevitt regarding the case.  Later, McDevitt became a congressman and managed to snag a large grant for Denver to manufacture and fight an organized crime structure.  J. Edgar of FBI demanded Richard Helms of the CIA to disclose the identity of his agent and was told to piss up a rope.  Hoover, in a snot broke off all liaison with the CIA and Fired Sullivan, his liaison agent.
Well, this left Richard Nixon blind and scuttled his Huston plan.  So, he set up the Watergate bunglers, causing his political demise.  Meanwhile, in Denver Mrs. Tannenbaum was sent to the state hospital where she took 20 minutes to die of Cyanide poisoning.  It was declared a suicide.  Remember, this case touched on Nixon, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Phoenix project, project Rhyolite, Echelon, DEA, students recruited for the FBI and Military Intelligence, ONI, IRS, NRO, NSA and myriad other alphabetical combinations.
I ran for District Attorney on the platform that I would, if elected, call a grand jury and find out what happened.  About that time, some of my mail was accidentally diverted to the FBI for their approval.

After losing the election, a friendly police officer’s wife got word to me to lie low. The excrement hit the revolving blades ad I found myself under investigation for jewel robbery, kidnapping, arson, and sitting on the side walk. To insure I got the message, I was audited by the IRS for 87 consecutive weeks as an excuse for the Government to notify all my clients that I was investigated. Of course, that did not help my practice.
When I lost my election (by 221 votes), my opponent graciously allowed me to examine the file on the case. In it I found, letters addressed to me, an autopsy report, some notes, etc. The letters to me by Ms. Tannenbaum explained her double-cross and begged me to see her so that she “could blow the lid off the whole thing. Of course, when I received the letters, it was too late.
Lately, several writers, investigators, producers, and others have been hounding me for either interviews, statements, of live TV recording. I suspect some of it is related to current events in Washington, but it also is a curious unsolved case. The Boulder police has treated it occasionally as a cold case and have told to me. Mr. Kokish’s files rest in the archives of the State of Colorado, an mine await my demise. My hope is that someone doesn’t try to expedite that situation,
However recently, representatives from Netflix and some independents have requested video interviews about the case. After 4 decades, my memory is not what it had been, so I requested an opportunity to review the file, which has been afforded me by prior DA’s. However, when I requested recently when the requests started, one of which had a Connection to the Teller center, I requested another look at the file.
I was informed that this 50 year case was a current case and access was denied by DA Mike Daugherty on the basis that it was an ongoing investigation. This was after a front page story in the Boulder Camera about the case and that a TV documentary was being made Is there a separate coverup in the works, or is it a continuation. I would like to know. I hope many of you inquire of both the Camera and the DA.
Credit…The New York Times Archives
See the article in its original context from
March 10, 1971, Page 33Buy Reprints
View on timesmachine
TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.
About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.
DENVER, March 9—Mrs. Gloria Tannenbaum, the central figure in two unsolved Colorado mysteries, has ‘died in a state hospital for the insane, apparently a suicide.
Mrs. Tannenbaum, 39 years old, once regarded as a suspect in two poisoning death’s and in the disappearance of a. University of Colorado professor of Russian history, died Sunday at the Colorado State Hospital in Pueblo.
The hospital authorities confirmed today, after earlier denials, that a suicide note had been found in a pocket of Mrs. Tannenbaum’s dress.
Although an autopsy report Will not be available until Thursday, the cause of death was believed to have been cyanide, the poison that killed two of Mrs. Tannenbaum’s neighbors in Denver in 1969.
The woman, who once claimed to be a general doing intelligence work and bragged of her friendships in influential places, gave some of her possessions to fellow patients and wrote farewell letters to friends and family before she died.
In her suicide, note and a letter to her lawyer, John Kokish of Denver, Mrs. Tannenbaum again protested her innocence in the disappearance of Dr. Thomas Riha, 40, and the deaths of Gustav F. Ingwersen, 78, and Mrs. Barbara Egbert, 51.
The letter to Mr. Kokish said, “It doesn’t matter really, but will tell you this. I didn’t do Tom or Gus or Barb in. I went nuts with hurt, over losing them.”
Dr. Riha, who lived near the university campus in Boulder, disappeared March 14, 1969, and Mrs. Tannenbaum was subsequently charged in both Boulder and Denver in four separate felonies involving the disposal of his property.
As a result of one of those charges, that she had forged Dr: Riha’s name to a $300 check, Mrs. Tannenbaum was found by a Boulder District Court jury to be legally insane and was ordered confined.
In the following months, the police in the Denver‐Boulder area made a wide search for his body. They looked into abandoned mountain mine shafts and along isolated roads, and dug up the basement of an East Denver home once oc cupied by Mrs. Tannenbaum. But the missing professor has never been found,
In the poisoning deaths, no evidence was developed that could support charges against Mrs. Tannenbaum.
Mr. Kokish said here today that a grand jury should be asked to investigate how Mrs. Tannenbaum obtained the poison that killed her. He said that ‘the grand jury should also investigate complaints made to him in letters from Mrs. Tannenbaum that she had been mistreated and persecuted by the hospital staff.
Mr. Kokish said that his client was apparently looked upon at Pueblo “as a kind of the witch of the ward.”
He quoted her final letter to him as saying, “Everything that has made me feel good about myself has been taken away. Life is very cheap.”

OUR GOVERNMENT IN ACTION

This is an excerpt from my Memoirs of a Drug Warrior, which I have been writing for several years.  Since no one is kicking down my doors to print the thing, I have decided to publish some experts.  I don’t know how this will work, but I believe much of the information and history I have experienced in the War on Drugs needs to be exposed and brought to light.  I hope to be around long enough to tie all this together into something cohesive.  But, until then, suffer or ignore.

The following is from newspapers about the Kerry Committee Hearings:

WASHINGTON — A pilot told a Senate hearing Wednesday that his firm contracted with the State Department to fly clothing to Nicaragua’s Contras in 1986 at the same time he was operating as an undercover drug smuggler for two federal agencies.

Michael Palmer, appearing under heavy guard, said that before he started working for the government in his extraordinary dual role, he had illegitimately smuggled $40 million worth of marijuana into the United States from South America over an eight-year period.

Yesterday, convicted marijuana smuggler Michael Paul Vogel told the Senate panel that in 1979 or 1980 he and a Cuban associate met with then-Panamanian leader, Brig. Gen. Omar Torrijos, and Noriega, then head of Panama’s military intelligence, to discuss smuggling drugs from an island off Panama to the United States.

Vogel said that during 14 years of drug trafficking, he made numerous payoffs to government and law enforcement officials in Colombia, Mexico, the United States and elsewhere.

But Vogel said the two Panamanian leaders were “extremely greedy,” and wanted $100,000 per trip, so Vogel and the Cuban rejected the deal.  (LA Times April 07, 1988)

For several years, after my audit, I had little income.  I survived, but barely.  I had to close down my office after all my equipment was seized.  The only thing after 87 weeks of tax audit and interviewing my clients did was alienate my clientele, wreck my business, cause clinical depression and assess a penalty of $7000, 80% of which consisted of penalties and interest.  I didn’t keep adequate enough records for the IRS regarding mileage.  Even though the dumbest simpleton could look at my calendar and see what cities I drove to for court, since I didn’t’ write beginning and ending odometer readings, the mileage wasn’t allowed I could appeal, but I had to pay the assessment before doing so.  Essentially, I was screwed.  I was shunned and avoided by colleagues with every nut case trying to get something on me for the reward.  I learned the hard way about the realities of law and lawyers, which was vastly different from the views I had until then.  The idea of a profession, promoting the greater good had died, replaced by billable hours, business building and profit.

However, during this time strange things kept happening.  I ran into strangers who told me interesting facts.  Reports would turn up mysteriously in my mailbox and I started to be inundated with information, some good and some false, forcing me to analyze and investigate.  I started to get referrals from strange sources, including law enforcement who were concerned with corruption and misdeeds.  I soon found myself head of a group consisting of criminals, citizens, police and others concerned with the integrity of police and government.  The main focus was on the Central Intelligence Agency and its various factions.  I was about to enter the looking glass, and unlike contemporaries, without the aid of LSD.

One such client was a young aviator from Detroit whom I will refer to as the Zoo-Keeper.  The reason for this moniker is that I met him at the zoo and he strip searched me in the restroom for a mike or recorder.  After that, we walked around the zoo, talking about his problems, situation and some solutions.

About that time, I was subject to collection actions by the IRS.  Anytime I would get out f the red, I would have funds seized by the Government.  During this time, I was served a subpoena to appear before a grand jury in Detroit.  It concerned the Zoo-Keeper.  I took the position that it was invalid because it was a privileged communication between attorney and client.  The Government disagreed.  I took the position that I did not practice in Michigan.  They said it didn’t matter.  Their claim was that under Michigan law, they could enquire about the nature of the employment and whether I was his lawyer.

They finally served me with a subpoena.  I didn’t show up.  An irate US Attorney called and threatened me with contempt for not showing up.  The following is a dramatization of the conversation with the US Attorney in Michigan.

“Mr. Blewitt.  Why didn’t you appear in Court yesterday?  Your ignoring the subpoena could have        serious consequences for you.”

“I know that.”

“Why weren’t you here?”

“I had no way of getting there.”

“We reimburse you when you arrive in Detroit.  Just put it on your credit card and give us the receipts and we will issue a check for your expenses and some per diem.”

“I don’t have a credit card.”

“Oh, we will send you the money.”

A week later, a check and subpoena arrived, delivered by a marshall.  I didn’t appear on that date and had another conversation with the US Attorney.

“Mr. Blewitt.  Why didn’t you appear this time?”

“I had no way to get to the airport.”

“Mr Blewitt, you are treading on thin ice here.  We will advance expenses next week for travel, food and lodging.  You had better show up.”

The check arrived the next week, along with another subpoena.  I deposited the check in my account which was the subject of a seizure action.  The Government, as I predicted, gobbled up the check and I missed another flight.

The prosecutor must have been pretty mad because, next thing I knew, a US Marshall arrived at my door to escort me to their office in Denver.  When I got to the holding cell, I was told to call the prosecutor in Detroit.

“What’s your excuse this time?  It better be good or you will have an escort from the Marshall’s office to Detroit, and it won’t be by commercial airline.”

I couldn’t go because you people seized the deposit of the check and I had no money.  I wish you would make up your minds.  First you give me a check and then you attack my account and take it away.  I think you are trying to deliberately drive me crazy or to suicide.”

I said the magic words.  I had just read a bulletin from the IRS for agents to closely watch for possible suicides, which woud be bad publicity.  Knowing this, I thought I would give them something to think about.

In any event, the Marshall talked to the prosecutor who then talked to me.  I then talked to the Marshall, etc., untill a resolution was provided.  I was to be provided cash for the ride to the airport, from the airport to Detroit, then a cab from the airport to the hotel, the hotel, from the hotel to the courthouse and then the return to Boulder.  Since I was arrested, I demanded that I have my attorney present with me in Detroit.  I also wheedled some expense money from them.  It was all in cash.  The marshall’s office booked the flight, which was first class due to the last minute reservations.  I got round trip for both my lawyer and myself.  Two days later, we were on the way to Detroit, which was to change my assumptions from Riha and Tannenbaum being the causes of my problems, to concluding that it was because of knowledge of Government drug sales that I was receiving all this publicity and harassment

TO BE CONTINUED

The unworkable ideas of business in the public sector

Dennis L. Blewitt, Esq., J. D.

Once I was proud to be a lawyer.  I was a member of an old and honorable profession that had many Blewitts on the roles as Bishop of Lincoln, Chancellor of England and Judiciar to Henry I.  The name appeared as a signatory of the Magna Carta, as Lord Mayor of London, Sheriff of London. and on the rolls of Lincolns Inn.  I was steeped in the tradition of ten centuries law tradition.  Unfortunately, the practice of law was nothing like what I assumed from family history.  I wasn’t surrounded by noble knights, scholars, clergy and others concerned with the welfare of the citizenry or their rights.  When I first started practicing, law was a calling.  I believed that my primary obligation was to help others, then help society and maintain the dignity of the law.  Money was secondary.  Over the years, I have witnessed a drastic change where most, not all lawyers, are motivated by greed, avarice and exercise of power, without social conscious.

Many who started with me were similarly motivated.  Most of us took our oaths seriously and were genuinely concerned with the welfare of our clients. We also believed that we had an obligation to make things better.  I met with prosecutors at least on a weekly basis concerning cases.  There was discussion and mediation between positions, with a true belief that all parties should be concerned with policy and justice.  Image was subordinate to perception.  Punishment was an end in itself, but just one of the possible outcome. Case processing may have been efficient, but justice was highly inefficient.  Like English barristers, prosecutors used to serve a stint in the DA’s office and venture into private practice, knowing that they couldn’t be arbitrary and dogmatic and be able to establish or maintain a practice after the left the prosecutor’s post.  The sides didn’t agree generally, but accommodations were made.  That was what lawyers were trained to do.  Prosecutors would then educate the officers or investigators, who would quite often complain, bitch and moan or otherwise display their ignorance or bigotry, but it did them very little good.  Justice didn’t take a back seat to image.

Things radically changed in the 70’s.  The politicians discovered that they could sell protection to the electorate by trading in fear, ignorance, and bigotry, fueled by a propaganda machine which would have been the envy of Goebbels.  Excuses concocted by the press and officials is a really drastic paradigm shift.  Justice is no longer equated with fairness.  Law was no longer about advocacy, but protection of superstitious beliefs, curtailment of popular power by the zealot fundamentalist paranoids.  In my book I addressed these issues in more detail, but my health and lack of funding make it somewhat unlikely that I will finish either of life opus’s.  So, I will try to break things down, not for lawyers, but for people.  I will try to explain the attack on the social contract by a collective of individuals who believe that each one is unique and doesn’t need a society or civilization to exists.  As Nietzsche postulated, “God is Dead.”  The new god is business and efficiency.  Society and Government must be restructured along business principles, all of which are incompatible with a Court System and separation of powers.  /Executives should rule and others in a political should be support staff for the executives.  Management by Objectives is the Prime directive.  Have an objective and let nothing stand in the way of accomplishing it.  Get with it or die!

With the push to promote privatization, government was slandered and an ignorant citizenry was taught that government was bad and efficient business principles could save us from harm (code for minorities) The Constitution became an impediment to the business interests and had to be destroyed.  Every major event involving publicity was used to destroy another part of the Constitution.  Complete disaster occurred with sentencing “reform.”  All the factors that defendants could argue to mitigate their situations were abolished.  Policy decisions were made by a herd of prosecutors under the age of 30’s based upon publicity value to policy.  Justice had to take a back seat.  Consequently, a ten ford increase in prisoners.  Fear was marketed to the people applying Madison Avenue public relations technique.  Although the criminals in the Nixon administration had law degrees, they were not practicing lawyers.  Many worked in the area of Public relations

The ignorance was also inculcated into legal education.  Many law trained crime warriors don’t see anything wrong with abolishing habeas corpus, renditions, torture, and committing war crimes in general.  A corrupt system employed lawyers that would write opinion letters condoning war crimes which allowed the administrations to do essentially anything that the executive branch desired, all without any repercussions.  A Nixon administration lawyer Ehrlichman recently confessed that the “Drug War” was contrived to harass leftists, blacks and anti-war activists.  In a state of perpetual war, we now operate under a system of Martial Law.  Like the ignorant masses of Germany after WWII, were taught that Germany was sold out and not allowed to win, many in the US complain that we were not allowed to win in Viet Nam.  We gradually became accustomed to a war mentality in which victory was the only objective.  The result is a police state with a public too shell shocked or fearful that there is no opposition.

So as our roads deteriorate, bridges crumble, rivers overflow, assets of the People confiscated from the People for privatization, and at war with the world, we blithely cheer our own destruction, rushing like lemmings to the sea, to be murdered by our self-created police state.  Roosevelt pegged it when he said, “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”  Now with only fear left, we have nothing.

We are told that the only thing that matters is business and trade.  Bullshit.  We are told that social contract must be destroyed in the name of trade.  Bullshit.  We are told that there must be free trade like the old days.  Bullshit.  We are told that we must be efficient.  Bullshit.  We are told that Government should be run like a business.  Bullshit.  The asses that are espousing this Bullshit know absolutely nothing about history.  There never was free trade.  The Lords franchised mills, markets, shops, etc.  The Guilds organized to keep out non trained workers.  Leagues formed to control competition.  Even the most stupid peasant in medieval times knew that the function of his master’s castle was to protect him from others.  Governments were formed for protection and advancement of the citizenry, or at least the rulers, not corporate interests.

The people, dumbed down to intellect of Neanderthals believe the bullshit.  It is time to exit the caves and start thinking in terms of societies, not corporate police or fascist states.  Business principals don’t work when you have collective decision making.  Corporations don’t have courts to decide proper or improper conduct.  Free governments don’t have dictators to make everything run effectively.  It is time for Government of the People, by the People and for the People, and to put corporations in line.  If not, uncharter them or ban the corrupt officers and directors from holding positions which can harm society or people.  It is either that, or eventually cease to exist.

 Fifty Years as a Drug Warrior

Dennis L. Blewitt, J. D.    (Spring, 2014)

            I got drafted for the drug war 50 years ago.  Most warriors in most armies can retire after 3 or 3 decades, but those of us in the guerilla movement don’t have that luxury.  I will comment on common issues, policies and activities in the drug war and try to put them in historical perspective.  I will try to be factual, when convenient, but remember, this is commentary and my perspective only.  My hope is that the modern drug war freedom fighter can be more effective and better serve as a result of this.  I will write from point of view of 50 years of NLG participation and activity.  I welcome feedback, criticism and hate mail.  I view the day a total loss if I don’t piss off at least one person.  But it does no good if it doesn’t result in action.  So, enjoy.

            I first was introduced to the NLG in the 60’s through its “Fair Play for Cuba” activities centered on the activities of Bay of Pigs.  The lawyer for them was Harry Nier, veteran of the Army McCarthy hearings..  The guild activities concerning Cuba ceased with the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  His alleged assassin was publicly connected with Fair Play, which was later discredited as a false flag.   However, there were new playgrounds in which to play.  I chose the Civil Rights movement.  Getting stung with cattle prods and beaten by cops seemed like a good way to meet people.  As outside agitators, we all ran the risk of having weed planted on us as a roust and to discredit the movement.  Weed wasn’t recognized as a societal threat then and was not illegal per se.  The offense was tax evasion, so one could say that I started out as a tax lawyer.  Intelligence divissions of the police soon learned that planting marijuana was good press and could justify an occasional swing by the billie club.

            By the mid 60’s, the draft was breathing down the necks of my cohorts and it seemed like fertile ground for an activist.  This is where encountered “Red Squads.”  The anti-Communist spies started looking at draft protesters and civil rights activists.These people would infiltrate and report back to the FBI’s cointel program or to local police.  One favorite trick of the squad was to plant marijuana on marchers.  It was an fun and was totally effective in destroying the legitimacy of a movement.  So, one could say that the great value of marijuana prohibition was to disturb the public and discredit activists by branding them as drug crazed lunatics.  This soon became associated with long hair, draft resistance, and protest.  Protesters started wearing masks in defense to avoid being identified.

            However, associating marijuana with hippies, war protesters, civil rights activists and the like backfired.  The emerging police state relied upon the propaganda espressed by “Reefer Madness” and other bad press.  This fear mongering was only effective with conservatives, WWII veterend, bikers, unions and other conservative or patriotic groups.  However, the yound knew better.  Soldiers were returning from Viet Nam, totally immersed in cannabis knowledge, learned from their officers and CIA agents among them.  They were in a good position to compare the effects of weed to that of napalm, mines and agent orange, the more accepted toys of their masters.  The weed kept them from “fragging” their officers and was actually relied upon as a safety device by the commanders.  It could also be used for barter at the brothels and trinkets.         

            When I started my law practice in Boulder, I thought I was ready.  Most people would have thought I was on acid, but it wasn’t around then.  I went with a tax firm and started doing tax cases, possessing marijuana without paying $100 per oz. tax.   I did marijuana cases and my clientele were mostly hippies and draft resisters. I had no idea where it would lead, but it has been a real adventure, exposing me to Black Tunas, Fuchs, the Company, CIA, Mafia and lots of other groups and interesting people.  I had clients who smuggled for Ruby, supplying Castro and Batista involved in the drug and gun trade, smugglers working for intelligence agencies and assorted clients fed to the fodder mill of “justice” to divert attention to the real issues and dangers.  The whole area is political.

            Consequently, I view the drug war totally in a political context along the lines of Weber and C. Wright Mills, not in a partisan sense.  It is a war against the people and an instrument of oppression.  It is the subject of much propaganda and very little knowledge.  The drug war and the media induced propaganda has been the implement of destruction to the Constitution.  It has encouraged, funded and established a police state, turning our country into an oligarchy, albeit not as crude as Russia’s.  Government inspired or induced fear dictates our policy making us the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world.  It has been used to destroy cohesiveness between the people and turn everyone into an enemy, justifying turning the police into an occupation army.  Unlike Europe, we do not have evidence based policy.  Ours is propaganda based policy.  This is what I will address my future articles.  I will try not to be provincial, but since I grew up in a small town rural environment and went to college 40 miles away.  I attended a public school that had grades 7 through 12 in the same building.  I practice in Boulder Colorado and will refer to that city occasionally because it is all I know.  I ask your indulgence.

                        #                      #                      #                      #                      #

dlb

 Fifty Years as a Drug Warrior

Dennis L. Blewitt, J. D.    (Spring, 2014)

            I got drafted for the drug war 50 years ago.  Most warriors in most armies can retire after 3 or 3 decades, but those of us in the guerilla movement don’t have that luxury.  I will comment on common issues, policies and activities in the drug war and try to put them in historical perspective.  I will try to be factual, when convenient, but remember, this is commentary and my perspective only.  My hope is that the modern drug war freedom fighter can be more effective and better serve as a result of this.  I will write from point of view of 50 years of NLG participation and activity.  I welcome feedback, criticism and hate mail.  I view the day a total loss if I don’t piss off at least one person.  But it does no good if it doesn’t result in action.  So, enjoy.

            I first was introduced to the NLG in the 60’s through its “Fair Play for Cuba” activities centered on the activities of Bay of Pigs.  The lawyer for them was Harry Nier, veteran of the Army McCarthy hearings..  The guild activities concerning Cuba ceased with the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  His alleged assassin was publicly connected with Fair Play, which was later discredited as a false flag.   However, there were new playgrounds in which to play.  I chose the Civil Rights movement.  Getting stung with cattle prods and beaten by cops seemed like a good way to meet people.  As outside agitators, we all ran the risk of having weed planted on us as a roust and to discredit the movement.  Weed wasn’t recognized as a societal threat then and was not illegal per se.  The offense was tax evasion, so one could say that I started out as a tax lawyer.  Intelligence divissions of the police soon learned that planting marijuana was good press and could justify an occasional swing by the billie club.

            By the mid 60’s, the draft was breathing down the necks of my cohorts and it seemed like fertile ground for an activist.  This is where encountered “Red Squads.”  The anti-Communist spies started looking at draft protesters and civil rights activists.These people would infiltrate and report back to the FBI’s cointel program or to local police.  One favorite trick of the squad was to plant marijuana on marchers.  It was an fun and was totally effective in destroying the legitimacy of a movement.  So, one could say that the great value of marijuana prohibition was to disturb the public and discredit activists by branding them as drug crazed lunatics.  This soon became associated with long hair, draft resistance, and protest.  Protesters started wearing masks in defense to avoid being identified.

            However, associating marijuana with hippies, war protesters, civil rights activists and the like backfired.  The emerging police state relied upon the propaganda espressed by “Reefer Madness” and other bad press.  This fear mongering was only effective with conservatives, WWII veterend, bikers, unions and other conservative or patriotic groups.  However, the yound knew better.  Soldiers were returning from Viet Nam, totally immersed in cannabis knowledge, learned from their officers and CIA agents among them.  They were in a good position to compare the effects of weed to that of napalm, mines and agent orange, the more accepted toys of their masters.  The weed kept them from “fragging” their officers and was actually relied upon as a safety device by the commanders.  It could also be used for barter at the brothels and trinkets.         

            When I started my law practice in Boulder, I thought I was ready.  Most people would have thought I was on acid, but it wasn’t around then.  I went with a tax firm and started doing tax cases, possessing marijuana without paying $100 per oz. tax.   I did marijuana cases and my clientele were mostly hippies and draft resisters. I had no idea where it would lead, but it has been a real adventure, exposing me to Black Tunas, Fuchs, the Company, CIA, Mafia and lots of other groups and interesting people.  I had clients who smuggled for Ruby, supplying Castro and Batista involved in the drug and gun trade, smugglers working for intelligence agencies and assorted clients fed to the fodder mill of “justice” to divert attention to the real issues and dangers.  The whole area is political.

            Consequently, I view the drug war totally in a political context along the lines of Weber and C. Wright Mills, not in a partisan sense.  It is a war against the people and an instrument of oppression.  It is the subject of much propaganda and very little knowledge.  The drug war and the media induced propaganda has been the implement of destruction to the Constitution.  It has encouraged, funded and established a police state, turning our country into an oligarchy, albeit not as crude as Russia’s.  Government inspired or induced fear dictates our policy making us the country with the highest incarceration rate in the world.  It has been used to destroy cohesiveness between the people and turn everyone into an enemy, justifying turning the police into an occupation army.  Unlike Europe, we do not have evidence based policy.  Ours is propaganda based policy.  This is what I will address my future articles.  I will try not to be provincial, but since I grew up in a small town rural environment and went to college 40 miles away.  I attended a public school that had grades 7 through 12 in the same building.  I practice in Boulder Colorado and will refer to that city occasionally because it is all I know.  I ask your indulgence.

                        #                      #                      #                      #                      #

dlb

BRING IN THE CLOWNS (GREEDY, SELFISH, IGNORANT, AND CLUELESS POLITICIANS) HOW IT HAPPENED

Springtime—Roundup, Time for Making Steers
Police and Press Castrate Lawyer-Politicians
Dennis L. Blewitt, Esq


I have been a criminal defense lawyer for over 4 decades and am proud of that fact. I have battled my whole career to defend the Constitution and the rights of the citizenry. I am also a teacher and proud of that fact. What I am not proud of is the way in which some lawyers abandon principles and integrity to gain public office, or have absolute no courage to stand up for what’s right, going along with the herd, rather than leading it and still claiming to be a lawyer.
When I grew up, we had cattle. We had no bulls, just steers. Steers were docile and intended for slaughter. Bulls were for breeding and maintaining the species and were anything but docile. Every spring, cattle were rounded up and males were made steers by a simple procedure called castration. When I was young, I played with the steers. They were gentle and some followed me like a puppy. My father would admonish me not to play with the food, but I generally ignored him. However, I didn’t ignore his warnings about getting into a bull pen. That was dangerous, because bulls could not be led around like puppies and led to the slaughter.
I conjured up these images after reading about the utter lack of principles in the US Senate when voting down lawyer Debo Adegbile, the nominee for the appointment of the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. The attorney worked on a case involving activist Abu-Jamal, a long time prisoner who recently moved from death row. Jamal was convicted of shooting and killing a police officer in Philadelphia. The case was controversial and an example of either police and prosecutorial incompetence or worse. Amnesty International, an organization dedicated to maintain fairness in judicial proceedings said the following,
Mumia Abu-Jamal was sentenced to death for the murder of a police officer in 1982 after a trial that failed to meet international standards. In this report Amnesty International conducts a full analysis of the trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal including the background and atmosphere prevailing in the city of Philadelphia in 1982 and the possible political influences that may have prevented him from receiving an impartial and fair hearing.
However, the actors don’t seem to care. Jamal became a symbol. The police took any challenge as a direct affront to their conspiratorial brotherhood. The shameless opposition to the nomination put the widow of the murdered cop on display exhibiting ignorant prejudice to the max. Police claimed that to vote for the attorney who was involved in the case was bad. It was a slap in the face to all the jack-booted thugs in uniform. The press didn’t mention that the case of Abu-Jamal came after the repression of ex Philadelphia police commissioner turned mayor, Frank Rizzo.
Ironically, the candidate wasn’t the trial lawyer in the case. He just worked on it. But no matter. He didn’t participate in the lynching of the Black Panther reporter. Therefore, he is undeserving of any appointment to the “Justice Department.” Does that sound crazy to anyone other than me? Apparently not. I haven’t seen outrage from the citizenry, who also seems to be cowed by the cops. Maybe, to be head of the Civil Rights Division, a lawyer has to be anti-civil-rights like Jerris Leonard, administrator of the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency, famed for finding (some say planting) evidence and took a dive in the Grand Jury investigation of District Attorney of Chicago Hanrahan and the Black Panthers so that the FBI could keep Cointel Pro shenanigans a secret.
What infuriates me is that most of these Senators were trained as lawyers, steeped in the traditions of our Anglo-American court system. Law trained members are almost 60% of the body. One Senator claimed that Adegbile’s nomination was a “thumb in the eye of our law enforcement officers” (Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) Well, what about the insult to those of us who work hard for the Constitution and human rights, actively resisting the police state. We remember the antics of the Philadelphia police under mayor Rizzo. We all have seen u-tube examples of police running roughshod over the citizens. The only group standing in the way of the police state is lawyers. And the Senate thinks they can slap us in the face without any consequences. They believe that they have been so successful selling fear that the public hates lawyers and still worships corrupt cops. Bullshit!!
Lawyers have a noble tradition of helping the poor, downtrodden and oppressed. Some of our predecessors held an English king at sword point in 1215, 800 years ago, and had him sign a civil rights guaranteeing, among other things, that the king would appoint judges “learned in the law” Clause 45 said that the King should only appoint as “justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs” those who knew the law and would keep it well. So what was so special about someone trained in the law 800years ago? Why is that relevant now? Tradition!
Lawyers have taken oaths since Charlemagne. There were serious penalties for violating the oaths, including ex-communication. The custom came to the United States from England before the revolution. Lawyers owed an obligation to the law and to their clients. They don’t owe any obligation to whiney cops, especially those sanctioned by international watchdog organizations. It is not that the Senators are ignorant. They just don’t feel that the oaths taken mean anything, especially to them. Oaths are a means to power and can be discarded when power is attained. At least, that is what they appear to believe.
Now I can hear the cattle lowing, ignorant of the slaughter that awaits them. Had they kept the anatomical part that made them a steer, they probably would not be in a herd on the way to the market. They would be free on the range, not worrying about the next meal (or election). The real tragedy is that these congressional steers are too damned stupid to tell that they are cowards. They pay lip service to the Constitution. What a laugh. The only lip service they know is performed on the perturbing part above the subject matter of castration attached to the rich and powerful that promise them they won’t soil them. Well, I got to figure that the above arrangement is the only way they can get sperm since they are incapable of producing any.
Curiously, I noticed a change public attitude during the Reagan years. Until then, I was never challenged as a defense attorney. Most people knew that defense attorneys were an integral part of the American way of government. We were admired for taking unpopular stands against the powerful. We stood up for the little guy and we were respected. We worked with police and prosecutors and were not considered an enemy. That is, until the non-practicing lawyers of the Nixon Administration. These people had law degrees, but weren’t practicing lawyers. Lawyer jokes ran rampant and stereotyping was the rule of the day.
Ignorance prevailed and very few cared about the Constitution or other theoretical niceties. The public was fearful and the power structure nurtured that fear to feeding frenzy. There was a push toward law and order. The government sold protection just like the mafia. The powerful lied, cheated and swindled, robbing the people of their money, future and pride. The wolves gathered and the citizens were the prey. Scapegoating was the norm. Zero tolerance became the mantra of the fearful and ignorant. Zero tolerance precludes any debate and allows those with power to exercise it without restraint. The checks and balances were gone. Business minds and management by objective took over. If you weren’t with them, you were against them. The social and political world became dichotomized, with the rich setting the narrative. They controlled the propaganda machine and was able to terrorize the people into giving up; rights for protection.
Those who knew better were curiously absent. They were dead, exhausted or indifferent. A machine of corruption was constructed where science, logic, justice and fairness were all abolished. The press said that the people wanted protection and sold the people on that idea. The rulers manufactured enemies and threats to keep the people afraid. The powerful then took away any tools of resistance by wrecking the economy and limiting discretionary income. The average citizen was nervous and the middle class was decimated. This was done by the gutless politicians and officials who hadn’t the courage or intelligence to resist.
When I go to Severance Colorado to an oyster fry, I will think of all the people in Washington whose testicles wouldn’t even make a decent meal. The rich and powerful have castrated any who might be a threat and the public has been dumb-downed to not understand. They are concerned about non-issues involving different life-styles rather than concerned about whether or not we will even have a life. They would rather judge than think.
I lament the profession of which I used to be a proud member. I can no longer be proud. I can no longer believe that our Country is the best or its people the finest. I have watched something noble and admirable destroyed by bad public relations and divisiveness. I believe that if we lawyers, as a group, were to speak out, there would be some change. But, we can’t blame congress for everything. Lawyers are trained to lead and to give advice.
We have abdicated that role to the uneducated police and simple minded reporter who will say anything to sell copy. We can no longer stand up for our clients, how can we stand for anything else. We should collectively file grievances against the Senators who were trained as lawyers and took an oath to support the constitution and the law. It is about time that we made officials accountable and responsible to the citizenry, not the power elite and their minions. We should shun those that ignore the cannons of their profession for the sake of largess. We should embarrass and humiliate those in Government who are too embarrassed to do right. These people all deserve to be made into food and fed to the people upon whom they prey. I suggest that the citizens call the conduct of their law licensed Senators to the local bar qualifications authority. Let the Senators know that we want real civil rights in the Justice Department, not the police version the same. Do something. Show outrage. Show you care.
As I eat in Severance, I hope you ingest and like this food for thought.

REMEMBERANCES

Of Defense Attorneys And Dinosaurs


Dennis L. Blewitt, JD
There was a time when defense attorneys were considered an integral part of the criminal justice system. They were viewed as a resource for the Courts, Distract Attorneys, and people. We were essential to a fair system of justice and protection of the poor, downtrodden, disabled, feeble, infirmed and stupid. Now, defense attorneys are viewed as an impediment to the orderly administration of “justice,” or the assembly line processing of cases through the system.
We were never asked inane questions like “how in good conscious can you represent a guilty person?” or “how can you live with yourself?” We became the butt of lawyer jokes and were equated with the segment of the public which we represent. Nothing was mentioned of the corrupt business executive that looted their companies, stockholders and public, robbed pension plans, and destroyed little old ladies. The Watergate characters were lawyers, as was Nixon. Therefore, all lawyers must be bad. Today, this has carried over and is combined with the military training of police. Defense attorneys challenge the assertions of police that a murder by a police officer is justified by self-defense. In one case, a man reported his pickup as stolen when his son took it to buy cigarettes. No more problems. The 18 year old is dead. Similarly, knife wielding man shot 60 times by police was called into question by lawyers.
District Attorneys whitewash the military response of the police to youthfulness, mental illness and misbehavior as justifiable because the officer was in fear of his life or was following protocols or training. DA’s don’t question the necessity of death, defense attorneys do. So it is better to rid the Courts of defense attorneys than to de-militarize the police. Since we generally oppose this form of martial law, we have to be silenced. That is much easier to do than a decade or two ago. We no longer are view as one problem solving resource. We are viewed as obstructionist, impeding police action, and not affording the police the proper amount of respect.
There used to be three separate and equal branches of government which acted as checks and balances of power. That no longer is the case. It used to be that legislators and attorneys were exempt from service of process while in court or in transit. No longer. We are now third wheels. Judges, prosecutors, police and public defenders, all state paid, are not searched and humiliated by armed guards and metal detectors while going to work. Scumbag defense attorneys are. The courts were once our place of employment, where we could talk to clerks, court recorders an judges regarding court business. Now the presence of an attorney in the court chambers is arrested for obstructing the business of the court and trespass like a common criminal. Of course, this adds to the poor image of lawyers perceived by the public, when they see lawyers treated as criminals by the court personnel. We no longer meet with prosecutors regarding cases to discuss a case. Instead, people are herded into a hallway, see a deputy district attorney in a broom closet sized room, where we are given an ultimatum by an under 30 prosecutor who has determined a fair resolution based upon the written reports of the officer. In such a case a defense attorney is superfluous. Having to perform a charade of fairness takes time which could be more effectively used to fill the corporate programs with the mass of defendants in the building.
In England, the lawyers went on strike because of injustices in the system. In the U.S., lawyers go along and do not make waves in their scramble to make money. I guess that’s justice.

Why Marijuana Legalization is Difficult.

It is essential to the Police shakedown, part of the radical racket.

D l blewitt,JD

                It has been over four decades since I took my first graduate course in criminology.  Not much has changed since then, except that facts accepted by social scientists have been denied by people in power who find the science inconvenient.  The biggest change is the increase the in ignorance of the general population, followed by the corruption of the government.  No one but a village idiot could have studied the drug situation and still believed in the gateway drug theory as expounded by BNDD director, Henry J. Anslinger, propagandist extraordinary.  He maintained that because most heroin addicts stated they smoked marijuana first, it was a gateway drug to addiction.  He persisted in his fictitious version of reefer madness into the sixties, pushing his toxic bull shit to the newly formed Drug Enforcement Agency, who for political rather than logical or factual reasons bought it lock, stock and barrel.  Restated, the public is conned into believing that heroin can be controlled by arresting pot offenders.

                The theory goes something like this, and I recall from four decades ago.  95% of all heroin addicts stated that they tried marijuana before becoming addicted.  Therefore, marijuana is the gateway drug to heroin addiction, which causes your daughters to enter prostitution to support their habit.   One could also state that 100% of all heroin addicts breathed before taking heroin.  Or, one could say that every biker gang member started out on bicycles.  The logic is about the same.  There is no assertion of causality, but it plays well to the PTA, Lions, Legionnaires, MADD, and other cheerleaders for the lies and fear-mongering of the power structure to subjugate the people and keep them policed. 

                The gateway theory has been cited by “experts” who obviously failed logic but passed rhetoric and are intellectually challenged.  Additionally, the demonization of the gateway product is in full force, blaming marijuana on auto accidents, pregnancies, sterility, stupidity, and all other kinds of ailments.  It has become a key ingredient in the Theocrats’ attack on science.  Image and message trumps science.  Superstition, prejudice, and ignorance trumps science.  Science is demonic, ungodly, heathen, and bad for the country (at least the 1 per-centers).  Over the decades, theory and study of crime causality has taken a back seat to punitive measures and mass incarceration.  The country has become statistically challenged.

                When I first studied criminology many decades ago, the concerns were organized crime, price fixing by the big electrical companies of hydroelectric generators, extortion, robbery, murder, predatory behavior of the con-artists and the like.  I spent hours poring over the records of the McClellan and Kefauver committees. Causality of crime was studied, not paranoid dreamt up scenarios from someone’s imagination.  Greedy corporate executives had slightly higher status than garbage collectors and lawyers.  There was a movement to stop predatory practices of the corporations and have truth in lending for consumers.  The new Uniform Commercial Code was being adapted and there was change in the winds.  The people were not fair game for the rich and powerful.  The common person had some recourse and were protected by the law against exploitation.  Black people had a trial before they were lynched and some even got to vote and lived to tell about it.  There was a sense of community and cohesion.  Taverns and bars were looked at as community centers where consensus and opinion were created, not dens of evil.  The corporations answered this cohesion with well-funded diversions focusing union corruption and patriotism.

                Then came the civil unrest of the Nixon years and things changed.  The saying “give them an inch and they will take a mile” was the favorite saying of the radical whites in the country.  Civil rights were here, but the blacks weren’t satisfied.  They wanted more than rights.  They wanted equality.  When it didn’t come fast enough, the blacks got restless and rioted in some cities.  Of course, the disoriented nervous whites got anxious and even scared.  The Viet Nam war gearing up, which was not too popular.  The rulers were fearful of a public they could not control or manipulate.  TV showed Buddhist’s monks engaging in self-immolation and Black Panthers brandishing assault rifles and bandoliers at the Reagan Capital in Sacramento.  Reagan walked around with a load in his pants that day.  Law and order became the mantra of the fearful and confused., This was code for “stop the blacks.”  And both races knew it.  So, after a spectacular convention in Chicago which decimated the Democrats, the Republicans elected Richard Nixon.

                The marijuana war intensified rather than gearing down.  The country became preoccupied with drugs, causing the US to have the highest incarceration rate in the world.  Although crime rates listed by the FBI remained somewhat static, incarcerations increased.  Law enforcement was becoming the “rogue elephant.” When Denver passed an ordinance making enforcement of Marijuana law the lowest of police priorities, marijuana arrests almost doubled the next year.  This isn’t the result of a few rogue elephants, it is a stampede, the result of institutionalized behavior.  The same phenomenon has been reported in New York.  President Obama promised drug law reform, yet the justice department is loudly protesting and waging fear campaigns on the marijuana users.  To the uninitiated, this seems confusing. 

                Why all the enforcement activity?  Doesn’t the government realize how much money in taxes the marijuana industry generates?  Why are they killing the goose laying the golden egg?  The Denver Post’s John Ingold reported $2.2 million in sales tax for marijuana tax revenue in November 2010.  This was only for part of the year.  The Attorney General of Colorado responded that “…the new revenue stream doesn’t change his opinion of dispensaries.”  (Said through a spokesman)   The revenue stream from medicinal marijuana comes from fees charged dispensaries, caregivers and patients and sales tax on the substance sold in dispensaries.  The tax revenues go mainly to cities and the state to fund their projects.  The fees go to the Department of Revenue.  So, with that kind of revenue, “why are the cops whining”, ask the naive and innocent?

                I ask in return, “Didn’t you see the videos of the Occupy Wall Street protests in New York, Las Angeles, Oakland, and Berkeley?  If not go look at them.  Look at the police.  Look at their equipment.  They are all dressed in expensive riot gear.”  That shit costs money.  Compare this with the dress of the Chicago Police at the 1968 Democratic convention.  The difference in equipment is due to the drug war. The money comes from the drug war budget, which is bloated by confiscations and forfeitures.  With legalization, the cops are left out, and the gravy train grinds to a halt.  Instead, the proceeds are going to such things as roads, schools, health care, assistance to the poor and disabled, and infrastructure, things that used to be a priority before the advent of the police state.  Additionally, the corruption J. Edgar Hoover referred to when he forbade FBI agents to engage in drug enforcement, would cease.  Cops would afford fewer donuts, planes, and condominiums.

                For years, I believed that the police were ignorant dunderheads.  They followed orders like good martinets and did not question things.  They were true believers, not confused by facts or evidence.  Concepts such as fairness, justice, due process, and the Constitution were for bleeding hearts.  They would not let ideology or justice interfere with their duty.  These simple people believed they were just doing their jobs.  They would blindly follow because they were brainwashed.  Then, I conquered my prejudice and ignorance.  Cops actually were not stupid.  Most detectives had attended college.  How then,  could they then ignore all the reports and recommendations of experts since the Eisenhower report in the ‘50’s?  Some were unaware of the existence of reports. Some didn’t care because they believed in what they were doing.  And, some were just sadistic bastards, drunk with power fueled by their bigotry and ignorance.  And some were in it for the money.         So, I started examining the curriculum of the courses offered by police.  I didn’t expect them to have the same education as I for many reasons.  However, most colleges or universities teach the same facts, discuss the same research and theories.  Then, a friend in the political science department provided me with some government publications regarding grants and research proposals.  None dealt with causality.  They dealt with mechanics of arrest, trial, and confinement.  Some dealt with procedures that streamlined the assembly line to incarcerate more persons efficiently.  Management by objective ruled and political policies were geared toward punishment and revenge.  Police action was calculated to make the public feel good or secure, not to be effective.  The image was everything.  There was always enough fear from the police to insure generous budgets.  This worked like the mafia protection racket.  Theoretical criminology was ignored.  It was inconvenient and contradicted what the politicians wanted.  The criminal justice area was almost void of any intellectual content.  If the students aren’t taught anything, they can’t be expected to act intelligently.  They also don’t rock the boat and agitate for change.  Causality didn’t matter, only public perception of protection counted.   Image was all.

                There is also a more insidious side to the drug war policy.   Several would be cops joined vice and narcotics to get rich.  The opportunity for bribes and extra money is almost boundless.  Additionally, oversight is sloppy or negligible.  I was involved in several cases where the evidence confiscated from the defendants ended back into the marketplace, placed there by police or Government.  Courts and prosecutors turned a blind eye to the evidence.  If that weren’t enough, the police state became self-funding through fines and forfeitures, perpetuating corruption on a massive scale.  Crime enforcement has become the new aphrodisiac for the perverts and bullies.  Several abuse cases have been reported such as the broom handle rape in New York, the killing of arrestees, and other atrocities that may or may not have made the papers.  Instead of constraints, sanctions and oversight, things are concealed or covered up.  Judges, coming from the police establishment conspire with the officers and prosecutors to encourage perjury, sadism, and other misconduct, imbued with a belief that the ends justify the means.  They identify with the imaginary problems of the police in following the rules, which might result in a less than desired result.  Judges don’t view their purpose as protecting the citizenry.  They believe they should expedite convictions to help fill the jails and reward their police constituency.  The Constitution is no longer the law of the land, but an impediment to efficient enforcement of assembly line justice, where any judge can rationalize ignoring the citizens for the sake of exigency.  Get the guilty has replaced the idea of protecting the innocent.  We have a post-legal society.

                Presently, close to 75 % of drug arrests are for marijuana1.  It is an easily identifiable commodity with a distinct smell, look, and fan base.  As long as the police and public buy in to the gateway fiction, the police can justify their budgets by claiming they are preventing heroin addiction by enforcing the draconian marijuana laws.  They are protecting the public with the crusade against marijuana.  Not so.  They are perpetuating a bureaucracy.  They are protecting their status and budgets. 

                Drug enforcement policy has nothing to do with protecting the public, preventing harm to the youth, and other bullshit reasons given for the drug war by the cynical enforcement cabal.  Instead, it has everything to do with money.  Look how the additional funding for police enforcement is utilized.  It is used for surveillance and riot equipment and other means of repression,  not to solve crime.  Marijuana arrests justify the drug budget.  Heroin and cocaine are hard to detect and therefore the case numbers won’t justify the budget.  But as long as we have a fearful population and lying, corrupt police and officials, we will have marijuana prohibition to perpetuate the fiction of good policing.  The officials know better.  They aren’t stupid (no matter how hard they try to look that way).  They want to control us in order to be able to exploit us.  That is why they now are proposing domestic surveillance drones.  Fear equates to greater budgets and more toys.

                It is time for the citizenry to wake up and smell the weeds.  They are in the police agencies and greedy politicians, fed by greedy corporate predators.  They are perpetuating a fearful society.  They are destroying the societal fabric with suspicion and jealousy and no end is in sight.  They are relying on ignorance and lack of interest.  They count on a docile population, just as a King of France and his wife Marie once did.  It is time for the people to be heard.  It is time for dialogue and discussion.  It is time for action.  You can’t fool all the people all the time!  (Hopefully).  We have to make officials and politicians know that we want safe roads, bridges, water, hospitals, sanitation, and the rest of the infrastructure.  Show them we value education over-incarceration.  We want to lead the world in freedom, not in repression and incarceration.  We were a democratic republic, not a totalitarian police state.  Show them we no longer tremble in fear of your imaginary bogey man.  It is time they fear us–the people, not the press and public relations consultants.  Start writing your council, legislature, commissioner, governor, congress, senate, and president.  Let them hear people rather than money.  If they don’t listen, shun them.  Embarrass them, berate them, and expose their greed and ignorance to others.  Stand up and be counted.  Destroy a prison, build a bridge.  Be courageous.  Be free.

1 Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 88 percent (758,593 Americans) was charged with possession only. The remaining 99,815 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes virtually all cultivation offenses. Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2008 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, 2008),

Incarceration in the United States is one of the main forms of punishment and/or rehabilitation for the commission of felony and other offenses. The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. At year-end 2009 it was 743 adults incarcerated per 100,000 population

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2010 — about .7% of adults in the U.S. resident population. [5] Additionally, 4,933,667 adults at year-end 2009 were on probation or on parole.[4] In total, 7,225,800 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2009 — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.

In addition, there were 86,927 juveniles in juvenile detention in 2007

Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national “war on drugs.” The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.

Incarceration in America, Human Rights Watch (April 2003)

%d bloggers like this: