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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
HOW 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.
Judge in Lyons
A NAIVE IDEALIST LAWYER’S INTRODUCTION TO LAW AND SOCIETY
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.
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.”
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 following is the product of police and other police-industrial influence policy makers to increase the revenue of the radical racket
At the risk of totally boring my audience by beating the Green Tongue topic to death, I feel this insatiable urge to write further on the subject. Mainly, because I keep having these flashes and hallucinations which cannot be due to any chemical inhaled or ingested. Nor can it be due to anoxia, because, unlike some people I am aware of where I have my head. I was told that by my clients that dropping acid would cause hallucinations and visions, both pleasant and unpleasant. However, I have the feeling that the rest of the world is tripping, and not thinking, driven by addiction. The addiction is not to drugs, but to money. My latest experience demonstrates the convergence between the Green tongue phenomenon and law enforcement’s decade’s long addiction to drug money. It became clear on a Friday, when I drove to rural Colorado, for a hearing involving green tongue. It was a
long drive and gave me time for reflection. It also caused me to contemplate what has caused my apparent disconnect with the establishment and their thinking as well as contemplating my navel.
My client was charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. There seems to be a lot of that going around lately. It is strange that there were extraordinarily little prosecutions in the days of psychedelic hippy vans and stoners driving around. He was arrested, searched, booked, told to pee in a bottle. Now he faces fines and imprisonment for a questionable criminal offense. The defendant, after passing a parked highway patrolman staking out a rural post office watching for seat-belt violations and looking for other revenue generating violations, was arrested for not wearing a seat belt. He was pulled over and ticketed for defective vehicle and not having his seat belt fastened, both twenty-five-dollar fines. While stopped, he was also cited for driving under the influence of marijuana, taken to jail, forced to publicly pee in a bottle, have his old car impounded and wait until his mother could drive him home. All because the officer smelled a strong odor of raw marijuana and a faint odor of burnt marijuana coming from the car. Although the patrolman followed the defendant for full mile during which the officer observed absolutely no erratic driving, he was convinced that the defendant drove his vehicle while under the influence of marijuana. How can he be so sure? Well, that’s easy. When he smelled the raw marijuana, he asked the driver if he had been smoking any. The driver said no. The patrolman told the driver to stick out his tongue. And, as the officer testified in court, the tongue was green, which meant, according to the classes he took from the state patrol, meant that the person had smoked marijuana (or medicated himself, using the new terminology) within the last two hours. The officer’s testimony was followed at the hearing by a drug recognition expert who, as an expert, arrogantly testified under oath that since the defendant’s tongue was green, he was driving under the influence of marijuana. Just to make sure, the district attorney presented the toxicology laboratory director from the Colorado Department of public health, laboratory services division. Although only a urine test was given to defendant, and it is commonly agreed by forensic chemists in civilized jurisdictions that urine tests measure nothing but the metabolite and not the active ingredient of marijuana, the state of Colorado expert testified that she could still state beyond a reasonable doubt and with scientific certainty that the defendant drove while under the influence of marijuana. Say what? Yes, because officers never lie, they had a drug recognition course, and because she reviewed the reports of the officer and the drug recognition expert who both written in their reports that the defendant had a
She testified that she was a forensic chemist but admitted only having two chemistry courses, both at a lower division level. She also admitted that she was not a chemistry major at New Mexico state. She then said she was confused because she was a double major in chemistry and biology. When that didn’t sell, she said she had exaggerated at other hearings because her degree was in biochemistry. She also stated that she was an instructor of drug policy at the University of Colorado, which she admitted under cross-examination may have been exaggerated because she was a graduate student instructor, who dropped out of a Ph.D. program in pharmacy. (With 2 chemistry courses?) She was a director of a lab, not because of her great chemical or forensic ability, but because she had a
Master of Public Administration.
Years ago, a client of mine whose escapades were described by a Federal Court of Appeals Judge as a “foray by the defendant to fleece the lambs of the land,” counseled me to never get into a game where they’re using a stacked deck. Since he was a card mechanic, I knew that he knew to what he was referring, and I have always tried to follow his sage advice. And, because he wised me up quite a bit in the ways of the world, I assumed that I would never see a stacked deck, or at least be in a game where one was used. I. I was wrong. Not only were the court hearings the functional equivalent of a deck stacked from top to bottom, but they were dealing from the bottom. All players were in on the rigging of the game except the defendant and me.
A sociologist at the University of Colorado tracked down the origin of the Green tongue, establishing that it was what lawyers refer to as “Voodoo science.” Needless to say, that the myth didn’t come from any people with field experience or first-hand experience with the subject matter. I suppose that is because stoners can’t write or hang out with up-tight police type, and, as I have often observed, can’t put a coherent sentence together. The source identified was a training manual for drug recognition experts, developed and presented by the International Association of Chiefs of police. Police can enroll in courses and become drug recognition experts, taught by police, with materials written by police, paid for by police and participation restricted to police. No one not affiliated with law enforcement can attend any of these classes and become a drug recognition expert. Therefore, there aren’t any outside controls or feedback on the curriculum. The University sociologist traced the rumor to a doctor Barry Logan, in an NHTSB publication known as “Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheet.”
Logan is associated with Frederic Rieders
Family Renaissance Foundation of
Pennsylvania. Logan immediately contacted to the real writer, a Chuck Hayes. He then wrote a self-serving warning that they should be incredibly careful about stating that these are listed under “possible indicators.” They also amended the instructor manual to read, “Point out that there are no known studies that confirm Marijuana causing a green coating on the tongue.” I bet. The statement wasn’t taken out, it was just modified with a CYA statement to ward off future assbites. It was done in such a way that a Drug Recognition Expert could still make the statement and qualify it if caught on cross examination, by stating that it was not based upon research, but reported by many class attendees.
The reason this type of situation occurs, is because the system is corrupt and based upon a false hallucinogenic premise that businesses good and government as bad. Business can be efficient because businesses have no courts to deal with and experience little oversight. Businesspeople and government officials feel stifled by a court and when the courts don’t agree with their plans, they claim that the courts are staffed by activist judges. It was these same activist judges that let the corporations such as Blackwater kill people, torture people, and steal. The corporations operated with impunity because there was no oversight by the courts. The same reasoning allows the confiscation of cars boat and houses that are used in the drug trade. Small jurisdictions are having difficulties maintaining all the court ordered programs for DUI, drugs, shoplifting, domestic violence, etc. These people believe that offenders should pay the costs of law enforcement. This dynamic is most obvious in the drunk driving laws, where the thresholds for the offense are lowered every time the legislature meets. As one former Department of Revenue director once stated, the system has pretty much contained the problem drinkers and generally have removed them from the streets. Now, we are starting to arrest and process middle-class people because we have run out of subjects. The former director was so indoctrinated by his employer that he failed to see that arresting and processing middle-class people is what is necessary to keep the programs running. Poor people can’t pay for all of the therapy treatment and programs. They cost the system money. For private enterprise to thrive in replacing government is to deal with people with money. Government has gone from a service model to a business model, with traffic courts as a great profit center. So, although it’s been established in many courts that the forensic chemist witness has exaggerated or even committed perjury, she was still allowed to testify resulting in conviction or jail. Right outside the door of the courtroom in which officials testified, was a poster that asked a
question, “can you afford $10,000?” If not the sign states, don’t get arrested for drunk driving.
Years ago, the government did a sting operation caller “operation swordfish.”. Agents, posing as bankers, talked drug traffickers into giving them a large amount of cash for processing or, as the government likes to refer to as money laundering. My client was recorded on an audiotape counting out $1.3 million in cash to a government agent at a meeting in a local Hotel. The agent took the money out into the hall, and after walking 2 doors away, took an elevator to the lobby. The agent walked through the lobby and out into the parking lot and turned the money over to another agent who was monitoring the transaction in the car. You could hear the agent counting on that tape, but when she got to $800,000, she stopped. On cross examination, when asked what happened to the $500,000, the agent replied that, “counselor, your client was stoned and couldn’t count.” Now, I have known that many stoners in my career, but none of them could not count or account for a half million in cash, no matter how stoned. Just to make sure that the agent didn’t lie and lost the money between the room and the car, I filed a motion to dismantle the hotel elevator to assure myself that the half million dollars was not lost there. Of course, that motion was denied.
One would seem, in light of the recent election in which some Larimer County judges were not reelect to office because of overzealous prosecution, (in that case hiding favorable evidence and possibly committing perjury) that prosecutors would be more careful. However, they are not. Prosecutors are rarely sanctioned or prosecuted. If it weren’t for the fact that the two Larimer County judges cost the county at least $8 million they would probably still be sitting on the bench today. The fact of the matter is that the trial judge presiding at the trial allowed them to present groundless evidence and withhold evidence from the defense was not doing the job as an independent third branch of government. Prosecutors knew they could cut corners, because all prosecutors know that the Judiciary tends to be pro-prosecution, because of the fixation on efficiency and all the law-and-order cop shows on TV. All a person has to do is look at the questionnaires that are given lawyers and public about judges to see what the priority is. They ask about demeanor and how well the judge can handle his docket. Fairness is not mentioned. The Larimer judges were comfortable because the lawyers in Larimer County were afraid to cross the judges for fear of retaliation against clients when they appeared in front of them. The judges probably wouldn’t do anything to the lawyers, but they might be tempted to punish the lawyer’s client.
So, it would appear that people appearing in the County Court, unlike Mr.
McMasters will continue to get framed and must pay out thousands of dollars because their cases neither are highly publicized or blatantly egregious. As the chemist said in court, 90% of the drug recognition cases resulted in the experts recognizing the drug. Now, if there is a 90% chance that a defendant took the drug, the overall probability is of the taking and impairing is 81%. If the probability of another element of the offense again is 90%, total probability of guilt is 72%. That doesn’t look like very good odds to me, nor does it look like proof beyond reasonable doubt particularly if there were 2 more variables calculated at 90%. The chances of guilt then go down to 50%. The only way my poor client has a chance, is because Law Enforcement Against Prohibition expressed an interest in participating in the case as well as a San Francisco group referred to as Safer Access Now. Even with those organizations entering as amicus, the defendant stands a pretty fair chance of conviction. Not because he is guilty, but because it is safe to think that the monster that has been created called the Justice system protects us. Someday, the people might get interested in what is happening to their fellow citizens without the occurrence of a false imprisonment for many years and having to pay several millions of dollars to the citizen. It is also possible that judges again try for fairness rather than placating the press. If a defense attorney did what the Prosecutor and Judge did in the green tongue case, he would be disbarred, but not prosecutors of police. Why? Because of simulacra. The real world can’t live up to the fantasy one created by the media in which all prosecutors are saints, arrestees are always guilty, policy doesn’t have to be debated and officials obey their oaths of office. Until then, image will take precedence over justice
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.
I plan to expand some of my comments and am also putting them in my book. I need feedback. I know some of my stuff is lengthy and some glossed over for the sake of brevity. If further info or commentary is in order, please ask. I was going to put this article in two parts, but decided not to. Let me know.
THEY JUST DON’T GET IT!!!
OR DO THEY THINK WE ARE JUST THAT STUPID???
Dennis L. Blewitt, commentator
I am often amused by articles in the newspaper and the politician’s prattle that is printed. I am particularly amused by the reporting on privatizing a US highway between Boulder and Broomfield, and the propaganda campaign launched by law enforcement. The politicos and Government employees are absolutely shameless. In the same sentence they claim that there is not enough money for needed projects, but that the police need more money to police the problem of marijuana legalization.
First there were articles about the State of Colorado selling a road to a consortium because we couldn’t afford to improve or maintain it. Aside from the question of how it was built in the first place, there is a whole issue of breach of trust, bad faith and misreading the public. The public would like our infrastructure renewed, renovated, and improved. We don’t want to pay taxes to feather the nests of contractors and bankers because the politicians are too stupid, corrupt, or incompetent to think we matter. Thousands of motorists put up with delays, construction hazards, obstacles, and inconvenience just so some corporations can get fat. Not only that, but they have also insisted on guaranteed revenue and other concessions which the taxpayers were not made privy to and can block any new road construction which could compete with them. We gave them a monopoly. However, the governments along the route need not worry. The same newspaper that reported on the highway had an editorial complaining how the police are having a ticket writing heyday to extort money out of drivers, already pissed off enough. But that’s not all.
The next article was concerning the police and other law enforcement need money out of the tax revenues of marijuana to cover the costs of more enforcement. Say what? Increased enforcement for marijuana? What are these people smoking? Marijuana was just decriminalized. Why do we need more police enforcement of non-existent marijuana enforcement? Their cynicism and outrageous assertions are beyond words. Well, it seems that the drug war, invented by the Nixonites and now one of the costliest areas of government has started to believe its own propaganda or police stupidity has increased. For years, the drug war has increased to the point that it is the main concern of the courts and law enforcement. We lock up more people than any other country. We have a police state. We have rampant spread of disease. We have bridges collapsing on traffic. We have needles industrial accidents. We have pollution that affects our health. Schools are in disrepair. We have needy people in our citizenry. I could go on, but you can see my point. Money isn’t going where it is needed. What money comes into government is often misspent and used to aggrandize politicians, not applied to the common good. The US has the largest prison population in the world, with about 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation. Over the last 3 decades, incarcerations for drug offenders have gone from about 40,000 to 400,000. A Pew study says it costs the U.S. an average of $30,000 a year to incarcerate an inmate, but the nation spends only an average $11,665 per public school student. The future of our nations and our children should be our priority. But it is not. Neither are roads, bridges, healthcare, housing, feeding, and clothing the citizenry. The drug war costs 15 billion dollars a year and over one trillion dollars over four decades. The pentagon costs 400 billion dollars, but much of that is spent on the drug war. Additionally, the militarization of police, the diversion of mission of both the Coast Guard to capture drug tax revenues.
and Military to expand police power has not been calculated. In this figure. This has led to more diversion of public money to profitable drug war privatized companies.
Most of the public are sick and tired of the drug war. They could care less about marijuana, etc. They do care about their schools and infrastructure. The police actually acted like the medicinal marijuana movement was about medical marijuana. However, their real attitudes showed when they disregarded departmental regulations on patient privacy to gain access to medical marijuana registrations. Now, when the public has said “enough,” they are busily manufacturing new crimes to keep their budgets, letting the really needy projects suck hind tit, all in the name of protecting the public.
For those of you who were not around or won’t learn history, the interstate highway system was funded without privatized funds in the fifties during the Eisenhower years. The wealthy paid a fair share of taxes without whining and people were employed, fed, housed, and clothed by and large. Health care was affordable. Middle class working families could buy a house and send their children to college with only one family member having to work. Most students were given aid by the government because it was deemed to be in the national interest. People like me were paid to go to school so we could keep up with the Russians. Student debt was unheard of. These were not “entitlements,” but necessities for a thriving nation.
Marijuana wasn’t illegal as such. It was illegal to not pay the $100 per ounce tax on weed. Technically, I started out as a tax attorney. Until the reign of Richard Nixon, Federal crimes had to be based on an enumerated power in the Constitution. That changed with Nixon’s drug war. Circumventing the pesky Constitution, he passed a series of drug bills. He believed that the public wanted law and order and he gave it to them, applying the same to all but Nixon, Mitchell, and their close friends. There has been a relentless attack on the Constitution since then.
So, I ask, how long are we going to stand for this bullshit. When are we going to say enough to corporate greed? When are we going to tell the police that we don’t want a police state and their job is to serve us and I don’t mean with traffic tickets? Write you politicians and tell them we are tired of being considered stupid. We do not government that serves only the rich and powerful. We want better schools, food, housing bridges, and other things necessary to the benefit of the citizens.
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.
IDEOLOGICAL DEVIDE WILL KILL US
IS GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE OR THE CORPORATIONS?
Over the universe, been conditioned thinking from the red and blue, black or White, right or wrong, and others. The companies imposed on us by educators. The press is divided, with the baseball about Pres. Trump. Bull shit, it is about an ideological divide in our population. Not about politics, power. Rich have it, won’t give it up. They have controlled the media propaganda on an unconscionable level. They want us to believe that government is a competitive event between 2 teams. Both teams play the same game, and that is a contest as a Champion. However, the game is rigged.
In his self-praising, lie-filled press conferences and through his actions, Donald Trump continues to treat an ongoing pandemic that has already killed over 10,000 Americans as just another opportunity for weaponizing government into a tool for his own self-aggrandizement. His refusals to acknowledge the pandemic as it spread are responsible for a large number of those deaths and will be responsible for more. He remains absolutely indifferent to who lives or dies, instead obsessing over whether he gets proper praise, credit, and glory. Case in point: his tweet this morning.
“Will be immediately sending 100 Ventilators to Colorado at the request of Senator Gardner!” Trump tweeted. What he’s not saying: His shuddering and incompetent administration previously commandeered 500 ventilators that Colorado had ordered for itself. Now he’ll be giving them only one-fifth of those machines.
There are numerous problems with Trump’s brag here. Trump is giving credit for his decision to send ventilators to up-for-reelection Republican Sen. Cory Gardner—but Trump had previously ignored the requests of the state’s Democratic governor, instead now clearly suggesting that his decision was based on the politics of the person asking. Trump has done this before, last year crediting Sen. Thom Tillis for his decision to declare a national disaster in North Carolina after Hurricane Dorian rather than any of the other state officials begging for the same. Tillis was in a tough reelection battle, as Gardner is now; Trump’s use of national disasters to reward patrons and damage enemies, regardless of what lives he endangers, is apace with his half-authoritarian, half-stupidity-based willingness to use all the rest of government as similar slush fund.
But bragging about relinquishing a mere hundred ventilators to Colorado after his government seized five times that number out from under Colorado—that is, if possible, lower.
Last week, CNN reported that Colorado had ordered 500 of the devices, but the manufacturer canceled their order—along with “many” other orders—when Federal Emergency Management Agency officials moved in to buy the same equipment themselves. “States aren’t just competing for ventilators with other states, but also with FEMA,” said CNN’s quoted “congressional source.”
On Friday, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis confirmed the canceled order. “Either work with us, or don’t do anything at all,” he told CNN host Don Lemon. “But this middle ground where they’re buying stuff out from under us, and not telling us what we’re going to get, that’s really challenging to manage our hospital surge and the safety of our health care workers in that kind of environment.”
We still do not know just what, to put it bluntly, the hell the Trump administration is doing in its bizarre procurement efforts. The administration did not make any major attempts to procure emergency medical supplies until just weeks ago, despite the critical urgency and known shortages. After national outrage swelled to levels that could no longer be ignored, Trump’s team (led, in some as-of-yet-inexplicable manner, by Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner) sought to “solve” the problem by reaching down into supply chains to seize materials being procured by states and hospitals themselves—doing nothing to solve the problem of short supply, but helping to further raise prices and spark bidding wars.
For Trump to brag, in the middle of that half-fiasco, half-malevolent clusterf–k, that he is graciously providing a fraction of the supplies his government prevented a state from getting in the first place, is … typical. For Trump, it is typical. We also cannot simply take him at his word that those 100 ventilators will arrive in Colorado; he has lied repeatedly over near-identical things, and will continue to do so.
The 10,000 American deaths and rising have had no impact on him. The depression-level scale of unemployment, as botched testing and slow response led to a need for nationwide stay-at-home orders, have had no impact on him. His metrics remain the same: Which things make him look good, on his television set? Which make him look bad?
He envisions himself as hero-emperor of a crisis of his own making. He will reward his allies, and punish his enemies. Whether 400 missing ventilators will result in deaths does not enter his mind. The supposed United States president hasn’t shown any concern over whether Americans lived or died from the first days of the crisis onward. He pretended it was not happening until he could no longer pretend. He insisted it would be small and trivial until it was large and catastrophic. He says now it will be short, when it is absolutely assured to be long.
And he tweets, and holds the most bizarre press conferences the White House has ever seen in any era, demanding praise and making threats towards reporters, lawmakers, and elected officials who decline to provide it. To help his political allies, he rubbed Colorado of 500 ventilators, and provided 100 back to us, crediting ally Cory Gardner. That is like the robber offering 30 percent of his theft to the owners as long as they thank the accomplices.
Many are so caught up in the him, and the rules, that they don’t see what the game is, it’s about, its object or the winners and losers. What we are seeing, it is an abandonment of all social mores, ethics and discipline. 4 decades, we have been fighting amongst ourselves. As we find, the division between Rich and poor increases geometrically. As we fight, the Rich Goetz richer, better able to exploit and destroy their estimates. Many tools are you place this, but the main tool is the one of divisiveness. Divided on a single issue to the point where nothing else, been thought a skewed form of history, and have lost our capacity to think or analyze. Since show a different point.
We are told the enemy is communism, which is defined as anything that the Rich do not like and that interferes with their capacity to screw the peasantry. Hospitals, where developed in the 12th century during the crusades. It was considered their duty of a church’s order to establish hospitals throughout Europe in the Christian Empire. That didn’t charge to use these hospitals and they were set up to make profits. They were set up to help people and to heal people and were used extensively during the bubonic plague. Nobody dared profit for fairer of retribution, ostracism or worse. At that time, there was a sense of polity or public, which has been taken from us. Now, the Rich tell us that treating people who are ill or injured is an enterprise in which somebody should profit and without any profits, and socialistic or communistic. The Young thinking peasantry doesn’t understand that to call such treatment Communist is the same as calling the whole Roman Catholic Church communistic, which is insane. The Communist church, the ruling Elite in power, however, with certain balances so that they could stay in power.
(Next, the lessons Rottenburg.)
POWER FROM THE PEOPLE
“What’s different now?” or, “How can you represent someone when you know their Guilty?” I’m asked these questions all the time. The thing that frosts me the most is how these ignorant questions are asked and why questions are asked when people obviously don’t want a reply, but, instead want verification of their bigotry by arguing or other confrontational conduct. They act soooo self-righteous and superior. They would never represent someone who is guilty. No, not them! They follow orders and try not to think about what they learned in high school civics.
So, I will try to answer the questions for myself. I can see how people can’t appreciate the change that has occurred over the last half century. People rarely can. With email, computer messaging, phones, etc., pressing the flesh in live interaction is rare. Thus, interpersonal relations cease being interpersonal. People don’t experience social context much. Eye movement and body language are missed. The quick sound byte seems to suffice and people can then go on with their lives and activities. We have become a literal society. Power to define now dictates the interpretation. That is by the writing without nuance. The reader, then, has not comparative basis for sarcasm, jest, threat, illusion, delusion or any other interpretation. Communication is now a message. No interpretation or debate is allowed by the sender when cloaked in power, isolated and without feedback except for that which confirms the action.
A recent example. Defendant, a lawful medical marijuana dispensary owner allegedly transferred ½ oz. of medical marijuana to an undercover police agent. There were no local police officers involved in the matter sworn in at the jurisdiction in which the defendant was operating. His business is in the suburbs and the instigators of the sting were from Denver. There weren’t local law enforcement personnel there. The only jurisdictional contact was the arresting officer. What has changed? The old statute provides that this is a felony. The Constitutional amendment provided an exception for medical marijuana, causing an interpretive rift between cops and citizens. Prosecutors claim that a Constitutional amendment only provides a defense against the statutory charge. In their view, legislation trumps citizen initiative. Convenient interpretation. The Amendment sponsors intended to vest a Constitutional right, not a defense. That is why it was drafted as an amendment to a Constitution presented to Congress with a petition for Statehood. However, the prosecutor, police, ex-prosecutor-judge cabal has the power to interpret. Where did this power come from? It comes from fear, propaganda, and ignorance. As a result, the citizens must lose.
The citizenry then created Amendment 64 to the Colorado Constitution. This amendment essentially legalizes small amounts of marijuana. Having ½ oz. is no longer illegal. Additionally, there is a specific law governing the conduct of marijuana dispensaries, which the Denver police and Jefferson County prosecutors have, in their arrogance and sense of superiority, have chosen to ignore.
In dealing with this abuse of power, I reflect on the changes that have occurred during my stint as a lawyer to understand what has happened. First, there used to be some form of dialogue between counsel. This was based upon mutual respect. No longer. It is guerilla war based upon cultural values. Justice is for textbooks, the Court system is for the group in power to send messages to the ruled or powerless. It recruits the like-minded who get off in their ability to intimidate the dissident. Both attorneys were presumed to be considering the benefit of parties and of society. The prosecutor theoretically represented “The People,” when actually, the deputy prosecutor represents the political constituency of the boss and the bosses’ political ambitions. Secondly, there is no compromise. The prosecutors take the attitude that it is their way or the highway. Defendants and their attorneys are not worthy of any respect, especially the attorney, or they wouldn’t be associating with the riff-raff. The real decision-maker then is generally the arresting officer.
These persons take it as an affront if their conduct is not always rewarded by approval and take umbrage if any criticism is leveled. That is why police can tase citizens at will, shoot them , shoot their pets, or go hunting for trophy elk in a city such as they did in Boulder, Co recently without any fear of punishment or corrective action. In other words, the police believe their own propaganda about the dangers of writing parking tickets, pushing people around, etc. The rules existed for centuries to limit the power of rulers, not to just punish and destroy. Defense attorneys were once deemed to be necessary to the democratic process. Now they are viewed as an impediment to the protection of the people. The deck is stacked against a defendant and the rules changed to force an accused to plead guilty to something making it unnecessary for prosecutors to consider any consequences of their policy. The guilty plea sends the message, whatever that might be. It also vindicates the behavior of state agents. In the process, its casts the totalitarian as a champion of the people, meeting out vengeance disguised as “justice.”
In the present case of the dispensary owner, it is particularly aggrieveous since its history and its continuation clearly demonstrates that police believe they can ignore their supervisors, the courts, and the public. Denver voters previously expressed their desire that the Denver police make marijuana enforcement the lowest law enforcement priority. The arrests almost doubled the next year. So much for the will of the people. The voters of Colorado amended their constitution to provide for the compassionate medical use of marijuana. This led to a tangle of rules, regulations and political fights causing the investment of several hundreds of thousands of dollars by dispensary owners to operate within the law. That cut out the crusaders and believers and left primarily entrepreneurs looking for profits rather than those seeking for social change.
Again, the police establishment was petulant. They self-righteously believed they knew best and, they also didn’t want to give up revenue needed for drones, Tasers, armored personnel carriers and informers to society’s need to fund collapsing bridges, schools, health programs, exploding sewer lines, and leaky gas mains. After all, protecting us from the boogie man is much more important than preventing harm from the neglect of classical governmental operations. Who cares if a bridge collapses, a student can’t afford college, the poor have no food or health care? They don’t matter. The police retaliated and funded a propaganda drive creating new fears and demanding the right to protect us from hippy drivers who might have smoked a joint. This danger didn’t exist over the last 40 years of hippies and other stoners driving cars. Now it becomes a problem To bolster fear and make it almost impossible to contest, and to legitimizing assaulting the citizenry with needles, the police state invented the green tongue. The self-righteous self- certify experts with voodoo procedures that can’t be duplicated take the position that since they are the good guys with badges, they cannot tell a lie, even if several millions are at stake The fabrications are for our own good and is therefore justified.. There doesn’t seem to be any appreciation of the fact that the medical exemption to the marijuana laws was to give the control freaks a way out to save face. It is not about compassionate medical use, it is because the public is sick and tired of the drug war, particularly marijuana when the world seems to be going to hell in a hand basket.
So, because of the excesses of the bullies, and the deliberate failure to understand or perceive, the citizens of Colorado again amended their constitution to make any possession of marijuana legal in a small amount. Didn’t matter. When the dispensary offense occurred, even though not a crime now, it was at that time, and therefore the defendant should have to pay. And pay. And pay.
Three appearances have occurred with the prosecutor demanding a guilty plea to a felony count from a youth who has spent his inheritance and borrowed to start his new age business. At the first court appearance, a parent was there in another case, accused of a felony because some teenagers got into her stash smoked some of it. No quarter was given in that case either. If you have children, then you are responsible, no matter what. I believe that is why some species eat their young. If they have friends that are around your deadly weed, then you are even more responsible for conduct of others. It may not seem like such a big deal and it will probably wreck a family, but that is the price we have to pay in order to send these messages to the public.
Like German judges 75 years ago, who signed deportation orders for “sub-humans,” the judge sits there following the script written by the District Attorney’s association and keeps cases moving, not with the end of achieving a fair result, but with a guilty plea as a goal. Since the Court system says that an arrest warrant issued by a judge establishes probable cause that an offense has occurred and the defendant committed the offense, a motion to dismiss can’t be heard. The determination is up to the jury who will be instructed that they cannot judge the law, but can only determine the facts, which revolve around whether the defendant sold a small amount of weed to an undercover cop and he committed a felonious act by not requesting the purchaser to show a marijuana registration card.
After three appearances, the prosecutor is intransigent and too busy to address the interpretation of the law or its application. After seven years of education, she is unable to make a policy decision in any context. She can only follow orders. She informed me that others have to make that determination, but she viewed the case as clear-cut and a waste of time to contest. She doesn’t care if she loses the case as long as the message is sent.
The only next move was to set the case for trial, which, according to the prosecution made rules means that there will be no offers of anything other than the defendant pleading guilty. The only date available for the defense counsel was four days until the expiration of the defendant’s right to a speedy trial and the prosecutor objected because that would not allow her enough time to get ready. I can remember when judges would chastise prosecutors for such conduct because their offices typically have a myriad of lawyers to prosecute and a particular prosecutor should not have a personal stake in the prosecution. Instead, the trial judges make each side eliminate the most convenient date and the judge then set the case for a time when he was informed that the defense counsel would be out of the country.
So, what is the point of this diatribe, you may ask. The main point is that a criminal defendant has no power to levy taxes, confiscate property to pay for cases or any other legitimate means of raising funds for a defense. The shift of power in the Court system makes a mockery of the term “fair trial” or “justice.” I mean that whoever has the largest budget wins. It means that there need not be any consideration of consequences of oppression because the State actors are “just following the law.” Plus, with the old idea of Devine Right of Kings applied to parliamentary or republican forms of government, the State, then, has God on its side. Therefore, the other side must be the devil, in which case the conscience of the totalitarian advocates can be clear. They know what is best. The system gives them that knowledge by bestowing the title of “prosecutor.” Since we, as defense attorneys, are the devil, we are evil and without conscience. How can we defend these criminals? How can we defend the Constitution?
This situation will continue until enough citizens get concerned to demand change. That can only happen with involvement, not bitching. Citizens should contact the press, demand accountability from the prosecutors, demand to have procedures analyzed and discussed when a prosecutor clears a policeman of murder because he followed proper procedures. We can demand our accusatorial system be reinstituted instead of the inquisitor form it has been replaced by. We can demand that our officials be aware that not all people belong to country clubs. We can demand that the officials follow the will of the people by the amendments to the Constitution. We can demand integrity from people in power, not greedy ambition. We can demand that we stop the drug war expenditures to repair our roads, bridges, schools, health, education, and welfare systems and represent the people, not the police. We should tell all elected and appointed officials to reset priorities and to get real.