TIME TO STOP THE LIES Commentary by DL Blewitt, Esq., J.D.
My first criminal case involved lies told by the Denver police. They testified that they smelled marijuana smoke emanating from a third floor of an apartment house while walking down an alley. I told the judge that I wasn’t upset that the cops thought I was dumb enough to believe their absurd story when they lied, because I was a small town bumpkin, but if I were the judge, I would be pretty insulted that they would think the judge was dumb enough to believe their story. The judge took note that smoke rises and suppressed the illegal search of the police. He told officers that he resented their assumption that he would ratify such blatantly stupid testimony. He did not cite them for contempt or perjury though.
That’s how my career as a defense lawyer started. I believe that after all these years, I have a pretty good idea of the police sub-culture. I tutored young lawyers at one time. I remember an incident, after an officer’s testimony in a suppression hearing, when a young lawyer requested a brief recess. “What for,” asked the judge. “Well,” answered the lawyer, “the officer told the truth and I don’t know what to do next.”
The amused judge asked me if I wanted a moment to talk to the lawyer, during which I told him we won and the judge was going to rule in our favor and to keep quiet. That is what happened. I admit, I was mildly surprised, but things like that did happen, especially with older police officers- the ones who prided themselves with making it to retirement without ever drawing their guns and older judges. However, such candidness is rare. Most cops are more concerned with convictions than with the truth, particularly when both the primary and secondary reward systems are predicated on prevarication.
In another instance, a judge gave his court seal to a detective sergeant so that he would not have to be bothered reading affidavits and warrants. The norm was for the judiciary to support every cock and bull story concocted by the police. It was as though there was a contest among the cops to see who could tell the biggest whopper. This was a time of showing of patriotism. There were un-American anti-war protesters out there who had to be punished. Cops, sporting flags on their uniform sleeves to show their patriotism, became militarized, and freaked out over the presence of hippies. It was them or us. The stories became more and more ridiculous as the judges kept countenancing the culture of lying. People first believe, then they see. Judges, as former prosecutors, rarely interact with the citizenry. Their social circle is law enforcement related. And their belief system is the paranoid one of John Mitchel. The Hippies are coming, the hippies are coming became the greatest fear, more than the potential black revolution. They perceive and interpret as they were conditioned to, and they condition themselves identifying with good short hair Americans. That is their constituency. They bathe and cut their hair.
A good example of the permeation of the police sub-culture in the judiciary is recent exposure of the two judges in Ft. Collins, who, while prosecutors, framed an innocent man for murder. As a reward, they were given judgeships. When the `perjury and frame-up came to light and the county had to pay off millions of dollars, the citizens revolted and voted them both out of office. An historical moment. It is too bad that I takes $8,000,000 to open the public eye. That could put a lot of students through CSU without burdensome student loans.
On the opposite side of the coin, there is legislation, both Federal and State, that make it a felony for a person to lie to an officer of the law. The Federal law appears below
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001
§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
There is a similar law in most states. Additionally, the Government can classify documents and records under the cloak of national security, which generally means disclosure will be embarrassing to some agency or employee. Classifying information rarely has anything to do with national security Thus, we are continually deceived. One cannot run a free democratic nation that way. However, it does make it hard to criticize officials and public employees.
After watching recent videos taken in New York, Denver, Boston and Oakland, I have decided that it is time to dust off one of my old proposals for the regulation of officials and governments. The concept is simple. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Under the basis of equal protection or fairness, I drafted a state Constitutional amendment following section 1001. I calls for felony prosecution of any government employee to lie to a citizen. If he is a sworn employee, then his sentence is increased and he must forfeit his pension. A liar is not entitled to benefit by his lies. This is particularly true for elected officials. Imagine a politician trying to justify his inherent right to lie to the people during a campaign. Fantasize about forfeiture happy law enforcement officers having to worry about jeopardizing their own pensions. What about entrapment? Testimony about down drifting smoke might result in an pension forfeiture. Predatory cops could not man speed traps without jeopardizing their retirement. The “drop piece” that the police carry to plant on crime scenes when they murder someone would disappear. An epidemic of truth might break out.
Politicians would have to tell why they voted for or against things, or keep quiet, which, for a politician is a virtual impossibility. Newspapers would have to change their scandalous priorities because the mud-slinging would diminish. Science could no longer be denied. Green tongue disease would disappear.
There was a time when driver sobriety tests were recorded on video. The cop would testify. Then the jury would see the video. Inevitably, the video conflicted with the testimony. So, the cops and district attorneys, rather than risking the quota problems that occur with acquittals, abolished videos of suspected drunks and elected to batter the public with needles, trashing the 4th, 5th , and 6th amendments to the Constitution in the process. This was much more fun for the police and less embarrassing when their exaggerations were exposed on video.
A look at the footage from the various occupy encampments show why videos of suspected drunk drivers were abolished. It is much easier to get a conviction on prejudice than it is with reality. The system needs cannon fodder to support all those predatory privatized programs supported by the law-enforcement complex with which the executive and judicial branches are so enamored. Acquittals are bad for business. However, the oppressors still don’t yet get it. Lies are churned out wholesale the police and reinforced by police chiefs, mayors, and other city officials who believe we are stupid and can’t see and believe it is their sworn duty to perjury themselves to get criminals or other bad guys. IT IS TIME THEY FORFEITED PAY AND PENSIONS. If the oppressors want to serve the 1%, then let the 1% pay them and give them pensions. Then maybe they will appreciate the term “fat chance.” At least they might begin to see how corrupt the system is.
They can’t describe the occupy scene as a bunch or long haired radical hippies, smoking dope, dancing and fornicating on the lawns. Many of the participants are beyond Viagra. The only thing hard is the riot baton used on them. If the cops had any sense of humor, they would shoot laughing gas at the demonstrators and make them exhausted from laughter. Maybe the protesters should get some and shoot it back at the cops. The lies the police tell which is vomited by the press, is contradicted by the video record. Only the blind and ignorant can now believe the police or officials. Note the vet put into a coma by a teargas canister. When people tried to help him, they were bombarded with flash bang grenades.
Look at the numerous photographs of the people shot with rubber bullets. They look awful. Additionally, what kind of person would fire a weapon at their neighbors or fellow citizens. What were they not thinking. A psychological barrier has been breached in demonizing the people. The cops are out of control. The establishment rewards their brutality and dishonesty. Cops thrive on their deceit. To paraphrase the hawks of the Viet Nam days, “if we don’t stop them here and now, we will have to stop them at the doors of our wives bedrooms.” It is the modern version of the domino theory.
How could officials honestly justify shooting at fellow citizens, gassing them and beating the shit out of them? They could not claim that the non-violent demonstrators threw something at them without risking their future. They could not say that they showed up in riot gear to observe and not start a riot. They could not say that jobs trickle down like urine from a man’s member at the latrine. They have to perpetuate the myth or they could not extort money out of us for imaginary boogey men. They could not say that their toys were non-lethal. Governors could not cook crime statistics to support the private prison industry. Ankle monitors would have to be explained in terms of effectiveness rather than used as a foil to convince the public that something is being done in order to satisfy the MADD advocates.
Imagine what would happen if the Government had to justify its drug laws and its involvement in drug trafficking to support off budget clandestine activities. The oppressors would lose their toys. The 1% should support this. The amount collected from the liars’ forfeitures will greatly exceed the proposed tax increase on the super-rich.
Recently, the press has reported that police have planted drug evidence on people to make their arrest quotas. Police have given immunity to murders like Whitey Bolger so he could do their bidding. Police have assaulted citizens brutally as though they have a license. The CIA has controlled the drug trade to fund covert operations, some of which are against us. The government has effectively repealed the posse commitatis act by allowing guardsman to augment police forces nationwide and collect intelligence data on us. Police consistently lie. Politicians consistently lie. Officials consistently lie. Judges let them get away with it. IT IS TIME FOR THIS TO STOP. ENOUGH.
In France, the fed up people used the Guillotine when they weren’t fed. Worthless, stupid, unthinking heads were removed from the people who weren’t using them. I say to use the Constitution and the power of the people. Make our public servants serve us, not enslave us. The rulers have tried to take away our pensions, healthcare, homes, and freedom to pander to the rich and garner campaign funds. This modest change of forcing truth and, if lying, taking such funds would them at risk. The contributors could be charged as accessories and their property confiscated. The present mess could not have been created and maintained without the complicity of state and Federal workers, paid by us. Our government has become punitive and predatory. They have created an occupation force to keep us enslaved and docile. Tell them to stop. Make them tell us the situation honestly, not using propaganda, lies, misstatements or other deceptions. Don’t commit us to war to enrich the powerful and corporate America. Don’t let the oligarchs tell us that multimillion dollar “compensation” checks are for any other purpose than to buy influence of politicians and policy makers. Demand that the lies stop now. End the corruption. Stand up and be counted. Make them be truthful. Make them serve rather than enslave us. Circulate this among as many as you can and see if we can start something. Make this message go viral.
Who’s in charge? Bureaucratic war leaves us at the mercy of snake oil salesmen and spooks
According to Corporate Watch’s profile, Hill & Knowlton opened offices all around the world from the mid-1950s. Susan Trento, author of The Power House, a biography of Hill and Knowlton’s Robert Keith Gray, writes that they opened many overseas offices on the advice of then CIA director Allen W Dulles. Gray also used to brag about checking major decisions personally with CIA director William Casey, whom he considered a close personal friend. Hill and Knowlton’s overseas offices were perfect cover for the ever-expanding CIA. Unlike other cover jobs, being a public relations specialist did not require technical training for CIA officers. This, in its description. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. I believe we are witnessing an all-out bureaucratic civil war between intelligence gathering factions.
While editing my memoirs, and reflecting upon this year’s bizarre election, a speculation occurred to me regarding the FBI’s interference with the election and the democratic process. Now I admit my theory is somewhat far-fetched, but there is ample evidence to support it. Several assumptions regarding her postmodern society need to be made as does an understanding of the works of modern-day social and political theorists.
My first assumption is that the elected leaders of this country are not the real policymakers or power in our government. They reign over a government which functions by itself and operates cultures that, over the decades and centuries, define the particular department, bureau, or agency. Of course, elected officials have us some influence but only to the degree they are allowed by the culture of the institution or the leaders that make most of this of the decisions. What I am speculating here is that because of security clearances, culture of fear and other reasons, no outsider could fully control a particular agency or department.
One of my first clients was a woman named Gayla Tannenbaum. She was referred to me by a friend who practiced law in Chicago. That experience was to define my career and life since that fateful day.
The saga of Mrs. Tannenbaum and another of my clients named Professor Riha was in the news for over a year. Much has been written about the Riha affair. The affair exposed myriad intelligence activities and agents at the University of Colorado, including a story that the CU president was an agent of some sort. There were stories about infiltration of student groups by CIA operatives; there were stories about agent provocateurs; there were stories of death and destruction of student activist; and there were stories about massive conspiracies and gemstones.
Those of you that have known me over the last four decades realize how devastating this affair was, not only for me, but for the nation. Briefly, the following events occurred. Thomas Riha, a University of Colorado Political Science disappeared after marrying the niece of the Czech STB, (equivalent to Russian KGB). Many incidents were reported in the local papers. Mrs. Tannenbaum, some sort of operative either for ONI or some other military intelligence unit was accused of causing Riha’s disappearance. Police and prosecutors in two jurisdictions got involved and Mrs. Tannenbaum was prosecuted for related offenses in Denver and Boulder. She was declared insane in Boulder District Court and sent to the state hospital in Pueblo, Colorado.
David Wise of the Washington Post wrote about this in his book, Politics of Lying, that this scuttled the Huston plan to combine all intelligence agencies and brought down the Nixon Government. Several Senate and Congressional committees investigated this including the Pike and Church committees. After publishing several reports on abuses of citizens by the U. S. intelligence agencies, congress legislation saw to it that we would never find out as much as we did at that time about Government misconduct. Several other congressional investigations further chronicled governmental misconduct which was promptly ignored by the press or buried in the papers. We are facing a similar situation between the House and Senate intelligence committees, gridlocking any investigations.
The result was that the FBI-CIA war was left behind in the news in favor of Super bowl, Dancing with the Stars, other TV shows and trivia that sells news and advertising. However, the battle raged with the FBI losing with the loss of J. Edgar Hoover and various revelations by congressional committees and investigative reporters who lived long enough to report, unlike Gary Webb and Danny Casolaro who died of mysterious suicides.
With the Trump candidacy, the FBI saw their chance. The campaign made an issue over Mrs. Clintons emails while Secretary of State. She had used a private server which may not have been secure. Driven on by cheerleaders crying “lock her up,” the FBI dreamt up a way to capitalize on the issue and sabotage the CIA. The CIA was probably blackmailed into not interfering with the Clintons since, according to Terry Reed’s Compromised, the CIA ran an Iran Contra cocaine-weapons operation out of Mena Arkansas when Bill Clinton was Government. Leaks and slanderous allegations against President Clinton didn’t’ seem to weaken the CIA’s position. Nor did various investigations. The “Octopus” or “Enterprise” was making too much money from operations and proprietaries to be shut down. Essentially, they were too big to control and too secret to govern. So, the FBI bided its time until recently.
Now, dear reader, I ask you to suspend preconceived perceptions, views and prejudices and let your imaginations roam, just as Eco has you do in Foucault’s Pendulum and just look at events in historical context. Suspend judgment on conspiracy theory, speculation and the view of a benevolent government run by altruistic citizens, and ask the question of “Who Benefits?” There are no conspiracies. That is a fiction sold by the masters to conceal the fact that all the bad things we see are structural.
Many want to believe in conspiracies. This is what the rulers want, because it keeps the citizenry from thinking and talking about “structure. “When I first identified participants in the practice of packing corpses of soldiers shipped from Viet Nam to the states, I thought in terms of conspiracy. Now, after four decades, I see the same behavior with different players. That must be structural.
How can such a thing be structural? Because we allow it to be so by our neglect and selfishness, encouraged to be ignorant and amused with games and trivia. We are distracted and encouraged to be ignorant.
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.)
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