Massive Demand to
Lock Up the Innocent
in a Democracy
Florida Supreme Court
Innocence Commission
Embarrassing Charade
The Myth That
Burns Our Cities
Mock Trials and the
Common Mediocrity
of History
Coerced Jailhouse
Confession Witness
Satanic Scam
New York Police
and Justice Reforms
Legislative Concepts
and Proposals
Attorney General
William Barr is a
Sick Retard
Debating with the
Law-and-Order Mob
Letters to my
Justice without Fraud
Challenge to Republicans
Running for Office
Voters Give Police
A Mandate To Lie
Republican Cop Cult
Disconnects from Reality
Mass Incarceration
Worse than Immigration
for Republicans
2020 Election
Newt Gingrich
Republican Fossils
Timeline of Destruction
of the Republican Party
Criminal Guilt
Determined Socially
Guilty Until
Proven Innocent
Quick History of
Police Misconduct
Intellectual Dishonesty
In Defense of Perjury
Is A Vice
Real Justice
Crosley Green
Common Cause of
False Convictions
Embarrassed Cop Setup
John Alberto Torres
Supports Replacing
Juries With Politicians
False Prophet
Ann Coulter
Sheriff Wayne Ivey's
Political Activism
and Ideology
Jailhouse Witnesses
Release Two
To Convict One
T-Shirt Artwork
Contact Info
About Site



Guilty Until Proven Innocent

I often hear about "actual innocence" in the appeals process. Appeals court judges don't want to intervene except in cases of actual innocence. The Innocence Project only wants you to send them cases of actual innocence. What this means is we have given up on the jury trial process. It has been hacked by prosecutors and laws and case law to convict the innocent. And so now it is up to the public, and to elected judges, to decide who is innocent or guilty.

One of the Grievances in the Declaration of Independence enumerating the "Usurpations" by the "King of Great Britain" was "For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury". The Bill of Rights includes "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury". So the jury trial was very important to the ideals of our country. It is not because jurors are smarter than judges. It is because a jury is the least corruptible by politics, by the dynamics of the local mob, and by tyranny of the local majority.

You can point to some things that destroyed jury trials. One is local regulation of police. Under Florida law, police are supposed to be investigated by their local employer. In practice that means they can lie without penalty, and often with reward, to predetermine the outcome of jury trials. Prosecutors can also lie and supervise perjury in jury trials, and The Bar is certainly not accountable to the voter, and is far more corruptible by politics and self interest than a jury. There is also Connick v Thompson which emboldened prosecutors that they can lie and hide evidence and break any rule to get a conviction, without any possible penalty.

In case law, it seems many left-wing judges tried to intervene to prevent juries from convicting undesirables for things other than the actual crime they are accused of, simply for being undesirable. The amount of things you are allowed to tell the jury about their past convictions are limited. You are not allowed to show evidence of their drug use in court. You are not allowed to call them liars to the jury. All these things were done to overcome the presumption by the jurors that the prosecutor is a good person who would not lie to them, and the defendant is an untermenschen.

In practice, this is combined with plea bargaining, and with other laws that allow prosecutors to let felons out of prison, and with all the new life sentences for a variety of crimes. The result is prosecutors can coerce felons with threats of life sentences, to commit perjury to convict the innocent. And the protections which judges designed for defendants, prevent defense lawyers from explaining to the jury what is happening in front of them, the flaws in the process. Untermenschen are protected by case law, made bulletproof. So prosecutors use the most dangerous sociopathic felons to make their case, with lies.

Coerced witnesses get double the protection. First they are protected by case law meant to protect criminal defendants from the bias of juries. Second, they are bolstered by the presumption of the honesty of the prosecution, and the idea that the State and the court system would not be crooked, would not knowingly put liars in front of you. The protection of criminal witnesses was meant to balance the benefit of the doubt given to the State. But in the case of coerced prosecution witnesses, the two layers of false credibility are added together, summed.

In essence, the defendant is presumed guilty. Police, and coerced felons, are basically allowed to lie a mountain of details that the defendant is guilty. There is no consequence for it, and they are rewarded by the gullible crime-oriented voter, who reads the terrible stories in the paper, and is happy for the increased conviction rate. And then the burden is on the defendant to prove he is innocent, by proving all the proof of his guilt is lies. And all the actual determination of innocence is done in front of an elected appeals court judge, after the taxpayer has spent millions and families have been destroyed.

It guarantees the conviction of whomever police pick, unless and until you can prove they are lying. It is not used all the time. It may be used in practice only when politically expedient, or on occasion to save police some slight embarrassment. It is like an "in case of incompetence break glass" type remedy. And no politician has much interest in ending it. Republicans have to be tough on crime. Democrats can't admit "systemic racism" could be fixed in one legislative session.

Too many now make a living off guilt being decided by politicized appeals-court judges, and the click-loving media. You should instead advocate penalties for perjury, and police and prosecutor misconduct, to restore the integrity of, and the locus of decisions to, the jury trial. Every time someone is deprived of a fair trial by lies, or the jury trial is hacked, it should be redone, and that should be the law, no matter how certain of guilt everyone else is. Nobody else gets to decide anyone is guilty, like vigilantes. That's what we fought the British for.

Appeals, you dolt. Your entire list of waaah is covered by the appeals process which I'm sure you know already undoes a decent amount of errors.

It takes more years and money than most people have, to use the appeals process. My friend has been locked up for four years, serving life without parole from age 21 for a crime that didn't happen, because every witness including police easily provably lied. 15 months after being convicted in a trial that still did not prove her guilt, because jurors broke the rules and went online, she still does not have an appeal written.

There is not an unlimited supply of functional lawyers, much less free ones. It will take 15 years total and ruin the lives of all her family, cost the taxpayer and citizens a fortune, and torture the victim's family for years, for the simple reason that there is no penalty or deterrent for police and prosecutors who lie, supervise and coerce lies, and fake evidence. If my friend were alone, she would have no chance. After a few years locked up, or even after just a few months, all the evidence and witnesses other than what the police lied and said happened, are gone.

How is there a victims family if no crime happened?

Ask Jacob Blake's family.

Oh dear lord. The guy who raped the underage girl, had a restraining order and numerous felony charges. Broke the order to go threaten the family and or kidnap someone at knife point, and when they called the police on him for fear he would kill someone, tell guy didn't listen to shit and went I to the car disobeying numerous commands? Why would anyone advocate for a pos like that

That Dude Is Guilty 3 Times Over And Is Lucky He's Alive.

My point was he is a shooting victim, and yet you would say there was no crime. You have "hands up don't shoot derangement syndrome". You asked how can there be a victim family with no crime. I pointed out Jacob Blake is a shooting victim with a family, and yet you would say shooting him was not a crime. But instead of engaging in dialog, you basically lost your mind and started ranting how black people need to be shot or in prison.

I feel like there are so many checks and balances that if it was obvious she's innocent, one person would see it and that's all it takes. The system is as liberal as it's ever been. Is it possible there's some evidence or its just lies? Seems like they don't even prosecute unless there's evidence

A moment ago, you said if someone is innocent, there are checks and balances. But now you are saying if Jacob Blake were framed for a crime he didn't commit, nobody should advocate for him. So you support police lying to sweep undesirables off the streets nazi style.

I am the one person. There are actually no checks and balances. What you don't know about criminal justice could fill two books, and I wrote them. One of the main things you don't know, is the criminal justice system is knowingly and intentionally used to lock up undesirables, who are innocent of the crime they are convicted of. They just use a scam to sweep the streets of anyone the papers can sensationalize as undesirable for clicks. You could actually read my websites and and learn something about the justice system, rather than just imagining.

The system is not "as liberal as its ever been." It is as screwed up as it's ever been. Liberals did a bunch of crazy things to pervert the system to let everyone out. Republicans do a bunch of stuff to lock up anyone they point the finger at, regardless of guilt or innocence. There are more things than ever before in our country, in place to frame people. This framing people is supported by 49% of voters to balance what they believe is the liberal situation. The result is being locked up has less to do with guilt or innocence or justice than ever before, and more to do with a crazy political tug-of-war. Your preconceptions of what is going on are just a myth like global warming.