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



Cop Cult Intellectual Refuses To Develop Perjury Statistics, Calls All Perjury Anecdotal

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Nor would anyone dispute that in a population of 850K law enforcement officers (imagine an Indianapolis of cops) there are liars, cheats, perverts, and criminals (though far fewer than we'd find in Indy).

People are not perfect. Not even you. And when you put imperfect people in high-stress, life & death situations, sometimes they will make wrong decisions. Sometimes innocently wrong decisions....sometimes malicious ones. And there are any number of systems which exist to address both types of 'wrong decisions', and provide appropriate consequences.

But clearly the mast majority of the 1.8B law enforcement labor hours are invested doing exactly what they should be doing: serving and protecting all of us from the 9M criminal acts committed every single year (about 1.2M of which are violent).

You say the police are being used as a "personal army" by one side of the debate? Of course they are. They are hired and trained to be the 'personal army' of every law-abiding citizen. They are the 'thin Blue Line' which stands between us and the enemy who is the criminal: those who commit murder, rape, assault, theft, fraud, arson, etc.. Would you have it any other way?

Is the criminal, then, considered -- as you say -- "undesirable"? Sure he is. Absolutely he is. But it is his behavior which puts him into that undesirable class, not his skin color, height, or weight.

I am guessing more than 850K police and their supporters said Jacob Blake was reaching for a knife in his car, or some other statement they would now tell you is false. That must be the good 110% that doesn't commit perjury. I know, when the good guys break the 10 Commandments we don't call it perjury, we call it heroism. And you wonder why anyone would dislike a mob of armed big-government fanatics who think laws and morals apply to everyone but them.

My friend, you must stick to reality. And then try to put yourself there.

Try to imagine: you are the the midst of a high-threat encounter (we don't know what went on before the video starts, but obviously whatever it was was understood as enough of a threat to cause weapons to be drawn).... you are yelling at Blake to stop, to get down....he ignores you, marching with great determination towards the front seat of his car (you don't know what's in there).... you continue to yell & point your weapon....Blake still ignores you and grabs the door're still yelling and pointing your weapon... Blake is intent on ???? presumably getting whatever he has, there inside the car. What do you do??? RIGHT THEN; RIGHT NOW; THIS INSTANT.

When faced with what is obviously the very real possibility of a mortal threat. What do you do in that split-instant?

As the cop with the gun, knowing this man is absolutely committed to getting whatever is in there -- even under active threat to his life -- do you let him get it???

God no. No one would. Not any of those 850K would, nor would you...nor would I. If you are ultimately responsible for your safety, your partner's safety, and the safety of the surrounding you let him do whatever it is he is trying to do when you've been yelling at him to stop stop STOP!??

As the cop on the scene with the gun, we must ask ourselves....what in God's name does he want so badly (inside that car) that he repeatedly ignores police commands and an active threat to his own life, to grab?

Whatever it is, there is no way any one of us lets him get it.

Judges have already imagined. I don't believe any court, including the Supreme Court, would rule that any person with a felony warrant casually getting into a car can reasonably be perceived as an imminent threat, to police or bystanders. There were other things Blake did at other times, that may have been reasonably threatening at those times, most of which police were probably not aware of, and none of which applied when he was getting into that car. You had no reasonable basis to imagine he was reaching for a knife when he casually got in that car.

The many people who stated that Blake was known to be reaching for a knife in his car, many who claimed to have some evidence that he was, WERE LYING. Nobody actually knew that he was reaching for a knife. But others (like you just now) said there was a reasonable basis for police to fear he was reaching for a knife in his car, when no such thing actually happened. The police have released a statement, and it does not include a fear that he was reaching for a knife or other weapon in his car.

Neither Jacob Blake reaching for a knife in his car, nor police shooting him based on a reasonable fear that he might have been reaching for a knife in his car, is reality.

If you side with slimebags... .murderers... rapists.... thieves... and abusers....then you do nothing but self-indict...and a law-abiding citizenry will equally indict you.

The opposite of government is anarchy. The opposite of law is unconstrained appetite. In the absence of absolutes (right & wrong, good & bad, acceptable and unacceptable, legal and illegal) everything is permissible...and life becomes nothing but short, nasty, bloody, and brutish.

The Social Contract exists exactly to provide protection & security for the citizen from the "undesirable" (those 'slimebags' you reference who do not respect the law or other's rights).

But that same Social Contract, in a lawful democracy, equally provides Consequence for unlawful action -- even if the 'criminal' is himself a cop....or a mayor....or butcher, baker, or candlestick maker.

Can a government, itself, be abusive? Certainly. That is called tyranny and totalitarianism. But that is not what we have; that is not what the 1st World West, in general has.

Is our representative democracy perfect? Of course not. It never will be. But it is the finest and most successful form of government in the history of the world, providing the best possibility for its citizens to live free & independent lives.

Do we...should we ....side with our government? Absolutely. Because the alternative is bloody chaos: take Portland, take Seattle, take Kenosha.... times 1M.

You threaten an imaginary anarchy that has never existed anywhere, except the imaginations of teenagers. There are many forms of human organization, from tribes to catallaxies. It is you who pray for this imaginary anarchy when you are criticized, like an ex girlfriend prays for the person who wanted to do better to be lonely.

Suppose a cop lies on the stand like this:

Is that law or "the opposite of law"? Is it at all possible to suggest that could be improved upon, and that lying cop should be punished? Is it possible to deter lying, or repair the outcome of those lies, without being called a criminal and communist, and without being threatened with violence as imagined in the mind of a teenager? Or do you look straight at criminal perjury - at lies used by the government to incite a mob against private citizens - and make no objection to that whatsoever, but then say to me when I complain about it "a law-abiding citizenry will equally indict you."

I threaten nothing, my friend; I only observe.

Anarchy has existed in multiple places, on multiple and sometimes quite extended occasions. The further back in history you go, the more frequently you find that particular monster demonstrating quite conclusively that -- in that place & time -- might very definitely makes right.

Human the absence of law (and law enforcement) the absence of government....are naturally anarchic: governed only by appetite and opportunity (force vs. force). Social contracts are written exactly to prevent and preclude the violent vagaries of such an anarchic & dangerous world.

As for tribes to catallaxies....or other such 'collectives'... they're all forms of government, meaning they're all forms of social organization in which individuals willingly sacrifice certain individual freedoms & rights (allocating them instead to the governing body (whatever it may be)) to achieve the greater security that such 'government' provides.

As for lying on the witness stand....that is a violation of law, and such violations have consequences if proven. That law and those consequences are also provided by Government as per the evolving social contract.

As for whether it (or anything) can be improved upon....that is exactly what I said. We, as human beings, are imperfect; what we create is equally imperfect. And just as we ourselves can be improved (and can self-improve), so too can our creations.

And again, as I said, "If you side with slimebags... .murderers... rapists.... thieves... and abusers....then you do nothing but self-indict...and a law-abiding citizenry will equally indict you." How could it be otherwise? Why on earth would anyone wish for it to be otherwise?

Regardless of what you or I may think, the first definition of "anarchy" which comes up online is "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority."

The Wikipedia entry is summarized as "Anarchy is the state of a society being freely constituted without authorities or a governing body. It may also refer to a society or group of people that entirely rejects a set hierarchy."

When you suggest a time and place where "might very definitely makes right" that is an authority and hierarchy. In actual times and places in history, that authority and hierarchy has been more complex than you suggest. Those complex organizations of force, alliance, and collective interest, have unique characteristics, and mostly have been named.

You might say anarchy leaves no records, so it would be hard for historians to analyze and name instances of it. But you would be defining anarchy as the space between authorities, a person walking alone in a remote uninhabited ancient forest. I would argue that space is small and fleeting, it is unnatural, and tends to disappear very quickly.

But you are not talking about that actual anarchy, you are talking about forms of government or social organizations where your values are not honored. "Might makes right" means you think those in power are doing wrong. Under that definition, any government whose actions your don't like is anarchy.

Words mean things. But in criminal cases, police think the precise truth is umimportant, and just want to say that the defendant should be locked up. You said "As for lying on the witness stand....that is a violation of law, and such violations have consequences if proven." It exists and I have proven it. But there is no authority or hierarchy to prove it and enforce those consequences.

When it comes to cops lying on the witness stand and victimizing the innocent, that is one place where something that fits the accurate definition of anarchy can be found. I would like to change that, and send those cops to prison. People tell me I am a commie, and throw lies and fluff at me. That is anarchy.

You are very confused. Let me see if I can help.

Yes. That is the definition of anarchy.

No. Might makes right is not government...that is the human behavior which characterizes anarchy (the absence of government, the absence of law, the absence of order, the absence of authority). The ONLY 'authority' in an anarchic place and time is the ability to compel and take.

Yes. Anarchy is the space between governments...between recognized authorities and rules of order.

Yes. Those times are usually fleeting, as most of us prefer the security and safety provided by the Collective Authority than we do the freedom provided by anarchy. We experience anarchy naturally either as a function of pre-government....or government collapse.

No. Governments which enact policies with which I (or anyone) disagree are not anarchies. (Anarchy, again, is the absence of government, the absence of law, the absence or order). Governments which enact objectionable policies consistently....over the objections of the population they're supposed to be governing are not anarchies...they're tyrannies. There is a vast difference between those two social/political conditions.

No. In criminal cases police do NOT think the precise truth is unimportant. Truth, rather, is exceedingly important...and the criminal justice system exists to deliver justice as determined by the discovery and proof of truth (to whatever extent that is possible).

No. If in fact you have proven that someone (anyone) lied under oath then a consequence would have been subsequently provided by the very system in which such a thing is proven (unless, of course, as part of a plea agreement, such perjury is 'forgiven'. If you tell us instead that you have 'proven' perjury in the absence of "authority or hierarchy" then you haven't really proven it. Like a tree falling in a forest if no one is there....your 'proof' in the absence of a court makes no sound.

And no....perjury (even perjury by cops) is not an example of anarchy. It is simply an example of lying under oath. Even murder is not an example of is only an example of an act performed in violation of the law. In a state of anarchy there is no 'murder', per se, because murder is defined to be an unlawful killing. In anarchy there is no law, so there is nothing which is unlawful. There is only force and appetite.

And no...people calling you a 'commie' and throwing "lies and fluff" (whatever the hell that means) at you is not is simply name-calling, lying, and fluff-throwing. If you're a U.S. citizen, then it's name-calling, lying, and fluff-throwing in a representative democracy. That's all it is.

Hope that helps.

Spontaneous organization forms instantly even among prisoners and fish and other animals There is no "pre-government." Quite the opposite, primitive people feared larger societies would result in a loss of governance. And even today people with a primitive instinct call capitalism and remote government uncaring, and want to sit around a fire in the woods where they feel more comfortable and in control.

And regardless of what sick liars, enablers, accessories, and conspirators like you say. I have provided numerous examples of police commiting perjury on And no authority will do anything about it. Because the defendant is a weak incompetent hooker. And the cop who led the criminal conspiracy, was presented as LEO of the Year by a mighty politician. Add you to the team defending the crime, and what you are doing is " might makes right."

Sure there is.....and this pre-government condition exists on multiple levels.

You are born into a family (presumably) and that family is a socially organized unit with its own rules, policies, and procedures. But if the world outside that social unit is pre-government, your family lives in an anarchic environment.

And if your family bonds with other families to form a tribe, yes...that tribe then becomes the 'larger' governing social unit with it's own rules, policies and procedures (some of which may violate or over-rule the family's). But if the world outside that tribe is pre-government, your tribe lives in an anrachic environment.

And if your tribe bonds with other tribes to form a loose confederation (let's call it a nation), then the nation creates it's own rules, policies & procedures which may overrule the Tribe's. But if the world outside the nation is pre-government, then your nation lives in an anarchic environment.

Each succeeding & larger level of social organization tends to preempt the earlier and smaller. Rights, freedoms, and responsibilities are successively sacrificed to gain that larger & more encompassing security.

Naturally, the larger...the more secure and the less personally caring. This only makes sense. Your family loves you....your neighborhood likes you....your city recognizes your name and property rights....your nation simply counts you as one of 330M tallies.

But no, my friend, no one here (least of my myself) is a "sick liar, enabler, accessory, or conspirator). You see them, I guess, in the woodwork and all around. Most typically that is called paranoia.

And one cares whatever it is you've accumulated on-line. I once accumulated a baseball card collection -- no one cared about that either. Nor does your on-line accumulation of whatever prove anything...nor is there any authority at any level of government who is or should be compelled to examine your on-line collection. Whatever it is you've done is irrelevant: it doesn't exist as far as the criminal justice system goes. NOT UNLESS, you actually introduce it -- per policy and procedure as provided by law -- into that system.

And no...even taking your description at face value -- that is distinctly NOT an example of 'might makes right'....rather it is an example of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

If you cheat on your SAT's ... and through that cheating get a perfect score...and through that perfect score....get admitted to MIT... that is not "might makes right". Rather that is 'cream rising to top' as per the policies and procedures of the various organizations. The fact that you cheated to acquire those achievements doesn't invalidate the system. It simply means the system can be cheated by those with malice aforethought. It simply means cheating works until it's discovered and the cheaters reviled and rejected.

I know that you know police perjury is as common as baseball cards. What is the "policy and procedure" provided by the law to "introduce" proof of police perjury "into the system"?

Because I know when a stock goes up on volume before a merger announcement, the SEC investigates without waiting for a mob to demand it. Same as when a homeless person is found murdered or a crop of marijuana is found in a national forest. What you are defending is a system that actively rejects and ignores and refuses to acknowledge any evidence or examples of police perjury. And then tell the victims of police crime to call 1-800-EAT-S-H-I-T.

Sorry, I don't KNOW that police perjury is as common as baseball cards (did I tell you I had a collection?). Rather I think it is extremely uncommon.

As for the 'policy & procedure' to introduce proof that a crime has been committed...sounds like you need to speak with the District Attorney and show him what you have. Absent that conversation with an officer of the court, your 'collection' is worthless. The DA decides which crimes to prosecute. If that office is not interested -- telling you there is no crime....then you always try the local newspaper to try to force a prosecution.

And no, again, our Criminal Justice System does not reject or ignore or refuse to acknowledge evidence that a crime has been committed. If you have such evidence, please proceed to present it to the court. See what happens and why? What does the DA say?

Telling us you have this stuff and the system ignores it true only if you're presented it to the system and then they've ignored it. But even that tells us only that the DA found your evidence to be lacking. This too is not uncommon.

In the end, the Justice system we have remains the best in the history of the world...but it is far from perfect. Perfect justice does not and will not exist in this life or in this world (as any victim of an unsolved crime will tell you)

If police perjury were indeed rare, then my proof of it on the web would be more interesting than your baseball cards.

The assistant state attorney supervised half the lying. The editor of the justice section of the regional newspaper invented the fake accusation that half the witnesses picked up or were motivated by to lie, or which gave them cover in lying. The first time I went to the FDLE they told me it is the job of private attorneys to prosecute police. The private attorney in this case accepted a $100k retainer, then got cancer and couldn't work, then found her friend the evidence tech staged evidence, and her previous client lied as a witness. Rather than lose her retainer and house, she chose to accept a bribe that allowed her to keep her retainer and satisfy The Bar she had no conflict of interest, in exchange for her looking the other way. I tried to complain to The Bar and warn her client. But her client was sedated in isolation, and The Bar told me if the judge who knew nothing accepted the scam and the client who knew nothing didn't complain, then I have no legal right to contact a defendant held without bond. I went back to the FDLE and they told me to contact the Office of Executive Investigations. OEI told me to contact local internal affairs. IA won't answer or return calls or emails. The office of the elected state attorney who made the lying cop LEO of the Year lies in emails if they respond at all, and nobody will touch him because he is the Republican "tough on crime" star.

It is all a sick corrupt scam.

Sounds horrible (taking all this at face value).

And a perfect example of the fact that the Justice System is not (and will never be) perfect. Sometimes, as you note, it's downright corrupt.

We are far, far off the topic at hand....and I am far from a legal expert (I don't even play one on TV), but it sounds like your next step (assuming you want to pursue) is to elevate your concerns to a higher level. Not sure what that is? The county...the state....the Justice Dept?...the FBI?....

Good luck!

Yeah, 15 years and an entire family's life and money later, because one dumb cop fears no penalty for perjury.

No. In criminal cases police do NOT think the precise truth is unimportant. Truth, rather, is exceedingly important...and the criminal justice system exists to deliver justice as determined by the discovery and proof of truth (to whatever extent that is possible).

I am curious what you base that on. Because it is a nice paragraph in a middle-school essay on the justice system. But my experience in the justice system as it actually exists, has nowhere actually been interested in the truth.

Every case I have gone to court for myself, police lied. One, a garbage truck crashed into me, and the driver admitted to it. Then his manager talked to a witness, and the witness said the driver was not in the garbage truck. Because the truck had a steering wheel on the passenger side where the witness couldn't see, and that is where the driver got in and out. The lies went from there.

I proved geometrically to the state trooper, who claimed to previously be an accident investigator, that I could not have crashed into the truck with the only impact being 5 inches in front of my back wheel. He said your back swung out when you turned away. I said only the part of my car behind the back wheel swings out. He said what is 5 inches?

Another a cop said he saw me driving somewhere illegal, and impounded my parked car. I knew he was lying, so I bought a long-hair wig, and went to the police station to complain. In court, he said he saw me driving with long hair, but that I cut my hair before coming to court. I told the cop I was going to get the transcript where I proved he was a liar. The cop told me the price of the transcript per page. He said everybody says that, but they don't actually get the transcript at that price and you won't either,

Another cop entered my Wyoming license plate wrong because it had vertical letters, and it came back belonging to a Cadillac. So he locked me in jail. When he figured out his mistake, he disassembled my car searching for anything he could accuse me of. Then he started to straight make stuff up, alleging crimes I had done or reports he got. Finally he let me go, and warned me he knew my car was stolen, and he was going to come find me as soon as he could prove it.

Another one, I loaned my friend my phone out my car window, and a cop tackled him thinking it was a drug deal. They took his money, I don't even remember. When I stepped out to try to get my phone back, they gave me a ticket for double parking. Then they made up some lies, and I tried to file a complaint. They said I could not file a complaint, only the guy they tackled and lied about could file a complaint. He was too scared to file a complaint, for fear to ever walk down the street again.

Another one, some people I didn't know brought a guest to their house with a really silly name. He was shooting a pellet gun out the window at a no parking sign, and got into an argument with some frat boys. The frat boys called the police, who asked him for his name. What he said was so silly, they asked me what his real name was. When I said the same silly name, they got angry and told me they were arresting me also for trying to shoot frat boys. When I complained to the DA that those cops were psycho, he said that is 90% of arrests around here, people who make a wise crack to those cops.

A big guy was my roommate for years in a college town where everyone smoked weed. A guy who sold weed knew him from high school, and would walk to our house and ask him for rides. I never saw the big guy buy or sell or smoke weed. I lived for months in a tiny house with the big guy and his girlfriend. Never saw them buy or sell or smoke weed, or hang out with anyone who smoked weed. I don't smoke weed or care, so they had no reason to hide it from me. One morning we went shopping downtown. Stayed downtown all day, went to a comedy club that night. Didn't buy or sell or smoke weed.

At the comedy club, girlfriend was drunk, four guys at the next table were drunk. Guys made a joke the girlfriend didn't like, they exchanged words, she threw beer on them. The four drunk guys flipped over their table and jumped us. The bouncer told us to leave, "just run" so we did. Police were making arrests involving "gang activity." Police saw my friend running on the sidewalk, they thought he was part of the gang arrests. They tackled him and planted weed on him.

Talking about what happened, his lawyer says "The four guys at the next table said the big guy did crime X, that's you." I said huh? I'm not the big guy. He said yes you are. I don't remember what X was, the big guy denied doing it. I guess the plan was to say I did the crime the four guys accused the big guy of doing, so police had no cause to arrest him and find the weed on him, which they planted on him.

I have more like that. None of that is a big deal. But this idea that cops are such serious people interested in the truth, does not fly.

Now real crime, murder, I have been to two murder trials recently. And I got almost all of the discovery, and had some inside information. Neither side said anything remotely resembling the truth at trial. They were clearly accustomed to having nothing to do with the truth, and their peers were accustomed to it also. The rules of evidence and case law would not even permit you to speak the truth, regarding the most important elements in the trial.

Ever since then, I have been looking at other criminal cases with a skeptical eye, watching or following trials, reading motions and reports, looking at discovery and exhibits and newspaper stories. In all of it, I don't see the parties placing any special weight or value on the truth. The truth has no value in the justice system just by being true. The truth has zero abstract value to people in the justice system. Prosecutors want to convict, defense attorneys want to create doubt. Neither cares whatsoever about the truth, or expects the other to, and the judge doesn't even bother to worry about it.

If you really believe there is truth, or a value for truth in the justice system, you should read my book. Because in my experience, you cannot get that belief from getting actual evidence, actual discovery, and watching actual trials. What you said sounds more like a fairy tale to me. So I am wondering what you based it on. Have you ever gotten all the evidence in a case, read all the depositions, looked at all the video, and watched every minute of a real trial in person?

Again, the plural of anecdote is not data. And no matter what your experience (on multiple occasions) has been, it is still simply your singular experience. We can neither endorse your perspective as true...nor can we dispute it as false. We simply accept it as a singular set of experiences and move on. Truthfully, whatever it has been, it's unimportant in this context...nor does it tell us anything about the Justice System as a whole.

Kinda like me saying every dog I meet, bites me. Therefore all dogs are bad. Sure, my conclusion might be universally accurate...but given that there are about 90M dogs out there and I've been bitten by would be a bad bet to assume that my experience, encompassing .00001% of all dogs, is in fact universal. (It also might lead us to suspect that I myself might be the problem when it comes to dogs)

The Justice System is designed to work as I described it. And that design is intended to discover truth and deliver, in response, justice.

It is imperfect, of course, for it is a product of human effort. But it is also significantly fail-safed. It is also the best thing out a mile.

Most of the time it works as intended. In over 80,000 Federal criminal cases, only 320 defendants were found to be "not guilty"....with about 72,000 of those defendants pleading guilty to avoid trial.

Your experience is clearly different....but that experiential difference of yours has no real bearing here, except to illustrate the fundamental truth -- as I've stated -- that the Criminal Justice System is not perfect.

Suppose citizens in a democracy decide not to simply accept having no knowledge and move on, because it is important to learn things about the justice system as a whole. Suppose they have a responsibility to discover how often their employees are committing perjury to victimize their innocent fellow citizens. Maybe the citizens don't like losing close elections, and they don't like the families of innocents who have been victimized by police voting for the other party. What kind of institution or policy changes would you recommend, to help voters get that kind of information and research and statistical estimates of the frequency of police perjury, to improve or adjust the product as necessary, to protect the innocent and win elections?

What are the significant fail-safes to deter, or even record and report instances of police perjury, like the instances I have described? I noticed you quoted an irrelevant data set, the percentage of federal defendants found not guilty. You appear to concede you have no detailed statistics on police perjury or felons being coerced to testify or anything else, which would enable you to refine and optimize the justice system, to satisfy the voters.

Or suppose there is no institution or policy that could provide any insight into, or estimate, of the frequency of police using perjury to victimize the innocent. How would you weigh into policing policy decisions, the fact that all policing manufactures a cumulative population of victimized innocents of an unknowable size? Would you simply consider this accumulating population of victimized, unserved innocents, and their families and sympathizers all behaving and voting with a grudge as nihilists, as irrelevant to policy decisions? If you can't know the size of the cost, then should policy decisions assume the cost is zero?

We all agree. Your experience with the Justice System -- per your endless recitation -- sucked. But really, so what?

Your experience is a single thing happening multiple times. The only commonalities are 1) the Justice System...and 2) You. One and or both are messed-up. We don't know which.

But it doesn't matter. Your experience is irrelevant to this discussion and the whole question of Criminal Justice. It represents nothing other than your singular perception of those experiences.

The relevant data set is indeed the 80K federal criminal cases....320 Not Guilties. In other words, the System designed to investigate and prosecute criminal behavior provided evidence sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in 99.69% of the cases brought before the court).

Were errors made? Undoubtedly. And -- taking your experience at face value -- you may be unlucky enough to be in the midst of just such an error.

As for those who have been treated unfairly by the Justice System....there is the possibility of an appeal. If the appeals fail, there is the possibility of passing new & better legislation (making better laws). If the legislation fails, there is the possibility of electing better representatives (at multiple levels).

Those are the various fail-safes which exist (beyond normal burden of proof hurdles and investigative and prosecutorial requirements (like Miranda)) which exist to aid those who have been 'cheated'.

Policy decisions assume (as they always assume) that if the system is functioning as it should, crime is more or less under control and the disgruntled outside the office are few. This is normal and true, pretty much, across the board (not just for Criminal Justice but for everything...crime being replaced by any given desired quality output). When the criminal justice system is struggling, crime is up and the disgruntled are high -- meaning corrective action is required.

But a central given is that -- as I've said multiple times -- normal assumes a certain level of error (meaning wrong convictions, freed criminals, frustrated victims, unsolved crimes, etc.)

So you have no idea how often police (or even coerced felons) commit perjury, because there is no compulsory central reporting to scrutinize. And you are happy having no idea, because you have a lot of convictions.

What if 90% of convictions overturned by new video, included police allegations that the subject attacked police, proven false? Would you say hey, maybe police running rampant with false claims that people attacked them, is undermining the credibility of justice?

I know people like you will have an impulse to argue with that specific example. And you don't want anybody to have any real data, and real examples to use. Because for whatever reason, you want police to be able to break the law.

What if pigs could fly?
What if people didn't commit crimes?
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace.....

What if all you doesn't has no relevance.

As I said, those of us outside the Criminal Justice System typically gauge whether or not it's working appropriately by 1) what's happening with crime... and 2) how many judicial errors are being identified and highlighted (by the disgruntled...outside the System). If both are reasonably good...we're good. We accept that there will always be some.

We feel the same way about every infrastructure system out there. As long as bridges aren't falling down, we assume the standards are right and the procedures good and the workers appropriately trained. None of us double-checks. As long as lots of people aren't dying on the operating tables, we assume all the medical failsafes are working. As long as we can buy fresh food at the grocery, we assume the whole farm to table system is good. That's how life works. Thank God we don't have to double-check everything.

And no, we don't want police to break the laws they're supposed to uphold (where do you get this nonsense?).

And one is saying "we don't want real data". Go get real data, please...and stop with the anecdotes. I'll wait.

Police and prosecutors refuse to write down real data at the source, and fight all efforts to require reporting, and punish reporting failures. They don't even use good arguments against justice regulation and reform, because they are not honestly saying what they believe. They just whine that the taxpayer can't afford it, or it is not fair compared to some other profession, or it will take us back to the 1970's "rehabilitation and root causes" era, putting your family at the mercy of rapists and carjackers.

What if people "outside the Criminal Justice System" are rioting in the streets, and voting for socialist nihilists like Andrew Gillum who are on the precipice of taking over the country, because they are not satisfied with the product? Would you agree to develop quality-control statistics then, like every other organization that experiences customer dissatisfaction and loses market share?

I know the answer is no, you will drink the Koolaid, lose elections, and die, to defend cops victimizing the innocent. With some unknown and, when you get your way, unknowable frequency, because you like cops breaking the law to get convictions. And if some people are disgruntled, screw them, because like De Tocqueville said, they and their lowlife families and sympathizers don't get to vote.

You are so silly. Do you have perjury data? No? Well then whatever is is you have is nothing but anecdotal. Glad I have a tab on your website; how cute!

Yes I am going to start my own SEC and also license doctors from my home office.

Once again, you are wrong. Amazing how consistently wrong you are.

Please yes, I agree, if I ever am in a position to to develop quality control stats for the Justice System I will do so. I promise. Cross my heart and everything. There. Done.

The only other problem might be the fact that I will never be in a position to develop quality control stats for the Justice System. But if I were, boy, they'd be hellacious!

Best wishes my friend....I leave you to your fantasies and anger.

Okay I want to put in the name of cop, defendant, or reporter, and look up an uninvestigated perjury report. What is the web address?