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



I believe that behavior is dictated by the incentives and deterrents built into systems. Like Adam Smith said, the baker bakes bread for me not because he is generous, but because he is greedy. That is the "free market" system promoted by Republicans.

I hold the tragic, fallen view of the nature of man, where man will do evil, any time he has any prospect to gain anything by it. Again, that is a right-wing view of the world like Ronald Reagan, "peace through deterrence."

I see that police pay no price whatsoever for faking evidence, lying on the stand, and hiding witnesses, and a prosecutor gets no penalty for lying, and supervising perjury, in a murder case. So it is not one prosecutor, or one case. It is a system which incentivizes, and does not deter, evil behavior.

You think it is okay for police and prosecutors to lie, or to coerce felons to lie, if it convicts the guilty. So police and prosecutors decide who is guilty, before it gets to a jury. And they get away with it, it is overlooked, to the extent they are able to persuade the public the defendant is guilty, through the news media. That is a mock trial.

It takes great vigilance to resist the evil nature of man, and to continue to be one of the places in history with fair trials, not mock trials. The United States is slipping into the common mediocrity of history with mock trials. Our criminal justice system is built on police whose crimes it is taboo to even write down a record of, and felons who are rewarded for lying with freedom! I want to "make America great again."

Americans who are in support of the good, will declare with pride that using lies is a good policy to lock up undesirables, where trials are an obstacle to justice. They believe all discipline of police, and deterrence to perjury, should be handled at the local level. That way whether misconduct by police and prosecutors is overlooked, and whether the outcome of mock trials is accepted, is decided by the local mob outside the courthouse.

Republicans who want to use three strikes laws, mandatory minimums, the coerced testimony of drug felons, and felony murder to lock up undesirables who are innocent of a particular crime, should be open and honest, and seek a system designed for what they want through the democratic process. You should run candidates on a platform of amending the Constitution to remove the right to a jury trial.

You should campaign to replace jury trials with a tribunal of elected judges, or a ballot measure with the names of the accused, at the local level. And you should promote "undesirables" legislation, where people with drug arrests get 15 years for being in the vicinity of a crime.

Then you won't put police in a position where they are punished if they don't fake evidence to lock up the innocent, and rewarded if they do, when the local paper has turned the bingo crowd against the defendant for clicks. And police won't take all the heat for living above the law, when it is the daimyos they answer to who are demanding unredressed injustice at the hands of government employees, according to their provincial moral aesthetics.

Contemporary political grievances resemble grievances in the Declaration of Independence:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

But Republicans are reciting talking points from a time when Democrats wanted to rehabilitate murderers, and let them out of prison. Today's Democrats are like our founders, who wrote a historical anti-police screed in the form of the Bill of Rights. They want to see police and prosecutors who victimize the innocent at the request of the political overclass face justice.

Would you support an independent institution in the executive branch at the state level, to require reports and punish reporting failures like the SEC, to publish every time a cop is accused of perjury or a prosecutor is accused of suborning perjury, and every time someone with an active case, a drug arrest, or a convicted felon, is coerced to testify, and whether as a co-defendant, witness, or jailhouse so-called witness?

Would you support giving such an independent institution the power to initiate investigations in a proactive way, and prosecute police and prosecutors, to create a new and real deterrent to perjury and mock trials that is not captive to local politics, where there has been an overwhelming demand for mock trials throughout human history? Mock trials will be used just as quickly against police as undesirables, when police become undesirables, depending on how the political winds shift between localities, and in a single a locality from one era to the next.

Or do you support mock trials like in Greenwood, Colorado, where the daimyos boast they have already determined the outcome of any trials of police? Like our founders protested against, in the Declaration of Independence. Where the king's soldiers were immune from justice, so long as they faithfully executed the king's instructions. And therefore ended up facing great violence from time to time.

Law enforcement always takes care of its own. Even to the extent of covering up corruption. They must be controlled entirely by the local citizens whom they serve. Or are supposed to serve. Otherwise they'll continue self-serving.

I disagree. It is because they are regulated locally, that the 51% majority is able to systematically victimize the 49% minority. This is a perfect example of the absence of checks and balances, anticipated by James Madison in Federalist 51. Police need to be compelled to report, and monitored and regulated, by an independent SEC-like institution in the executive branch at the state level.

The local political establishment can currently choose to overlook police misconduct to subvert state law, and lock up whomever the local majority wants locked up, and use state prisons to do it. Suppose the local paper says "Kim Hallock is a murderer". Suppose the police drive over to her house, arrest her, and plant a bloody shoelace in her house. Suppose an inmate in the county jail is then threatened with a life sentence, but let out of jail for swearing that Kim Hallock confessed to her in the jail.

This is obviously a setup, a scam, the mob operating through law enforcement. But whether they get away with it, is determined by whether 51% of people support what the Mayor or Sheriff did, and will vote for him in the next election for doing it. Distant people statewide are more likely to be interested in abstract ideals like truth and due process, relative to the politics of the local mob. And an independent institution at the state level with this purpose, will be interested in torturing police with whatever they can pin on them, for sport.

At the very least, a remote regulatory institution will be less interested in protecting cops they went to high school with, and less captive to the same local politics the cops themselves are captive to. So the outside body will always be like a second opinion, with a different set of political incentives, and often with competing or adversarial ambitions. You pit one group against the other, make them enemies, and someone will find the truth. That is the idea of checks and balances advocated by James Madison at the founding of our country. In contrast, the local citizens who form or dominate the oversight committee, would be the same citizens who dominate the mayor or sheriff election.