The Innocents guide . . .

Exerpts from: The Innocent's guide to Avoiding False Convictions

Author James Bauhaus, P.O. Box 97-88367, McAlester, OK 74502

>Infinite taxability fuels infinite greed and vice-versa . . . .Burin Singletree

False convictions arise at a minimum rate of 7~12%. One reason for this high rate is that the legal system is biased toward conviction throughout. The purpose of these essays is to raise the learning curve of indigent accusees who suffer most false convictions and to help mitigate the prosecution's colossal advantage through scrutiny of the legal process from the crime scene to appeals court. The way the system works now, real criminals learn at an early age how best to deflect and minimize punishment. Law-abiding innocents see few of the system's wretched workings. We see McGruff, the crime cartoon and scruff, the cuddly little puppy, and thus are at a grave disadvantage when faced with hardened and experienced criminals, police, lawyers and journalists. Since most people only see crime as portrayed by the media, I begin with an overview of them.

>>The Media

>The quickest way to get your rights taken away is to demand them . . . .Sam Kinnison

One of the primary reasons justice is in such short supply is because the media uses crime to sell newspapers, television shows, movies, books and other slant. Sensationalism sells products and advertising. The safest targets are persons accused of crime. They have a 99.55% chance of going to prison and thus have much larger problems than suing for slander or libel. Also, newspaper liability is limited to only $200. There is no doubt other media industries enjoy similar laws capping their liability too. Thus the media takes the miniscule problem of crime and magnifies it into an hourly obsession that generates its largest and most steady profits. Nothing distracts citizens from more critical social problems and progress than fear of theft, injury and death. H. L. Mencken said this well long ago: " the . . aim of . . politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamoring to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins . . . "

The Western media calls itself free, but it operates freely only so long as it does not annoy government enough to decide to shut it down. Hence the media and government develop symbiotic relationships that benefit both in exploiting their consuming/producing/voting prey. For simplicity, this lowest link in the social food chain is termed the taxherd; the topmost predators, the gov/biz/media alliance.

Politicians capitalize on and participate in the media's sale of fear by taxing away trillions of dollars worth of consumer productivity to fight this tiny threat. One guage of the actual threat of crime is to divide the number of prisoners by the population. This simple calculation puts the menace of crime at an astonishingly low .007.

Obviously the legal system is astronomically inefficient to cost so hugely for so little. The only way this much prosperity can be transferred and squandered away with so little outcry is by constantly indoctrinating the taxherd with nightmare visions of deadly crime within every shadow and around every corner. Journalists like to claim "objective" reporting for themselves, but every media piece contains "slant", now called "spin", which means "bias". In all crime reporting there is a pro-government slant. This bias makes the media a primary conviction tool of government that functions to poison the citizen juror pool into conviction mode. Facilitating this function are numerous anonymous police sources they quote. Anonymity is a means of escaping accountability and responsibility for one's actions. It is also a measure of the negative integrity of the whisperer and the broadcaster. Innocent accusees must make arrangements to learn of these attacks from concealment and try to refute them against the media's pro-cop slant. (Only cops whisper anonymously into the media, not police. Only news-artists broadcast such whisperings, not journalists.)

Everything the news artists can goad you into saying, they will immediately trot to several official mouthpieces for numerous rebuttals and expansions. Indigent innocents are the cop's trophies and the news artists are their paparatzi who will retouch and compose photos to make you look scary, dangerous and guilty. They got caught doing this to Simpson, McVeigh and King. You see them select photos of politicians with vacuous expressions and their mouths hanging open. In my own case they were careful not to photograph my police-blackened eye. They were studious in making certain to include the shackles on my wrists. Composing the picture of my unbrutalized profile necessitated collusion between the cop who shouted my name and the news artist who had positioned himself 180 degrees away to click the picture soon as my head turned. Their decision to include the shackles in the same photo necessitated they photographically bleach the blood out of the handkerchief I was holding to make it sparkling white. The media's integrity is also well illustrated by the Boulder police chief's public complaint about a news artist who proudly told him they were creating and broadcasting lies like "no footprints in the snow" specifically to help him convict the Ramseys.

Innocent accusees should never answer any questions shouted by anyone of the media. Simply smile broadly and greet them as if they were friendly well wishers. If you learn specifically how the gov't is going wrong in its efforts to convict you, it might be useful to try telling them something like "make certain their forensic experts gather enough of the culprit's blood to test!" Otherwise don't give them anything they can misquote, retouch, twist or conjecture about. A good mnemonic device to help remind you of this is to build a mental picture of the supposed media "watchdog" as a snarling, nose licking lapdog. The lap he is in belongs to his editor, a paid, partisan political animal. They sell more product and advertising by braying (or trumpeting) your guilt. They will never be shut out of political scoops by failing to lick gov't boots. The petroleum club shakedown, circa 1970, illustrates this point very well.

>>Police and tactics
>No team is better than its most incompetent member . . . Viktor Stitchkin

There are police, and cops. Police are the minority, seen mostly at traffic duty. Most police quickly turn into cops as a result of the nature of their jobs. Cops obtain quicker reward and promotions through ambition and willingness to 'facilitate' convictions., Thus the majority of cops are detectives. Cops displace police. (see: "bad cops drive out the good.") This fact is illustrated best by the fiasco in Los Angeles. Four Hundred whistle blower police are suing for their jobs back now that a ring of 23 or so vicious, crooked cops have finally been exposed at decades of corruption and violence. Police are usually the first ones called to a crime; cops arrive later to seek culprits. Most police have completed the transition toward some degree of copness within their first year of employment.

The mechanics of conviction begin with a citizen’s call to police and them together nominating prospective accusees. Police prefer eyewitnesses as evidence and depend on them to create convictions over the use of scientific evidence. Why? Eyewitness testimony is quickly swallowed by jurors, especially after it is rehearsed. Honed and enhanced by many repeats to numerous police and prosecutors.

Police begin trying to catch the actual culprit, but most times they are stymied. When an obvious culprit is not easily and quickly found, police tend to simply grasp about toward the closest, most easily convictable target, same as water seeks a drain. This tendency to take the shortest route to any conviction makes police particularly dangerous to the previously arrested. Once your photo is added to their archive of previously targeted persons, they will nominate you for re-arrest thousands of times without your knowledge in your lifetime. Due to the similarity of human faces and the extreme maleability of witnesses recollections and the constant revision of recollections, the likelihood of an innocent’s reconviction is quite high. Innocents who have not yet been criminalized are not safe either. Police use school yearbooks as indispensable aids in creating eyewitness identifications and fomenting convictions. Plus, police have the means to create most anyone’s face thanks to various technologies from artistry to software. (see: "officers and identikits")

The very most important thing innocent accusees must seek is that evidence police conceal and discard. The first thing to vanish is the police reports detailing the eyewitnesses’ first, and thus most accurate, descriptions and police drawings of the culprit. Note that police do not record these initial descriptions as any scientist would, only their own impressions of their subjects descriptions. Then this is concealed. Why? These descriptions change as suspects are included and excluded on basis of convictability. Thus it is essential that the original eyewitnesses descriptions and drawings survive to refute the revisions of them that will be substituted for them in court.

The abominable shakiness of eyewitness evidence is made exponentially worse when police stop gathering descriptions and cops begin plying their massive photo catalogues to witnesses. Police typically drop masses of catalogues for witnesses to peruse at leisure. They are told to indicate photos similar to the culprit seen. From these similarities police select others that fit this rapidly expanding description. By this time the witnesses recollections have been so muddied that they can not reliably separate what they saw with what they were given to study. This practice greatly expands the number of prospective convictees. Couple this with the eagerness of the witnesses to cooperate and please the police. The result is almost total unreliability.

Typical criminals take pains to conceal their attributes. A glimmer of a face is briefly seen in the darkness. Police strive to expand this into convicting evidence through use of psychological pressure, urging the witness to cooperate, feeding him or her a series of favored photos, building, probing the eager witness to the point where he or she is so very cooperative as to simply agree with what the police suggest. They have inside knowledge, don’t they?

One of the most scurrilous techniques police use to manufacture eyewitness evidence is the secret photo lineup. The cop with his box of photos first isolates the witness from all others. No record of this process is ever kept for quality control. The cop lays out an odd number of photos of persons most similar to the consensus arrived at from the school yearbooks and catalogues of the previously arrested. This is where the police begin to narrow down the stacks of target photos selected for their similarity and convictability. To give the illusion of fairness and randomness, the photos are laid out in a single row, five at a time. The one the cop wants the witness to choose (if any, at this time) is routinely placed in the middle. If the witness doesn’t cooperate by eventually pointing at someone the police and other witnesses have selected, the cop will either get a new batch or simply reduce the number of photos by two; still keeping the favored target photo in the middle. Sometimes they will switch the outer photos with others or redisplay photos previously rejected. Always they provide unwitting or not so subtle cues to the witness by hesitating on photos police favor, using body language or simply asking, "are you sure its not the suspect in the middle? Look at him again." Witnesses, being quite willing and anxious to cooperate "fully" are thus easily trained to believe they really did see suspect "middle" commit a crime when in reality they have merely been the victim of their own doubt and suggestibility. Police capitalize on this phenomenon and become masters at steering witnesses without them ever realizing.

Witnesses who are not so easily steered require added pressure. Police will ask them to put their initials on the photos most similar to their (rapidly failing) memory of the culprit. This functions as a receipt for testimony, if needed. Or it serves as a prod with which to more easily steer the witness when the cop returns nest week with these and more photos. When police keep returning, insisting on ever more specific cooperation, even the most conscientious witness will eventually break down and point at somebody the police exhibit, just to get rid of them and have peace again. Soon as this occurs, police make out a receipt for testimony, dismissively called a mere "statement," and makes the witness sign it. The police then go off and finish building a conviction around this person. If such is not possible, they keep returning until one is found who will suffice. (see: speedy trial puts brakes on case-creation." ) All the dead ends are concealed along with all the receipts for wrong testimony. Only the hits are saved and forwarded to the district attorney. (DA)

This is only half of the job: except in sex crime accusations it takes a minimum of two fingerpointers to legally crucify someone. Police routinely use each witness as a goad to encourage the other. Police keep witnesses isolated from one another until just before trial to preserve their ability to say "Mrs. Peeper had no trouble picking the right suspect. What is your problem?" Police are masters of deceit by omission of facts. When evidence is found that contradicts their hypothesis, yet enough legal case is already created to convict their current target, this evidence is concealed and possibly discarded. Work already performed is not abandoned once it has proceeded this far. In cop parlance, "He’s guilty enough." They abduct their target into a cage where he can get no information about the law or the crime. Everything he says, everything they think he said, and sometimes everything another captive says he said is used against him. Often cops will put words in his mouth too, and since this only happens when he and the cop are alone together, the cop is believed. While caged and isolated, the police and media continue case creation against him.

Police dislike scientific evidence because unlike human evidence, it can not be so easily steered, enhanced, rehearsed or programed. Most police efforts toward scientific evidence is to try and negate. This is because it is usually the only type left behind for the defense to find after the police leave. The only reason the police did not confiscate it along with everything else is because they did not see it or recognize it as such. Police like scientific evidence when they can plant it. Their exuberance at planting hair, blood, fibers and gloves, and thus taking us all for fools is what set Simpson free. Getting videotaped in the act has not slowed their antics, only made police more efficient at excluding cameras and onlookers before they do so. Police still boldly harvest plantable evidence directly from the bodies of caged, shackled targets, and no quality control is emplaced to prevent this from being planted for honest police to find.

With so much chicanery occurring, there is still a slight chance of diligent innocents managing to obtain undetected scientific evidence, but only if they still have family and friends who possess the courage and wherewithal to gather it for you. Since the state keeps you caged and isolated, it is essential for innocents to make efficient use of these resources before the copy media alliance poisons them away from you with their standard, inevitable smear campaign.

Innocents should also beware and understand the state's purchase of so called "experts" to further police conviction plans. (see: "police scientists") The ones now being disgraced are often hair experts. One woman in Oklahoma City, ostensibly a "forensic chemist" is responsible for a twenty year spree of possible false convictions affecting perhaps five thousand cases. An OSBI pathologist was also recently suspended in a similar series of frauds.

>> EXCERPTS FOR THE STATE

> The more laws, the more robbers and thieves . . . Lau Tzu

The success of science in eventually stripping fraudulent convictions off a few innocents like Dr. Sheppard helped cause police to twist science to fit into their Machiavellian repertoire. Police usually are stuck: they often "know" the spouse, sibling or friend is guilty, but they have no evidence to "prove" it to a jury. Other times they had illegally gathered evidence so dirty no DA's would touch it. (see: "Valachi papers explained"). What to do? Call a psychic! Police feed their bilge to a psychic, the psychic spewis it back out to the cameras, citizens and suspects. The police apply psychological techniques with these pleas for help to provide evidence they can use and DA's will touch. (read: manipulate public opinion, witnesses, evidence and the juror pool.) Next thing you know, all kinds of witnesses squirm out of the bogs, hearsay "confessions" fall from the sky, hair, DNA, fibers or anything else needed leaps into view from adjacent dimensions. Conviction created; case closed.

The more police used psychics and other experts to "solve" crimes, the more chance they took of being exposed for the frauds they were. Though most that were exposed were expertly covered up by the moving parties, enough evidence escaped for accusees to eventually learn to defend against them. Many of the police who fomented these frauds were eventually made to resign and take their pensions elsewhere. (see: "OK's confession king.")

Some of these disgraced cops decided not to take their training over the next political boundary line like most did. Some discovered they could retire and build a new profession of selling carefully crafted expert testimony to their police and prosecution pals. (see: "Frank's follies")

All ambitious police get plenty of practice stampeding jurors with their facilitations of the conviction process. Many cops mined this type of legal skullduggery to new lows, particularly one who tried to capitalize on his own priest's sacrement of confession. This badged scoundrel did worse than tricking his target and priest into the news artist's spotlight with promises of revelations from a priest who would rape the holy sacrament for police ends. Even after public outrage shouted him down and the priest was hounded into admitting the cop was a liar, the cop continued to paraphrase the sacred text and thus stand on the Lord's back in his insane lust for confessions via any type of trickery or violence. His favorite schtick was to misquote thus: "God said, 'He who confesseth his sins before man, he shall be saved' ". Police manuals actuallly teach police to use God as thier crowbar to psychologically beat confessions out of their accusees. This particular cop eventually soiled his profession and reputation so badly he had to turn private detective. Now he snoops on cheating spouses and jiggles doorknobs for his living. Others like him prospered and are still producing extra human misery and death.

The most widely publicized of these experts who deliver sworn, canned prosecutorial testimony like Domino's delivers spicy pizza is a psychologist the media named "Dr. Death." Police and prosecutors used Dr Death to stampede jurrors into passing out death sentences at a prodigious rate. The unwitting target was told to submit to evaluation. By this scurrilous pshchologist. His diagnosis, somtimes concocted solely from mere minutes of inquisition via phone was always the same: "the subject is irredeemably psychopathic and will kill again at any opportunity." Jurors hearing this pronoucement from a professional psychologist would climb over one another to pass out death to persons they knew nothing about. Police and prosecutors from all over America clamored to purchase Dr. Death's expert testimony for use in snuffing out lives to further their political carrers.

Eventually the party slowed from a frenzy when it was found at least 59 convictees on death row were proven completely innocent by irrefutable scientific evidence. So many of them were put there by DR. Death that the media abruptly switched sides and exposed him for the fraud and probable murderer he was. He suffered no punishment for his crimes, only discredit. He slithered anonymously away and still practices psychology.

The expert testimony game still continues at a rapid pace with no quality control. It will continue as long as prosecutors have excessive amount of our taxcash with which to buy it.

A large portion of disgraced, unscrupulous ex-cops operate the lie detector industry. (see: "polygraphs and confessions") Their product is used solely to convict people unless they are excessively paid by affluent, influential targets. I scrutinized many of these services in the Dallas-FT Worth area while I was a refugee from Oklahoma's show-death and enslavement industry. Not one was free of police taint, but I tried some anyway. The first and worst one kept a shotgun in plain sight behind his desk. His need of such massive firepower and the protection it provides told me what type of person he is. He quickly proved my evaluation correct by determining I was to use his services to become unconvicted. He refused me the test and even had the effrontery to ask for a free look at my driver's liscense. (see: "lie detection facts.")

All the others I visited were much the same as he. Soon as they deduced their test would be used to unconvict me, the all refused, became intensly inquisitive and would not even rent their machine for an excessive profit. (Even a buffon can quickly learn to run it. Their exceedingly suspicious and sly behavior is for good reason, as is their paranoia.) Lie detection is almost completely worthless. What little worth it does posess lies almost exclusively in the psychological arena. Since it detects anxiety more than anything else, it is good for coercing confessions out of the guilty and for framing the innocent. It has no effect on the self-confident innocent person. When a tecnician finds one of thes types of accusees, the machine records nothing but normal readings. Being paranoids themselves, trained to be suspicious of everyone, operators conjure up visions of calamities to explain the lack of readings they can point to as deceptions. They pull out folklore and nonsence such as "psychopaths can lie truthfully", "he used the police method of beating the machine; tranquilizers", "he is guilty, but he erased all memory of the crime", or "he mentally reversed the questions and told the truth about them." The most cunning myth I've heard these charlatans spew is the nonsence that repeated tests become more conclusive and accurate because " the dirty get dirtier and the clean get cleaner." This was in response to their failure to soil the Ramsey's after multiple attempts. This sly wisdom sounds logical if accepted without thought. The opposite is true: the more rehearsals, the better the performance. Nobody gets worse with practice.

Another sad fact is polygraph tests are worthless both because the operators are biased and because they are incapable of detecting innocence or guilt. If you are guilty and you accept their pre-test indoctrination assuring you the machine is nigh-on to infallible, the operator hiding behind you will get squiggles he can proclaim indicate your guilt despite the fact no polygraph has ever reliably detected any lies. This fact has been proven time and again by numerous studies by scientists (not experts) world-wide. The only reason police and lawcrats still use this flagrant charlatanism to continue to affect courtroom justice is because courtrooms and police stations are staffed with many charlatans.

Whenever one brand of nonsence is routed out, another brand fills the void. This brings us to real psychology and psychiatry; the most abstract, unreliable, hardest-to-define science.

Police, lawcrats, the media and other ostensible forces of "good" use our ignorance to ply as-yet-untainted psychologists to wield their latest invention; the criminal "psychological profile." When being sold this and similar creations, remember that influence is bought, science is paid for. When scholars sell testimony, they lose their credibility in scientific circles and become prostitutes.

Buying testimony is unsound and unsuited to the interests of real justice. Despite this, it is good for police and lawcrats to be exposed to real science and the scientific method. They, as a class motivated to "make things come true," are frustrated to discover that some things are immutable. Thes privleged classes, ever used to manipulating people and things, need to be humbled to science and unbreakable physical laws which do not respond to threats, polls, influence, torture or enslavement.

Nevertheless, they still twist psychology to facilitate their ends. Even worse, like the mafia infiltrated some police departments, hereditary police families have been "infiltrating" universities to obtain psychological credentials for use in facilitating their police careers and agendas.

From hence was born the much ballyhoo'd police "psychological profile." Any literate high school graduate can find that for decades 90% of these attributes have long been tabulated and catalogued before police and prosecutors purchased their first Dr. Death. Criminals often have few friends, especially compared to persons who inhabit the priveleged classes who create profiles. Thus they are branded "loners" by news artists, TV producers and profiling experts. Criminals also are often born into poverty. Poverty impels envy, causing theft which produces criminal histories which cause depression and joblessness which induce escapist fantasies that elicit drug use, causing addiction, delusions, paranoia, insanity, violence, death and so on. Oncy you give a moments thought to the process, it sounds very similar to the self-fulfilling prophesy. In fact, this is often exactly what it is when its not flat -out hindsight served up as predicted actions on the cheapest, most vulgar police-produced TV "docu-tainment" programs. (My essays on the wost of these illustrate the pandering and fraud scientifically for all to see.)

Take this well-known process and add to it larger, more scientific-sounding buzzwords, expand key words into paragraphs of platitudes, toss in concepts like self-esteem, single-parent family, child abuse, etc, and you can eventually create a paradigm that seems to espouse something new that appears to have import far beyond its true value.

Police given degrees in psychology become their own Dr. Deaths, lie detectors and psychics all rolled into one. Their goal is still to connive jurors into convicting their chosen accusee, except now the taxherd pays for them to go to school themselves instead of merely paying for the concoctions of unscrupulous, greedy scholars.

In a way, this development is much more sinister than simply buying expert testimony. Private sector experts often retain some sense of fair play. Police and lawcrats often do not. Most are quite ruthless and can justify anything, same as can delusional psychopaths. "The end justifies the means" is taken to yet deeper depths by supremely arrogand and self-righteous police and lawcrats. These closet sadists expertly manipulate the willing media and through them taint the entire juror pool, stampeding them better than any sheepdogs. Many have no shred of conscience for persons of the producer class, viewing us as inconsequential as farm animals; a resource for exploitation.

No one can know how much excessive power and privilege corrupts until he is victimized by these people. As one expects, sociopaths gravitate toward penal work, but they are bred and trained into police and lawcrats. Absolute power over men is the most addictive drug. Police and lawcrats are twisted the most through constant abuse of their excessive power and thus should be closely observed and often tested for addiction to it. They should be periodically rotated out of these jobs as sociopathic tendencies occur. (see: "springfield judge non-investigation")

In sum, police psychological profiles are nothing new, nor are they worthy of note except as not-so-subtle devices for manipulating the ignorant and gullible into accepting the conjectures of the powerful and priveleged as fact.

>> Apprehension

> Talk is cheap: not talking is very costly . . . Viktor Stitchkin

While police are trying to make two or more witnesses agree on the same target, they are also interrogating their potential targets in an effort to ascertain convictability. Police keep their information secret in order that it remain flexible enough to wrap around whoever is finally targeted for cinviction. If you are lucky enough to have warning of their machinations toward you in this regard, you do yourself no favors by trying to prove your innocence to them. The result of this entirely one sided process is that you give police a roadmap of how they can adjust their secret evidence to thwart your good faith evidence of innocence. Police routinely convict innocent persons whose only thought was to assist police in puzzling out crime scenes. They cost a mentally challenged Missouri boy fourteen years of his life by choosing to nail him for burning down his grandmother's home rather than continue seeking the actual culprint. It took only one cop's lie to crucify him. It took a massive, long term effort by hundreds of family, friends, church members and altruists to pry this cop's lie off. Helping police is a lot like trying to share a meal with a wolverine.

Some innocents are simply abducted by cops with no prior warning, as happened to me. It took me several months to uncover why it occurred. A cop's drugsnitch had balked at being coerced into service and killed a man while attempting to obtain enough money to escape the cop's clutches via a bus ticket out of town. He happened to be sitting next to me at a restuarant counter when the police tracked him down. Knowing his handler's planned to punish him, he took advantage of the cop's "grab everybody" strategy and agreed with their speculation that I was his accomplice. Then he blamed his murder on me. The cops promptly dragged me off to their lair and beat me until I was glad to sign their paper. Many hundreds of people are found beaten to death every year in American jails. Mostly it is not pre-meditated murder, but only young, beefy hambones testing their limits. They learn the blue crew can escape responsibility due to their badge and lawful "absolute immunity" to the law, so they simply become more vicious with time. Despite this fact, never sign, no matter how long or badly they maim you. Feign a heart attack, sling blood all over them and their office, anything you can think of is better than signing. When cops beat people to death in such situatons, it is not usually intentional. It is often the result of their victim not knowing when to shut up, as in the case of Louima, whom they maimed anally then orally with their bludgeons. Police many times kill drunks who won't stay knocked down. Police stab them in their guts with their new style riot baton with the handle jutting out the side for killing leverage. Their victim's intestines rip, causing them to die hours later screaming for the jail's "doctor." The excuse given the family and news vultures is "ulcers'". When they hit you, fall over and stay down. Even wolverines will stop attacking when submission is displayed. Deadly police can usually be placated the same way, if only temporarily. When you again refuse to sign, the police will attack again. Studies indicate this second attack is usually less vicious and of shorter duration. Third attacks are rare except as suckerpunches and cheapshots. Excruciating pain and light disfigurement is easier to endure than theft of decades of your life spent in their concrete coffins. An innocent's first words to these police should be requests for a lawyer and phone. Sadly, you usually get neither until after a beating or two, then they pointedly eavesdrop to prevent you from saying too much.

>> The Lawcrats

> Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. . . . George Orwell

Usually within 3 to 7 days too late you will be permitted to see a judge who will seek your money and determine your ability to obtain money from any other source for purchase of freedom and/or a lawyer. Only affluent persons are permitted to ransom their way out of the state's cage. When he confirms your inability to afford a real lawyer, the judge will assign you a public defender (PD). The PD will see you for about 20 minutes ina cubbyhole in the jail constructed per police design for this purpose. It is often found to be bugged by police. The first thing the PD does is sell you on the farce of "attorney-client privilege." This is the nonsense that anything you tell him will not be told to his boss, the judge, or his schoolchum, the DA, or their friends and coworkers, the police and media. Soon as he sees you accept this notion, he will ask you to tell him "your side of the story." Like everyone else, he expects you to be guilty simply because the police abducted you. He will disbelieve your innocence, make his own confidential judgement of you and adjust his defense of you accordingly. His primary product is the sale of plea "bargains" and hence he is usually of little worth to innocents.

The innocent's task is not to waste much time making explainations to the PD. Soon as he gets your information, he will mutter a few empty reassurances and quickly exit before you've even begun. Never answer any lawcrat's questions until they have answered yours. You want a long list of things and should put him to work immediately, if he will work. You want his investigator to search the crime scene and to gather information the police carried off. You want the PD to file an Habeas Corpus (HC). You want a polygraph test. You want him to file in writing for a speedy trial. You want a thousand other things you can't think of right now like pen, paper, postage, carbons, names, addresses, phone and numbers, envelopes, etc.

You will get excuses instead of action. Bond is set astronomically high so the judge can appear fair by lowering it yet still keep it out of your reach. The PD's investigator is unavailable (read nonexistant). The HC is not needed because you'll see the judge soon enough without it. There is no money "budgeted" for polygraph tests. You can eventually purchase pen, paper and postage, etc. from the jailer when someone brings you money. Everything you ask for is not available or is promised for later. Do not let the PD escape. Insist he file today for a speedy trial request and an HC for an immediate hearing. Insist he bring you a copy of the "rules of the district courts", the Bill of Rights and "trial practices and tactics".

The PD will immediately advise "you don't need the rules of the court; the judge and I will cover you on this." (cover your eyes, that is) "You don't need the Bill of Rights for state court." (State courts are supposed to follow the Federal Constitution. This is why they are called states, not countries.) "I don't think there is a book by that title . . " (Then bring me the book they taught you law from, you artful dodger!)

Every time a lawcrat begins a sentence with "I don't think . . ." be aware he is likely concealing his knowledge. Using such qualifiers allows him to preserve his plausibility of ignorance. In the case of lawbooks in jail, he knows the sheriff tries to prohibit this. Also the PD knows it is illegal for him to do so. In the twisted minds of lawcrats it is perfectly natural and all right for them to simply omit their certain knowledge of this illegality and thus passively assist the jailers in this criminality by convincing you it is a lost cause as the courtcrats turn a blind eye to these antics. If you pulled this same scam on them, it would be called "conspiricay with intent to defraud". Since it's them doing it to you, it's merely a misunderstanding and an oversight. Your response should be "my constitutional rights to due process and equal protection overrides the sheriff's illegal rule that blocks my access to the law, court and justice. Petition the judge to let me have thise items from the public courthouse law library."

The PD is not going to get you these things or petition the judge. He will simply agree, exit and forget. He will not reply to your letters. When you see him weeks hence at the hearing, he will reply "I have been so busy . . ." or "I don't think you asked me that."

You have to convince the PD to do all this, then you have to complain into the court reporter's record of everything he did not do. And you have to do it yourself. Some how get paper and ink. Toilet tissue and blood has worked. Write the court's name, city, county and state at the top. Below left put "you versus jailer Scowls, et al". Below right stays blank for the clerk's number. Below this put "petition for habeas corpus, equal protection, due process, bond, speedy trial . . ." and anything else you need to obtain access to the law, courts and freedom to investigate their accusations yourself. Below these titles briefly state specifecally what you want and which laws entitle you to it. HC is a request for a hearing ASAP that is so common it needs no justification. The next two items are Bill of Rights laws that entitle you to lawbooks in jail and almost anything else that involves fairness. Bond is also a constitutional right that "guarantees" citizens can ransom our way out of the judge's cage until trial.

Now put "Certificate of Service" and below this put "on (day/date) I gave a copy of this to jailer Scowls for him to give to the court clerk." This is nothing but telling the involved parties when and how you sent this to the judge and the person(s) you are suing.

Last, find two brave fellow captives to witness you signing the bottom. Then ask them to sign too. People usually balk at this. If the run away, put "witness refused to sign." This functions as a notary and makes your paper a legal document. Why some stranger would write a fradulent petition in a criminal cage and sign your name to it is a delusion only lawcrats suffer. Mainly this requirement functions as one of the many thousands of hindering, delaying, preventative devices lawcrats use to make their services seem needed and valuable.

If you do find two captives who will sign, you will probably have to listen to everyon's sad plight and advise them as if you were a lawyer. Others will envy the attention you're getting and want to argue. Leave the ego trips to the attention seekers. Learn what you can, but be aware many will tell you nonsense simply because they harbor the usual "spread the misery" philosophy that abounds in captivity.

Use plain English. Avoid lawyer jargon. Try to keep a copy for yourself. If you can't then keep a log of what you submitted when, through and to whom, and who got copies. This is so you can accurately read it into the court reporter's record, and so you can still have a record when they do not provide you a copy of theirs. Know that they do not plan to provide you with any record except the trial transcript, probably the hearing transcript if you insist, juror selection maybe, but only after months of polite wrangling and then only after paying a dollar or two per page for it. Usually this vanishes along with all the other court reporter's alleged records of short appearances before the judge for nonsense like plea-taking, arraignments, etc. Knowing this stuff will vanish, be certain to learn the court reporter's name and log it with the time, date and nature of the legal ritual recorded. This helps keep it from vanishing. Do not let them prevent you from taking this information. It is your right, and their promises to see you get these records later are pure wind.

Study the books if you get them. Rehearse and plan ahead even if you don't. Keep a positive outlook. If you think you're going to be wronged, this attitude will infect others and all of you will be wronged. If everyone works hopefully and with optimism, more will work harder and thus be abused less than otherwise would have occurred with pessimism.

A good way to practice and prepare for trial is to try and form focus groups with the other captives. Do role playing and mock trials as are done in universities. This helps you learn public speaking and group dynamics, if nothing else. Encourage others to take trial over plea "bargains." Everyone who cops out of trial is making everyone suffer. (see: "plea bargains . . .") Justice disappeared as targets began giving away their right to trial and appeal. The more you lie down, the more you get trampled.

They will periodically drag you to nonsense proceedings like "district arrainment." Expect these and already have an outline of everything you need to accomplish written down so there is no chance they will be able to distract you into forgetting anything. These quickie appearances before the judge are your chances to enter motions and petitions into the record directly and get what you need.

The judge only wants 2 or 3 things during these interludes: He'll want you to plead again; check to see if you've been able to connive anyone into mortgaging their home for bond; see if you've sold enough assets to pay him more fees, fines or penalties; advise you of more accusations to defend against; give you worthless paper or any of many other things. He puts off your questions until you've answered his, and soon as you do, he orders his bodyguards to stuff you back into his windowless box.

This being so, never answer his questions until he has answered yours. Remind him, when needed, that you are forced to protect your rights now, else the appeals judges will automatically waive them against your will. He knows this fact, yet he will often try and thwart you anyway through any of his many ruses. He can even answer his questions to you himself if he can't make you do so. Even so, do not let them frog-march you through their rituals. Do get your stuff read into the court record.

After enough of this, they will see you are not as easily led to the slaughter as their usual prey. When they see you are not easily intimidated, capable of independent thought and coherent public speaking, they will take extra steps to thwart you. First off, the PD will try to bail out on you. He'll tell the judge he is unable to get you to accept his (bad) advice (and be quiet) and thus he can't effectively assist you in your defense.

The real reason the PD is trying to bail is because he has had an inkling that your plan is something to do with causing a major upheaval of the lawyer system. He wants no part in making this type of history. The PD is usually a green lawyer whose only loyalty is to the judge and bar association that enriches him so well for his wordsmithy. He will do nothing to endanger his livlihood even if it means lethal injection for you. His job is merely to put on a defense of you. The legal definition of "effective" defense has nothing to do with success and requires the PD do only two things: (1) call any witness in your favor; (2) present any type of favorable evidence (see #1). In practical terms, if he puts on the witness chair a wino who says you once gave him spare change, both conditions are fulfilled.

This is in the lawbooks; its absouutely true; most victims never learn this until they are years into prison and appeals. Worse, the PD can give you harmful advice, be supremely incompetent, never investigaye anything, actually sleep during trial and none of this will get any appeals judge to admit you had anything but adequate counsel. Judges revoked this amendment with caselaw requiring you to prove the PD "made a mockery and a sham" of court proceedings. Also the PD is immune to civil lawsuits from clients for incompetence.

One of the best examples of standard harmful PD's advice is "be quiet and let me do my job!" You will learn years too late in appeals court that he is only to assist you in doing his job. In practical terms this means you have to be a better, more highly trained lawyer than him so you can judge and correct his performance! When you take this advice from the PD, you are committing legal Hirikiri. The judges waive your rights automatically as you sit quietly and follow the PD's advice even though they do not tell you your rights and you do not know them.

The judge will not let the PD bail just because they observe you taking charge of your defense somewhat. The judge will not render you the two books and Bill of Rights you petitioned him for. This is why you keep copies and a log. Get his verbal refusal/excuse or wait 10 to 15 days for his non-response. Then politely petition the next-highest court for the books and everything else you need the same way. This is mailed to the state court of appeals, capitol building, your state. No street or zip is needed. The post office knows where it is.

Before too many weeks after this the appeals court's clerks will call the district court's clearks and tell them to make the judge or PD render your needs. If they don't, you have a record of them trampling your rights. Also, the appeals court may yet send you and the judge an order telling him to get you those books. You may also cost them so much hassle that they decide to get off you or provide equivalent consideration. The techiques I describe in this essay caused one pack of courtcrats to throw away a no-lose escape trial on me. You could obtain similar capitulations.

The truest thing that issues from their throats is that everything will be used against you, so when the judge (or police) shriek at you, stop, think and reply, "Since you admit everything I say will be used against me, I refuse to answer loaded questions designed to take away my rights." Then take all the time you need to avoid their entrapments as you try to deflect their attempts to harm you.

A good defense to the system is to use its pretense of fairness against it. To do this most effectively, you need to learn about the Bill of Rights and the laws it has spawned. Helpful is: "The Constitution: revoked through caselaw."

Two useful legal instruments are "interrogatories" and discovery requests. These are tools to force the police, DA and others to reveal or produce evidence and information, even witnesses, before trial. In practice these tools are often ignored by judges or thwarted by the police and DA's infinite stockpile of ruses, deceits, forgetfulness, prevarications and deliberate misunderstandings. What good are they if they only work in the hands of expensive lawyers? Their value is in their pretense of fairness, which is a step toward actual fairness. Use of them increases the probability that somewhere, someone of the police or prosecution machine will accidently let some of their hidden evidence or wrongdoing bulge into view.

This occurs often. This occurred to me, only 26 years too late. The police and prosecutor forgot to destroy the police reports detailing the witnesses first, most accurate, truthful, matching descriptions of the killer after steering two of them onto me and concealing a third witness who refused to lie or be duped. Also revealed was that the second witness actually alerted police to the fact that they were steering her toward a boy she knew was innocent. Eventually police bludgeoned perjury out of her with a most cunning ruse. Also it finally became uncovered that police concealed and destroyed 21 fingerprints and no fewer than 8 blood samples from the killer! These tools should be used to pry out information on what was concealed, stolen, destroyed or discarded. Do not let the PD keep these tools secret from you. Make him use them or use them yourself.

Another thing that helps is called the "chain of custody". This is merely a system that requires police to sign for each bit of evidence so it is less easily planted, lost, altered, substituted or enhanced toward conviction purposes. This tiny, toothless effort at quality control on police and lawcrats works amazingly better than nothing at excluding crooked evidence and slowing the destruction of innocence-proving evidence. Why? Because police have a very safe place to conceal evidence from non police eyes virtually forever: their own secret evidence warehouse. Each and every one of the farcical freedom of information acts have special, made for police only escape clauses that make police files absolutely secret. Every court rule and law ever made has these escape hatches for police. Also, police have absolute immunity to all real punishment when they get caught in such wrongdoing as evidence theft. For them and lawcrats, its not even a crime; only a "wrongdoing".

[Author's note: In the three years since I wrote this I found that after a conviction or the first appeal is denied, the polic, DA's and judges race to destroy the evidence they can not afford to get caught with.]

Since it takes tens or even hundreds of police and courtcrats to get their legal lethal injector in your arm, there is a probability that someone will accidentlally spill secrets if questioned closely enough. Your task is to uncover these people and give them this chance. The more they have to write, say or do, the more chance lies will pop into view. Lies point to what was hidden or discarded. What they hide and destroy is what will get their accusations off you.

You'll need to practice keeping the judge off you while you work. He will rudely interrupt you at every chance, Sometimes an appropriate response will be similar to this:

"I object to your constant interruptions that show your intention to silence me or disrupt my thought processes, preventing me from making an adequate record to protect my rights. This is bias. I ask you to remove yourself for another judge due to your obvious contempt for my attempts to protect my rights."

You are training him to allow you to speak. Talk long and slow. Use lots of analogies. When he interrupts, start again at the beginning. Be polite. Do not get angry, and do not be intimidated. Don't give up. Don't quit trying. Don't back down. Teach other captives to grow a backbone. If you succeed, the courtcrat's moneymaker will slow. It's self clogging function may even stop it temporarily. If you cost them too much time and effort, they may chuck you and seek the actual culprit.

Soon as an outsider learns to use the law to his advantage, those with the gold change the rules. Knowing this, realize the court rules still permit you to pick jurors, make an opening statement, object, examine witnesses and make a closing arguement in turns with the PD.

The PD functions to prevent you from developing a rapport with the jurors. Conviction is much more difficult to achieve when this occurs. This is why the lawcrats insist their targets sit quietly and motionless like lizards trying to blend in with the rich walnut and mahogany decore. Your task is to dimonstrate your humanity to all despite the lawcrat's attempts to prevent this and portray you as an ogre.

>> Selecting a defense

> All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing . . . Author unknown.

The PD will imply there are many defenses to choose from. You'll be expected to select from a short verbal list he suggests, like: insanity; self-defense, passion, mitigating circumstances, etc. Innocent and guilty alike tend toward "alibi" as a defense. It's pretty much worthless, as are all legal defenses. Too many hollywood mobster movies and TV police shows have made alibi a dirty word that means liar. Prisons are exploding with people who thought jurors would believe their wife, son or friends swearing you were all elsewhere together when the crime transpired.

The sad fact is, jurors discount all alibis in favor of the exquisitly coached stranger pointing at you in court. Also, targets don't know where they were last month when the crime occurred. If they do, and are gullible enough to tell the police, the timeframe can conveniently shift to fit prosecution needs. Relatives and friends are not believed because these are the very people the jurors are certain will lie for you. They don't even need a slick-lipped DA to put this thought in their heads. It's automatic. It's what you would think in their place. Even strangers won't work because jurors presuppose a monetary arrangement. People on death row have been shoved in their graves with time clock cards and co-worker witnesses jurors simply disregarded in favor of police and DA conjectures. Soon as the police target you, your family, friends, co-workers and everyone else flee from you at top speed. You can't force them to testify, and if they do, they become tongue tied and mentally retarded when faced with the lawcrats. Alibi witnesses don't get the intense coaching and rehearsals from police and the DA that prosecution witnesses receive. Instead they get finincial loss, intimidation, harassment and their names added to various official's shit lists. Few choose to suffer this.

Other defenses are evaluated in another essay. Since they're not for innocents, I skip to the primary defense all PD's use despite any the target selects. It doesn't even have a name. It is more of a method. It entails trying to create "resonable doubt" of your guilt and speculating multiple other persons who could be guilty instead. Appropriate names for them could be the "feining innocence" defense and the "shift the heat" defense. These defenses exhibit the sorry state of our legal system that requires everyone swear to tell the truth as it makes maximum use of subterfuge and chicanery. If the lawyer system had anything to do with the high-sounding words it uses like truth and justice, the truth can not be told. The penalty for each crime is too onerous because politicians use promises of ever more vengeance as their tool for wedging themselves into office. This makes truth and honesty too expensive, feigning innocence and shifting blame cheapens real innocence. Plus, jurors don't like such trickery. It causes juror backlash, and this, combined with the DA's and judge's political agendas, make the system far too harsh, costing many more lives than the crimes do.

>> The hearing

> If at first they don't succeed, they trial and trial again. . Sam Kinnison

You want one. It's a sham with the forgone conclusion of the accusee being forced to suffer trial. The DA trots out the victim of a crime who points at you and says "That's him: I'm positive!" The DA need prove nothing beyond a crime having been committed and that you might have done it. Usually they dress it up a bit for the spectators (media vultures and the victim's relatives.) And include an expert or a cop to perform. The DA and PD know the judge will accept just about anything with an accusor and an accusee. Soon as the last act leaves, he bangs his little wooden hammer and shouts "bound over for trial!"

The hearing is a good time to use any witnesses you might have, but only if the accusors commit to an unshiftable time frame for the crime! The PD will not like this and will advise against this, saying they should be kept secret, the DA might trip them up, and they should be used as suprises at trial, where it counts. It's mostly nonsense. The DA is never surprised at trial, only ten days before trial when he, the judge and PD have their pre-trial planning session most targets never learn about. (be certain to insist on being included, and make certain the PD gives you a copy of everything the DA hands over.) The real reason the PD prefers to dodge hearings is because he gets a set, bulk fee for you, so the less time he spends on you, the more time he has for paying clients. The hearing provides valuable experience and rehearsal time that should not just benefit prosecution witnesses. Policen and DA's use hearings to spot snags and to improve on stories and delivery. You and your witnesses should use this same advantage.

The hearing is also the best opportunity you will have to uncover what kind of PD you have. Instead of the standard 20 minute whisk through jail cage visit, you'll have maybe an hour of intermittant quietude and waiting in which you can speak to him. He can't abruptly exit and is some what forced to answer questions you've written down. Evaluate his character. Note especially if his eyelids droop, which indicated he may be taking tranquilizers. If he is unsatisfactory, get rid of him, but do not give him any warning of your desire to do so. Never give any lawcrats information that permits them to do an endrun around you. Soon as the PD learns you will replace him due to his incompetence, refusal to do as you ask or his bad memory, he will run to the judge and get loose through use of an inoccous, blamless excuse. The judge will quickly agree to this because an important part of the lawcrat's job is to keep each other "clean".

This robs you of an important fairness and appeal considerations as well as legitimate quality control. When police and lawcrats can sneak off and "fix" a problem before you can air it, they've shrugged off another feedback loop and concealed a problem that needs a real fix that keeps it from happening to the next hundred targets in a row.

This tricks the citizens into continued complacency and apathy, thinking the system is working fine despite the hideous clanking and grinding noises they hear it making. Worse, every time they succeed in concealing these problems, they become more lax, which makes these problems spread and grow. Only complete feedback loops adjust the system for the better of all participants. When police and lawcrats short circuit feedback loops for their own benefit with self policing nonsense, we all suffer longer and harder as progress is retarded or reversed. The first thing an innocent should consider asking one microsecond before they bring the accusor out is that he be made to describe the culprit in maximum detail from memory into the court record without looking at you as a guide. They will not agree to this, and even if they do, they will call a quick recess first or the DA will slip away briefly. Because so much witness steering and memory revision occurs, the accusors usually can't pickout their targets without help. Because the cop and DA simply tell each witness which chair the PD will park you in, they often will not have with them a police headshot closeup of you to really school the accusors thouroughly with prior to the hearing. They don't expect such a request, either, so something could easily occur to favor you.

One sure-fire way to destroy most any accusor every trime is called "defendant-switching." Ask the PD for this and watch his eyes spin and his tongue cleave to the roof of his mouth. Also see "Oklahoma v. Miscovski", circa 1970, approximately. He pulled this and saved a woman from a shoplifting conviction. Then the judge nailed him for contempt for thus making fools of him, his DA, the arresting cop and the star fingerpointer.

Because defendant switching is so powerful (or eyewitness identifications so weak), the judge has special, unwritten rules negating it by requiring he be notified beforehand. Innocent persons should all unexpectedly put demands for these techniques in the reporter's record at the last second before the accusor is brought to point. Bird dogs and toddlers have good reason to point instead of describing what they want; accusors don't. You should also loudly note and complain bitterly about all the resulting funny business this causes among the police and courtcrats. It begins with the head cop leaping up and rushing out as if his pants were afire.

The hearing is thus crucial and should proceed in slow motion so you can uncover what happened before it all turns into a puppet show for the jurors. If you never got to see the court rules, ask why are some secret and unwritten? These are the ones you can't see until you've been blindsided by them. Ask why this isn't unfair.

Because the judge can instantly create court rules to thwart you, the hearing is not the place to let out your intention. To take turns with the PD at all his duties. Do not tell the PD this. (I did, and he immediately ran to the judge and DA. The 3 of them then conspired together and stole my escape trial with an illegal ruse. When I sued to get charges restored, the appeals judges of 3 courts all lost the ability to comprehend plain English.) The PD is obliged to tell the judge, who will tell his DA, who will tell the police, who will anonymously snitch off your plans to the news artists. Some of this legitimately occurs during their pre-trial planning session.

Up to now they only think you are a mere pest with no real plan. You suffer having to hide the plan by being unable to too boldly question the accusors directly about why they are doing this to you. Since no quality control is present now (Lapdog!), such questions are probably best saved for when the jurors can hear. The hearing is primarily for dragging out maximum details and getting them nailed down so they can't change much later. While I advise you to drag out minute details from the accusors, the police and DA are telling them to stick to the script and don't let details escape to trip them up. Observe the PD's tecnique at this. Try to emulate it at trial. Don't be afraid to stand up and ask for clarifications or ask your own questions. Do not take the judge's order to "object through your lawyer." If he tenders this nonse, put in the record how this robs you of your right to defend yourself, especially when the PD refuses to object for you.

>> Trials and tactics

> The more corrupt a state, the more numerous its laws. . . Cornelius Tacitus

When you do reveal the plan, the judge will say "I don't think you know the rules . . " This is when you pass out copies of these court rules, preferably at trial, one second after the jurors are seated, with as many spectators as you can draw. The plan causes a lot of judicial fireworks. A jury and large, varied audience lessens the liklihood the judge will simply elect to go blind and change the rules. Loudly qoute the part that allows you to take turns with the PD at every part of the trial. Insist upon the full benefit of all these rules. When they won't permit this, stop the trial and appeal to the next highest court. When there is an unresolvable despute of a constitutional right, you can appeal immediately. This rule is in the same book. The right you are seeking is that of confronting your accusors. (Also called due process, equal protection and effective counsel, since the PD is not helping here.) The Bill of Rights does not say members of the law monopoly get to insert themselves between you and the accusor nor permit them to filter and translate your words, nor that you should be forced to whisper into one's ear to be heard. You get to make these accusors look you in the eye and spew their venom to you personally.

To be permitted to do this is a very great advantage. Being denied this right gets thousands of innocents convicted every year: about fifty thousand, to be precise.

The DA/judge team also give themselves a tremendous advantage when they routinely violate their own sequestration rule at every trial. This violation works against the target to the same degree. This rule forbids persons who are to testify from watching the hearing and trial. This is supposed to prevent witnesses from adjusting their stories to fit smoothly with testimony from other witnesses. If this was allowed, all the discrepancies would be fixed before the jurors heard them. The head cop and DA have all their witnesses tutored, coached, scripted and rehearsed before each appearance. This is why hearings and trials begin hours late in the mornings; so the performers can be readied. (Ask the accusors what time they arrived. Then ask what they did all this time.) In addition to this, the DA has the head cop sit at his table directly in front of the witness chair. Throughout the trial he lends moral support to all the witnesses he brought to accuse you, practically holding their hands and cheering them on with sublte, Mona Lisa smiles, nods, shakes and other signals. He also functions as a continuing threat to defense and unfriendly prosecution witnesses. E.G. if they brought a jail snitch to put lies in your mouth, the cop makes sure he stays bought and doesn't do anything cute. (See: "Police Snitch Industry") Soon as the last prosecutor's witness exits, this cop is called to testify. He is the chief investigator assigned to nail this crime on you. He has noted all the snags in the stories and has devised the best ways he can clean them up.

How do the courtcrats pull this stunt on your witnesses, then dodge the rule for their own? Easily and quietly, just before the jurors are fetched. So slick and slippery is the chicanery pulled that most victims never realize what just went on. To help you spot it and object to it. I describe it here:

The scam begins with the PD seating you in the target's chair. Then he edges over to the judge and murmers "we'll want 'the rule', your honor." The DA hears and says "we'd like an exception for our chief investigator, McGruff, here." (He doesn't care if you catch on to the fix because he knows the judge always permits this standard violation of the rule for him.) The PD mutters "objection." The judge says "overruled, exception allowed."

That's it. You're juked. The PD makes no real objection to it. The judge notes from the corner of his eye your lack of attention, deems it safe to bring the jurors in and quickly begins his usual harangue to them about how solemn, patriotic and sacred the lawersystem is.

Now you stand up and loudly object. Memorize and practice it, because all 3 lawcrats will be loudly and desperately interrupting and overtalking you to prevent the court reporter from recording your words. (She is the judge's hand picked pal and often assists him and the DA's in juking the record.) Also the baliffs and police may begin barking too, helping prevent the jurors from hearing you. When intimidation fails, they'll use trickery to make you shut up or consent to whisper at the judge's citidel. If that fails, they'll force you into the judge's condo for a secret session. Don't go for it. They are trying to avoid having to pick another pack of jurors because you've gained empathy from them by exposing their scam. Also, they fear you will generate in them some type of prejudice or other that may get you a new trial on appeal in a few years. A sample objection is:

"I object to this violation of the sequestration rule. It was McGruff's idea to put this crime onto me. He has all the information and evidence, both revealed and concealed. You and the DA plan to let him sit directly in front of each prosecution witness and give them moral support and cues as they testify. I can not watch for signals being passed and and properly attend the testimony at the same time. The purpose of the rule is to prevent such coaching and story correction. Letting him do this, then bat cleanup makes a mockery and a sham (be sure to include those two words) of the rule and the Bill of Rights provision for a fair trial. This benefits the prosecution as much as it hurts the defense. He even gets to imply official threats by glowering at my witnesses as they try to testify. It's already too hard to get defense witnesses to brave the machine . . ." and on and on until you win. Just before they hogtie and gag you, demand that he testify first instead of last, like they plan. This prevents him from adjusting his story and cleaning up snags, plus this allows the details to be pulled out of the man who knows all the details first, so they can be compared to the pieces of story yet to come from the actual witnesses. (Can't see the picture too well through broken glass.) This increases the likelihood they will remember too much. When this deviation from their script occurs, the cop can be brought back to clarify these pesky discrepancies and muchnesses. Maybe he will let slip too much.

When they don't give you the rule or accept the compromise, stop the trial and appeal this unresolvable dispute of your constitutional right to a fair trial, due process and equal protection to the court of appeals or higher, if necessary. You can take this to all layers of appeals bureaucracies. This violation is not fair, or equal or the law.

>> The Jurors

> Vini, Vidi, Vomi; I came to city hall, I saw what they were doing, I heaved in disgust . . Sam Kinnison.

The trial tactics and court rules books must be studied before you can effectively select jurors. Use them and draft questions you will ask prior to juror selection. Avoid questions that permit yes or no answers. These imply the desired answer. You want them to think up an opinion with which you can guage their character. You want knowledgeable, open minded, unbiased free thinkers.

The DA wants jurors who are old, meek, affluent, fearful of crime, patriotic and devout. He prefers any type of gov't employee and members of their AFSME union. As a gov't accusee, these current and former gov't employees will conclude your guilt easier and quicker than private sector individuals. The DA also prefers business persons and property owners over blue collar citizens because they have more to protect. They develop relationships of mutual backscratching with police by, for example, providing free donuts for increased police presence and faster, more thorough service. DA's also prefer women. They often form special relationships with police and courtcrats due to their outgoing nature, extensive network of friends and desire for extra protection from unscrupulous men. Poor persons don't make it onto juries despite the fact courtcrats have slowly been forced to provide a closer apporximation of actual peers through motor/voter laws which they fought tooth and nail. The disenfranchised are who you want. Ex-cons are excluded too, even after having paid their "debt" in full. People who see the system from the bottom up are not permitted. The closest you will get are Hispanics and Africans, and racial enmity can thwart their sense of justice. Most revealing of jurors is to ask their opinions of controversial subjects like Rodney King, Ruby Ridge, Richard Jewell, the Waco holocaust and similar incidents of abuse of gov't power. Ask about patriotism, military service as military police and their dealings with police, courts, politics and religion first. This way you counter the courtcrew's subtle indoctrinations of the jurors and can detect former police who might sneak onto the panel.

Study and emulate the PD's and DA's techniques. The DA and judge will interrupt, claming your questions are pointless and rambling. You'll have to justify them to the judge, or both will continue harrasing you. Placate him, be polite, use humor, smile, use parody, satire and light sarcasm or goodnatured ridiculing laghter instead of anger when they won't stop. Done correctly, the jurors will see the judge as the ogre. The DA steps back and depends on the judge to absorb juror backlash from this heckling. Practice answering thus:

"I'm entitled to try and guage philosophies, character, attitudes and biases. Psychological and social matters are complex, and I'm not as experienced at them as all of you are. Please don't force me to explain to you what you know better than I. Your interruptions are derailing my thought processes, making this harder and take longer. Please let me do this most important thing I've ever done. You're all trying to take away my life, so I need to be able to think and be thorough." When they keep it up, ask the judge to remove himself for bias evidenced by his emotional outbursts and the way he deeps the court reporter from hearing you over his shouts. He won't do it, but his tantrums and arrogant contempt shows his true nature, especially when you point it out as it occurs.

The most costly way to exclude biased jurors is by using a "challenge." The best way is "for cause," which means prejudice or bias in English. Bias is what police have, hence no police of any kind are allowed on juries. You still have to ask, and try to exclude security guards too. No relatives of any participants are allowed. Your state's rulebook has all the variations that apply.

To excuse for cause, you must get them to admit they harbor prejudice they could not overlook to give you a fair trial. Soon as you accomplish this, the judges will requestion them in a manner that encourages them to change their minds. Most will take his cue and switch. Then the judge will smile sweetly at you and proclaim "I find no prejudice. This juror will not be excused for cause."

Watching him pull this stunt over and over shows how they converted a good system on paper to a farce in practice. Maleability is human nature, especially when faced with a powerful entity who won't give up until you give in. Jurors see he wants them to stay despity their stated bias, so they accomodate his desire rather than suffer his ire. Object and explain why as I have stated. Also important is to keep your own list of jurors on the final panel. This is so you don't lose them when it turns out one or more of them had sinister designs. (see: "juror groupies, moles and sleepers")

>> Juror groupies

> Every state is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws "too well." . . Ralph Waldo Emerson

Defense groupies have already been excluded by law and their own preference. Only prosecution biased groupies remain. Persons trying to weasel their way onto juries for purposes of sabotage are spotted by their eyes that blink, stray and dart too much. Also they sound too good to be true. Look for quick squints as they cogitate over the best answer to recite. Women and lawcrats are especially attuned to the shifty facial expressions, slight hesitations and verbal stop, backup and restart these persons exhibit, so try to get a female PD and value her opinion. Long careful questioning is required to uncover them. Most are groupies because they are victims of crime or law-awed or both. You'll never be certain when you find one until after conviction: they will gloat at you. The one problem they have is trying to appear ultraconservative/pro-law to the DA and appear liberal/permissive to you. He's walking a tightrope: too much bootlicking on one side will pitch him over the other. He knows this and the easy solution: he need only pass one signal by you to the DA and he can lead the pack to conviction. Beware any winks and high signs with a secret observer, if possible. Object long and hard when this occurs. Be also aware the judge, DA, etc have made many friends within the steady stream of citizens that flow through the city complex year after year. Votes and political power are thick here. These people are moles and sleepers who do not have to pass signals. The agreement is understood. Spotting them requires different techniques. Be mindful of persons the DA accepts after particularly brief questioning. You'll need more challenges than you are permitted. A good rule of thumb is: when in doubt, get them out.

>> A tactic

> The rich as well as the poor are forbidden to steal bread. . . Voltaire

You get to object the entire jury. Since the juror selection record will be lost, wait until the trial begins to do so. E. g. "I object to the jury panel because they are not of my peers. They all make more money than I do. None have been forced to answer false accusations or suffered arrest. Poor persons make up half the population, yet none are here . . " add all the other differences that separate them from your actual peers.

>> Opening statements

> Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key to knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in, ye hindered. . . Luke 11:52

The DA makes his first, and it is a brief description of the crime and a lot of promises to prove you did it. There is not much to object to. He saves his screaming, leaping, tears and snot slinging for his second closing arguement. Just listen carefully and object to all grandstanding, lies and personal attacks, if any.

Your own begins after the PD. They'll try to skip you, and the DA will want to call it testimony. Don't let them, and it isn't testimony. Introduce yourself. Apologize for objecting to them. Explain that it is required, else the appeals judges will waive an important right against your wishes. Tell them you're terrified of public speaking and can't think quickly under such pressure. You'd appreciate their patience because you don't do this a hundred times a year. Point out that you think of them as your especially selected panel of quality control experts. Mention how hard it is to learn eight years of law in a dark cage with no books. Explain how the police confiscate all the evidence and that you will try and deduce how the police went wrong. Ask them to help you find what evidence was missed or lost. Together you hope to find how a good system went awry. Make certain the jurors know the judge, DA, police and witnesses all have absolute or special immunity from suit if they are found in wrongdoing here. Mention that innocence proving evidence often comes to light after trial, too late for justice. When the lawcrats leap up and begin shouting, have copies of these immunity laws for the record. Only in Maine are merely witnesses not immune, in theory only, to law suits for lying under oath.

>> The prosecution witnesses

> Woe unto you . .lawyers! For ye lade men with burdens grievous . . and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. . . Luke 11:46

The DA begins with the accusor. She or he has been told exactly what to say and not to say by the police. The PD knows this better than you, but will never let on or attack this. The DA pulls her through the part of the story he needs to nail you, leaving everything else out. The PD tries to pull out details and discrepancies. The jurors are eager to discount discrepancies. Your task is to make the prosecution witnesses admit the many hours and times spent with police and DA's discussing and adjusting their identifications and stories. You'll have to do this over the shouts of the lawcrats. They will prevent the jurors, reporter and spectators from hearing any answer you might get. The prosecution witness have been taught to be very slow about answering. Some will look for the DA's nod first. This is to give the DA plenty of time to object before they possibly say too much. Get them to admit this, if possible, and try to pull out the coaching, rehearsals and advice to limit details. Be particularly certain to zero in on the identification process the police put them through described earlier. Don't forget to bluntly ask the witnesses which cop or DA told them where they'd make you sit. And make sure the jurors know the judge and DA refused to permit defendant switching and making the fingerpointers describe the culprit without your face as a guide. Repeat this process with the second fingerpointer too.

If they're desperate, they'll pull out a jailsnitch to put a hearsay confession in your mouth. Let the PD question him first, then expand on his technique. You should have had 10 days to uncover who this guy is. They usually have long histories of being jail trustees for the police. As such, it's not hard to find a couple other captives who've been juked by him. Use them as witnesses even if you have to make them bring them from prison. Be careful not to let one of these people pull a fraud on you by merely inventing knowledge of the rat.

Of any experts, ask if they did any fudging on their reports, like discarding results and substituting new ones at the suggestion of police. You had 10 days to find their assistants. Get them to confirm the DA's tame expert or say "too much".

Next is the police. They're bold, extravagant liars because they know they can spew any flavor of offal and 99% of the citizenry will eat it with relish. Make them go into minute detail. They'll be angry and snooty to have to answer your questions and will often go sideways to smear you, exhibiting their petty, vicious nature. Use this. Laugh and object. Ask each one what he may have missed, lost, forgot or discarded. Make them reveal each other's identities and make them testify. You do not have to take second-hand evidence. That is hearsay, no matter that they will deny it. Their chain of custody is built to funnel to the chief investigator. Your task is to trace it back to the cop who found it and make him remember too much or different from each other. They always have plenty to hide, and there is no chain of custody on evidence that does not point toward you.

For the jury, the police make a big show of their superhuman efforts to collect prints, hair, DNA, tiretracks, etc. Then they make excuses why the stuff didn't lead them anywhere. The DA will excuse this in his second closing arguement through use of a hackneyed aphorism like "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In every case, it certainly is. Use it. Don't let any courtroom con-artist sell the jurors this load of manure disguised as logic. Negative evidence can't be thrown away and it is the hardest to conceal. Make certain the jurors understand that all the DNA, fingerprints, hair, tracks, etc they did not find is definate evidence of your absence.

>> The defense

> There are never enough jails, cops and judges to enforce law unsupported by the people. . Hubert H. Humphrey.

Emulate the PD in drawing out details, pointing out resonable doubt and multiplying suspects. This is easy to do, since people's memories are subject to constant revision and updating, concious or not.

Forget what the PD tells you about "presumption of innocence." It's caca. Every accusee has to prove his innocence. Merely being accused by the full force of the state's lawdozer is all the "proof" jurors need to backfill the trench on top of you. The police and news artists are frying you though you do not see these attacks from within the cage of oblivion. Also, people don't realize that the jurors feel obligated to convict somebody. If they don't, its like they didn't do their job and got paid for shirking their duty.

The jurors expect you to personally explain to them how the infallable police could possibly have made such a colossal mistake. If you let the PD or judge scare you away from their witness chair, the jurors will brand you guilty. They are completely ignorant of policework and the conviction machine. False convictions simply do not occur with McGruff and Scruff on the job. The jurors don't want to believe these facts, and they'll hate you for trying to break their fantasy, so it is not a good idea to malign the police. Let them reveal themselves. The DA and judge permit themselves to use prejudice to convict you when you have previously been arrested or convicted and testify. Once they put that first black checkmark on your forehead, you never stop paying. The PD tells you to duck testifying in this case, thinking this will suffice to hide the police file on you. This never works. The DA, police, media, baliffs and others will smuggle this information to the jurors in any of a thousand ways. Plus, like the game "rumors," they will add to it even worse scandal.

The DA gets to try and drag this out of you when you testify. Only buffons admit prior arrests or convictions this way. Never admit prior arrests or convictions this way. Never add credibility to the state's case like this. Instead say "The DA's attempt to smear me with prejudice by inserting irrelevant, extra accusations violate my right to a fair and impartial trial. The U.S. Bill of Rights specifically forbids this precise act. None of you lawyers will ever get me to admit to any of your spurious accusations. You know your behavior here is outlawed. You know I am guaranteed the right to confront my accusors, so bring these persons making these unconnected accusations here to face me, if they exist. They have nothing at all to do with this trial, and I will not assist you lawyers in your flagrant criminality in spreading outlawed prejudice and hearsay accusations."

Possibly all three courtcrats will now try and slickly force you to be a witness against yourself by trying to dupe you into saying yes to their question "You mean you want to invoke your fifth amendment right against self incrimination, don't you?" This I did not do. I quoted from the sixth ammendment. Answering yes to their question is itself self-incriminating. Don't answer it. Instead, expand on the above and add that their plan to induce conviction by creating prejudice in the jurors is a tactic that is lower than whale feces that will result in a successful appeal due to a tainted jury. Request a mistrial and threaten to stop the trial and appeal for a fair, impartial trial without prejudice.

No matter what threats or trickery the lawcrats pull out, do not be entrapped. Respond to their loaded questions with your own loaded questions only. Eventually they will give up and the DA will read this trash into the record himself while you loudly and continuously object to it as immaterial, irrelevant, prejudicial, outlawed and against the Bill of Rights.

>> Closing arguements

> Woe unto you [lawyers]! For ye build the sepulchers of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. . . Luke 11:47

The DA will sumarize all the evidence against you, plus he will sneak in with his own speculations disguised as fact. You should be alert and object to these enhancements. Point out what was really said. The judge will then excuse his paraphrasing of testimony as "permissible wide lattitude." (one day a scientist will get railroaded and do a statistical analysis on who the judge routinely denies (you) and sustains (the DA). From this alone the lawcrats will be confronted with irrefutable proof of their overwhelming bias.)

The PD sells a standard spiel about their sacred concept of "resonable doubt." This airy rhetoric is usually about an evidence tree blocking the road to prison. It's worthless nonsense, particularly if the jurors have heard this chin music before. Then he remarks on all the snags in the DA's case and cleverly returns to his roadblock analogy. He's usually pretty thorough.

You cover what the PD missed, if anything, and expand on the shadiest parts. A standard judge's trick is to keep forcing hung juries to go back and deliberate more until they come back with an unanimous verdict. This means guilt, since nobody has ever seen eleven dogs stop chasing a car and join the one under the porch. Thus the very last of your speech should ask that no one allow the judge to browbeat them into joining the crowd. Also remind them that the law says they are not limited to merely following the judge's orders. This is called "jury nullification," and you should have copies of it ready for when the shouts begin.

The DA's second closing arguement is so he can enjoy the tremendous advantage of the last word along with the first and middle. Mostly its so he can patch all the holes you and the PD so conveiniently pointed out for him. He does his trickiest stretching and enhancing here. No juror has ever said to him, "That's not what the witness said!" None will, either, and this is why you must detect each instance of his prevarications and object strenously.

A standard DA trick everyone underestimates the power of is to loudly state your full name and attach guilt to it like Mom used to do when she caught us tossing our liver under the table to the dog. "William Jefferson Lincoln then shot the man, stole his money and ran away like the coward he is!" This incites a cringe reflex, like when a mother cat snatches her babies up by the neck and carries them out of the burning building. The DA pulled this in my case Forty-two times. The PD would not object, and he conned me into not objecting with his "permissible wide lattitude" excuse. This dispicable trick hammers into heads of the jurors his product's name so they will remember it over brand "X". If you don't object each and every time, the jurors naturally think you accept guilt. Every time he pulls this, loudly object and explain at length and in minute detail why brainwashing and advertising techniques do not belong in the courtroom. The judge will then try to sucker you with the "permissible wide . ." nonse like the PD did. Innocents should take on the task to end this flagrantly unscrupulous, bias-inducing practice even if it makes the judge so angry his head actually explodes. When the DA thus slickly feigns secret, inside knowledge of your guilt, it is a lie! No hurricane of lawersprecken can ever justify it. This type cheap yet effective trickery contaminates every trial because it is so effective and because no accusee has had the courage to shout it down and end this manipulation.

All you can do is point out these and other techniques to the jurors over the shrieks of the lawcrats who are intent upon defeating your attempts to speak, let alone make a coherent point. It's hard to teach people to unlearn biases, misinformation and reflexes the don't even know they possess. Your life is the cost of failure. Fight hard, and if you lose, take consolation in the fact that you were cheated by a system that has concealed its bloody fangs and claws beneath the Bible.

Soon as the DA winds down, the judge begins flogging the jurors with his long spiel and instructions. This is another thing the three of them did during their semi-secret pretrial planning session. Object to any that don't seem fair or that expand the crime into something it wasn't.

Before the jurors leave, object to the fact that no unbiased observers protect you from the courtcrew's routine delivery of rumor and prejudice to jurors. The judge's service personel have been caught supplying jurors with every type of information and media taint the judge announces they can't have. Soon as he alerts them to such articles and broadcasts, the game of smuggling it in to the jurors begins. The DA and judge don't want to see or know when this occurs.

Also object to the secrecy of deliberations, since nothing that needs secrecy is liable to be honest or credible. Secrecy is for dodging responsibility and accountability. It's like shooting you in the back from ambush. If secret deliberations were exposed for what they are, any popular support for them would promptly dry up.

You rot in a cage while the jurors follow the bailiff's advice and stretch their justice play-date to include a free meal. The judge, DA, and PD are toasting in the judges condo. Voting for guilt is a 99.55% certanty or better! Obtain your right to poll the jurors. Too bad you can't pull that stunt the judge does when he "finds" no prejudice. Or can you? In a non-farcial system the victim would be entitled to question them directly to see who was browbeaten and how, by whom, if any. You could ask them why, too, and correct it if it was based on a lie. But not this system. You're had. They're immune. Then they put you deep within where your screams can only be heard by other victims.

>> The curse

> Cynicism is a survival trait evolved in those faced with bounders and curs . . . Burin Singletree.

Every innocent convictee should pronounce a most hideous curse upon the lawcrats for maintaining a corrupt system brazenly portrayed as fair. By now you've deduced who did the lying, the eyewitness manufacturing and the evidence discarding. Each needs to be cursed by name and deed for their part in perpetuating this monsterous edifice of graft and greed they label a justice system. Each witness and juror who blindly accepted the lies and propaganda spread by the police, lawcrats and media vultures need to be cursed too for actively choosing deliberate ignorance over actual thought and logic. If these people and institutions are not cursed; if you allow yourself to be shocked mute by their casual theft of your life, they will mistake your silence for acceptance of just deserts. They will leave believing they had and did the right stuff.

This should never be let to occur. One reason the system should work but doesn't is because no one recovers until after the jurors are out high-fiving with the cameramen and news artists. The citizens think the system works because your input is cut off at every step. This is your last chance to effect a feedback loop directly. After now, you will only be writhing letters to appeals judges who are nothing but a continuation of the problem. Since you'll quickly be gagged, only pronounce a curse on the persons who concocted the scheme. Try and be finished before the first juror escapes. Have the full curse written, ready and memorized for the sentencing ritual.

A proper curse is an ethical sanction. It promises that its targets will suffer karma and have no peace until they correct their connivings against you. The best curses enlighten the participants and public on how the chicanery was produced. Only the innocent may use the curse. Use by others cheapens it and causes it to lose its effect.

>> Formal sentencing

> In any bureaucracy, work expands to fill the time available. . . . Author Unknown

This is nothing but ritual. The judge pronounces what everyone already knows. The PD repeats every mistrial request he made during trial. The judge re-denies them. The PD says "we" want a new trial and will appeal. You get shot off to prison. The PD keeps the paper trail. You write for it. The PD says he gave it to another PD. (This is standard and serves to spread the taxcash gravytrain to cover another fat lawyer fee.) The new PD's paralegal takes 3 to 6 months to type a 10 to 30 page appeal based solely upon the first PD's mistrial requests. This timeframe includes the denial from the state appeal judges. Then you fight the new PD for the paperwork and begin a real appeal.

>> Appeals

> When lawyers talk about avoiding even the "appearance of impropriety" they are actually trying to create for themselves the "appearance of integrity". . . . .Sam Kinnison

The appeals system is four more layers of judges who could all be replaced with a mechanical arm holding a rubber stamp marked "denied" with no detectable loss of quality. Only 3% of targets appeal, and of these only 15% are said to be successful. That's a 99.55% conviction rate. To be this good, you have to cheat. The law can be on your side, but the law is often ignored in favor of what the DA says even if he is lying.

Think not? Think again. E. g. in my own case, 26 years too late, police reports were uncovered that proved police had concealed at least 5 blood samples from the killer. (29 years too late they revealed that they'd squandered and destroyed no fewer than 8! This after lying in the faces of 3 separate PD's I'd sent after this blood before trial.) The trial DA said, in the last seconds of his second closing harangue, safe from having to supply any evidence of this, that there was too little blood to test. The appeals DA told the judges I wasn't entitled to any "re"-analyses of the killer's blood. Despite my putting both these opposite lies side by side for them, 39 judges in eight courts chose to abandon the first lie and accept the new lie to re-deny justice. Since there is no quality control here, they get to do this.

Upon learning we are a nation of prosecutor's opinions, not laws, you may ask "Why appeal?"

In order to maintain their monoply on law, they must render an illusion of fairness. If everyone who peeked out of their burrows got their heads blasted off, the illusion would not have lasted 225 years. To fool most of the people most of the tme, the weasels of law must actually let some of the rabbits out of their holes once in a while. The illusion of fairness is obtained by being somewhat fair on rare occasions. By appealing, you make it possible yours might be one of these occasions. If you don't appeal, you make certain you will not get fairness.

Appealing also closes another feedback loop. If you accept being ripped off, you are giving the lawcrats another free ride on your back and dragging the rest of us down with your apathy.

Appeals are quality control. They have to answer, and if their answer is lies or nonsense, keep appealing until their answers get too outrageous to conceal, or you find an honest judge who isn't outnumbered by dishonest ones. (These are the judges who write dissenting opinions.) Instead of letting white collar, silver spoon grafters use blue collar criminals to distract the producers from the real problem, their stranglehold on national resources and freedom, we must constantly fight for our ever shrinking slice of justice pie. We do this by appealing.

You never meet the second PD, and the judges assume you know their denial is published in a pamphlet you don't get. (Check the prison law library for "OKCCA decisions.") There is a time limit, and you must write several begging letters to the new PD trying to make him do what should be automatic: unass the paper trail he's been finished with for ninety days and send it to you. By law, indigents get this at no cost. In reality they have many ruses to make you pay and pay for it, even keep it if you annoy them by demanding it. Always be very polite and solicious when dealing with any stripe of lawcrat because they are alert to perceive slight, real or imagined. When or if you get the record, use it to base appeal grounds on.

Typical grounds for appeal are: prejudicial publicity, improper remarks by the DA, illegal lineup and similar unfairness. One that PD's never use and targets always should is "ineffective counsel." You'll later realize the PD often gave you mis- or dis-information for his own benefit. A standard trick of PD's is to pretend the federal courts and constitution don't exist. For PD's the appeals system begins and ends at state appeals court. They avoid all use of Constitutional grounds required to get into federal courts. They actually conceal Uncle Sam from us and act like the state is a country. This is how they dodge quality control from the feds.

The feds let the state lawcrats run amok, enacting illegal laws that outlaw parts of the Bill of Rights. One is the Habeas Corpus. Since you took good notes of every illegality as it happened, you could be learning the HC and have it on the trial judge before the new PD even started his. HC is so powerful that every state's lawcrats have enacted illegal laws to squirm around it. These trapdoor laws are called "post conviction relief" (PCR). PCR laws function to dupe the ignorant and gullible into thinking we somehow already waived all our rights, the time limit expired, that no new evidence is ever new enough to win an appeal, and that everything was already denied or waived in "direct" appeal. PCR is like when vandals unplug the iron lung keeping the Constitution alive; the state buraucracy's version of lethal injection. Such techniques are called "fool-dampers," and gov't and carnivals use them extensively to cheat the unwitting.

PCR laws are unavoidable. Whatever you title your appeal, the'll rename it PCR. They switch your racehorse with their donkey in mid-stride.

Use every ground the PD's used plus yours, but clothe them in Constitutional garb. Most will fit under "due process" and "equal protection." Doing so prevents your appeal from being cut off by practially worthless state judges and opens the door to slightly less worthless federal judges. The books to see are "State (or Federal) appellate rules and procedures."

The law is kept extremely flexible by judges creating "case law" with each of their opinions. For every opinion one way, there is somewhere buried an opposite opinion. E.G. obviously the witnesses first descriptions are the most accurate. When judges want to dodge around this irrefutable scientific fact (and caselaw) to keep an innocent in prison, they dig up other caselaw that says the months-later, in court fingerpointing is "presumed correct." The result is you're forced to read a ton of judicial gibberish to find some that fits your case, then a judge's assistant taps her computer, causing it to chuck up a ream of opinion that often contradicts unbreakable physical laws but always trumps your caselaw. By thus dodging facts and instead clasping opinion, judges regularly revoke the Bill of Rights for everyone but the privileged classes.

District court denials take about 60 days. The state appeals court can get it denied in 3 or 4 months. Judges can ignore you as long as they desire. They put a time limit on you (and the DA) of 30 days, usually. The district court judge usually just changes the DA's reply to read "order denying . . suchenso " and returns it to you, complete with the DA.s typos. The appeals judges are not so brazen, but the result is identical. Getting past them in record time is the goal, so don't get angry. Be glad this farce isn't stretched into years.

>> Federal Court

> When politicians quack like ducks while they orate about ducks, you can be pretty certain they are ducking something. . . . Sam Kinnison.

The lowest level of federal courts is nothing but state judges given federal sized paychecks, so essentially you're still suffering the state machine. They function to hinder, delay and thwart appeals trying to get past them to the only real courts wherein lay the only possibility of justice. In all courts the first roadblock is the clerk, and in "state" federal court they are the trickiest. What they can't ignore, they will sit on for 30 days, then send you the wrong forms and demand you submit them. If you ask why they want the wrong forms submitted, they'll reply, "we prohibit ourselves from giving out legal advice." Other times they will feign having lost the ability to comprehend plain English. They conceal their identities behind an indecypherable scribble or don't sign at all. They are also "absolutely" immune to lawsuits, of course.

First thing the judges do is search your suit for anything they can call "frivolous." Then they wait 30 days, return it and take up to $150 from you for this service. Failing this, the judge seeks any way he can "spontaneously" refuse your suit due to its being "obviously flawed." This can be a syntactical error or a new legal arguement he's not seen before or anything in between.

If they can't ditch it any of these ways, they wait 30 days, then order the Attorney General (AG) to respond in 30 more days. The AG gets very cute, ignoring it for 29 days, then filing a BS motion and asking for another 30 days to begin after the judge rules on the BS. The judge takes 30 days to agree to the AG's BS motion and request for more time. While your suit is oozing through this legal sewerpipe, the lawcrats are zipping faxes, phone calls and e-mails back and forth discussing the best way to slow and prevent relief while costing you mximum money and effort.

The AG will eventually reply, and often the judge will get a copy with assurances that you got a copy, except that your copy never arrived. This trick leaves you waiting for the AG to reply, and the judge waiting for you to rebut the AG and send him a copy. The AG loves to get you maneuered into this legal limbo and get your suit dismissed for "lack of prosecution" when your time limit expires.

Guard against this by filing "summary. ." and "default" judgement requests with the judge the day after the AG's time limits expire without you receiving your copy.

>> The circuit courts

> Why do you think they are called criminal lawyers? . . . .Sam Kinnison

These are the only courts where the clerks and judges don't automatically go out of their way to juke you. They're also your only real chance to win an appeal. They want you to re-write everyting two or three different times and ways. Then they take a solid year to rule. A good thing is they do not let the AG get cute. Their first concern is getting paid or making damn sure you're flat broke, have zero assets and can not mooch their fee off anyone. (They now take your otherwise untouchable "savings" from your 3 cents per hour prison job.) Once they have you through these hoops, they will usually drop a ruling in 4 to 6 months. That's it. You get what you get.

>> U. S. Supreme Court

> Favorite places to hide moral criminality is behind the church, wrapped in the flag. . Viktor Stitchkin.

These judges brag in their free pamphlet that almost nobody can get past their clerks. They only accept death sentences and carefully selected conflicts between circuit courts or states. Also they accept "compelling" stuff like Hitler-huggers who want to wave swasticas at Jews, politicians who don't want flags burned on capitol steps, and Africans who want flags removed from capitols. In essence, this court functions primarily to give the illusion that citizen's rights are not abruptly cut off at the circuit level.

>> Conclusion

> Reward is not often commensurate with effort expended. . . . Author Unknown

Realistically, the only chance you have is the juror trial. Maybe a circuit court will make them get right, but that will cost you a minimum of 2 years just to get to their doorstep. Then there is the court of public opinion . . . .Good luck!