Letter to a judge re the big questions of justice in the United States

I am writing you directly, after several (rejected) attempts to push through wide scope pro se cases. I am seeking your permission to proceed through to appeal as timely, despite having missed the deadline. I will attempt to address some very legitimate concerns, especially in the light of standard operating procedures.

You cannot be un aware of the acquittal and protests yesterday in Baltimore, the most recent case of healthy people dead after an encounter of with law enforcement. The trend noted in the case- the true legal questions, of which there are several, are critical at this juncture, and if they are unanswered, will lead to further civil unrest. Are infractions being treated evenly for people working with the law, or are they a protected class, expressly forbidden by the Constitution? Are there due process violations occurring? What are the federal government’s responsibilities in ensuring Constitutional baseline for the states and the municipalities? To what extent is the current morass a bug in the system? And most importantly, how do we restore justice, and faith in the legal system, as one that works fairly for all?

 

Questions you raised-

Standus locii-   I was beaten by police, in an incident that you have confirmed occurred,constitutes credible standing to seek a solution for addressing this problem more than a “general interest in the functioning of government”.

Addressing the federal government instead of the state- This is a core, Constitutional issue, involving the federal government’s role and responsibility in administering justice.  While state courts can handle Constitutional cases, this would seem to be the definition of a Federal question case.

I do believe municipal liability, and extending that concept to the federal gov/ vs the states relationship is quite apt. If a multinational beverage company with fully owned subsidiaries had dozens of settled cases for the same category of complaint, expressly forbidden by the parent companies’ by laws, a patterns and practices complaint against the parent company, rather than the fully owned subsidiary would be possible, particularly if the subsidiaries had a greater number of settlements than entire beverage companies of comparable or even larger size.  Further, I would think the failure of the parent company to even track the number of such settlements, would be worthy of notice, and somewhat damning in it’s own right.

But the statistics- and here I use police killings as a representative statistic that is non-controversial as to the outcomes, if not the reasons, have the US as 1200+ police killings per year, 50x that the next highest country, Canada, at 25.

That there is a blue wall of silence, is not something I would presume to prove to an esteemed leader of the legal system, anymore than I would suggest brands of black robes to you. That the rest of the legal system seems to have a predictable bias in these matters that involve sending co-workers to jail, is also unlikely to be revealing to you, but the statistics are eye-popping. Grand jury indictment rate is 90% for citizens, in of itself potentially problematic in that it seems to a time consuming and expensive process of limited utility, until you get to the indictment rate of law enforcement officers, which is <1%, which would seem to be the creation of a legally protected class, by de facto law, expressly forbidden by the Constitution.

There is a question here, of how, if not through wide scope cases, would these disturbing trends in the American legal system be addressed? Is it necessary to address each narrow slice of a legal question, or can some greater principles be decided as a whole? When do issues occurring in multiple states, that are addressed in the Constitution itself become national priority, and what bodies should be addressing them? Are these matters to be left to the discretion of the office holder? Which is of a higher priority, the court’s self decided processes, dates and deadlines or the well documented and widely accepted violations by the government of it’s own principles, of which it was at least in large part, founded to prevent?

The question of my usage of the Declaration of Independence, was specifically to address some of these questions, and seems consistent with the following.

In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:

The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.”

So the passage that forms the spirit of the answer to the questions posed,  addressing as it does, life and liberty, as well as at the very least due process of the 5th and 14th amendments, cruel and unsusal punishment of the 8th, as well as equal protection under the 14th, is below.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

I hope that this provides some context to the very reasonable objections you raised in your prior closings of my case, and will allow you to recommend my case as timely based on the larger context of the issues at hand, as well as providing your thoughts on the best way to address the larger systemic issues in play.

I thank you for your time, and careful consideration,

Sincerely,

 

 

Darrell Prince

An elemental dream of Unity

Dear People of Earth,

I had a dream, a simple, but far reaching dream. That our Air and our Water were being polluted by Fire and Earth, and scientists who study Air Water, Fire and Earth, said it was dangerous not to change, not to upgrade to make better. So we did, we focused in, and we transformed communities, people working side by side to make the places we live and work and play better at using resources wisely, better places to be that represented us served us and educated us. The best part was, when we did one, it happened everywhere, not the same, but different, but starting with the same idea of quality. We never had a problem with money, because we all agreed there was enough, but we had to center ourselves, and decide what was best for us, and how we could best use our resources of Energy and Time, Land, People and Goods. We found ways to express information without opinions, and came to our own decisions before discussions, which were preludes to actions, usually building.

We Educated ourselves, as part of taking care of People.

Terrorism, and response for action in the wake of the 7142016 french attacks.

I had meant to write more generally about the malaise decay and general state of confusion, illusion that is our process of non decision making in the wealthier nations of humans- not really sure at this point whether “kind” or “humanity” is applicable to this. We have to get past this- to where Unity with respect for differences, comes to be what humanity, is.

But the attack last night in France- so many dead, so randomly- people living their lives,  or enjoying a vacation brought me from realization- understanding what needed to be done- to a decision- commitment to applying resources– for the continued safety, security and well being of the people of the planet Earth, we must form a coalition of nations to put troops on the ground to defeat ISIL in Syria and Iraq, and a committed Marshall plan, to rebuild the countries, with the citizens of those countries. The funds in escrow for cessation of hostilities, before the action. This must be done with the United Nations, and whatever needs to be done to make sure that that body is better equipped to handle these situations, needs to happen.

To fail to do so is to ensure random acts of violence, with malcontents and desperate people, who may or may not have real issues egged on group of evil barbarians that call themselves ISIL and claim Islam as their raison d’aitre- reason for being. I say this because like so many people, claiming to be a part of something,  but take only what they like, and what justifies what they want to do anyway.  This is hardly selectively a Muslim problem; the opener to this chaos, and the willfully deceitful actions taken that were responsible for the largest death toll of the 21st century- more than a half a million people,  with more than 20 million people having this kind of thing happen, every day for a decade, was ostensibly Christian.

The current tactics have no hope of realistically bringing peace. Bombs break and shatter, powerful bombs, produce a vacuum, but no bombs produce order. Creation, strengthening is always harder than destruction It has been known as long as there have been aerial bombings* that they are good primarily for softening your enemy, but to take control, to reduce chaos in an area, requires enough human power to keep things calm, and to demonstrate that in the event people act to use physical force to harm or destroy, that a greater force will subdue them, AND that there are other ways to produce and procure a better life for yourself. Idle hands are the devils playthings- so we must get people there to build their homes, their infrastructure, make sure that they have jobs, building, that feed their families, so we replace an era and legacy of hate and destruction with an act of love and building.

I was horrified to no end by the decision to start a war for literally, no real reason, other than thin lies, oft repeated, and the mismanagement that ensued, it was an issue that politicized me. But this is not that, or can be not that. There are sponsored attacks all over the world emanating from this place, with laughter and cheers for all of the awful things that happen to humanity. And hundreds of thousands of people are leaving that place, because it has descended into Hell.  There are only so many ways to do things, and many times it isn’t what it is that you do it is how you do it. I am super un thrilled at the idea of spending additional time in the Middle East, a region of the world the United States has spent a disproportionate amount of time- going back now at least 80 years, treasure and political capital to create messes that enrich a very few here with an opportunity cost- money that could be spent on education, infrastructure or curing diseases here at home. But leaving a place in disarray, with an active conscious evil killing Muslims, Christians, local and foreign alike, and actively encouraging this in other places is not an option.  We must act

The other real, fear, is that this becomes an excuse to instill authoritarianism in otherwise free nations, and Nazism- I speak of the racially motivated authoritarian nationalism.  We also must ensure we identify this as a fight against extremism, against ISIL, lest we create even more enemies, and raise the tension and oppression to fever pitches that will ensure further attacks. It is really a tough place to be in, and we have to walk that tight rope, lest we lose our freedom, AND our security.  We have to be more tolerant of people with different ways, people who belong to different groups- after all – most groupings we belong to, be they Jew, Republican, Democrat, Taiwanese, or Giants fan, are ones we are born into- not a choice we make at all, and less tolerant of ignorant people who factless, baseless, and without a knowledge of what has gone before. We must understand that actual oppression is going to increase the tension that leads to attacks because of real or perceived oppression.

When I was younger, I was getting ready to go out, have some drinks, so I went to the ATM,  looking forward to the night. There was a man already there, so I stopped, maybe four feet behind him. Out of nowhere, he whips around and says “DO YOU MIND? Can you get away from me?” . Whoa, “ Dude, I’m standing at a distance that gives you personal space, and I’m not looking for your pin number, useless cuz I don’t have your card.” I’m doing something that’s private, and that’s all you need to know”. I didn’t pursue it further, and didn’t say what I was thinking- if I wanted to take any of that from him, that being nasty would have only made me feel better about doing it, and he only served to make me think about how to do something I wasn’t planning on doing, with a useless bit of security.

We have to act, but we have to act like we know, and act with humanity, compassion and understanding for people in general,  realistic about the need to carry a big stick when talking softly, understanding of lessons of the past but a lack of tolerance for those who use any religion, affiliation to promote violence.

The preparations should begin on a scale of a couple of months- we need to plan, but we will have to adapt to changing conditions.

 

 

*the same principle likely applies to siege, cannons etc, so really throughout the history of warfare

This will increase the power of the vote

http://thecallforunity.org
Snapshot
Mission: Help humanity move toward a rational discourse and better decision making for itself, by facilitating educated conversation, and developing the tools to organize communities.
Contact
Phone: (347)286-8248 Email: dprince@thecallforunity.org Web: www.thecallforunity.org Twitter: @thecallforunity
Summary
The Call for Unity wants to increase education and participation in the community for major issues, and enable a larger group communication around the issues.
The Problem
Getting what we want from our government is hard, and keeping abreast of all which is going on is hard to do. We need to be able to change our society for the better more quickly, and to have a democratic republic, we need an informed populace, and our officials need to know what we want from them, far more often.
The Solution
In order to address the continuing problem, the Unity Community Communication Application asks questions of the people, and delivers their will to their public officials door, as an entire community, and enables communities to have short conversations and research on issues, and enables the in person conversations that take action to the next level.
Key Features
The Community Communication Application takes short surveys at the mobile phone once per week, designed to be able to be finished in under 5 minutes, and thoroughly participated in, commented on and researched in less than 90 minutes, with limited questions contributed by city, state and local officials based on address, and also from groups you belong to.
• Delivers highly targeted polling information, for officials and for citizens
• Keeps people informed in small,short doses, what is going on in their neighborhoods
• Gives people a way to participate in democracy weekly, and exert influence over their officials
• Gives groups a way to increase their audience size, giving them incentive to work together
• Gives politicians a way to communicate directly with their constituencies
In the future, we will improve our information display, creating more searchable information and analytics, as well as a public discussion board. We will include special election cues as well.We will display aggregated data to answer questions like: How many people in Harlem support participatory budgeting?”
Target Audience
We see three key constituencies for Unity app. First, the citizens.. For most people working for change cannot be a full-time pursuit. Unity aims to provide a means for these folks to stay informed and ways to add their voices to the movement for change. Second, we will be a resource for professional organizers as well, by gathering data to inform their efforts, providing tools for them to share information and even build support among the more casual participants, and giving them a path to negotiate for a larger audience on key initiatives. Finally, government itself will be able to better communicate with their constituencies.

Click here to educate and power the vote

The beginnings of system for tabulating votes and building local power…

Unity Application

Strategic design for the human organism.

You’re going to see how a few minutes a week can make for a better democratic republic, and cut down on email bloat, while making your voice and that of people like and unlike you counted. You’re also going to help us attract attention and get this thing moving forward, just by filling it out and giving feedback.5 minutes is a maximum it will take you.
Step in to the future of civic engagement

 

Tim Cook Apple and the 4th Amendment

Tim Cook and American Security

 

I’d like to think that Tim Cook is looking to find a way to be more responsible as a corporate voice, doing what is right. However, I think he gets this one wrong. What we don’t want, is a government watching every step we take, paying attention to us pre-crime. But when a crime occurs, specifically murder, I fully expect the government to copy, not take, all of the data available in the short term, to ascertain what happened. The objections were to surveillance without reasonable cause, and of indeterminate length, without notification. Once a serious crime has been committed, and while not legally decided, there is more than reasonable suspicion, any and all records that would help to establish what happened I would assume the government would have access to, with a specific warrant.

The other issue is whether or not the government can compel Apple to create a workflow for access under a warrant, and I think the answer is yes, under eminent domain. Employees work , and labor is a well-established part of a company, and the government, can, under certain circumstances appropriate private assets for public use, with a transfer of fair value, which to me in this situation would be consulting fees amounting to something in the neighborhood of twice the salary of the people involved in the work, assuming a company pays it’s people at least half of what they are worth to the company.

Going forward, a bill requiring certain specifications regarding privacy, as well as mandatory, case by case information retrieval processes, can be part of doing business going forward, and seems to be very consistent with the text of the 4th amendment, with special attention being given to eventual notice of investigation being a part of due processes.

 

On a side note, it being Black History Month:

African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans have, on average about 1/12 the asset values of European Americans in the United States. $10,000-$14,000 dollars of net worth on average, compared to $150,000. Which is not to say that there is not still quite a few folks who figured out the game, but statistically that is huge, and it certainly has a lot to do with American policy, despite poverty alleviation programs have not been cost-effective, and need to be rethought.  With regard to the Native Americans, this land is your land this land is our land but really, really their land, at least too and they got displaced… African Americans got displaced to get here, and  got a raw deal since, yeah, worse than that of immigrants, and when they get it wrong, they don’t even try to set it right, you gotta fight the same people that are supposed to pay you. It’s crazy because the right don’t even see… Eric Garner got assaulted over minor tax evasion. Less than 50 cents.

That’s not a precedent you want to allow with any level of government.

As in, less than 10 minutes of taxes evaded on craigslist, air bnb. Like getting taken down over a craigslist phone sale you didn’t report, but not quite as much actual money being transacted.

Those cases can, and should be picked up by the federal government under due process, I expect for that to happen.

Prince v. USG

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Case Reference:

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Civil Action No.15-1917

Priority:

Highest- Declarational and Constitutional violations killing Americans

As the issue of rampant police violence and extralegal use of force clearly is part of a national set of patterns and practices, violating Constitutional amendments, and is, according to the Declaration (aka THE founding document) literally cause for legally abolishing the government, we ask for an immediate consideration and action.

Court Action sought, Immediate:

A national, and immediate injunction against single officer use of force(wait for back up in danger situations), especially deadly force without specific cause such as the immediate threat to citizens or a firearm.

Immediate and consistent documentation of use of force at all levels, (including prisons) to be reported in a consistent format, in less than 12 hours, open to public with perhaps officers names substituted for an identification number. While the final system may take longer, a simple 10 entry database system scalable to several million entries should take less than a week for qualified professionals to build out. This should include immediate supervisors, witnesses,

Immediate process tracking of any cases that arise involving agents of law including judges, court employees, as well as police, but especially regarding police use of force cases, and the development of a rubric to identify and track current methodologies, best and worst examples of same, and the noting of any irregularities, that may arise due to conflict of interest.

Review of all cases pending trial for “speedy trial” violations

Opening note:

It is important to note that in no way is this specifically a criticism of the individuals named in this suit- largely, in my opinion the men and women do their best to make sure there is as much justice as they can. in a system, we do our best, working with those around us, and shiny new parts get tarnished by soot and poor function of a system long ago in need of an audit and update. The greatest criticism, is one of human behavior; there are law enforcement, lawyers, judges, who perpetuate the worst of behaviors, that go on, unchallenged despite evidence that would trigger jail sentences or even death penalties in any other profession, but, people are not prone to outing their own, whistle blowing is usually frowned upon, understanding

Introduction:

This document calls for a full Rebranding of America, legally, the formal re-swearing of the oaths and the principles to which this country was founded, and the elevation of the execution of the law to scientific precision, by reigniting the flame of national, legal debate, and re-engaging the consent of the governed, expired long before any still living, culminating, in a new Constitutional Convention, and a government better suited to the future of our nation using means already provided to us by the Founding Fathers.

 

Scope:

The scope of this case is expanded twice. First from the individual to the national, as the problem to be properly understood, and fixed, must be dealt with as part of a systemic, national issue- similar to how doctors rarely treat individual bumps of chicken pox. Second, from use of force by law officers to a greater malady, the gap between defacto and dejure law, as a common thread running through out our systems of government.

Standing invoked:

As noted in the PA case, as a person who has been attacked by police officers without cause, I am a member of a class of people who have been adversely affected by the failure to address a serious concern with how many police officers in this country behave.

I would note that 1st amendment, Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the right to petition for redress of grievances, suggests that standing should be applied liberally at best and at worst, any notion of rejection of a clear Constitutional violation by the government, could be construed as one of the Declaration’s legitimate reasons for revolution, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms, our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”

Venue Shift Rationale:

An issue of this magnitude, addressing as it does the foundation of American law, supersedes regional district conventions; and requires examination by courts in every state.

Relevant Statutes and Case Laws:

14th amendment (due process and equal protection)

8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment)

Declaration of Independence(repeated violations of right to life as reason for altering or abolishing government, refusing assent to laws, for protecting them (military) by mock trial from punishments for murders they commit on inhabitants)

Harris v. City of Canton(deliberate indifference)

Spell v. McDaniel (Municipal liability)

Walker v. City of New York (Failure to Train)

Vann v. City of New York (deliberate indifference)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standing invoked:

As noted in the PA case, as a person who has been attacked by police officers without cause, I am a member of a class of people who have been adversely affected by the failure to address a serious concern with how many police officers in this country behave.

I would note that 1st amendment, Congress shall make no laws prohibiting the right to petition for redress of grievances, suggests that standing should be applied liberally at best and at worst, any notion of rejection of a clear Constitutional violation by the government, could be construed as equivalent to refusing assent to laws, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms, our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.”

 

Legal Theory Advanced:

  1. That the ultimate responsibility for enforcement of US code, is the US federal government, and that the code of conduct, that stems from US code is applicable to law enforcement at ALL levels.

 

2.That when an issue, becomes national in scope, particularly in regards to Constitutional issues that it is the duty of the federal government to act, and to set up such safeguards as to disarm the threat, regardless of the source, and provide for safe guards, structurally. (equal protection under,and from the law.) Expansion of scope, but similar concept as municipal responsibility. The courts have consistently held, that municipalities can be held liable for the actions of their actions of their employees, especially when “deliberate indifference” has been shown or acquiescence in unconstitutional practices.

 

  1. The current problem with police brutality, is not in fact, a problem at the city level, and seems to be the same nationally, from New York, to Philadelphia, to Denver, Oklahoma, San Francisco and LA. What happened to me was symptomatic as a single bump of chicken pox; treating it individually makes as much sense as sending the child to a different doctor for each chicken pox bump.

 

The total number of excessive use of force cases is unknown as it is not currently tracked. Police in the United States kill 1400 people per year, (killedbypolice.net, the guardian) by contrast, the next highest country for citizen deaths by police is Canada with 25, making the US death by police rate 70 times that of the next highest country. It is reasonable and perhaps conservative to say that for every death, there are likely 20+ brutality cases. Since physical abuse is a crime, no matter who commits it.

 

 

  1. Given that there is 99% indictment rate for citizens; <5% for police officers it is safe to say clemency for extra legal killing, and brutality have become a de facto part of the American Justice system. These cases involve a violation of due process, cruel and unusual punishment and equal protection under the law as well as simple murder, and conflict of interest issues will prevent proper legal advancement of cases as we see from the numbers involved hence the responsibility o the failure to correct systemic issues by the federal government represents responsibility via Haynesworth V Miller, and Owen v. City of Independence. this also looks similar to “For protecting them, by mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these states“

 

  1. Further, as prosecution of police officers requires the buy in from co-workers (other police and prosecutors), it is unlikely that there would ever be a reasonable or fair proceeding with regards to police. Thus is in need of a change of venue, and likely a permanent community review board because nearly any one involved in a legal system at the city or state level is going to have a conflict of interest, and indeed, that is seen in the prosecution rates of police, nearly non-existent, despite the relative eruption of such cases in our mass media. In fact, even with a prosecutor outside the direct sphere of the officer, professional mindset, or cultural mindset is likely to still be a significant factor.

 

 

The more radical part of the legal theory put forward, is that the Constitution’s Supreme legality is in stare decisis Declaration’s legality, and that the official definition, scope, and use of government as it relates to individuals in the United States is given in that documentation, and is always, a valid petition for redress of grievances as per the 1st Amendment.

 

There is little doubt in the historical record; the precedent for the Constitutions Supreme legality comes from the ratification methodology used with the Declaration. The divorce from one set of laws, the definition of what government is and should be, and the creation of said government can be defined as the most legal of acts. Further, the treatise duly voted upon by every district in a new country, and the reasons, paid for with the blood of

the citizenry, for said change in government and founding of a new one, and signed by 4 of the 5 first presidents, the designated date of a new country can hardly be said to have no legal weight.

It was referenced by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, and ironically enough in the secession letters of the Southern states, though blatantly failing the test of legitimate government’s duty to protect the liberty of people. According to a Constitutional scholar and current President of the United States, Barack Obama “The Declaration is the lens through which the Constitution should be viewed”(needs citation).

 

In this particular case; it is useful, because if the core of responsibility of government is to protect 1 life 2 liberty and 3 the pursuit of happiness, being the largest jailer in human history is a problem, having the largest death by police rate in the civilized world is cause for a rapid and immediate change, and the focus on ensuring the pursuit of happiness for the individual, may have a startling effect on the current crisis of shootings, and mental health in this country.

 

A republic will be stronger if the constituents hold a strong image of the law in their collective understanding, supplemented by a stronger image by those who enforce it.

The general principles around the Declaration can be more simply and easily explained and taught than the relative specifics of the Constitution, and out of alignment outcomes are more glaring when viewed from a Declarational framework.

 

Restitution sought:

Is that the responsibility for Constitutional conduct be proactive, creating a framework, training, and data collection methodologies for the expectation of federal audits of practices, defining, standardizing and broadening conflict of interest standards for police, prosecution, prison, and the courts. Review of legal practices; courtroom technologies, wait times, and processes, also kept, transparently as part of a national database, and an experiment begun with the states to establish new court room norms for speedy trials. Also as the adaptation of a framework that is lighter and simpler for both enforcement agents and citizens to understand, the basics, the Declaration of Independence, which contains the official definition of government in US code, as well as it’s core functions with regards to the rights of the individual, to be trained and oath sworn at any level of employment or engagement in government activities, with the urgency being with law enforcement.

 

Further, the larger gap between de facto and de jure law needs to be addressed in such a manner as is not currently proscribed in our frame works.

 

Particularly right to a speedy trial, (people waiting 2+ years for non violent offenses?)and the 4th amendment – civil forfeiture seems to be a clear violation this., and the mass incarceration that has literally millions imprisoned for non violent crimes while the financial felonies of the past 10 years have been formally waived, creating 14th amendment conflicts. While rights to life and liberty have been specifically addressed though poorly enforced by later documents like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and case law, the pursuit of happiness has never been formally explored or examined by government; and it is likely that a happier per capita populace would not lead the world in mass shootings.

 

Is it strictly legally necessary to address these case by case, or can it be addressed by actions addressed to the heart of the issue- which is the de facto, de jure gap that has expanded until members of the US governmental system can be seen to be an obnoxious and painfully obvious call to action to change and the failure to have expressly written frameworks for what acceptable actions are or are not according to guidelines, i.e. how many days is a “speedy trial” what is cruel and unusual punishment (waterboarding, etc.) According to the decision to found this country, the answer was clear; NO. Their methodology was to abolish the government that disobeyed, flagrantly it’s own rules and create an entirely new one, and sometimes just a mostly new one. We are at another such time,

 

While it is understood that this court cannot provide all of the answers sought in this case, it is clear that these deficiencies in the current de facto set up threatens the bedrock of Union to slow decay.

It would serve the American people and it’s legal system to recognize formally the Declaration, the Constitution, and the US Code as successively more detailed from principles to ruling frameworks, simplifying the overall code, and making it easier to address and prevent further unhealthy dissonant gaps between de jure and defacto law.

 

Likely, it would be best also to re-engage the consent of the governed, as no one alive consented to this government, and that can only be done through Constitutional Convention.

 

 

Court Action sought, as part of full restitution:

Recommendations from this court on correcting the de jure vs de facto chasm in American law, including civil forfeiture, mass incarceration, multi year weights and other clearly deviant outcomes from the intent.

A national Constitutional minimums set up, clearly defining the current best practices for law enforcement as a minimum for standards of officer behavior, to Constitutional training, to what a speedy trial entails, what cruel and unusual punishment entails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REvisiting Tamir Rice’s murder

As we approach the one year anniversary of 12 year old Tamir Rice’s death at the hands of the Cleveland police, there are two ways we must examine this for the need for change.  At a time when 1400 people per year are killed in the United States by agents of government at some level, by a factor of 70 x the worst record for police killings in any first world country, to go with the highest number and rate of incarcerated citizens, there is clearly  a national problem with our systems of enforcement. The first is the purely human,  emotional, or Judeo-Christian, Muslim Buddhist, humanist, Constitutional or Declarational value systems. A 12 year old was killed by the people whose job it is to protect him. If you don’t know that his mother has trouble sleeping at night for the loss of her baby boy, perhaps  you should talk to a mother about how she feels about her children and really understand the term mother from their perspectives.  That this is something that must never be allowed to happen again is something to which you must agree to honestly say you subscribe to any of the prior belief systems.

The second, and the one I will focus on here, because this part seems less obvious, is what an astonishing, and downright frightening collapse of purpose- demonstrating extreme weakness in response operations, security and  problem that occurs here.

A call comes in that there is a person with a gun- which MAY be a toy- the call taker does not disseminate this information to the dispatcher, or to the responding officers.

The officers ordered to a scene where there is potentially a live gun are a pair of ROOKIES. Why rookies would ever be first to a scene, and first to engage- unless there was an immediate public threat- something to first be determined from a distance and approached with a speed determined after the initial observation, is unexplainable.

These rookies drive up to point blank range. As in, before they get out of the vehicle, had they been responding to a genuine psychopath, or someone who was mentally disturbed, they both could have very easily been shot dead without even exiting the vehicle.  He then jumps out of the vehicle with his gun drawn; enough again, to startle someone into shooting, if in fact they had a real gun.

It seems to me that procedure in this situation would be to get an assessment first from a safe, and preferably unobservable position to assess threat level, and relative level of public safety, and relay this information to a more experienced officer, before deciding to close in. Likely, without that immediate threat to public safety, it would almost certainly be best to wait for back up, and go in with overwhelming force, which often can pre-empt attempts at fighting their out of situation- 2 cops can be handled,  6 cannot, so surrender would be more likely.

We later find out that this rookie officer was dismissed from another department as unstable, and he is armed, and put out into dangerous situations, with only another rookie for guidance. Municipal and senior officer liability is assured.

Beyond the fact that a government officer of a part of the United States is now responsible for the death of an American, one of the causus belli for the American Revolution, and firmly contradicting the Constitution, it is a frightening look at how unprepared our officers would be to deal with real threats- sophisticated and highly trained operatives of foreign or malignant domestic entity.  The training for these sorts of interactions are all Constitutional, and thus, ultimately – we must use each case to develop and sharpen templates to avoid this kind of behavior from a couple of aspects. It also means, that at the end of the day; that as a national problem has emerged, it is not simply up to the individual departments to fix, but that a new, methodology for Constitutional enforcement minimums must be established, including provision to ensure that the conflict of interests that are now causing a 99% indictment rate for citizens and a <5% indictment rate for police- even as we see being moved towards  in this case, in the Eric Garner case, are not a factor in achieving justice.