Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Coachella Fest and Stagecoach

CoachellaFest and Stagecoach: as I have warned over and over and over, 1. don't discuss the subject of drugs with anyone you don't know, and 2. don't admit to anything of criminal significance, nor consent to searches of your person or belongings or car, when contacted by the police. Indeed, since too many people readily fall prey to predatory cops, program yourself to not say anything to the cops, other than your name.  Responding to “what is this?” or “have you ever been arrested before?” or “how long have you been here?” or “do you mind waiting here while I get a police dog?” or “where did you get this money?” or anything other than a legitimate question about your name can and will be used against you in ways you won’t understand until the police report supporting your arrest and felony accusation comes out, so say nothing to the cops.  It never helps, except by helping them serve their agenda and by helping me obtain a juicy retainer fee! 

Get this in your minds - the cops are NOT your friends when it comes to investigating crimes - they are friends only of themselves and of their agenda, and their agenda has nothing to do with your well-being or liberty. Telling the cops they can search your pockets that you know are crammed with drugs, and then coming to me to get you out of it, is thoughtless - protect yourself because you pay me $thousands to undo the effects of you not doing so.

Following this past weekend’s “Fest,” there is the stench in the nostrils of freedom-loving people who were the victims of the predatory tactics of the police searching, seizing, arresting, harassing them to build up their grant-funded portfolios in the hypocritical name of "public safety." I am outraged by some of the overbearing antics by the cops, and their police dogs, to profit from conduct that might technically be illegal [although not all of it is], but which is really not hurting anyone. We have lost our way in this Republic, all the while scolding regimes in other parts of the world for their anti-liberty activities that sometimes pale in comparison to ours. Back off, cops, and leave people alone, unless there is evidence of true crime, not the drug and alcohol manufactured crime about which you are suspiciously aggressive.

The police are predators looking out for their own interests – do not become their sadly easy prey by thinking you will help yourself by “cooperating” with tidbits of statements or consents – you will not, ever.  You only hurt yourselves by “cooperating” into supplying the government with evidence to be used against you.  Protect yourself from the Hun, because it is sometimes very costly to undo the effects of your lack of wisdom in protecting yourself, and a complete undoing is not always possible anyway.

Talking to the cops, or giving consent to search, is a suicidal move – are you into suicide, or self-preservation?  Only you know the answer to that, but I will not sugarcoat the psychological nature of cooperating with government when it is investigating crime – it is suicide.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Thoughts About Bullying on the School Ground

There is a resurgence in the incidence of, or at least in discussions and public attention about, bullying in our society, and there are some things that can be done about the problem right off the bat [over and above dumping the bullies in a mine shaft!], but we need to see what might be causing it because we need to focus on a systemic cure.

It is important to realize that school-ground bullying is simply a microcosm of our national political policies, from the beginning right up until now, and so one cannot entirely fault street punks from picking up on and emulating that which our “leaders” teach and do on a regular basis.

Bullying, by definition, is the exercise of physical force and verbal intimidation by an obviously stronger person against an obviously weaker one.  Bullies do not take on people of their own size and power, because they know there is a high danger of them getting cold-cocked: they are, in a word, cowards.  But isn’t that characteristic of our national war philosophy?

We know the greatest evils against individuals and peoples, and the most wide-ranging genocides, in our lifetime have been, and are practiced, by the U.S.SR./Russia, and China.  But while we get belligerently self-righteous about the supposed menace of their puppets like North Korea, Cuba, North Vietnam, Cambodia, and we get belligerently self-righteous about the comparatively lesser outrages by the Taliban and Iraq and Iran and Grenada and Libya and Yugoslavia, and by people we dislike in Pakistan and Egypt and Somalia and Syria and elsewhere, we never invade, attack, or threaten Russia or China.  That is precisely the same as the schoolyard bully:  we pick on and prod and invade and attack and execute the little guys [killing innocent civilians as “collateral damage”!], but we dare not move against the big guys.

And there is something in the American psyche that perversely celebrates, or at least tolerates, the bully.  There was a recent criminal case locally in which a police detective absolutely, verbally brutalized the teenage suspect for hours, over and over accusing her of being a liar when she would not say what the cops wanted, screeching “Bullshit” at her, threatening her with lifetime incarceration if she did not say what they wanted, so she eventually was coerced thereby into saying what the brutish cops wanted.  And we were certain that the jury would recoil against the over-the-top bullying by the cops.  But they didn’t.  They genuflectingly gave the government what it wanted out of the trial, thereby exhibiting the same values for jury trial practices as Benedict Arnold did for military practices - the jurors were traitors.

And then it has been found that the majority of school bullies were/are abused at home.  They emulate their perverse parents, learning that threats and physical violence is a regular way of communication, since their parents communicate with them that way.  Just as spanking by parents teaches kids violence by example, so too bullying by parents.  We teach and learn by example.

So, if jurors allow and hence enable constabularial bullying, and if national foreign policy practices international military and diplomatic bullying, and if twisted parents practice bullying, and if some school teachers administrators practice bullying, then how are school punks supposed to understand that such is evil and uncivilized?

We need to examine ourselves and our views, and then we can begin to find a cure for bullying.

Thoughts about Drunk Driving, and Government Fraud, and Jurors' Duties

Government propaganda relating to people’s conduct and habits are problematic under all circumstances [a lesson we should have learned from the example of Josef Goebbels, Ph.D.], but when it spews alarmist falsehoods [think Goebbels again], it is flatly evil, especially when it invites some of the public to demonize others of the public, both sides of whom are paying for the evil propaganda.

The government’s pogrom against drunk driving is a case in point.

In various media, we are exposed to the grand myth of the U.S. Department of Transportation's “Ad Council” propaganda blather that "buzzed driving is drunk driving." That is an utter falsehood and should not be sponsored by the government nor given prominent posting by newspapers and the broadcast media.

The definition of driving under the influence of alcohol in this state is very clear and precise, albeit grossly misunderstood. And, it seems, it is also grossly misrepresented by government to the jury-sitting public, and purposely so; think Goebbels yet again.

Let's look at the definition:

“A person is under the influence if, as a result of consuming an alcoholic beverage, his or her mental or physical abilities are so impaired that he or she is no longer able to drive a vehicle with the caution of a sober person, using ordinary care, under similar circumstances.”


You see, there is nothing about “buzzing,” because one can be cautious while experiencing a “buzz,” and one might not be cautious even if he never experiences a buzz.  It is not just any impairment by alcohol that is illegal, but only one of such a degree that one cannot exercise ordinary caution, yet there rarely is any caution discussion in DUI trials or investigations or propaganda.  Very rarely.  And no matter what other evidence there is, if there is no evidence about diminished caution, indeed no beyond-reasonable-doubt quantum of diminished caution, there cannot be a lawful conviction of drunk driving.  [“Have you all seen a person at a party who you know has had too much to drink?”, the stock DA query to a jury, has nothing to do with “caution,” yet it is grooming the jury for an outcome not related to the true charges.]


Note too that the alcohol at issue needs to have been “consumed.”  Consequently, the endogenous alcohol one produces in one’s body as a function or metabolism, regardless of what that does to one’s caution, cannot satisfy the criminal law definition of “under the influence.”  Moreover, we are told to assess the caution standard in terms of the circumstances facing the person at the time.  Lateness of night; nervousness of being hounded by the police, who might follow one for miles until there is a vehicular misstep rationalizing a detention and investigation; anxiety about family or job or finances; eagerness or reluctance to get home; street distractions – all of such things must be analyzed when a jury assesses the circumstances of the matter to decide the caution question.


There is no area of human endeavor so wracked with high-priced attention; governmental prejudice; government-funded agendas; political pressure on legislators, judges, cops, and prosecutors, as there is in the arena of drunk driving prosecution.  The community is overrun with “anti-drunk driving campaigns,” expensively and noisily sanctimoniously funded by politicians, community leaders and organizers, attorneys who will happily take your money to pretend to defend you on your drunk driving beef while taking others’ money to tisk-tisk you for the same conduct, and lobbyists.  While we are inundated by such programs, how many have you seen that are devoted to eradicating murder, child molesting, rape, political and judicial corruption, abuse by police and other government types, or electoral duplicity?  None, of course.  Although those practicing the latter groups of outrages are the real demons in the Republic, much more effort is made to make demons out of drunk drivers than to bring to justice the real demons victimizing us.  People arrested for drunk driving are self-righteously demonized; those truly victimizing the populace have their ills rationalized away, or downright ignored. My God, we are a weird people.


Being politically decreed bogeymen, those accused of drunk driving have to take extra precautions.  What are they?


1.    Beware of drinking establishments outside of which bored and zealous cops lurk in the shadows to pull you over when you leave the parking lot.  No judge, beholden to the cops at the next election, is going to rule in your favor when you accurately claim that you were targeted for being in a certain drinking place and were pulled over without committing any driving offense.  If a smiling, shiny-badged officer says you were weaving, speeding, ran a red light, or failed to signal a turn, you could have a bus full of nuns swearing the opposite and the judge would still side with the cop. [“Endorsed by law enforcement” on one’s campaign literature is all one needs for re-election.]

2.    When you are pulled over, make a controlled stop and turn off your engine.  Start recollecting where your license, insurance, and registration are, and be prepared to competently turn them over to the officer without spilling them on the floor.

3.    To the officer’s query of “do you know why I pulled you over?,” politely say “no” and nothing else.  Do not admit to speeding, turning, knowing what the speed limit is, anything.  Do NOT admit to drinking any alcohol.  Do NOT admit to anything.  Do not say where you were coming from or where you were going.  Shut Up!

4.    If the officer asks you to perform field sobriety tests, politely say No!  They are designed for failure, and there is no established, scientific causal connection between impairment by alcohol for driving purposes and one’s performance on those non-driving balance and coordination tests.  If he asks you to blow into the pre-arrest breath device, politely decline; the so-called “science” associated with those junk boxes would not be admissible in any other type of case.  If he arrests you and tells you that you are required by law to submit to a blood or breath test, take a breath test. [Some attorneys say blood; I say breath; I will explain why in other circumstances, if need be.]  If you take a breath test, they are supposed to tell you that you then have a right to a back-up test of blood or urine.  They don’t like to give the urine option, even though the law requires it. Tell them you want a back-up test of your urine.

5.    Then say no more.  The “shut up” requirement is the hardest to follow.  I have had clients tell me “But I am honest; I don’t want to lie.”  I didn’t say to lie; I said to say nothing!!!!!  I know it is hard to do; most attorneys can’t shut up, so it is hard for their clients to do so.  Trust me – it NEVER helps to talk to the cops when you are in these circumstances – NEVER, ever.

6.    At the jail, quietly go through the booking process and say nothing except for the biographical information they are asking of you.  Say nothing else.  Make your phone call and wait for the horrors of the event to subside.

7.    If they take your license and give you a pink sheet, that is your temporary license, good until the DMV proceedings are concluded.  You MUST make a call to DMV within 10 calendar days of your arrest, without exception.  If you do not make that call [or have your attorney do so], you will lose the chance for a hearing about the lawfulness of the license suspension that is associated with the chemical test being > .08%.  You or your attorney must make that call within 10 days of the arrest.

8.    You should retain a DUI lawyer.  All DUIs can be fought and are winnable if you have the right lawyer.  Yes, the right one is expensive – but not nearly as expensive as a conviction will be, in the long and short run.  General lawyers, and general criminal lawyers, are not schooled in the intricacies of DUI law and practice – you must hire a DUI lawyer.  Not everyone advertising themselves as DUI lawyers are thus qualified.  Beware of the lawyers who put pressure on you about your conduct or to take a plea bargain or to settle the case early on; real DUI lawyers will put pressure on the government to get rid of the case.  Find out if the lawyer who claims to be a DUI lawyer is a member of either of the two main DUI lawyer organizations, California DUI Lawyers Association [CDLA], or the National College for DUI Defense [NCDD].  Find out if they have ever taught a seminar at either or both.  Drunk driving defense is like brain surgery: you would not hire a chiropractor if you had a tumor on the brain, and you should not hire the legal equivalent of a chiropractor if you have a .08% or greater BAC while driving, and for the same reason.

9.    Presume not that your government is being honest with you about this crime, about the statistics supposedly supporting it, nor about the agents executing and carrying out: government fraud and deceit are the signposts of the horrid journey into the realm of drunk driving criminality.  If “I am not a crook” was laughable and demonstrably false when uttered by the chief executive of the Republic, you would be foolish to give it more credence if uttered by lesser executives.  The executive branch has an agenda in these things [as in all things], and serving your interests, or those of your families, is not among them.


Make no mistake about it, drunk driving is a political crime.  Its politics derive from the fights that gave rise to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution and Prohibition, and the political measures being taken now to demonize those arrested for drunk driving are in service to the distress that the prohibitionists experienced when the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.  I have written elsewhere about the drunk driving exceptions to the Constitution, and to evidentiary and statutory law, and one glaring example hit the books not too long ago, revealing to all who might be harboring doubts that result-oriented politics are what colors all of governmental action in the field.


In the 1940’s and 50’s, fledgling science suggested that the alcohol which could be detected and measured on the breath resulted from alcohol molecules that passed from the blood to the alveoli in the lungs, which was then exhaled.  A certain equilibrium was imagined to exist between the alcohol in the blood and that in the alveoli, such that there could be a fixed conversion enabling breath percentages to approximate blood percentages. As a result, machines and statutes and regulations were established based on that nascent science – alveolar “air” = “breath” for breath alcohol percentages [simplistically].  Legally, breath alcohol for criminal conviction purposes has been enacted to mean alcohol on the breath that originates in the alveoli.


As with any science, evolving notions proved the original ideas to be incorrect.  The body of advanced science of the matter now realizes that the alcohol detected in one’s exhalation comes not from the deep alveoli, but from capillaries in the airways before the alveoli, and that what is exhaled has virtually no alveoli-originated alcohol.  Consequently, when the criminal charge is that a person had, say, .08% BrAC, breath alcohol, one should be able to have a scientist testify that the number on the machine does not represent alveolar breath alcohol percentages, and therefore the .08%, as a criminal charge based on alveolar breath, is not scientifically accurate.  After all, we all know that the due process clauses permit a criminal defendant to put on evidence that what appears to be a crime is not, correct?


Well, not so fast – there are more than mere constitutional law and individual liberties at work here: there are the politics of drunk driving; there are state and federal statutes and regulations; there are our corporate pals who made $millions selling the devices that supposedly detect alveolar alcohol – what are we going to do about all of that establishment, if the true and contrary science were admitted to juries?


The solution for our state Supreme Court was the same as the solution Pope Urban VIII came up with when Galileo Galilei had the temerity to broadcast the true science about the Earth circling the sun: when establishment forces are faced with contrary and inconvenient truths, you declaim, deride, and banish the truth and preserve the establishment.  And that is what our Supreme Court recently did in the infamous Vangelder decision.  Our Supreme Court embraced Pope Urban VIII and opposed Galileo!


There is not a balanced playing field here; there are purposeful and evil sorts who have axes to grind that they want to sharpen on the noggins of those arrested for, or suspected of, drunk driving, and you should not be their patsy.


Government propaganda wants to influence the perceptions of the public, particularly that portion of the public sitting on juries, and it wants to evict science from the realm of a crime that fundamentally is defined by physiological science, and it must be stopped.  Why do you think we see signs posted on the streets and highways exhorting people to call 9-1-1 if they know of a drunk driver?  That is to prejudice the potential jury pool.  How would you know if you are in the presence of a drunk driver?  You would not know by observing driving patterns of those around you.  There are sober people who drive horribly and impaired people who drive exceedingly well.  You don’t see signs that suggest that you should call 9-1-1 to report murderers, rapists, child molesters, burglars, thieves, do you?  That is because the aim of the signs is not to have the populace apprehend drunk drivers or others suspected of crimes, but rather for the populace that may later sit on juries to become prejudiced against drunk drivers.


The Framers intended juries of citizens drawn from the community to view government’s evidence against people’s liberty with skepticism, the standard for which requires that people may not be found guilty without a quantum of evidence adding up to beyond a reasonable doubt.  And even if that quantum is present, a jury does not have to find a person guilty, and a conscientious one frequently will not.  Sadly, though, despite the Framers’ understanding of the dangers of government power, juries increasingly lean in the direction of government in political crimes such as drunk driving, revealing that the propaganda has worked.  Jurors should not become pawns in this game of chess invading people’s liberties: they were intended to be queens and knights.  And every time a juror votes against liberty because he/she presumes the government is telling the truth in these political crimes, he or she thereby spits on the blood shed by the Founding generation to preserve our liberties.

Monday, March 10, 2014

Garcinia Cambogia Scam

Don't get victimized by the scam being carried out by Garcinia Cambogia, an alleged natural weight-control "premium" you "win" for certain things you do or see or perform on the net.  I signed up for what sounded like a first supply for S&H [shipping and handling] of $4.95, with the rest to be ordered if I liked it.  What the fine print reads is that they will send it for the $4.95, and then if you keep it, you owe them about $85.00, and they will automatically send you more for $85.00, charging the same card!! 

This needs to be addressed by the local US Attorney - it is an utter internet fraud scam!!!!!  I can't seem to get it stopped [I told them two days ago to stop and just got a new shipment notice!!!], so I am cancelling my credit card, and going after them in damages. 

Beware S&H "deals": they "deal" from the bottom of the deck!

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Liberty Receives Another Blow from SCOTUS

In the new Fernandez v. California, SCOTUS ruled, by 6-3, that if a present cotenant refuses consent to enter the residence [which controls against contrary wishes of another cotenant], if the cops can figure a way to get the refusing person away, then his refusal evaporates for 4th Amendment purposes!  Huh?  Does his duty to make mortgage payments cease if he is taken away?  Then how does his other authority over his residence cease?

Here, after he refused them warrantless entry, the cops "removed" the refuser from his home, and then they had only the meek, mild cotenant to deal with, and she gave in and let them search.  Wow!  I wonder how much these so-called originalists study about the Framers' intents about government invasions of residences when they come up with this police power cockamamie garbage.

A nagging pivotal point needs addressing: "He does not contest the fact that the police had reasonable grounds for removing him from the apartment so that they could speak with Rojas, an apparent victim of domestic violence, outside of petitioner’s potentially intimidating presence. In fact, he does not even contest the existence of probable cause to place him under arrest. We therefore hold that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason."

This is where his criminal lawyer failed him - he should have contested the warrantless removal from the residence, because there is no DV exception to the warrant clause for residential searches/arrests!  Reaching in and dragging a person out of his residence or commanding him to leave the residence is tantamount to a Payton search and requires a warrant!

Attorneys should NOT forget to object to any warrantless incursions/extractions in this sort of situation.

I love Alito's comment that they won't "extend" Randolph to this situation! Uh, Liberty is not granted [nor extended] by SCOTUS - it inheres in us as a people and is the default position in this Republic, Mr. So-Called "Originalist."

A book that comes to mind here is I. Müller, Hitler’s Justice: The Courts of the Third Reich (D. Schneider trans. 1991 Harvard University Press).  I recommend all who think we have a court that protects us from a rampaging executive to read that - we are living in shades of '30's Germany, yet none dare voice it.  Then read R. Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: the Militarization of America's Police Forces (2014), and all will become clear.  Too clear for comfort.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Drunk Driving Cops; Jurors Need to Ponder the Downsides and Vote Accordingly

Just so people with badges don't get too self righteous in the presence of jurors, and so jurors and the public think cops are squeaky clean and different from us all when it comes to this political crime, and different from the people they arrest for drunk driving, it is important to realize that cops and others in power do it too.  Does that mean we should demonize the police?  Is that the reason for this comment?  NO.  Neither they nor others arrested for drunk driving should be demonized!

This comment is to remind all that people make mistakes, no matter who they are [Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld all had DUI pasts!!!], and we need the system to be more understanding about things when the increasingly political subject of drunk driving is being put into the trial courts.










[Fire Chief]

[Detroit City council president!]

[Detroit officer!]



And there are so many, many more examples/instances.

So, when jurors are given the task of deciding whether they shall find a person guilty of this political crime, which results in heavy penalties, loss of license, sometimes loss of jobs, loss of money, and convictions that can come back to haunt them for a long, long time, they should focus on the fact that all make mistakes, and people and their families should not be saddled with the heavy downsides of those mistakes for long periods.

Contrary to comments by judges and prosecutors, a jury that votes guilty is indeed the cause of the ensuing conviction - but for the vote of guilty, the person would not be convicted, the very definition of legal causation.

So jurors need to ponder whether they want to cause such grief to people, when the very people collecting the evidence and processing it are frequently the victims of the same sort of  demonization that the government seeks for the people on trial.

"But judges say we must vote guilty if...."  No judge in this Republic should ever say anyone MUST vote guilty for anything, regardless of the strength of the evidence.  Moreover, the Framers envisioned that the jury of citizens would be the protection against all of government, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches.  And they anticipated that jurors would nullify cases wherein they felt the justice of the matter did not support a conviction, regardless of the technical strength of the evidence.  When judges pretend jurors cannot nullify cases, they are merely revealing thereby why the jury was given the power to do just that - judges like executives and legislators have agendas which citizen jurors must resist, or we otherwise negate the Framers' intent regarding the role of the jury in this Republic, a Republic where sovereignty lies with the people, not with the government.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Weak DAs Seek Sanctions Against Lawyers they Fear

The article below seems to be a new tack on the part of DAs' offices, reporting effective attorneys to the State Bar. A very effective DUI lawyer in Santa Barbara was reported to the State Bar for conduct in the courtroom, conduct which results in an embarrassing number of acquittals in prosecutions of the political crime of drunk driving. The problem is that if they start throwing down those gauntlets, they will be hoist on their own Janus-faced petards, because I see reportable misconduct by DAs on a daily basis, but I have always thought it unseemly to rat them off, preferring simply to beat them at the courtroom game that is our calling. I know not the merits involved in this article, but I do know that the attorney under attack is one of the more gifted attorneys in his area, and he will stand stoutly with his client against the gusts of faction, and the gust by this particular DA's office really blows. If I start to pick up this gauntlet, there will be many openings in DAs' ranks!

Read and weep, because there is an unhealthy alliance between prosecutors, judges, and the State Bar in this state, and it must cease, lest "interests of justice" transmogrify into "interests of the power brokers," the definition of Fascism.