CDZ Is There a Solution to The Failed Corrupt US Justice System?

[Andylusion]

As for summary judgment, I don't see anything corrupt in the practice.

Do you or do you not have a right allegedly protected by the constitution to a trial by jury, yes___ or no____

To me that post shows a lack of being informed.
Summery Judgements are only used in civil cases. Not criminal cases. If you are accused of a crime.... You must have a trial by jury. They do not give summery judgments in criminal cases.
There is nothing corrupt about this.

To me your post shows lack of comprehension since I never said implied or so much as thought it was criminal and the captain obvious explanation was a waste of font ink.

Shifting and limiting the subject to criminal is your strawman response.

The point remains that you promote unconstitutional judicial proceedings.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong, and you can continue to practice both for as long as you like.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The point you are missing is that concentrated power always leads to corruption. That is why the U.S. Constitution was so ingenuous; it allowed citizens to govern themselves at the lowest possible level. (Just because it didn't resolve the inherited problem of slavery does not diminish this fact.)

Even though many sheriffs, prosecutors and judges are individually elected, an unholy political alliance between them is more the norm than is the exception. As a result, maintaining high rates of arrests, convictions and harsh sentences are the best way to keep one's position or aspire to a higher one.

As a result, a pernicious system of presumed guilt has developed. Once a likely suspect has been selected, the crime investigation frequently turns into a single minded crusade to prove that person's guilt. Any evidence that might support this presumption is magnified, while exculpatory evidence is often ignored or discarded.

Thus the presumption of innocence can be turned on its head: Prosecutors are concerned with convictions rather than guilt, while Public Defenders are concerned with probable guilt rather than disproving evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Private defense attorneys are castigated as unfair tools of the rich, even though many of the procedural rules favor the prosecution.

The last line of defense against prosecutorial misconduct is jury nullification (i.e., coming to a just verdict). However, this is such an affront to those in positions of authority that the good sense of the jury can be prevented or overturned by the judge.

P.S. Your analogy to racism is self-contradictory, if individual acts can never be used to indicate a pattern.

There is little difference between the mob and government today. This is what happens when a country is infiltrated and mob elements within government are championed and promoted up the ladder, and noobs are given the unholy choice to follow or suffer political ruin.

If the creation of legislation is at taxpayer expense hence so should be the dissolution of the same in the courts to equal the playing field, but the system is designed to promote corruption and corruption is an inherent part of the system.

The judges in the highest court in the land are chosen by government not the people, and a judge merely needs to rationalize a theory and use an unlawful procedure to set precedent, such as the knowles case where the iowa supreme court has ruled that 'probable suspicion' is all that is required to fulfill the constitutional requirement of probable cause.

There are a litany of cases from every state in the union that prove beyond 'reasonable doubt' to anyone who has either a background or understands law and have taken the time to actually review them the gross corruption from the lowest to the highest levels of government.

I can waste my time posting and arguing each of those cases for the trolls who simply seem to argue for the sake of having something to argue about rather than deal with the subject matter straight up.

The avery case, with the proceeding itself taped without a narrative shows the world how corrupt the system is and how easily they sweep everything under the radar.

The biggest problem is that people have no clue generally how seemingly innocent changes in procedure over the years compound and eventually destroy original intent ultimately taking us to the point we are at now, the complete unconstitutional removal of actual 'justice'.

That aside the beauty of the avery and dassey cases and why I chose to use it as an example is that the level of corruption can be seen all the way to the top and the corruption leaves little room to argue its nonexistence or that it is not systemic because its so obvious due to the long list of evidential impossibilities.

I assume you had to notice the statist negative reaction to my using cases that leave little to no room for doubt, that they were forced and reduced to a mere downplay of the premise.

I can go on to list a litany of problems built in to the system that rather than prevents corruption invites it. Muni courts being the worst offenders though its getting harder to draw that line as time goes on.

 

[KokomoJojo]

As for summary judgment, I don't see anything corrupt in the practice.

Do you or do you not have a right allegedly protected by the constitution to a trial by jury, yes___ or no____

To me that post shows a lack of being informed.
Summery Judgements are only used in civil cases. Not criminal cases. If you are accused of a crime.... You must have a trial by jury. They do not give summery judgments in criminal cases.
There is nothing corrupt about this.

To me your post shows lack of comprehension since I never said implied or so much as thought it was criminal and the captain obvious explanation was a waste of font ink.

Shifting and limiting the subject to criminal is your strawman response.

The point remains that you promote unconstitutional judicial proceedings.

You have the right to be ignorant and wrong, and you can continue to practice both for as long as you like.

You can pretend green is red all you want, it does not change the fact that summary judgment circumvents and removes the duty of deciding the facts (and law) from the authority of a jury of peers and transfers it to the government employed judge most of whom are appointed by the government not the people, therefore is unconstitutional. Just because you want to justify it changes nothing and calling me ignorant does nothing to support your unconstitutional bureaucratic position.

 

[KokomoJojo]

so after 40 some odd posts what good does it do, as in how do the defenders of 'status quo' benefit from turning a blind eye to the core corruption in the us legal system?

America's Corrupt Legal System - A Danger to All
by Dr Les Sachs
(This article may be freely reproduced and republished in full by anyone, anywhere.)
The tragic reality of the world's biggest corrupt legal system -America's rigged courts, bribed judges, fake and phony trials, extortion by lawyers, and over 2 million prisoners in the USA gulag. Why USA "justice" is not like in Hollywood movies, and why YOU could be the next victim on USA territory - innocent and sent to prison, or strapped to a table and put to death; or robbed of your life savings by American lawyers. Why YOU can be tortured, have your freedom and rights taken away, and why people in America are afraid to help you, or even tell what happened to you. The recent pattern of American violations of international law are ultimately based in the corruption of the USA domestic legal system. Phony USA courts are very dangerous even for travellers and visitors to America, who can easily wind up among the USA's more than 2 million prisoners, or lose all their family's possessions to corrupt American lawyers. All world citizens should know how the corrupt USA legal system, is a danger to every traveller, visitor, and guest worker from overseas, and to every individual who takes the risky step of entering upon American territory. Just ask the overseas families of prisoners who were put to death inside the USA, with their embassies never even being informed that they were arrested - or the many foreign people serving hugely long prison terms in America, after they were jailed on flimsy tainted "evidence" from criminal snitches. The reality is that the United States of America, which proclaims itself the "land of freedom", has the most dishonest, dangerous and crooked legal system of any developed nation. Legal corruption is covering America like a blanket. The corruption of the USA legal system is well-known, but also well-hidden, by the news services of America's corporate-owned media. The US media companies are afraid both of reprisal, and of the social revolution that would come from exposing the truth. Here is what the US media companies know, but are afraid to tell you about American "justice".


Concentration camps with concrete walls

America has the largest prison gulag in the entire world - yes, right there in the USA, the self-proclaimed "land of freedom". The starting point for understanding anything about the USA, is to digest the fact that just this one country, the United States of America, has twenty-five percent of ALL of the prisoners in the entire world.

More than 2 million prisoners - more than 1 out of every 150 people in America - are behind bars in the American gulag. This is now the world's biggest system of what are effectively concentration camps, though most of these prisoners are behind masonry walls and inside prison buildings.

For minorities, the statistics are even more brutal. For example, the USA is now imprisoning about 1 out of every 36 people in its black population. American "justice" is especially focused on jailing young black males.

Quite amazingly, Americans and the American government, continually criticize the legal systems and so-called "political" legal proceedings in other countries such as China, Russia, and even Belgium among many other places. Yet, for example, the proportion of prisoners is 30 times higher in the USA than in China, even though China is a country regularly criticized and denounced by the USA government.

No one imprisons people as readily, or casually, as does America. As you learn more about America's horrifying legal system, you find out how easily and carelessly America arrests people, and tosses innocent people into prison. It is estimated that America has at least 100,000 completely innocent people in jail, but the statistics of innocence may well run far higher. The number of people known to be innocent, and yet who were actually sentenced to death in recent years in America, is already running into the hundreds.

The USA jailing of more than 2 million people is also, quite literally, a revival of slavery and slave labor, on a scale not seen since the days of the Nazis. CORRUPTION, FRAUD AND JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

 

[KokomoJojo]

When no remedy can be had its beyond salvageable. I asked for a solution in the OP, if you feel its salvageable under the conditions of no remedy available please explain how that can work.

Considering that I find your premise to be deeply flawed - there is no point in trying to explain how I would 'salvage' the system. You are flatly incorrect in your statments. You would have to prove your premise first. A single case proves virtually nothing at all. In a pool of TENS of THOUSANDS of convictions per year, the fact that you pull one case out of Hollywood is not substantial.

We all know that making a murder is not hollywood in the sense you paint it, it is a documentary that recorded the actual proceedings that Attorney Dean Strang endorsed as accurately portraying all 'pertinent' information/evidence etc.

That said as I stated earlier that we have a broken corrupt judicial system and for what ever reason that I cannot fathom some of you need proof, which leads me to the conclusion I am not dealing with people that have any legal experience.

However despite it only took one nanosecond of a google search that you could have done yourself to answer your question I took the time to do it for you and all those that gave you and others who are in disbelief can see why its a foregone conclusion long since taken for granted by the rest of us.

“THE FRATERNITY “- THE CORRUPTION OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM EXPOSED BY A JUDGE John F. Molloy - See more at: Retired Arizona Judge Reveals Corruption in Legal System

Justice John F. Molloy was an attorney in Arizona who went on to serve as a judge on the Arizona Superior Court bench. He is probably best known for his time serving as Chief Justice to Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona, where he authored the famous Miranda decision that was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned, resulting in what is known today as the “Miranda Rights” which law enforcement now quotes to suspected criminals upon arrest.

Pennsylvania Court Watch

“The once honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.” -Justice John F. Molloy

By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law. Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings.

This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities.

The once-honorable profession of law now fully functions as a bottom-line business, driven by greed and the pursuit of power and wealth, even shaping the laws of the United States outside the elected Congress and state legislatures.

January 26, 2016
Retired Arizona Judge Reveals Corruption in Legal System

Arizona-court-appeals
Health Impact News Editor Comments
Justice John F. Molloy was an attorney in Arizona who went on to serve as a judge on the Arizona Superior Court bench. He is probably best known for his time serving as Chief Justice to Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona, where he authored the famous Miranda decision that was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and overturned, resulting in what is known today as the “Miranda Rights” which law enforcement now quotes to suspected criminals upon arrest.

Judge Molloy wrote a book that was published in 2004 a few years before he died in 2008. He was apparently suffering from cancer at the time, and perhaps knew his remaining time on earth was short. The title of the book is: The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion, published by Paragon House.

Justice John F. Molloy

Looking back

The legal profession has evolved dramatically during my 87 years. I am a second-generation lawyer from an Irish immigrant family that settled in Yuma. My father, who passed the Bar with a fifth-grade education, ended up arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court during his career.

The law changed dramatically during my years in the profession. For example, when I accepted my first appointment as a Pima County judge in 1957, I saw that lawyers expected me to act more as a referee than a judge. The county court I presided over resembled a gladiator arena, with dueling lawyers jockeying for points and one-upping each other with calculated and ingenuous briefs

That was just the beginning. By the time I ended my 50-year career as a trial attorney, judge and president of southern Arizona’s largest law firm, I no longer had confidence in the legal fraternity I had participated in and, yes, profited from.

I was the ultimate insider, but as I looked back, I felt I had to write a book about serious issues in the legal profession and the implications for clients and society as a whole. The Fraternity: Lawyers and Judges in Collusion was 10 years in the making and has become my call to action for legal reform.

Disturbing evolution

Our Constitution intended that only elected lawmakers be permitted to create law. Yet judges create their own law in the judicial system based on their own opinions and rulings. It’s called case law, and it is churned out daily through the rulings of judges. When a judge hands down a ruling and that ruling survives appeal with the next tier of judges, it then becomes case law, or legal precedent. This now happens so consistently that we’ve become more subject to the case rulings of judges rather than to laws made by the lawmaking bodies outlined in our Constitution.

This case-law system is a constitutional nightmare because it continuously modifies constitutional intent. For lawyers, however, it creates endless business opportunities. That’s because case law is technically complicated and requires a lawyer’s expertise to guide and move you through the system. The judicial system may begin with enacted laws, but the variations that result from a judge’s application of case law all too often change the ultimate meaning.

Lawyer domination

When a lawyer puts on a robe and takes the bench, he or she is called a judge. But in reality, when judges look down from the bench they are lawyers looking upon fellow members of their fraternity. In any other area of the free-enterprise system, this would be seen as a conflict of interest.

When a lawyer takes an oath as a judge, it merely enhances the ruling class of lawyers and judges. First of all, in Maricopa and Pima counties, judges are not elected but nominated by committees of lawyers, along with concerned citizens. How can they be expected not to be beholden to those who elevated them to the bench?

When they leave the bench, many return to large and successful law firms that leverage their names and relationships.

Business of law

The concept of “time” has been converted into enormous revenue for lawyers. The profession has adopted elaborate systems where clients are billed for a lawyer’s time in six-minute increments. The paralegal profession is another brainchild of the fraternity, created as an additional tracking and revenue center. High powered firms have departmentalized their services into separate profit centers for probate and trusts, trial, commercial, and so forth.

Bureaucratic design

Today the skill and gamesmanship of lawyers, not the truth, often determine the outcome of a case. And we lawyers love it. All the tools are there to obscure and confound. The system’s process of discovery and the exclusionary rule often work to keep vital information off-limits to jurors and make cases so convoluted and complex that only lawyers and judges understand them.

The net effect has been to increase our need for lawyers, create more work for them, clog the courts and ensure that most cases never go to trial and are, instead, plea-bargained and compromised. [all at a high cost to the 'victim'] All the while the clock is ticking, and the monster is being fed.

The sullying of American law has resulted in a fountain of money for law professionals while the common people, who are increasingly affected by lawyer-driven changes and an expensive, self-serving bureaucracy, are left confused and ill-served. Today, it is estimated that 70 percent of low-to-middle-income citizens can no longer afford the cost of justice in America. What would our Founding Fathers think?

Surely it’s time to question what has happened to our justice system and to wonder if it is possible to return to a system that truly does protect us from wrongs.

A lawyer from Tuscon, Arizona, John Fitzgerald Molloy (b. 1917) was elected to the Superior Court bench where he served for seven years as both a juvenile court and trial bench judge. He subsequently was elected to the Court of Appeals where he authored over 300 appellate opinions, including the final Miranda decision for the Arizona Supreme Court. During that period, he also served as president of the Arizona Judge’s Association. After 12 years, Molloy returned to private practice to become president of the largest law firm in southern Arizona. His book has received widespread praise for its candor and disquieting truths.
- See more at: Retired Arizona Judge Reveals Corruption in Legal System


Justice John F. Molloy was an attorney in Arizona who went on to serve as a judge on the Arizona Superior Court bench. He is probably best known for his time serving as Chief Justice to Court of Appeals for the State of Arizona, where he authored the famous Miranda decision that was subsequently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, resulting in what is known today as the "Miranda Rights" which law enforcement now quotes to suspected criminals upon arrest.

-----------------------------------------------

The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.

She said that the question of what is morally right is routinely sacrificed to what is politically expedient. The change has come because legal philosophy has descended to nihilism.

"The legal aristocracy have shed their professional independence for the temptations and materialism associated with becoming businessmen. Because law has become a self-avowed business, pressure mounts to give clients the advice they want to hear, to pander to the clients' goal through deft manipulation of the law.

Others seem uninhibited about making misstatements to the court or their opponents or destroying or falsifying evidence," she claimed. "When lawyers cannot be trusted to observe the fair processes essential to maintaining the rule of law, how can we expect the public to respect the process?"

Lawsuits Do Not Bring 'Social Justice'

"While the historical purpose of the common law was to compensate for individual injuries, this new litigation instead purports to achieve redistributive social justice. Scratch the surface of the attorneys' self-serving press releases, however, and one finds how enormously profitable social redistribution is for those lawyers who call themselves 'agents of change.'"

The second threat to the rule of law comes from government, which is encumbered with agencies that have made the law so complicated that it is difficult to decipher and often contradicts itself.
"Agencies have an inherent tendency to expand their mandate," says Jones. "At the same time, their decision-making often becomes parochial and short-sighted. They may be captured by the entities that are ostensibly being regulated, or they may pursue agency self-interest at the expense of the public welfare. Citizens left at the mercy of selective and unpredictable agency action have little recourse."

"The problem with legal philosophy today is that it reflects all too well the broader post-Enlightenment problem of philosophy," Jones said. She quoted Ernest Fortin, who wrote in Crisis magazine: "The whole of modern thought · has been a series of heroic attempts to reconstruct a world of human meaning and value on the basis of · our purely mechanistic understanding of the universe."

"Our legal system is way out of kilter," she said. "The tort litigating system is wreaking havoc. Look at any trials that have been conducted on TV. These lawyers are willing to say anything."
American Legal System Is Corrupt Beyond Recognition ...Judge Tells Harvard Law School

-----------------------------------------------

Judicial Corruption
Judicial Corruption

We Need Criminal and Civil Justice Reform
Carla DiMare | Posted 08.11.2015 | Politics
Read More: Justice, Social Justice, Judges, Judicial Nominations, Judicial System, Judicial Activism, Judicial Misconduct, Judicial Branch, Judicial Bias, Judicial Corruption, President Obama, Judicial Reform, Criminal Justice Reform, Politics News
Carla DiMare

President Obama recently highlighted the need for criminal justice reform which complements the bipartisan effort to reform our criminal justice system. However, reforming only the criminal justice system falls short of what is needed.

For Sale -- Going Fast: An Independent Judiciary -- Buy a Judge Today
Judge H. Lee Sarokin | Posted 10.07.2014 | Politics
Read More: Koch Brothers, Judicial Election Contributions, Liberal Judges, Judicial Corruption, Independent Judiciary, Judicial Elections, Tennessee Judicial Elections, Politics News
Judge H. Lee Sarokin

We should end judicial elections entirely, but until we do, we must find a way to limit the corrupting influence of money in the election process and stop putting the judiciary up for sale.

Judge, Prosecutor, Lawyer Allegedly Help Killer Escape
AP | CHRISTOPHER SHERMAN | Posted 07.02.2012 | Crime
Read More: Video, Eduardo Lucio, Da Allows Killer to Escape, Abel Limas, Judicial Corruption, Texas Judicial Corruption, Texas Racketeering, Armando Villalobos, Eddie Lucio, District Attorney Allows Killer to Escape, Racketeering, Crime News

BROWNSVILLE, Texas -- Shortly after her daughter was shot to death by a former lover, Hermila Garcia remembers hearing these comforting words from the...


Bought Justice
Dylan Ratigan | Posted 01.01.2012 | Politics
Read More: Federal Courts, Supreme Court, Courts, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Elections,
Dylan Ratigan

Our courts have as of yet been exempt from the same level of scrutiny as Congress and our politicians, but there is a pervasive, ongoing corporate attack on judicial integrity, and what we're seeing is that a lack of aligned interests, secrecy, and corruption are eroding that system as well.

Mexican Court Issues Injunction Against Documentary About Court Corruption
Dawn Teo | Posted 05.25.2011 | World
Read More: Roberto Hernandez, Antonio Zuniga, Presunto Culpable, Judicial Corruption, Mexico, Lawyers With Cameras, Presumed Guilty, Guilty, Layda Negrete, Anat Shenker-Osorio, World
Dawn Teo

In the two weeks since its release in Mexican theaters, Presumed Guilty, a documentary about Mexican judicial corruption, has shocked moviegoers, broken box office records, and now been ordered out of theaters by a Mexican judge.

Justice's Blind Eye: Money Floods Judicial Election Campaigns
ABC News | Matthew Mosk | Posted 05.25.2011 | Politics
Read More: Judge Fundraising, Judge Campaigns, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Judicial Corruption, Judicial Fundraising, Judicial Elections, Judicial Campaign Money, Judge Campaign Money, Judge Corruption, Judge Elections, Judicial Campaigns, Politics News

In rare public remarks last week, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the money involved in electing judges remains one of the most pr...

My Dad Tried to Right a Wrong, Now He's Behind Bars Unjustly
Victoria Fine | Posted 05.25.2011 | Impact
Read More: Laywer, Coercive Confinement, Taxpayer Advocate, Judicial Bonus, Judicial Corruption, Richard I. Fine, Advocate, Government Corruption, L.A. Judicial System, Political Prisoner, Impact News
Victoria Fine

My father is 69 years old and is known for his dapper bow ties and for seeing the world in strict terms of right and wrong. And since March, he has been taken a political prisoner of the L.A. County Jail System.



My question is why would anyone knowledgeable even ask the question much less demand 'proof' the american judicial system is corrupt from the bottom up when I can post judges and lawyers that tell you it is corrupt to the core and broken all freakin day long?

So have we disposed of all that to your satisfcation along with the ill-reasoned false premise garbage that someone else tried to get traction with despite their failure to post so much as one supporting argument, and can we now move on to the question of possible solutions for our grossly corrupt system?

 

[320 Years of History]

KokomoJo, I realize that you can cite many apparent incidents of corruption/conspiracy within various parts of the legal system. The question is this: can you show that the corruption is anything other than isolated incidents? Given the quantity of matters that appear before judges, juries, prosecutors, defense attorneys, corrections officials and law enforcement official, even 1000 or 50,000 instances of so-called "corruption or conspiracy" are insufficient to show that "the system" is corrupt or mired in conspiracy.

Edit:
That's not to say that nothing should be done to further reduce the extent of corruption or the risk of one's/group's successfully conspiring against the spirit of "the system." Indeed, we should do all that is reasonable and possible to do in opposition to those two things.

 

[KokomoJojo]

KokomoJo, I realize that you can cite many apparent incidents of corruption/conspiracy within various parts of the legal system. The question is this: can you show that the corruption is anything other than isolated incidents? Given the quantity of matters that appear before judges, juries, prosecutors, defense attorneys, corrections officials and law enforcement official, even 1000 or 50,000 instances of so-called "corruption or conspiracy" are insufficient to show that "the system" is corrupt or mired in conspiracy.

Edit:
That's not to say that nothing should be done to further reduce the extent of corruption or the risk of one's/group's successfully conspiring against the spirit of "the system." Indeed, we should do all that is reasonable and possible to do in opposition to those two things.

First; I posted links showing that appellate level judges back me up.

Several more can be had where those came from but it does not seem to do much good when people either do not read the material or do not have their priorities in order.

Look at your position for instance.

You fail to recognize that it only takes one ruling run through the high court where as a result of precedence will convert or wipe out a right.

That being the circumstance it only takes a miniscule few pivotal cases skew and remove the alleged protection presumed to be built into the system which reverses the intent hence rather than the people having broad rights the state has broad authority.

Since precedence is set, how many appellate level cases does it take to convert probable cause into probable suspicion as the iowa supreme court has done?

Probable suspicion is now the standing law in iowa. did it take 50,000 cases to get to that point? No, it only took one!

So how do you justify your position as anything but a red herring?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Interesting, so no one here has any ideas how to solve the injustices being foisted upon the american people from the just-us system?

I presume that the avery case is so obvious there is no need to argue that point since he was exhonerated after 18 years of false imprisonment then framed by the gubmint agents after he sued them, as if someone would commit murder only a few months from getting a 35 million dollar settlement against them.

How can this kind of corruption be curbed or do we just accept it as business as usual?

 

[Andylusion]

Interesting, so no one here has any ideas how to solve the injustices being foisted upon the american people from the just-us system?

I presume that the avery case is so obvious there is no need to argue that point since he was exhonerated after 18 years of false imprisonment then framed by the gubmint agents after he sued them, as if someone would commit murder only a few months from getting a 35 million dollar settlement against them.

How can this kind of corruption be curbed or do we just accept it as business as usual?

Pretty much everyone has decided to ignore you.

We've tried discussing things with you, and you just spam nonsense. So, now most of us are ignoring you.

 

[KokomoJojo]

Pretty much everyone has decided to ignore you.

We've tried discussing things with you, and you just spam nonsense. So, now most of us are ignoring you.

yeh they call that leaving the battlefield, its SOP for the loser to cede an argument.

I have to laugh that you nor anyone holding your position were able to argue 'on point'.

Maybe someone better able to discuss these matters will happen along and pick up the baton.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Pretty much everyone has decided to ignore you.

We've tried discussing things with you, and you just spam nonsense. So, now most of us are ignoring you.

yeh they call that leaving the battlefield, its SOP for the loser to cede an argument.

I have to laugh that you nor anyone holding your position were able to argue 'on point'.

Maybe someone better able to discuss these matters will happen along and pick up the baton.

The thread premise has failed, there is no 'argument' to pursue.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Pretty much everyone has decided to ignore you.

We've tried discussing things with you, and you just spam nonsense. So, now most of us are ignoring you.

yeh they call that leaving the battlefield, its SOP for the loser to cede an argument.

I have to laugh that you nor anyone holding your position were able to argue 'on point'.

Maybe someone better able to discuss these matters will happen along and pick up the baton.

The thread premise has failed, there is no 'argument' to pursue.

Sonny, the only "failure" here is you.if you have nothing to offer the thread, please stay away.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The thread premise has failed, there is no 'argument' to pursue.

No it has not failed on any level what so ever.

The people that argued that position left the battlefield.

Their argument that corruption does not exist or does not rise to the level it should be taken seriously since they have never evidenced their claim and despite the fact proof has been posted in which the government settled the corruption action in an out of court settlement for 1/2 million bucks and had the guy with an iq of 65 listened to his attorneys would have received upwards of 35 million buck if he had hung in there.

Despite several examples of corruption were posted including Professor Fine who is a former attorney general now being persecuted by the same corrupt government you hope to silence the matter by PRETENDING massive across the board does not exist.

Any psychologist would be forced to declare a position delusional that the government is not corrupt, especially since they claim no argument exists contrary to the fact they argued about it, and losing that argument because not only were they were not able to prove their position its impossible to prove their position.

That said, government corruption need to be proven in most peoples minds because its a given that everyone takes for granted. The level of corruption and that its just outside their back door is entirely another story.

Maybe now we can move forward and try and figure out what the solution is to prevent the commercialization of crime in spite of justice by a profiteering government?

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

 

[Holos]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

Revolution? I am slightly confused by your post. I thought Law and Political Science were two distinct disciplines, informed by one another but yet distinct in decision making. Anyhow, I will answer with my own understanding of what I could gather from your share.

If you say no, abiding by examples in law to justify your opposition, it is obvious you side with the corruption. Therefore, if I am to entertain your question and assume an alternative position for debate I cannot also abide by the examples you have given me in the reaffirmation of your fatalist beliefs towards a helplessly broken Judicial System.

So I choose a political example to answer yes, there is a solution, following your final lead. It is evident that if something is failing (a completely different concept than corruption, by the way, a concept which has here in your thread been left out of the discussion by your own very self) it is in need either of assistance or of modification if we are to maintain it.

Now, what would be the best way to assit or modify the Judicial System? Well, we have two options if we now move towards politics, each of which will provide numerous possibilities for maintenance: the Legislative System and the Executive System.

Which one do you choose for us to proceed in this debate? Please be clearly and expediently selective.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

Revolution? I am slightly confused by your post. I thought Law and Political Science were two distinct disciplines, informed by one another but yet distinct in decision making. Anyhow, I will answer with my own understanding of what I could gather from your share.

If you say no, abiding by examples in law to justify your opposition, it is obvious you side with the corruption. Therefore, if I am to entertain your question and assume an alternative position for debate I cannot also abide by the examples you have given me in the reaffirmation of your fatalist beliefs towards a helplessly broken Judicial System.

So I choose a political example to answer yes, there is a solution, following your final lead. It is evident that if something is failing (a completely different concept than corruption, by the way, a concept which has here in your thread been left out of the discussion by your own very self) it is in need either of assistance or of modification if we are to maintain it.

Now, what would be the best way to assit or modify the Judicial System? Well, we have two options if we now move towards politics, each of which will provide numerous possibilities for maintenance: the Legislative System and the Executive System.

Which one do you choose for us to proceed in this debate? Please be clearly and expediently selective.

What are you talking about?

I used steven avery as an example of how easy it is for the system to set someone up and put them away for life without appeal, hence without remedy.

This is about legal matters not political, though I would not rule out the possibility of a political solution.

 

[Holos]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

Revolution? I am slightly confused by your post. I thought Law and Political Science were two distinct disciplines, informed by one another but yet distinct in decision making. Anyhow, I will answer with my own understanding of what I could gather from your share.

If you say no, abiding by examples in law to justify your opposition, it is obvious you side with the corruption. Therefore, if I am to entertain your question and assume an alternative position for debate I cannot also abide by the examples you have given me in the reaffirmation of your fatalist beliefs towards a helplessly broken Judicial System.

So I choose a political example to answer yes, there is a solution, following your final lead. It is evident that if something is failing (a completely different concept than corruption, by the way, a concept which has here in your thread been left out of the discussion by your own very self) it is in need either of assistance or of modification if we are to maintain it.

Now, what would be the best way to assit or modify the Judicial System? Well, we have two options if we now move towards politics, each of which will provide numerous possibilities for maintenance: the Legislative System and the Executive System.

Which one do you choose for us to proceed in this debate? Please be clearly and expediently selective.

What are you talking about?

I used steven avery as an example of how easy it is for the system to set someone up and put them away for life without appeal, hence without remedy.

This is about legal matters not political, though I would not rule out the possibility of a political solution.

I am writing, of course, of the topical question you proposed in relation to the following perspective you have ajoined which cannot be neglected if I am to effectively and eventually answer it.

I cannot proceed, however, because you have not made your selection as I have requested.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

Revolution? I am slightly confused by your post. I thought Law and Political Science were two distinct disciplines, informed by one another but yet distinct in decision making. Anyhow, I will answer with my own understanding of what I could gather from your share.

If you say no, abiding by examples in law to justify your opposition, it is obvious you side with the corruption. Therefore, if I am to entertain your question and assume an alternative position for debate I cannot also abide by the examples you have given me in the reaffirmation of your fatalist beliefs towards a helplessly broken Judicial System.

So I choose a political example to answer yes, there is a solution, following your final lead. It is evident that if something is failing (a completely different concept than corruption, by the way, a concept which has here in your thread been left out of the discussion by your own very self) it is in need either of assistance or of modification if we are to maintain it.

Now, what would be the best way to assit or modify the Judicial System? Well, we have two options if we now move towards politics, each of which will provide numerous possibilities for maintenance: the Legislative System and the Executive System.

Which one do you choose for us to proceed in this debate? Please be clearly and expediently selective.

What are you talking about?

I used steven avery as an example of how easy it is for the system to set someone up and put them away for life without appeal, hence without remedy.

This is about legal matters not political, though I would not rule out the possibility of a political solution.

I am writing, of course, of the topical question you proposed in relation to the following perspective you have ajoined which cannot be neglected if I am to effectively and eventually answer it.

I cannot proceed, however, because you have not made your selection as I have requested.

this is asking for possible solutions, hence if you believe you have a possible solution by all means post it and lets take a look at it.

 

[Holos]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

Weeks after finishing it, I’ve found myself enraged by this series for reasons I didn’t anticipate.

So is it fair for Making a Murderer to characterize both the people of Manitowoc County and the jury that convicted Avery as members of a mindless lynch mob if they were looking at a different, murkier set of facts?

Had Demos and Ricciardi offered a more layered portrait of Steven Avery, it would not have rendered the suffering of Halbach’s and Avery’s families, especially that of Avery’s mother, Delores, any less powerful. Those empty fish tanks that Allan Avery stares into as he contemplates all the things that might have been would be no less heartbreaking. The sheriff’s department’s obvious conflict of interest and the unctuous, Ned Flanders–esque sanctimony of Ken Kratz, the former Calumet County district attorney who was later forced to resign after a sexting scandal, would have been no less maddening. But a fuller picture would have demanded that the audience consider two other horrifying scenarios: that serving 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit had turned Steven Avery into a predator, and/or that police may have framed a guilty man. In both, the state remains morally complicit in shoring up a corrupt legal system that is stacked against those who don’t have the resources to fight it.

There’s an interesting moment in Making a Murderer’s final episode, when Dean Strang says, “If I’m gonna be perfectly candid, there’s a big part of me that really hopes Steven Avery is guilty of this crime. Because the thought of him being innocent of this crime, and sitting in prison again for something he didn’t do, and now for the rest of his life, without a prayer of parole? I can’t take that.” But as a viewer, I felt the exact opposite: I wanted Avery to be innocent so badly that the bits and pieces of information that trickled out after the series aired were hard to swallow.

The Emotional Manipulations of Making a Murderer

I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

Revolution? I am slightly confused by your post. I thought Law and Political Science were two distinct disciplines, informed by one another but yet distinct in decision making. Anyhow, I will answer with my own understanding of what I could gather from your share.

If you say no, abiding by examples in law to justify your opposition, it is obvious you side with the corruption. Therefore, if I am to entertain your question and assume an alternative position for debate I cannot also abide by the examples you have given me in the reaffirmation of your fatalist beliefs towards a helplessly broken Judicial System.

So I choose a political example to answer yes, there is a solution, following your final lead. It is evident that if something is failing (a completely different concept than corruption, by the way, a concept which has here in your thread been left out of the discussion by your own very self) it is in need either of assistance or of modification if we are to maintain it.

Now, what would be the best way to assit or modify the Judicial System? Well, we have two options if we now move towards politics, each of which will provide numerous possibilities for maintenance: the Legislative System and the Executive System.

Which one do you choose for us to proceed in this debate? Please be clearly and expediently selective.

What are you talking about?

I used steven avery as an example of how easy it is for the system to set someone up and put them away for life without appeal, hence without remedy.

This is about legal matters not political, though I would not rule out the possibility of a political solution.

I am writing, of course, of the topical question you proposed in relation to the following perspective you have ajoined which cannot be neglected if I am to effectively and eventually answer it.

I cannot proceed, however, because you have not made your selection as I have requested.

this is asking for possible solutions, hence if you believe you have a possible solution by all means post it and lets take a look at it.

I do not simply believe I have a solution. I actually do have a solution. I have already showed it to you. It is your call now to show me your money so I can give you the final functioning product and the instructions of usage. Otherwise it is not of my interest, or the interest of my functioning product (a Working Judicial System) to remain in your poor attention.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I say no.
I do not see a fix when jury's are terrified and in fear of their lives to vote 'not guilty' against government generated indictments where simply being accused is a guilty verdict.


I believe state injustice is no more fixable today than it ever was, pre or post revolution.

Revolution? I am slightly confused by your post. I thought Law and Political Science were two distinct disciplines, informed by one another but yet distinct in decision making. Anyhow, I will answer with my own understanding of what I could gather from your share.

If you say no, abiding by examples in law to justify your opposition, it is obvious you side with the corruption. Therefore, if I am to entertain your question and assume an alternative position for debate I cannot also abide by the examples you have given me in the reaffirmation of your fatalist beliefs towards a helplessly broken Judicial System.

So I choose a political example to answer yes, there is a solution, following your final lead. It is evident that if something is failing (a completely different concept than corruption, by the way, a concept which has here in your thread been left out of the discussion by your own very self) it is in need either of assistance or of modification if we are to maintain it.

Now, what would be the best way to assit or modify the Judicial System? Well, we have two options if we now move towards politics, each of which will provide numerous possibilities for maintenance: the Legislative System and the Executive System.

Which one do you choose for us to proceed in this debate? Please be clearly and expediently selective.

What are you talking about?

I used steven avery as an example of how easy it is for the system to set someone up and put them away for life without appeal, hence without remedy.

This is about legal matters not political, though I would not rule out the possibility of a political solution.

I am writing, of course, of the topical question you proposed in relation to the following perspective you have ajoined which cannot be neglected if I am to effectively and eventually answer it.

I cannot proceed, however, because you have not made your selection as I have requested.

this is asking for possible solutions, hence if you believe you have a possible solution by all means post it and lets take a look at it.

I do not simply believe I have a solution. I actually do have a solution. I have already showed it to you. It is your call now to show me your money so I can give you the final functioning product and the instructions of usage. Otherwise it is not of my interest, or the interest of my functioning product (a Working Judicial System) to remain in your poor attention.

Its really great to hear you 'have' a solution. How about sharing some details of your functional solution with us or is it a secret? Thanks but I dont buy wooden nickels.

 

[Holos]

Revolution? I am slightly confused by your post. I thought Law and Political Science were two distinct disciplines, informed by one another but yet distinct in decision making. Anyhow, I will answer with my own understanding of what I could gather from your share.

If you say no, abiding by examples in law to justify your opposition, it is obvious you side with the corruption. Therefore, if I am to entertain your question and assume an alternative position for debate I cannot also abide by the examples you have given me in the reaffirmation of your fatalist beliefs towards a helplessly broken Judicial System.

So I choose a political example to answer yes, there is a solution, following your final lead. It is evident that if something is failing (a completely different concept than corruption, by the way, a concept which has here in your thread been left out of the discussion by your own very self) it is in need either of assistance or of modification if we are to maintain it.

Now, what would be the best way to assit or modify the Judicial System? Well, we have two options if we now move towards politics, each of which will provide numerous possibilities for maintenance: the Legislative System and the Executive System.

Which one do you choose for us to proceed in this debate? Please be clearly and expediently selective.

What are you talking about?

I used steven avery as an example of how easy it is for the system to set someone up and put them away for life without appeal, hence without remedy.

This is about legal matters not political, though I would not rule out the possibility of a political solution.

I am writing, of course, of the topical question you proposed in relation to the following perspective you have ajoined which cannot be neglected if I am to effectively and eventually answer it.

I cannot proceed, however, because you have not made your selection as I have requested.

this is asking for possible solutions, hence if you believe you have a possible solution by all means post it and lets take a look at it.

I do not simply believe I have a solution. I actually do have a solution. I have already showed it to you. It is your call now to show me your money so I can give you the final functioning product and the instructions of usage. Otherwise it is not of my interest, or the interest of my functioning product (a Working Judicial System) to remain in your poor attention.

Its really great to hear you 'have' a solution. How about sharing some details of your functional solution with us or is it a secret? Thanks but I dont buy wooden nickels.

It seems you end up not buying anything at the end, isn't it? I keep your nickels and your wood because you didn't know how to make the distinction and because that was never what I offered.

It's been a pleasure, now move along or read the previous posts again with the intention to understand what you should have before my last two posts were written.

I share once again, knowing you will not take it once again only because in sharing I also receive returns from others who actually know how to share and don't make the mistake to confuse sharing with mock economics or mock legal practices.

You will only learn law through politics. You already lost all your chances to learn law through economics because you have already assumed a problem of many repercussions to have only one right solution.

Choose to redeem yourself by reviewing what I have already worked on (posted) or lose it all. This is not a joke or a contest.

I consistently and continuously exercise my functions as a common and average citizen bearer and inheritor of the three fundamental federal powers which have established and set independent the United States of America as it currently is: the powers of legislation, the powers of judgement and the powers of execution.

I won't read the Constitution for you, but I will teach you law through politics if you so choose to acknowledge what I have already posted and give proper continuity to it.

It's either that or no solution for you, and know that the law provides for each according to their own deeds or misdeeds, nothing more and nothing less.

The system is functional, individuals ignorant of a functioning system (in similarity to your own very self) are corrupt. Corruption is the loss of functional and practical freedom.

Last post or a lesson. The choice is yours. My choice has already been made and follows through with earned unanimity (50/50) from long years of practice and exhertion of my human rights as citizen of the United States of America which effectively represent the human rights of citizens of all nations and even those of citizens with no nation at all (call those by the name you will). Choose wisely or don't choose at all (50/0), you must still be willing to take this seriously by continuous learning to also gain unanimity in your decisions and understanding in your experiences.

Not all is lost, and you still have some freedom. Go back and read the post in which I ask you to select either the Legislative System or the Executive System to finally give you a solution you will comprehend according to your current learning preferences, but this time please actually make a selection. All you have to do is type "Legislative" or "Executive" in your reply to this post. Prove to me you are capable of typing one word or the other and I will prove to you the veracity of the solution I have.

I know it is not difficult for you to do your part. It also isn't difficult for me to do mine.