Jim’s Books Now Available

Get Jailbreak! and see Jim's other books at Barnes and Noble. Also available at iTunes, Kobo, and Scribd.

Courtcrew Series


This is the best example, so far, of why public defenders are so often
harmful to justice:

1991: Corsicana Texas; police were directed to a fire. Three children burned to death or died of smoke inhalation. One firecop, a Mr. Vasquez, declared an arson, justifying it by simply mumbling vague, nonscientific phrases such as “…pattern of burn indicates arson.” The regular cops assigned to catch the proposed arsonist immediately attacked the survivor, Cameron Todd Willingham, as is standard police practice; start close in, work outward until convictable targets are acquired. Guilt is not required, only conviction. The imaginary crime established, the cops are assigned their task: get a conviction.

The sanitized, courtcrats’ version of this is found in Willingham v.
Cockrell, 61 fed, appx 918 (2003). Trace this backward in time to find
the truthier parts left behind. Every word of Willingham’s appeals are
excluded from this record. From this caselaw you can only see what the
cops, lawcrats and their dupes claim. The lawyers’ edition may
provide more detail and less lawcrat propaganda, if we could obtain it,
because it is supposed to contain documents from the accused’ side too. If I ever find the citation, I’ll include it here.

The cops found Willingham to be an easy target. Other cops had apparently previously convicted him of some minor crime of undisclosed type. Cops love it when their target is someone whose reputation has already been blackened because this makes it easier for jurors to believe their primary conviction tool; character assassination. This tool is essential when your only ‘evidence’ is nothing more than a state employee simply declaring, without any proof what so ever, that a crime occurred, and lying that an accelerant had been used.

Fact is, no crime occurred except possibly negligence in babysitting. It turns out that Willingham slept while his kids set the house on fire. He might have been sedated by overwork, alcohol or other substance, but we will never learn the truth for two reasons: the state killed him, and the state scared him off the witness stand by giving him a public defender who gave him the standard harmful advice of, “Do not defend yourself to the jurors because the prosecutor will make you admit to any and all previous crimes the state has put on you, (and do not talk to the media)”.

Easy as it is to convict a person who is convinced to, insanely, remain silent during a lethal attack, the cop/prosecutor team took no chances Cops came up with numerous ‘confessions’ which they put in Willingham’s mouth for the jurors, in order to prop up their declarations of arson. Cop after cop claimed variously: Willingham beat his wife (and kids) while pregnant; he wanted to trade one of his kids for a VCR; he killed a dog and bragged about it; he explained away the cops’ lies about finding a flammable liquid used by claiming that he had spilled flammable perfume all over the place without cleaning it up before going to sleep; the guy burned his house down to cover up child abuse, and; he burned his children to make it look like they’d set the fire. Also, “He refused to go rescue his children”, (as if firecops or ordinary cops would allow this, which is the firecops’ job, who are dressed for it and have the air tanks, face masks, infrared viewers and other equipment that makes this possible). The cop/prosecutor team produced no evidence of any type of flame accelerant being used. (Willingham and his jurors didn’t know it, but back then, firecops had hydrocarbon sniffers to detect arson sped by chemical accelerants. This was given to them by scientists years prior to this case.) Incidentally, Steve Barret ran into a fire to warn people sleeping in the basement in Cleveland, Ohio. The firecop chief called him a hero, but the regular cops fried him with their tasers and charged him with ‘misconduct at an emergency” Colbert Report, 11-10-2009.) The cops went door to door and connived the neighbor-ladies to help them assassinate Willingham’s character. Cops are grandmasters at manufacturing ‘evidence’ by manipulating witnesses and their emotions. Caselaw books and my site are full of examples of cops caught in the act of doing this and how they do it. (See Innocents’ Guide, Cop Culture and Training, Officers and Identikits, Eyewitness This:, et al.) Most telling are the twin lies of “…to cover up child abuse” and the outrageous “…burned his children to simulate their playing with fire.” Cop/DA teams commonly use accusations of child abuse to foment in jurors the unthinking hatred that they require to induce mindless convictions. This tactic is standard in all courtrooms. Not so easily believed is the accusation of torturing children to simulate their playing with fire. By applying minimal logic, we can notice that, in order to have a crime of arson, we must somehow explain away the fact that all three children died of smoke inhalation, and that one had burned hands and arm, exactly as if playing with fire.

Now, no cop saw Willingham prepare for his no-motivation “arson” by burning his child’s hands. No witness testified to this. So, where did this arson-saving crowbar come from? It came spewing at jurors directly from the prosecutor’s mouth as he testi-lied to them during his closing arguments. Funny how the very thing that should have counted toward his innocence and simple, common reality somehow got twisted into a sinister tool for causing murder and political gain. Only the prosecutors could pull off such a brobdingnagian deception, and the anonymous judges help them get away with it by allowing cops and prosecutors to sue character assassination to replace truth, facts and proof.

Willingham had only his wife to deny this, which she did, but the jurors were suckered by the quantity of evidence, not the quality. The parade of cops, firecops, a conniving jailrat, the gullible neighbor-ladies and the incessant media amplification, was a bandwagon that they could not resist jumping upon. The complete, total lack of real evidence had no effect upon the carnival of hearsay and fingerpointing that the conviction team had created. The jurors all slapped their guilty buttons and raced back to their busy lives to brag, then almost immediately forget what they had been so cunningly duped into doing; allowing the state to legally murder an innocent man for a crime that did not occur.

The cops and courtcrats commonly hide their crimes by shoving them in the graves of their victims. Willingham was different. Before they killed him, he was weighed down by an anvil of a public defender named Dave Martin. For death-seeking prosecutors, accusees are often saddled with two public defenders, just to make it look extra legal when they get their death sentences. This second PD was Rob Dunn. Not any PD’s name is mentioned in the caselaw where I read of Willingham’s appeal. Apparently, PDs are able to expunge their names from cases that they wish to dis- associate from. It’s bad for business when lawyers can be too easily traced to murdered innocents. Judges help the culprits of law conceal these legal atrocities by marking them ‘not for publication’, and by making citations from them problematic for the ones who would dredge up criminal rulings.

This murder by cop/DA/Judge/PD would have been safely concealed forever except for the victim’s family. They worked tirelessly for 5 years after his fraudulent execution and finally obtained media attention. Somehow they got nine real arson experts to check the facts. They found the obvious, then declared their findings: Vasquez and his two underlings lied; no accelerant was used; the burn pattern did not indicate arson; Vasquez and his two yes-men were arson investigators merely by claiming to be so, with no real training in the physics of fire.

Willingham’s family and friends then managed to attract the attention of Steve Mills of the Chicago Tribune. He managed to find someone at CNN who would interview him about the case. CNN got interested in the case when they were shown that at Texas Gov. Rick Perry let the innocent be killed because he had a re-election to win. CNN pulled in Scott Cobb, a death penalty moratorium activist. On 10-4-2009, they revealed that Vasquez was some kind of “mystic” instead of a competent arson investigator. It was also noted that Willingham’s PD, Dave Martin, is an ex cop: (No wonder Willingham tried to ditch this guy, even if it meant having No lawyer: No one escapes a swamp by standing in the crocodile’s jaws.)

All these little dribbles of fact interspersed with layers of media inanities piqued interest enough for editors to assign it to Anderson Cooper, their prime time host. They also dug up the PD, Dave Martin, for a gabfest broadcast on 10-15-2009. Martin revealed himself to be the worst nightmare for Cooper, taking over his show, shouting him down, testifying instead of answering questions and generally covering his ass by incessantly spewing loud declarations of his client’s undeniable guilt. Not one shred of any type of real proof exists in this case. Willingham was murdered simply because of the emotional ravings of a determined group of masterful public- and self manipulators hell-bent on ‘justice’ for three children fascinated by fire and unsupervised. It is astounding how a multi-million dollar legal catastrophe can mushroom from a chain reaction beginning with one incompetent gov’t employee. Vasquez’ incompetence was even admitted to by a nameless judge, but the judge, like gov. Rick Perry, decided to ‘err on the side of (political) caution’. He declared that it was “harmless error” for Vasquez to create a crime out of nothing.

Every case that is so vacuum packed that cop/prosecutor teams go get some jailrat and trade leniency for lies under oath tells rational people that abysmal corruption is occurring. Our lawyers’ system is exploding with these no-proof; only fingerpointing frauds that ethical people who should vomit at their discover instead gaze away and gag, yet remain silent. Do we really want these overpaid, underworked professional flimflam artists to lie people to death for political gain? They’ve got billions of dollars to waste and every high tech advantage ever created: It is not too much to ask that the usual one-sided battle of the courtroom liars contain some particle of real proof before they slaughter some poor fool in our name!


After a few years of suffering it, judges gradually realize that there is a great, ugly flaw in their judging system. This reeking defect has haunted and harassed both judges and prosecutors for over 1400 years. They’ve made great progress in taming this blemish upon the smooth, polished surface of law, yet they still haven’t been able to banish or vanquish this weakness, as they have easily done with the people they accuse of crime. But they keep trying: every few years a rich, arrogant judge with too much idle time on his hands will jot down some angry notes of inspiration. When he has a drawer full of these, he’ll tender them and his idea to a publishing company. The publisher will politely suggest that the judge’s ideas are perhaps “ahead of their time” and that he should put them away for the present. The judge, however, being a judge, takes this advice as an insult and instead tries to vend his thesis to other publishing houses. They all politely decline his manuscript. (By this time the judge has been convinced that no publisher will buy random notes, so he has assembled them into a rudimentary “book”, typed by his assistants and closely resembling in style his rambling, verbose, pendantic and snide courtroom opinions.)

No publisher will buy it, but judge Almighty KNOWS his ideas are the very thing to fix the lawyers’ system he so greatly admires. Because the judge is paid so richly to wear black robes, act pompously and smack his little hammer, he has far more money than brains: he curses the stupidity of publishing houses and grudgingly pays a jobber to make a thousand copies of his book. These he tries to sell, but winds up giving many of them to friends, kin and associates. Underlings are forced to skim through the crap so as to feign having read and enjoyed it for the sake of keeping their lucrative, low-work jobs aiding the judge. Associates and kin place their copies on a shelf to rot. After a few years of tripping over the huge remaining pile in his ample garage, judge Almighty finally gives up on this particular facet of his mission to improve the judicial system: he pays a discount bookseller to pick them up and sell what he can for whatever he can get, on consignment. Almost none sell for any price. The discount broker tells the judge to remove his stock within 90 days. Ninety days passes without action. The judge’s years of courtroom insights are ground into mulch and fed back to the plants.

Without even looking for such a trend, I’ve found 13 instances of this scenario playing out within the past 50 years. All these judges had some good insights, and every one of them had the same big, “good” idea as their central tenet: drastically limit or actually curtail entirely the power jurors have over judges.

It drives some judges quietly mad when, exceedingly rarely, jurors refuse to parrot exactly what the judge/prosecutor team demands of them. It chaps their hides so royally each time this happens that Judge/DA teams regularly sneak over to their legislative kin and beg for laws to take away the jurors’ power. Legislative lawcrats have helped their judicial lawcrat brothers on this problem when they could. They caused six jurors to be removed from every civil lawsuit on the legal theory that six cats CAN be more easily herded than twelve. For the most part, however, the legislative lawcrats have decided not to get black eyes helping judge/DAs solve their rogure juror problem.

Judge/DAs have had to employ their own sets of sleazy tricks to herd jurors, en masse, down this conviction chute. (See: Juror Groupies, elsewhere in my writings.) The primary tactic the judge uses is simple deceit. Prior to every criminal trial the judge simply lies directly into the faces of each juror, conniving them to believe that THE LAW forces them to convict when the judge/DA. team meets certain nebulous, verbal “tests” and “standards” that feign objectivity as they are obviously nothing but subjective to any logical, thinking mind. (See: hearsay, probable cause, reasonable doubt, etc in Black’s law dictionary.) He does this throughout juror selection and beyond in many subtle guises, but his main thrusts are done after his prosecutor’s second “final” argument. The judge gets the last “final” argument as he rends his “instructions” to the jurors. His Almighty tries, with his “instructions”, to put the jurors into the straitjacket of law. Over the decades judge/DAs have learned to act like merchants, offering a wide variety of conviction options when their case is weak or based upon frauds that may unravel before the year time limit on appeals and “newly uncovered evidence” is passed. (If the cops and lawcrats can keep their frauds concealed for a solid year, appeals judges can legally wave the checkered flag and refuse to address the merits of newly uncovered evidence by claiming that the target failed to show “due diligence” in being thwarted by the cops and lawcrats from exposing these frauds “sooner”.) By offering plenty of choices, such as murder-one, second degree this, so many “counts” of that, the death penalty, life without parole (death by confinement), life, five-to-life, etc, the lawcrats increase their conviction rates, same as merchants lower their prices when selling products in ghettos or third world countries. Some juror’s minds can only be law-fogged to a certain degree, and plenty of conviction options make it easier for the eleven other jurors to wear them down to a “lesser” guilty vote so everyone can go home. Judges cannot accept non-unanimous jury-votes as convictions (yet). But since they are all apparently mostly for conviction rather than acquittal, it is in their best political interest to use their overweening power to help beat down minority dissent by forcing jurors back into “further deliberations”. Judges and lawcrats take advantage of targets who are ignorant of this fact, and, knowing the vote is eleven to one for conviction, play on their target’s gullibility by suggesting he accept, unknown, the majority vote. Lawcrats are all very tricky in offering their targets plenty of ways to waive their rights and thus cut their own throats: this “go for the majority” hung jury trick is only one of the more widely known ones. Every offer the judge/DA/PD team makes has a very high probability of being a bullet in the target’s head. (See:Plea “Bargains”: Don’t Fall For Them, elsewhere in my writings.)

But the crux of the matter is that the greatest unexploited weakness in the lawcrat’s oak is the jurors themselves. Most people have no idea that lawcrats want to rid themselves of jurors. Fewer still have the vaguest idea why. My many readers know that the jurors are the only real quality control that the lawcrats suffer, but it goes much further than this.

You won’t see this fact revealed in any of the hundreds of Hollywood cop-u-dramas, but a potentially huge lawcrat problem with jurors is that they can always CHANGE THEIR VOTE!

Yes! The sleazy, sneaky, arrogant lords of law have not yet found a way to put a time limit on a juror changing his mind! They’ve never had to before, so they have not yet needed to run to their legislative brethren and damand this law. But they will soon! There is a tsunami of innocent yet convicted persons who are not ready to die in prison just because lawcrats have roadblocked newly-uncovered evidence with their time-limit laws, procedural bars and vast repertoire of technicality snookery. We are at last so numerous that we can’t be overlooked and denied much longer. The thousands of us reported in newspapers and broadcasts have made the lawcrats very nervous. They thought they’d “fixed” their innocents-convicted problem by enacting bogus DNA laws that throw money at themselves for “improvements”. That trick only lasted for about two years. The “new” wore off, and the innocents kept getting convicted, then UN-convicted. The lawcrats have noticed the public being harder to convince with the usual courtroom antics of swearing, hear-say and fingerpointing. They’ve been exposed to too many hundreds of “mistakes” in a row and subliminally know something is very rotten in cop-and-lawyerland. They fear for their own children becoming a decades-too-long “mistake”. They begin to become freethinking individuals who realize that when “mistakes” become too prevalent, they can be termed “deliberate” and thus FRAUD. Jurors are recycled enough today to make logical deductions about a process that is less solemn and sacred, and more pompous and theatrical, the more times you see it acted out. Jurors have been forbidden to ask questions, and now they have begun to have the gall to ask WHY this is forbidden. Jurors are begining to notice that the witnesses are all well-rehearsed and that actual, physical evidence that should have been presented is missing, and instead, all that is presented is excuses why it isn’t there. Jurors have publicly questioned this lack of real evidence and shown their demands for actual evidence in several trials by acquitting persons that the judge/ DA team thought were already good as slammed. These unexpected “not guilty!” shout-downs of conviction-confident judge/DAs have reached such a common proportion that the lawcrats have had to create ludicrous, bogus, yet simplemindedly plausible excuses for “jurors gone wild”. ”They say, “It’s the ‘CSI Effect”‘ (See: “CSI Reality” in the 8-06 issue of Scientific American where they get a forensic scientist to vend this smoggy, mis-direction to the middleclass.) The public is watching these far-out, science fiction-type cop-shows and demanding that our cops be Star Trek versions of Sherlock Holmes!” Funny as it may be to freethinking persons suffering lawfraud to see the lawcrats’ secondary propaganda machine suddenly whip around and accidentally bite them on their asses, this has almost nothing to do with their problem. When the smoke fogs the mirror and the draft up our legs ceases, there will remain two unconcealable facts: (1) The lawyers’ system is still broken and pumping out innocent convictions at a minimum rate of over seven percent (See: Bibliography, “Lawswindled for Life!” elsewhere in my writings) and (2) The science of brain-scanning lie detection is a commercial success and will be freeing innocents and exposing lawcriminals by the horde soon. The only roadblock to this technology is the lawcrats’ ability to out-talk scientists and defame statistical analysis. Fortunately for us, lawcrat vapor can’t stand long against hard, proven scientific fact.

How do we push this technological advancement along? The legal department of one of these firms has told me that the usual way is to get the facts in front of a witness. (See: FMRI Lie detection = Innocent’s lucky Day!) Show him or her what the cops and lawcrats concealed from him and the jurors. He will put this with his memories of the cryptic legal shenanigans he was subjected to during the many rehearsals of his testimony. He will add two and two and, when it becomes plain that he was subtly steered, manipulated, coached and rehearsed to parrot a set of “facts” known to be untrue by the lawcrats who taught him how to testify, he will change his mind. (See: Innocent’s Guide to Avoiding False Convictions)

This type of uncovering and displaying the no-longer-concealed facts will work even better on jurors. Jurors do not have such close, friendly ties with the lawcrooks as do witnesses. Witnesses usually choose to stick with their lie because they fear that their victim won’t understand that the cops, DA and aides tricked them. Witnesses will not believe you when you tell them that the laws of 49 states absolutely forbid their victims from suing them for lying, knowingly or unknowingly, under oath, in court, during any proceeding. Worse, witnesses will actually run away from you rather than view your proof. Witnesses fear that the cops, DAs and judges will target them for harassment and accusations of crime if they reassess their conclusions on the basis of newly-unconcealed evidence. They saw how easily they were manipulated and realize that any other witness could be just as easily manipulated to swear crime onto them.

Jurors have less to fear from the cops and lawcrats. Jurors are not so heavily programed witnesses. Jurors are farther from the case than witnesses and thus are not as easily seduced by badged, robed and silk-suited con-men. Best, jurors have no stake in maintaining a lie out of hubris or pride. When jurors are tricked, it is often a point of pride and self esteem for them to correct the situation. No one enjoys being fooled, and jurors like being made the fool less than witnesses, since it was their sacred task not to be fooled.

Thus I suggest to every innocent-convicted that you take your proof to the jurors who were defrauded of their right to see ALL the facts and evidence and to make a CORRECT decision that doesn’t leave, for example, some killer running loose to be thus encouraged to kill again.

For myself, I use this time to try and track down the jurors in my case, particularly the Black one, who is no doubt more skeptical of the lawyers’ system, having been gouged by it more often than have Caucasians. Their names are: Charles Boydston Boyd; Don R. Frgin (this is the court clerk’s own spelling); Geraldine D. Marple; Robert 0. Colerick; Julia R. Stockton; Dixie R. Pharris; Earl C. Harrison; James S. Bakc; Frances Day Cervantes; Virginia Marcelle Mousley; Peggy J. Woods and Ann R. Code.

I promise $50 to anyone who finds one of these individuals and convinces him or her to scrutinize my netsite and accept a letter from me. I am certain that my proof is so strong that any juror can evaluate it and decide to tell the judge, Tome Beasley/Tim Harris, “You let this man undergo FMRI Lie Detection at his own expense, or I’ll change my verdict:”

This is a very small thing to ask, especially when one weighs it against the lawcrats usual excuses for dodging a ruling on the merits of a case. (See the legal terms “Res Judicata”, “procedural bar”, “collateral estoppel”, “presumption of (the judge/DA’s) correctness” and many more examples of cheap, legal hogwash and fact-duckery that I can’t remember immediately without the reference sources I no longer have.) Upon meeting such an upstanding and forthright citizen doing his civic duty, the judge, will first bridle at the audacity of someone with courage enough to try to question his unchecked authority. Then His Almighty will scoff, saying, “You can’t do that! I won’t allow it: Such a thing is preposterous on its face!” When our courageous juror insists, and tries to put the deposition and petition in his hand, the judge will resort to legal flimflammery by quoting case law (which judges make up as they go along) as if it were statute law. No statute law (yet) presumes to force a juror from changing his mind when additional evidence is uncovered. When this becomes a problem, his “Honor” will race to the legislature and try to get them to put a one-year time limit on jurors reassessing their verdicts, the same, exact way they’ve chopped off citizens’ rights to Habeas Corpus, Appeal and others since Clinton made it popular with his accelerated death penalty act of 1996, and their prisoner litigation limit act of about the same period.

Lastly, the judge may make not-so-veiled threats as to the future fortunes of the brave juror. Hopefully the juror will be able to prevail against the lawcrats’ attempts at intimidation by protecting himself with witnesses at all times when speaking to too-powerful persons, and by realizing that the judges’ and other lawcrats’ lucrative govt jobs and fat pensions are not worth losing over one case of their predecessor’s corruption.

This is a way innocent persons can get free from fraudulent convictions created out of media lies, courtroom perjury, police/prosecutor evidence-theft, eyewitness-tampering and judge/DA/PD trickery. I advise all of my 300,000-plus fellow innocent convicteds to use this strategy too, before our fine lawcrats obtain the wherewithal to outlaw it.

Sincerely, James Bauhaus


“We have something better to stand on than precedent: we have principles!” Sam Kinnison

ACLU: This is the American Civil Liberties Union. Probably most of these people mean well, but many of them in the highest positions of decision-making are simply sharks looking for food. They eat from the public’s pocket and are facilitated in this by their cronies on the bench (judges) who declare how much they will be paid. The most unfortunate example of this is the many lawsuits they profit from that involve non-substantive issues such as the right of Nazis or the Klan to parade through Jewish or Black neighborhoods, the right to be free from prayer and other religious practices or icons in public places, the right to abort pregnancies and even the right of prisoners and other unfortunates to humane treatment and public assistance.

All these ‘rights’ they profess are usually mere matters of opinion and are subject to never be truly resolved because their solution-of-the-moment depends upon which group of ‘special interests has current control of the media and thus the public mind. Education and propaganda are so intertwined that it will be another century before the Constitution can be correctly interpreted, and then it won’t likely be done by lawyers who profit by means of empty rhetoric, as has been the case so far. The Constitution was invented to rein in the lawyer class, the power-elite and Royalty, and so far, the forces of lawyers, govt and aristocracy, etc. have pretty much managed to defeat every provision of it through use of statute and case law. Such will always be the case until citizens get as educated and as organized as the privileged classes who make and own the law.

A specific instance where ACLU lawyers and the judges who cater to them picked the public’s pockets occurred in a Nebraska case where prisoners were creating significantly larger medical bills by attacking one another. There was nothing complex about the matter. It simply involved prisoncrats forcing incompatible prisoners to live in the same bathroom size cages together until fights with serious injury and death occurred. The prisoncrats simply decided to become too lazy to pay attention to designations such as black, white, Jew, Nazi, etc. So they just began to force what they call ‘random celling’. This sadistic policy was quickly aped by most states nationwide. The Nebraska victims of it were among the first to manage to get past all the institutional and legal roadblocks and reach federal court with a lawsuit.

The case was bedrock simple. There was no other answer but for the judge to tap his gavel and say, “Stop random celling immediately and don’t try to sneak it back in through another means”.

What did the judge do instead? He technically ruled that the prisoners ‘won’ the lawsuit against random celling, but he didn’t outlaw the policy. He then wrote an ‘opinion’ that functioned as a roadmap for the prisoncrats to use to continue to implement the policy and it showed them how to conceal the medical paper trail so that no new lawsuits against random celling can be ‘won’ by prisoners. Prisoncrats in every state learned how to cleverly write up reports of injuries and deaths due to forced celling of enemies in such a way as to make it appear that the cause was not due to random celling. One of the primary reasons the prisoners ‘won’ the lawsuit is so that their lawyers could get paid out of the public pocket to the tune of about a quarter million dollars.

ACLU lawyers are directed to prisoner and other types of lawsuits by their old boy network. This is so they can step in and de-fang explosive cases. Prisoners and other powerless groups must lose the suit or sign over their lawsuit to the lawyers as a ‘class action’ lawsuit. The lawyers keep the issues low key, they make the injury and harm appear minimal, and they keep the media even more tame than usual. They propose minimal solutions to the problem that turn out to be non-solutions that still maintain the status quo for the privileged classes. For these services, judges give lawyers fat paychecks drawn from the public’s pockets. The rules judges have created that govern lawyer pay from public pockets in such suits are written in such a way as to entice lawyers to take over class action suits. One rule is that the persons harmed who brought the suit in the first place must forgo cash settlements when signing over their rights to the class action lawyers.           (The ACLU normally only takes class action lawsuits.) As always, there are legal loopholes that can be used to overcome this and other restrictions, but not without permission from the lawyers themselves, particularly the judge.

CCLP: This is the Coalition of Concerned Legal Professionals. This is an organization that fronts itself off as an advocate for the disenfranchized, but my own dealings with them indicate that the people hiding behind this feel-good label are largely unresponsive and may primarily function as a fundraising tool. They have two offices, one in New York, one in California. I wrote both numerous times with my problem of fraudulent conviction and proof of same. The New York office never responded. The California office tendered my letter to a first-year law student, Karen Nash. She directed me to send her the same proof I’d already sent to CCLP twice, plus my trial transcripts. I did, and she sat on them for a solid year, then wrote back saying, “Since Mr. Barry Scheck and his innocence project were unable to make any progress in your case, it is unlikely that I’ll have any success either.” I never was able to obtain any response from her again or get my file or transcripts back. Since the transcripts were required for further appeals, I sent her and both CCLP offices numerous requests for them back along with sufficient postage for their return. They kept the postage too, then, months later, their fundraising office sent me a form letter begging me for money to keep their ‘mission’ alive! To me, their ‘mission’ seems to be to use law students for free labor to appear to do enough token activism to qualify for tax-free fundraising and other non-profit perks, such as special low postage rates for begging. If truth in advertising were in effect, these people should change their name to Coalition of Secretive, Student-Abusing, Funds-Soliciting Professionals.

OCCA: This is the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. This is another secretive band of even worse legal bandits. They refuse to fix obvious, flagrant violations of rights created by corrupt judges, prosecutors and cops from lower, city-court judges. They often facilitate or cover such corruptions, forcing their victims to try and obtain relief from the Federal judges (unlikely) or the 10th circuit judges (slightly less unlikely). Five judges hide behind these initials or their alias, ‘The Court’. This institution feeds untold scads of aspiring prosecutors, serving as a training ground for ambitious social climbers intent upon wedging themselves into positions of power and lucre within the vast bureaucracies of govt. It also feeds, at taxpayer expense, legions of anonymous, unnecessary bureaucrats who do the work for the judges and prosecutors. They need to be audited and scrutinized closely for ‘ghost’ employees, just like the OK Health Dept., since it is widely known that many of the persons here do ‘work’ that consists solely of collecting paychecks.

The judges are arrogant in their untouchability and supreme power. And petty. They were to rule on the fraudulent sentence the Tulsa judge/DA had given me and asked them for their copy of the trial transcript. The Tulsa judge/DA refused on unintelligible grounds. This signaled the begining of the usual interminable legal wrangle between lawyers that served no purpose but to steal more months of my life. In desperation, I sent the OCCA judges/Attornies General my own transcript just to get them switched to important work, such as freeing an innocent man and catching the actual killer. After six solid months they finally puked their ruling, which was nothing more that the same legal frippery cited by the Tulsa Asst. DA, only with the title changed from ‘response’ to ‘Order’. This refusal to fix things freed me to go to the next highest court, except that the OCCA bastards refused to return my transcripts, plus they stole the postage I sent! When I was forced to sue them to get it back, they snottily claimed that they’d sent it back. Years later Investigator John Floyd found it in their possession and, of course, returned it to them despite the fact that it had my sister’s name stamped on it and a label that said it came from Kinko’s in Tulsa, 90 miles away from their opulent lair in Okie City.

David Jordan: He is your standard highly-paid lawyer who is representative of all such scoundrels. Friends of mine who told me to try this guy because he was supposed to be less of a thief than most lawyers didn’t know what they were talking about. I wrote him asking how much he wanted for merely reading my 100 page transcript and jotting down whatever appeal-worthy allegations he noticed while doing so. He said $200 would suffice, I sent him the money and the transcript.      He cashed the money order immediately and sat on the transcript for six months. After two letters he finally deigned to respond. Instead of doing the job I’d asked and paid him to do, he replied, “Your chances on appeal are fair to good. I’ll need $20,000 for each court I take you through.” (I’d mentioned no court, only allegations, which are like titles of briefs that I’d write up myself based upon the titles.)          I reminded him that our contract was for him to provide allegations which I would research. He’d supplied something akin to a weather report. He ignored what I’d said again in two more letters, forcing me to complain to the local lawyer’s association about his theft of my money and transcript. This ‘self-policing’ organization was as worthless as Jordan himself. Finally he sent my transcript back unread.         . (I’d stuck several pages together at various points: not one of these seals were broken.) This sleazy, slick-lipped thief stole $200 and did nothing at all to earn it.

‘BAR’ ASSOCIATIONS: I’ve written many of these various lawyer-excusing organizations and found them to be worthless to citizens and essential for lawyers to help disguise, delay and minimize their everyday, routine corruptions so that they can continue to practice their parasitic ways unhindered. The rule is that whenever you’re forced to deal with lawyers, prepare to be eaten alive by a vicious, protected species that knows no restraints of any form. You will do better to be your own lawyer and feed sharks, not lawyers.