Courtcrew Series

Think You’re Safe from False Imprisonment? THINK AGAIN!

by James Bauhaus

In Arizona v Youngblood 109 s ct 333 (1988) police convicted an innocent man and imprisoned him for life using no evidence at all except the say-so of a ten year old child. How? By (1) Stealing the man’s car and destroying it so it could not be used to prove it did not match the boy’s original description, (2) By destroying the DNA and fingerprint evidence so it could not be used to prove mistaken identity, and (3) By sending a swarm of police and social workers after the boy and teaching him to point at and recognize the man police found easiest and nearest to target.

Like water, police always choose the easiest path. Same with judges, DAs and jurors.

Through long practice, these police and courthouse manipulators of the public can and do every day orchestrate the media, public and jurors to convict on cue, same as the musicians follow the bandleader. The hardened, non-rookies of the courthouse and police depts’ conviction machines are not interested in nailing the guilty person as much as they are striving to convict any plausibily convictable person, regardless of guilt! They get paid the same, either way, guilty or not.

Standard, routine, everyday procedure is for police to contrive evidence that convicts, trash evidence that proves innocence, and to Mainly rely upon manufacturing or training prosecution witnesses to attack their chosen accusee. Police, DAs and judges actually abhor physical, scientific evidence because it can’t be trained to point and scream “That’s Him!”

Police and courtcrats long ago discovered their conviction machines doze over their accusee-victims much more efficiently when they model their courtroom rituals after soap operas.

Evidence just gets in the way, and it’s boring!

Laws that help police manufacture prosecution eyewitness perjury sufficient for them to convict innocent people are those that give them immunity from civil suits. Only Maine outlaws this: every other state makes trial perjury immune to civil lawsuits. This means that when police trick, scold, wheedle, bludgeon, lie or otherwise convince their prosecution witnesses to lie you into prison, you can never sue them: they are completely safe to lie under oath in court during trials because (1) chances are you’ll never discover they lied and (2) even if you find proof of your innocence and proof of their perjury, they are immune to all lawsuits you can bring against them.

Worse, the courtcrats can prosecute them if the don’t lie for police! This is exactly what ‘Officer’ Jes McCullough did in my own case. The witness told him she knew I could not have been the person she saw because my hair was 4 or 5 inches too long and the wrong color. “Officer” McCullough decided to convict me anyway because he and another crooked cop, Larry Johnson, had already tricked an old woman into signing their statement against me. They were not about to throw away a signed statement just because it accused a innocent man. Instead, “Officer” McCullough simply wrote out a police report in which he merely lies, saying “Mrs Baker identified (me) as the killer.” Months and months later at the trial, other police simply pulled out McC’s lying report, accuse Mrs Baker of lying to police and threaten her with jail: Mrs Baker quickly sheds all her ethics and gladly lies me into prison in order to dodge jail herself. (Pretty neat trick, huh!)

Yes, the courthouse crews in 49 states maintain a monopoly on who can bludgeon who with perjury and who is safe to lie on the witness stand. Only Prosecution witnesses are safe from perjury charges and can lie at will for the courthouse crew/police conviction machines. Every tort law in every state has an escape clause for perjurors (except Maine):

Lying in court can not be sued for. Also, courtroom perjurors are immune to all civil rights lawsuits too, as are jurors, lawyers, judges, elected officials, police and govt

employees. When politicians proudly proclaim that “no one is above the law” they are not talking about themselves, prosecution witnesses, lawyers, judges, police, jurors, other politicians or govt employees: these people ARE above the law. They ALL have immunity from civil lawsuits.

Police are also assisted in Maintaining the conviction of innocent persons by crooked rulings of the United States Supreme Court (ussc). Even if you later are able to prove your innocence, the ussc says “Mere innocence is not enough to obtain release from prison.”

(If you’re not guilty, then why the Hell are you in prison?) You must not only prove you are innocent, you must also prove the prosecution violated one of the nine of your Constitutional rights!    (The tenth one, the one that used to “guarantee” your right to “(effective) assistance of counsel” does not count! Your lawyer can be as worthless as an anvil for a flotation device and NO federal court will even look at your brief. Why? Because most lawyers are obviously and completely ineffective. Since they are all worthless and the majority of them actually harmful to your cause, the federal courts simply STOLE this right so they would no longer be constantly deluged by it. Instead of cleaning up their own sewer, they just trashed this part of the Constitution instead, freeing lawyers to become ever more worthless, harmful and ineffective.

People on death row have proved their innocence and still the judicial system fried them. Why? Because the police were excellent at concealing evidence that rights were violated. The judges help them by making crooked rulings that say you must prove the police purposely and maliciously trashed the evidence. Police and DAs are especially trained to only ‘negligently’ ‘lose’ evidence. If they can make the judge think that the evidence just vanished and it was nobody’s fault, YOU LOSE: Worse, the judges are especially glad to see no fault with police when they ‘lose’ tons of evidence daily. Judges even help police destroy evidence by ordering (on the sly) warehouse-fulls of evidence ‘disposed of’ to, ostensibly, make room for more. Judges, police, DAs and even defense lawyers are glad and happy to assist each other in keeping innocent people convicted because hiding their crimes, mistakes and corruptions helps keep the ignorant taxherd respecting them and foolishly thinking them and their institutions infallible. The main business of the police and courtcrats is to facilitate their more efficient harvesting of the taxherd. This is not done by correcting mistakes, but by hiding them.

Judges screw innocent prisoners too by shifting unliftable burdens of proof onto their backs. After police have stolen, concealed and/or destroyed all the innocence-proving evidence, you must find it while in prison, prove police purposely destroyed it or lost it, and prove you couldn’t have found it sooner through use of ‘Due Diligence’ on your part.

Otherwise the judges refuse to even look at it, haughtily proclaiming that you somehow “waived” your right to bring up new evidence.

Finding it is next to impossible. Proving police purposely lost or destroyed it or concealed it is even more impossible. Absolutely impossible is convincing the judge you exercized ‘due diligence’ in finding it when you did. In eve    case the judge will claim you could have found it sooner, and since you didn’t find it before, you can’t use it now because you “waived your right” by not finding it the very second it COULD have been found.

By placing these impossible burdens on the fraudulently convicted, no innocent person ever leaves prison through proof of innocence alone.

Judges also assist crooked police and lying prosecution witnesses in maintaining the innocent in prison by the lawyer’s doctrine of “presuming themselves correct”. Specifically, this doctrine is used by appeals judges. Suppose that years later the police mistakenly turn loose of previously secret police reports that prove: (1) Police concealed an eyewitness. (2) Police concealed three eyewitnesses’ first descriptions of the killer. (3) Police concealed at least two drawings of the killer made by these witnesses, and (4) All three witnesses’ descriptions and drawings of the killer agree he had short brown hair when their chosen target’s hair was much too long and black instead of the brown they all three described. Obviously the two eyewitnesses that the cops did disclose did not tell the whole truth by ‘forgetting’ that the killer had short brown hair. Just as obviously, the eight cops did not tell the whole truth by ‘forgetting’ that the three eyewitnesses all had them and the rest of their police department buddies scouring the city looking for a killer with short, brown hair before they decided to target me and my long, black hair.

By using their “presumed correct” doctrine, 25 appeals judges in 7 courts all dodged justice, kept an obviously innocent man in prison, and protected the real killer from conviction by puking this nonsense: “The trial court judges are presumed to be correct in in stances of identification testimony by witnesses.”

Fact is, the in-court identification of suspects is nothing but the end result of in-tense police training of their witnesses. Police train their eyewitnesses more thoroughly than circus sea lions are trained to blow a melody on a rack of trumpets. Eyewitlesses are first trained to salivate at the sight of police-chosen suspects dragged up to them at the crime scene. Next, police train the eyewitless with pictures and lineups in their homes and at the jail. Next, eyewitlesses are trained to point at the selected accusee just before and during the preliminary hearing. Lastly, police and the DAs train the witnesses to point at the accusee before and during the trial. That’s seven times that the police and DAs train the eyewitnesses how to say they are “absolutely positive; that’s the guy!”

If they can’t get it right in seven training sessions, they must be blind, deaf and stupid. Anyone with at least two brain cells can seethe fact that the first description of the culprit is the most accurate and truthful. Obviously appeals judges dreamed up this “(the last training session at) trial identification is presumed correct” nonsense for one purpose: to help police and DAs continue their corrupt training of eyewitlesses and to prevent innocent persons from escaping prison by finding the unadulterated first, most accurate, most truthful descriptions of the real culprit.

Police, DAs, judges and lawyers all benefit profusely by maintaining this vast flexibility for their own use. Because they can talk any type of nonsense and make it stick, and trick willing, gullible jurors with it, YOU can be enslaved forever for nothing more than the fact that a crime occurred nearby and police targeted you for it.

Once you get eaten by their conviction machine, you’re gone forever. You will always remain a victim of their depredations in one form or another.

Another benefit judges give police is extra credibility: “Police testimony is the yardstick by which a11 other testimony is gauged.” This stipulation is in every law book, and nobody has ever realized (except the victims enslaved by it) that the police’s testimony is often more lies than truth.

The judges all use this police-more-truthful-more-accurate-more-knowing-more-every-thing” yardstick to ignore whatever you say no matter how logical or how well the facts bear you out. Whatever story the police and DAs concoct, that is the story ALL the judges are going to run with, REGARDLESS of the facts! Police, DAs and judges concoct plausible-sounding stories for jurors every day and are excellent demagogues able to duck around all objections and dismiss any facts. Jurors eat up anything judges and DAs puke at them, but will not listen to anything you can say. You have nothing you CAN say because the police have long ago stolen every scrap of evidence you could have used. The only thing you have to answer the cops’ stories with is your screams of innocence. Everybody ‘knows’ that all criminals claim innocence, same as every juror ‘knows’ police, DAs and sworn eyewitlesses can not lie.

It is clear that the courtroom deck is stacked against everyone and anyone the police choose to accuse and target. It is also obvious that nothing about court is fair, once you’ve seen it work on you. So, how do you protect yourself from being a target? Sad to say, you must look completely different from everyone else, and even this is not enough.

You can see how much good my long black hair did for me against a killer five-times described as having short, brown hair;(no glasses). They will just lie up a different description or give no description at all. Police will just teach them to point and say,


Fact is, NOBODY is safe from these robed, badged and silk-suited criminals. Worse, no one CAN be safe from these gangs of official crooks: not until the majority of citizen; WAKE UP and are alerted to the vast range of police, DA, judge, lawyer and legislator crimes-perpetrated against honest citizens.

This book is written as a guide to help point out such corruption engrained into the system over the past 225-plus years. This is the first step in its cure: open minds educating themselves and spreading the word that judge and legislator criminality desperately requires repair and punishment by the honest citizenry. I hope you will make it your duty to make America a fairer, safer place.

  • register politicians; not guns
  • wars don’t kill people politicians do

Before long the insane pro-cop lobby will have us driving cars that detect traffic violations, pull themselves over, lock us in and call the cops and debt a fine from our bank accounts.


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!


Now that so many cops have learned the technique of creating fingerprints from their databases, and use them to plant fingerprints to frame targets, it is far past time for their victims to learn to thwart this common cop tactic. When cops practice this type of corruption, it is almost always successful because it is very difficult to detect. The substances that cops use to create fraudulent fingerprints are virtually identical in chemical composition as the fingerprint recovery powders that scientists have given them, (carbon black and wax). Any chemical tests that would detect the fraud requires an organic chemist with access to a laboratory. No ordinary person can afford this. No Public Defender will even TRY to obtain this type of evidence. (For an example of how hard it is to get public defenders to gather evidence, see, “Cops Fraud-Up 79 Cocaine Convictions”.) Even if such obstacles could be overcome, the evidence of fraud would be so dilute that any prosecutor could muddy the facts sufficiently to allow the fraud to triumph anyway. (If there is any doubt of the prosecutor’s power to do this, read my treatise, “Innocents’ Guide to Avoiding False Conviction” and other, similar essays.) The safeguards of the juror system have long been thwarted by the subtle machinations of the various authorities and their media tools. Citizens, even citizens who have previously suffered sentences, have the right to protect themselves from further victimization by corrupt gov’t officials.

This being a fact, I now endeavor to teach victims of police corruption how to access a small portion of this right and avoid being recycled when lazy cops choose to target them through fingerprint records instead of finding the actual culprit.

Fingerprints are not rich in data points, and this makes them amenable to destruction without too much trouble. The data points are only where the ridges split, end and begin. Thus there is only the need to destroy these few small areas to avoid being recycled through fingerprint fraud. A simple procedure for obtaining this end is this: Apply paint or crushed graphite, etc, to the fingertips to make them more visible. Using a magnifying glass and bright light, as well as devices for stabilizing the finger, pick out ten or so of these areas and lightly tattoo them with black ink. These small dots are then lasered, causing the ink to heat the local dermis to destruction. The body then eventually carries off the ink, (or it is destroyed by the laser, if the correct type of ink is used). The dermis heals, leaving scar tissue that will never again produce the same data points that the cops stole for their databases. Repeat this process until all or most of the data points are destroyed.

Lasers that are used to shape corneas are even better for this task, do not require ink, and are widely available, though expensive to hire.

A low-tech method for achieving a roughly similar result requires small droplets of

acid. Nitric acid works best, but its purchase gets the buyer snitched off by the merchant to the ATF, FBI, and other cop agencies as a possible mad bomber. Sulfuric acid would work almost as well, but needs to be very dilute. Merely wet the problem areas briefly with tiny droplets of acid, wait a few seconds, wash with baking soda in water, then wait a day to assess the damage. Adjust the acid concentration and/or the time it is let to burn its way down to the dermis accordingly. Do NOT try to burn a large area at once. The trouble here is that the smallest area possible with this method is much larger than the target area. The tiniest drops are made by a syringe using the smallest possible needle. Blot the needle onto the recorded area when you can see the acid barely bulging out of the tube. A hemispherical droplet is too much! An even rougher method of removing a target’s fingerprints from the cops’ databases is to simply use the finest-tipped soldering iron you can find, adapt or make. Do NOT deaden your fingers with cocaine: endure the pain. If the pain is too much to stand, you are doing too large an area at once. Dilute the acid more, wash it off sooner, turn down the heat or use a smaller tip.

Now, none of this will help very much if you mark yourself for the cops by scribbling on your skin with permanent ink. Tattoos are the cops’ friends, and the more you have, the bigger and uglier they get with each time the cops target you and force you to cover them with more, larger, tattoos.

Freedom from abuse by authority is a hard commodity to access, and getting harder to come by all the time. Education is the best defense.

Eyewitness This!

(c) 2007 James Bauhaus


The primary problem with the lawyer’s system is well known and even admitted to by progressive-minded cops, lawyers and politicians who have read studies on this matter: FALSE IDENTIFICATION BY EYEWITNESS. What they refuse to admit, though, is the fairly obvious fact that false identification by eyewitnesses is assisted by the cops and prosecutors. Yes, cops, having inside information on everyone as a result of their investigations and their secret files on citizens, actively steer eyewitnesses toward their target of choice. Sometimes the eyewitness is right, and sometimes the eyewitness is wrong. In a minimum of 15% of cases, the witness is wrong, the cops are wrong, the prosecutor is wrong, and the wrong man is convicted and caged. The actual culprit is thus encouraged by his escape from justice to commit more, WORSE crimes. He eventually gets caught due to sheer repitition of crime, and the cops, lawcrats, politicians and media hacks smugly point to this and proclaim, “THE SYSTEM WORKS:”

Hundreds of studies prove several things that the authorities refuse to act on; eyewitnesses are extremely unreliable even under the best of circumstances; eyewitnesses are easily manipulated; cops often deliberately steer witnesses onto preferred targets when no clear culprit is uncovered after a short investigation, and; police and prosecutors ACTUALLY PREFER eyewitnesses to physical, scientific proof because they are easily manipulated and their pointing fingers are swiftly, deeply believed by jurors.

Crime is hard to solve. Most crimes cannot be properly solved, but, plenty y of possible, convictable targets can be generated by simply consulting the cops’ crime computer. Overuse of this crime computer results in a recycling of old criminals rather than the conviction of new criminals. This practice is the main reason that criminology suffers such an unacceptably high number of false-positives. Elementary statistical analysis shows us that the cops and lawyers are only correct 85$ of the time. Worse, this is an absolute minimum figure. There are undoubtedly many more innocents who are verbally bludgeoned into accepting plea “bargains” though they are innocent because the cop/prosecutor/judge/public defender teams and politicians have made a mockery of the juror/trial system. (See my treatise, “Innocent’s Guide to Avoiding False Conviction”.). .

How do we force corrections upon these systems that have been allowed to run amok due to citizen apathy? The primary way the system is corrupted is through an unchecked police force. Police suffer almost ZERO quality control, no citizen oversight, are allowed to shirk or bypass any scientific controls and suffer no real punishment when they are caught creating witness perjury, caught stealing or destroying evidence, or caught lying in court under oath to jurors. We have known for many decades that the easiest, most often used way that cops create false convictions is through their manipulations of witnesses. This being the case, the correction is to force police to adopt elementary scientific controls with regard to witnesses. Witnesses and the one cop who would be allowed to interview her would be videotaped. No prompting of the witnesses by the cops would be permitted, only a straightforward description of events and culprit by the witness. These initial, most accurate and truthful descriptions would thus be nailed down and certified. In this way we would be most assurred that cops could not later return and trick or coerce witnesses into changing their stories to suit cop ends. This ability of cops to later return and manipulate witnesses is well-known to be the major cause of false conviction of innocents and the escape of the guilty. If this one simple effort at quality control is ever implemented, there is every likelihood that actual crime rates would drop slightly, because when the guilty escape punishment, they are encouraged to perform more, worse, criminal acts.

Cops routinely find one witness, then trick, coerce or steer other witnesses to agree with the cops’ preferred witness. This is called “witness enhancement” in cop/prosecutor parlance, and this method of bolstering credence in otherwise shakey or false witnesses is a secondary cause of false convictions.

A very subtle and yet universal shenanigan pulled in courtrooms daily nationwide is the use of mere fingerpointing to substitute for an actual, factual identification of a culprit. We’ve all seen this nonsense, either in court or in cheap, Hollywood depictions of “court”. Prior to trial, the prosecution witnesses are told to arrive early for a secret confab where their trial testimony is rehearsed. The FIRST thing that the cops and prosecutors do is make absolutely certain that every witness they use knows two things: WHERE the target of their accusations will be sitting and EXACTLY WHAT he looks like. Over the many decades of perpetrating this scam and never getting caught or punished for it, cops and prosecutors have become very lax about this. Now they don’t usually have their witnesses salivate over a police mugshot picture of their target. They usually just take prosecution witnesses out to the courtroom prior to trial and point out the EXACT CHAIR that their target will be made to sit in. The judge/prosecutor team usually have configured their courtrooms to place this “CHAIR OF CONVICTION”, as they sometimes laughingly call it, directly in front of the witness’ chair, or as close as possible. This is purposely done so as to create the absolute shortest distance between the pointing finger and its target, for best dramatic effect. (Court and trial is mere theatre, and cases are often won at the very moment that this finger of accusation is thrust. For many jurors, this single act is enough for them to start . squirming in their seats, wishing that the lawyers would just step aside and shut up long enough for them to vote for guilt and bail out. At trial, this flagrant fraud of allowing rehearsed, engineered fingerprinting to masquerade as real identification of a culprit is the largest cause of false conviction, above even perjury by cops, the second most flagrant, common fraud perpetrated at trial by courtcrats.

To show you how almost totally worthless is eyewitness identification of strangers, just look up Miscovsky v OK (circa 1970: I don’t have the actual citiation). This is a case where lawyer George Miscovsky was cited for contempt of court because he dared to show up eyewitness identification for the flagrant FRAUD it is.

Miscovsky was a rich, influential lawyer who had been at the profession of lawyering for many years. He had made many friends within the lawyers’ system, and was known by many as a “fix-it” lawyer for those wealthy enough to afford him. Just such a wealthy client found him. She had been lightly “arrested” for mere shoplifting. Nothing much was going to happen to her-she would only have to pay the head courtcrat a fine. Trouble was, though, she was an ignorant rich lady who was terrified of going to jail. The arresting cop and the merchant she stole from both took much evil pleasure in torturing her with visions of years in a prison cesspit.

She believed it all, and was determined to buy the BEST lawyer for the BEST defense and make sure he had PLENTY of money to get her JUSTICE.

Miscovsky saw how rich and terrified she was. He assurred her that he was the BEST, most COMPETENT lawyer for the job. This standard legal boilerplate of plenty of platitudes, but no substance or promises, was not enough. Miscovsky had seen her fear and charged accordingly, meaning outrageously. She did not flinch at the price, but Miscovsky had not detected her bargaining ability. She wrote the huge check for cash, but unlike 99% of all the usual dupes who purchased lawyers, she refused to let go of the check. She demanded that he promise to get her completely off the cops’ and lawcrats’ hook. For the huge price she was paying, she would accept no less. Miscovsky knew there was a way, and to get the money, he made the promise in writing. (He was forced to do this through the virtue of escrow. If most people were as shrewd as this woman, and forced lawyers to NAME the EXACT SERVICE they would have to perform to get the money, the lawyers’ system would get a LOT more honest very quickly.)

Miscovsky took the deal. Soon as he got her off, the escrow company would pay him her money. If not, she paid nothing. Miscovsky ran to his pal, the prosecutor, to get a favor. For unknown reasons, the prosecutor was not going to let the woman escape justice. Miscovsky ran to his OTHER courtcrat buddie, the judge. Perhaps Miscovsky didn’t offer any of the woman’s pie-he only asked for a favor. The judge wasn’t giving out any free favors either. Even the cop who was called by the merchant and the merchant would not submit to Miscovsky’s coy persuasions.

So he would have to do it the “bad” way-Miscovsky had sold law long enough around the courthouse to figure he could get away with it, one time. The plan was simple and easy, and so extremely effective that it is never portrayed on TV-showing this sly trick to the public at large would give them too many big ideas. Plus it would cause the lawcrats too many tons of trouble. The lawcrats are so terrified that the public may learn their dirty little secret flaw in their dirty little eyewitness system that the judges have OUTLAWED the pulling of this simple trick in their courtrooms. But don’t look for this outlawry to be printed anywhere inside their written books of court rules. OH NO: THIS trick is so dangerous to the lawyers’ system and its “justice” that it is never written down, and never even mentioned verbally-it is not even spoken of until it is needed to outlaw this specific “crime” at the very instant that it is discovered to have occurred.

The court date approached; “trial” began. The merchant testified that he had seen the woman stealing from his shop, and pointed at her in court. “That’s her!” he denounced. Next, the arresting cop was brought in. He testified under oath that the shoplifting woman had confessed to him after her arrest and during his driving her to his jail for criminal processing. Could he see this woman in the courtroom today? “Yes:” he said loudly, pointing at the woman next to her defense lawyer. “That’s her”, he shouted confidently, “right there. Yes, I’m absolutely positive.”

“That’s odd,” commented Miscovsky during cross examination. “Because my client is over there, in the empty seats reserved for the public. Judge, I call for dismissal of charges, because neither the victim nor the arresting officer has identified my client as the culprit.”

The judge’s head nearly exploded with his rage. He shrieked at this Miscovsky about courtroom “ethics” and “(unwritten) rules”. He had a hissing “conference” with Miscovsky at his throne-like “bench” out of hearing of the non-courtcrats, then he, the prosecutor and Miscovsky retired to the secrecy of the judge’s luxury apartment “chambers” so they could both shout at Miscovsky. The major portion of this “trial” (hearing) is not recorded anywhere, and it takes quite a bit of sleuthing, courtcrat ass-kissing and warehouse searching even to find this “public” record. After this gets published, the lawcrats may decide that they will take the trouble to look it up themselves and make it unfindable. No matter-the judge slammed Miscovsky with CONTEMPT OF COURT, and this record was published in the caselaw books. Miscovsky appealed the charge, and within this appeal are a few details of the original basis for the judge’s apoplexy.

It turns out that “Defendant Switching” is verbally outlawed by the judges it is pulled on exactly because it is nearly 100% effective in forcing the cop/prosecutor/judge team to stop their conviction efforts. Eyewitness identification of strangers is almost totally useless as a means of convicting the guilty if done as it should be-scientifically, as a doubleblind exercise in which no one is permitted to supply the fingerpointer with clues or hints as to who she should pick.

Yes, because Miscovsky was such an arrogant, distasteful, unpleasant man who couldn’t get a free favor from cop, prosecutor, judge or merchant, (he once publicly called fellow lawcrat David Boren a homosexual when they were fighting over the Oklahoma Governor’s seat) we now possess incontrovertable proof of the casual legal corruption involved in the fraud of courtroom “identification ” of the “guilty”.

It is ASTOUNDING that such flagrant and obvious deceits and frauds as these of lawcrats, cops, eyewitnesses and judges can be perpetrated thousands of times daily in this nation’s courtrooms without anyone noticing and crying FOUL! (Of course we can’t expect the media to do this, though they have to sometines glimpse these frauds, because they are in bed with the courthouse crooks themselves, “for the common good” so to speak, but more probably because if they grew some ethics and independent thought, and decried these frauds, they would not be invited to enjoy courtroom or other government largesse ever again.)

And we have the arrogance to call ourselves intelligent and civilized!


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


Even when the Mafia joins the police force and performs as hit men in eight murders, there is a friendly judge somewhere up the line to talk tough and set them free. Check out two column inches in the 7-1-06 Tulsa World, “Judge tosses… Convictions for for …Detectives”. While on the payroll of the New York Police, detectives Louis Eppolito and Steve Caracappa were declared guilty three months ago of participating in eight murders while on the payroll of a mob boss. Somehow, the most serious charge that these cops and mafia soldiers could get convicted of is “racketeering” and “drugs and money laundering”, despite the judge getting to say twice in the very short article that he believed, with the jurors, that they were “guilty of murder, kidnapping and other crimes.” Remarkably, this time the judge wasn’t granted anonymity by the anonymous news-artist who wrote the article. He is Federal judge Jack Weinstein, and his excuse for throwing out their convictions was a five year statute of limitations on these charges.    (There is NO legislative time limit on murder or kidnapping, which may be why the anonymous prosecutor didn’t charge them with eight murders or any kidnappings.) Looks to me like Mr. Extremely-Overpaid Prosecutor and his vast horde of assistants, paralegals, aides and secretaries and clerks need to be fired for incompetence or convicted of aiding badged, uniformed mafia killers and kidnappers evade the law. It’s not like these time-limit laws are secret. Every cop, prosecutor and judge hates them, except for when they can be plausibly used to feign conviction of one of their OWN species. They get to grandstand in front of the jurors, (who are mostly voters). They get the political credit for a job well done of taking a “bite outta crimb:” They get to let their co-criminal buddies get away as soon as no one is looking.

Let anyone else try and get a statute of limitation to work and guess what happens. The lawcrats run to the legislature and have them pass a quickie law specifically to nail this one guy: (This occurred when the Okie cops and lawcrate prevented DNA analysis for 15 years to keep an innocent man in prison and their “mistake” concealed. When the innocent convicted man finally got past the lawerats’ roadblocks to justice, the DNA shoved them at the actual rapist. Thanks to the lawerats’ criminality with the evidence, the real rapist got away, despite further lawcrat criminality in creating an illegal, ex post facto law.)

Lawcrats are experts at twisting and wrenching the law and using outrageous trickery to manipulate the law into benefiting them and their social (parasite) species. Lawcrats have gurnmed-up the legal works for so many hundreds of years in America that they have trashed the Constitution and made the law to be whatever they want it to be in any particular instance. One of the most flagrant violations of the Constitution occurs when an ultra-elitist such as Andy Scalia (of the Supreme Court) uses his overweening power to screw every innocent prisoner in America by saying, pompously, “I see no mention of ‘innocence’ in the Constitution, (so I can ignore factual, proved innocence in all cases where I can refuse to see a violation of the bill of rights.”)

What His Arrogance Personified fails to realize is that the Constitution also contains no mention of honesty, integrity, competence, compassion or intelligence, either, which, in view of Scalia’s scurrilous attitude, is probably why there are virtually none of these attributes in todays lawyer kingdom. What Scalia and his clones, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, refuse to admit is that these qualities, including innocence, are so basic to the advance of civilization that they need no longer to be spelled out. They are implied; everyone knows this and accepts them as givens (unless they are super-slick, sleazy people trying to scam something out of someone, that is.)

But these “justices” are Hell-bent on maintaining hundreds of thousands of their “mistakes” in prison, so they pull out of their asses this outrageous nonsense and feed it to the public. They’ve been caught legally murdering and legally enslaving innocent persons at such a high rate (23 and 156, respectively, officially, so far) recently that they have found it necessary to give one-way speeches to justify their crimes. (These are speaking tours in which a tame audience listens and is not allowed to ask questions or get any answers. Politicians are famous for this type of dodging real debate.) Scalia, who could easily be diagnosed as an undercover psychopath if he were ever to be stupid enough to submit to testing, proved his insanity by actually telling an audience that the state that executes the most people is the holiest of states; this to Catholic University students who presumably know the commandment that specifically outlaws killing.


“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.

Juror Groupies

© 2003 James Bauhaus

One would not normally expect such people to exist, but they do, and they are abundant. Defense-biased groupies are almost totally-excluded due to their unwillingness to abide the lairs of authority or their having previously been branded criminals. The lawyer’s system permits none of its victims to function a jurors. Thus by far most juror groupies are biased toward conviction.

Their bias comes from previous victimization by thieves or bullies, or from police or authority worship, gov’t/media indoctrination, TV/Hollywood propaganda, the allure of power over the helpless, or sheer malice, among other things. Even petty acts of vandalism can spark a desire for generalized revenge, as have domestic altercations and mere verbal abuse toward the meek.

Juror groupies are often old, small, weak and timid, but can be large, sly, fast-talking, young and strong just as easily. Prosecutors, Judges and the juror selection process tends to exclude the young and shiftless in favor of the older, affluent property owner who has no thing better to do than sit on juries. Consequently, juror groupies selected for the pool of draftees tend to be older, predominantly female, white, and moderately affluent.

The second part of the selection process is where they enjoy the game of learning the selection process, choosing which trial they want to be in on, then sneaking past the defense lawyers to torpedo and sink the fortunes of their selected target. Human nature being complex and courtroom time limited, there is no way to assess who of the jury pool are sleepers and moles with any accuracy. Assume they all are.

In my own experience, one juror groupie stands out above the rest of the vile, dishonest varlots who feign honesty, fairness and objectivity they plot your enslavement death. He was old and had many possessions to protect, which goes far to explain his grudge against strangers accused of crime by his protectors. Old people are often bitter about being old and weak and having to take abuse from the young instead of giving it. They often are bitter about having wasted so much of their lives now that they have so little left. They are miserable and spreading misery gives them a warm feeling of accomplishment.

This one was able to crawl aboard my jury for two reasons: he did not have to look me in the eye and lie to me personally because the public defender (PD) lawyer blocked my view and bogarted the selection process. Even so, the lawyer they saddled me with was suspicious. He asked me, “What about that guy? You want to get rid of him?” Me being an ignorant, gullible, inexperienced teenaged kid, I did the exact wrong thing and bowed to this lawyer’s superior knowledge and experience at jury selection. I asked him, “You’ve picked more juries than I have. What do you think?” Him being an oily lawcrat intent on maintaining the secrets of courtroom rituals, answered with the non-answer,”It’s your choice.” Definitely I should have insisted he give a proper answer. Or I should have realized he was hinting something andjust got rid of the guy. As you’ve probably guessed by now, I’m not too intelligent when it comes to correctly solving time-limited socialequasions. Worse that a typical male, social problems are often too  subtle for me to even detect, much less deduce their solution.

A normal kid would probably simply thought, “Dirt knows dirt,” but at the time I didn’t know both the juror and the lawyer were dirt. But I had been reading “The status seekers” that recommended professional people for jurors. This undercover weasel was a geologist, the only true professional on the jury so far (and thus supposedly more intelligent and open minded.)

This I told to the PD, adding, “So, unless you have reason to believe this guy is biased, I’d rather keep him.” The lawyer merely repeated the key words “keep him” and promptly moved on (to ignoring me), keeping secret his reason for suspecting this geologist to be the dirt he turned out to be. (Lawcrats routinely and frequently screw their “clients” by omission They justify this by calling it their “work product”. E.G. the audience paid to see the show; the price of admission did not pay for any explanation on how the magician’s tricks work.)

In short, the PD was worse than worthless, he was actually harmful for many reasons. He blocked my access to the jury, gave bad advice, concealed information about the law and courtroom ritual that it was vital for me to know, he even was zonked out of his sober mind on some type of tranquilizer for all but one day of the trial process, to name only his primary faults.

This juror led the howling pack of emotionally inflamed jurors to convict me upon nothing more than the lies of two witnesses. When this gang of thirteen returned to puke their life sentence upon this innocent author, the sleazy geologist’s wrinkled face exploded into a wide, lip-splitting grin and silent guffaws of pleasure that he took pains to make certain I saw. He didn’t have the courage to actually bray out loud like a mule, fearing the judge’s censure, but he did flap his arms and spasm his shoulders as he tried to get my attention as the jurors filed out. The PD saw him do this, as did the judge and prosecutor. Soon as I pointed him out, he instantly sobered. Neither the PD or the judge would comment on this or acknowledge his malicious and biased behavior. A female juror smirked at his getting caught at it, a black juror looked embarrassed, the others pretended notto have expected or seen this.

Another juror groupie managed to slither onto my jury. He was a short, endomorphic reporter for a local news-radio station, KRMG, still in business. He chose to smoothly lie his way into position at my trial due to its notoriety. The mediawhores had been periodically selling lurid and grisly descriptions and anonymous police fabrications about the case for over twenty months. This guy wanted the inside scoop, and he got it. During each of the many recesses the judge and prosecution called, he’d sneak into the courthouse’s “media room” and report to KRMG as the trial progressed! This is flagrantly illegal, and despite the judge’s worthless and hollow yet gruff and solemn admonishments to the jurors not to do this, hedid anyway. I did not even know there was a room that the judges set aside for theexclusive use of the newshookers. After the trial was over and it was too late, the

PD told me what this bastard had done. The lawyer used this as his method of easing on out safely on a hopeful note. He genuinely felt bad about an innocent teenager getting his life taken away through fraud, perjury, trickery and evidence theft,but not enough to fix it. He said, “We can appeal on this!” I was too stupid torealize then that “we” could have had a mistrial, since he was caught in the act of exiting their media room. His radio station’s newscaster had let slip the fact that their reporter was actually on the jury.

(Commenting during trial!)

Since radio waves leave no hard copy, the judges simply said “no proof” so it didn’t happen, at least in their minds. The prosecutor and judge could not have been unaware of their well-known, long-time courtroom correspondent’s antics. Courtcrats take pains to know all the media personnel very well in order to maintain good relations and dodge inadvertent fiascos such as happened to certain politicians recently caught in the act of being themselves (Reagan, Rochefeller, Bush, Lot, etc.)

The prosecutors, judges and other courtcrew know all about juror groupies, yet remain silent because they are their secret conviction-clinchers. This is one way they are able to get such obscene conviction rates of 99% or so. Defendants and ordinary people can not spot them. They try never to give the prosecutor or judge any high-signs while the victim is watching. If such seems about to occur, the prosecutor, judge, bailiff, court reporter or cops will warn them off with a glower and quick nay-shake of the head. Sometimes the groupies can be spotted by their characteristics. Subterfuge is helpful too, if possible.

Juror groupies often seek approval from authority figures. This type will be seen seeking the attention of the cops, bailiffs and others of the courtcrew. Manywill position themselves to accost the prosecutor and judge. This is why judges have back doors, or at least one reason. To the juror groupie, this is the equivalent of cornering Kirk or Spock at a star trek convention. Many juror groupies are not out for praise, but for a generalized revenge against enemies of the gov/media’s never-ending, always-on-the-news “war on crime”. Such people are indistinguishable from normal persons except in degree of zealousness.

This is where subterfuge is used to draw them out. During jury selection it is wise to have family and friends mix with these people and feign empathy for the prosecution while concealing their relationship to the targeted accusee. Zealotsand bigots can not resist boasting of their previous or planned derailments of thejustice process if given slight encouragement. Jurors are treated like cattle by the judge and courtcrew and usually form an unwatched mob standing in corridorsawaiting orders from loitering cops or bailiffs. Secreting oneself among them is easy, usually, and while pretending to be one, observation can reveal much. Juror pools are usually herded from trial to trial until they are used up. Note the ones who appear to enjoy the process. The juror pool is let to watch and hear the lawcrats grill each candidate. Instead of being manipulated by the lawcrats, they quickly learn how simplistically easy it is for them to manipulate the system itself. Beware the ones who appear to be adjusting their responses to seek particular trials. Usually a wink and a smile is enough encouragement to cause an ordinary juror groupie to reveal his or her plan.

One last point should be made. Never underestimate the numbers of authorityworshiping juror groupies. It is due to their multitudes that many courthouse lawcrats are able to propel themselves into high(er) political office. Prosecutorsand judges glad-hand amongst a steady stream of jurors year after year. Such familiarity creates strong voting blocks. A grinning face, name recognition, a warm handshake and a few kind words to thousands of such approval and praise seekers has been the beginning of many a lucrative career in politic s.

Judges and Prosecutors know this. The ambitious ones are always building toward such ends and cultivate jurors precisely for this purpose. A side benefit of this little-known, unstudied process is an improbable conviction rate that includes a large percentage of the completely innocent. The latest, most accurate studies indicate the number of innocents convicted ranges from 7 to 15% easily.

Judge Pampering and their Illegal Juror Tampering

© 1999 James Bauhaus

8-25-99: Today on Pat Robertson’s 700-club ‘news’ was a quote from a named judge with no other qualifiers such as his record and height within the lawcrat hierarchy that stank mightily of Holier-than-thou and Do-what-I-say, not.what-I-do. Judge Greene of Washington, DC had a long, sonorous, self-righteous drone that said, in effect, that jury nullification is juror perjury.

These pampered judges from pampered lineages nauseate all thinking beings when they vomit such offal from the arrowslits of their Ivory Towers. Confined within their taxherd subsidised fortresses of opulent splendor, these wing-eared moss-backs never see life as it is for us non-plutocrats that make up 99% of humanity. This separate species of vermin have delusions of Godhood because their great-grandparents managed to insert themselves into positions of power and wealth the same way a tick inserts itself under a dog’s tail. Civilized society has consequently dragged its ass across the ground trying mightily to dislodge them ever since, to the distraction of more important endeavors.

Jury nullification is lawcratspreken for their much-hated nemesis: freethinkers. The opposite of jury nullification is jury indoctrination or jury programing. The process works thus: after the defense lawyer has had his single ‘final’ argument to the jurors, and after the state’s prosecuting lawyer has had both of his ‘final’ arguments to the jurors, the state’s judge has HIS final argument to the jurors, called ‘juror in instructions’. The judge’s instructions to the jurors always consist of him cornering the jurors with THE LAW which, in his interpretation, always forced them to vote for conviction. In order to further program the 13 carefully preselected yesmen of the jury, judges have long, windy  speeches that they always deliver about how sacred and Holy their law is. These pious, solemnly-exhorted exhalations about the sacrament of law generally suffice to stamp out any last vestiges of free will that may yet contaminate the jurors.

“It may not be right, but it’s THE LAW!” is a common verse used as both justification by lawcrats and as a plaintive lament of weak-kneed jurors who still possess an uncorrupted sense of justice yet not the moral fibre to force its recognition.

This same, exact lament came from 13 jurors deciding to condemn a teenager for life in prison without parole for merely stealing a single slice of pizza. The judge browbeat them all into slap-happy conviction-mode with pronouncements upon how sacred the law is, even the 3-strikes-you’re-out-law-even-if-it’s-a-misdemeanor-pizza-slice-stealing-probation-violation.

The hereditary rich lawcrats of just before the French revolution tendered the same logic for decades until finally an altruist ventured this sarcasm: “The law, in its supreme majesty, prohibits the rich as well as the starving from stealing bread”. The judge’s “Let them eat cake” arrogance eventually cost almost the entire French nobility-class their heads, but not before visiting two centuries of suffering and misery upon millions of producers.

The privileged classes generally degenerate rapidly into decadence, and judge Greene’e prolix on juror nullification is an example of exactly this. Undoubtedly his diatribe results from a jury of freethinkers he or His cronies somehow failed to control. The rhetoric he spews amounts to a tantrum against free will and independent thought. For the record, which is never advertised in any way, least of all any courtroom, no juror has any obligation to follow any recommendation that any judge or prosecutor makes. This fact should be posted directly above the judge himself, and in front of each juror.

Judges become very disturbed when jurors do not do as they are told and parrot the guilt-spiel that the benchcrats pump into them. As early as 1879 a cruel, enraged judge locked up a jury without food or water until they croaked the required guilty vote for him and his prosecutor. Today judges still force jurors back into the judge’s windowless box until they realize only the guilty vote is acceptable.

Judge Glower also has his the bailiffs and deputies, to enforce his demands within the jurybox itself: no one is safe from his predations, and especially no one suppressed onto his jury. Pat Robertson plus unspecified judges from the 2nd circuit (NY, VT and CT) all agree with Greene in saying it is perjury when the jurors refuse to “honor its sworn duty to uphold THE LAW: (as interpreted by the robed fossil of the sacred priesthood hiding behind that particular courtroom fortification/high ground/pedestal.)

The one thing a freethinking juror is NOT is perjurous. Judges Greene, Longpipe, Broadass and Flopjowl need only read a bit deeper into their own lawbooks to find that their betters in the legislature have long since passed laws that make jurors immune to perjury and most other laws. Except in Maine, jurors and witnesses can lie all they want and get completely away with it, that is, unless they do it for the defense and against the prosecution. There are loopholes in every law and rule for the gluttons of privilege to dive through. But that’s what judges love most about law: their ability to twist, hammer and tear it into whatever shaped tool they require to obtain their goal, which is always conviction in the case of the state attacking its citizens, called “criminal” law.

Judges still use their Godlike power to prevent jurors from leaving as their primary means of squeezing “unanimous” guilty votes from them. This type of forced labor, judge-induced slavery to be exact, occurs daily despite a 1993 supreme court ruling that “rejects” this type of juror-screwing by arrogant judges intent upon forcing their will upon jurors with infantile verbal tantrums and threats of perjury.

Persons who see the utility of a democracy composed of intelligent, freethinking, well informed citizens can spread increased free will among the potential-juror classes by contacting Larry Dodge, founder of the “Fully Informed Jury Association”. Likely he has free literature on this subject that judges do not want disseminated.

I wish I could supply an address, net or phone sequence, but I am a victim of judicial juror-programing and thus have little access to civilized society. Your freedom can just as easily be stolen by the clever lawcrat classes, and such theft is becoming ever easier as they dumb-down, mal-educate and sloganize the producer classes that they harvest for their own parasatic benefit. The last thing they want is an informed public.