Potential investors may rightfully question why such a bloated sum of money is required to force judges to accept the judges to accept the facts and rule honestly. It is because lawyers receive bloated compensation. Also, it is because the state has nearly infinite taxpayer-paid funds for persecutors to waste in delaying actions seeking to wear out and bankrupt their opponents. They are usually successful in these two tactics, so we must guard against them. It cost O.J. Simpson about two million dollars for his “dream team” to get him away with two murders. I’m not guilty and have proof of this, and can get more, (FMRI Lie detection) yet face the same type of evidence-stealing and evidence manufacturing criminality, so I estimate that $500,000 will suffice to convince the state’s lawyers that bankrupting us with delays plus excess lawyer costs is going to be more difficult than they expect. This is 20 times the usual lawyer fee for one round in the court room.

Additionally, innocence project lawyers are cut above the other lawyers, being of an altruistic bent and possessing more integrity, morality and civic-mindedness than arrogance, greed and self-entitlement. Our cause attracts idealists, who care more for curing the diseasing than getting rich selling snake oil. I have met several fine attorneys like this, such as Jaye Mendros, Richard Ocarroll, James E Wallace and others who would probably want this opportunity to constructively change the system for the better.

More importantly, we do not intend to waste much money on legal rhetoric after decades of discovering that judges can, and do, rule bogusly while they hide in the dark behind the alias of “The Court.” After the exceedingly light touch of quality control of jurors is safely behind them, appeals judges know that they can deny gravity and get away with it. Federal judge Sven Eric Holes did deny the laws of physics in my case (929 by simply refusing to answer the question: “how did I, if guilty, grow 5 inches of wrong color hair in one week?” The first thing that appeals judges do before publishing their opinion of your case is throw away everything you wrote in your appeal. Nothing of yours is published. This way, judges easily dodge your facts and logic, choosing what they wish to address and ignoring what they can’t. Judges garble what you said, mangle your arguments, misinterpret your application of the law, and then rule on the gibberish that they just created out of your appeal.

They get away with this because no one reads the crap after it is buried in their caselaw books. There is no one looking over their shoulders watching what they do. They can depend on every other judge to rubberstamp their opinions. There is no quality control in that they never punish any of their fellows who, like Holmes, consistently used gibberish and nonsense to rule most profitably for his estate and political career.

These facts being so, we find that there powerful and economic pressure points on law are not in feeding these sharks, but in exposing the fact that they are, indeed, sharks so that we little fish may starve some justice out of them by wisely avoiding being eaten by them the appeals judge system is too deep in the dark and insulated when its hatred of being corrected overcomes its duty to provide honest application of the law. The most effective way to move it towards correct behavior is through public scrutiny of its workings, exposure of its chicanery, ridicule of its arrogance, and outrage at its flagrant corruption and criminal rulings.