Anonymous Lawyer Wisdom

© 2017 James Bauhaus All rights reserved

 Sometimes we can’t tell if the Lawyers are really saying ridiculous things or if the media yak-artists are simply making things up. In each case, the source is a nameless nobody from nowhere. This first, most ridiculous instance is probably made up by the b=media. I guess this because even an arrogant Lawyer might fear the embarrassment that could happen to him if his anonymity was stripped away to get him caught saying, “Trump could pardon himself because there is nothing in the U.S. constitution that says he can’t!”

This type of outrageous nonsense is what we would expect from a Lawyer calling himself “A constitutional Literalist”, like that smug scoundrel we suffered for so long, Scalia. Or we would expect it from ignorant children who have never read our “Values”, such as: one man, one vote; all men are created equal; fair trial; impartial jury of our peers; due process; equal protection under the Law, and especially; no man is above the Law.

We should particularly see amendment Ten of the Bill of Rights portion of the U.S. constitution, which tells us, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution…are reserved…to the people.” None of us gave any president the power to pardon himself for his crimes. In fact, none of us gave any gov’t employee, from president, prosecutor, judge, cop, dogcatcher to garbage man, any type of immunity to the law. Yet, somehow, every one of these people do have some type of absolute or special immunity to the law. So, how did they get it? The politicians gave it to themselves, without even bothering to ask us. They just sneaked it in while distracting us with their usual gov-media political clown-show.

So! Get ready to not be all that surprised when you wake up some morning and find that the newest dictatorial power that the Politicians, Lawyers and media alliance have given themselves in addition to immunity to the law is the ability to pardon themselves of their crimes as they are uncovered!

The second most arrogant bit of anonymous Lawyer wisdom comes from some enraged judge No-name nobody from nowhere. He and his anonymous crew of legal yak-artists got enraged due to the protest outside their Ivory Tower. People there and on “Social Media” (The peoples’ court) had heard the problem and immediately made the obvious choice, which was to allow an infant’s parents to take their sick baby to America from England for medical treatment. Arrogant, anonymous Judge High and Mighty could not stand huge numbers of ordinary peons having loud opinions, so he had his media bullhorns announce for him, anonymously, “People who don’t know what they are talking about should be silent!”

Sadly, it was the Lawyer – system’s own incompetence that caused millions of people to yank the secrecy from judge Nincom-poop’s antics. This mob of self-absorbed Lawyers took an abysmally simple case and debated it for ten god damned months while the baby got sicker and sicker. Finally, the infant became brain dead while waiting for all the Lawyers to finally shut up and the head Lawyer to crap out a decision.

Obviously, there are many matters that are much too important to allow rhetoric artists to decide. There is just no time to waste on scalawags who are more intent upon expanding the number of hours that they are overpaid than on getting the job done. I recommend that ALL of the Lawyers in both of these instances be unmasked, their riches confiscated and distributed to their thousands of victims, and that they be televised as they are dipped, head first, in vats of warm dog slobber.



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!


Once a false conviction is obtained, the likelihood of an innocent person ever getting an appeals judge to remove it is far less than one percent. Why? The cops, lawyers, prosecutors, judges, legislators and media all choose to make citizens believe that their system of justice is always right, even when it is caught perpetrating numerous acts of criminality and fraud. They do not admit to their crimes; they do not apologize. They deny, delay and disparage their victims. The false front of perfection and infallibility is thrust forward at all costs.

The trouble with false convictions, though, is that their victims tend never to be silent about the legal frauds used to trick jurors into convicting them. We tend to somehow get around the free-speech gags that are placed on us afterward, in prison, and if we have any altruistic bent at all, we expose the legal traps so that, hopefully, no others will have to suffer the same abuse. I’ve already covered how the lawcrats and cops trick jurors into convicting the innocent in my very popular and widely-read treatise, “Innocents” Guide to Avoiding False Conviction”. What I have not covered well enough is the appeals process that maintains false convictions at all costs. I attempt to rectify this fault here.

Appeals judges are faced with the task of silencing innocents, concealing their appeals and feigning an aura of respectability and fairness while doing so. Their first barrier to justice is the standard paper blizzard that all gov’t bureaucracies hide behind when supplicants try to force them to do their jobs. The lawcrats’ paper blizzard is the worst of all, because they have the most at stake: the continued destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens’ lives. This is why lawyer bureaucracies routinely take years and decades from innocents and very rarely erp anything that even looks like justice from far away. Innocents must determine never to give up, and we must be prepared to continue slamming at the walls within which true justice is held hostage, until death takes us, when necessary. This is a fight more important than any individual.

Their second barrier to justice is the fact that virtually nothing in law is concrete. Everything is subjective. Law is deliberately kept an amorphous, nebulous, flexible thing subject to no fact and many opinions for the express purpose of twisting it to gov’t ends. Gov’t owns the monopoly on law, and no law, or official opinion on law is created without first considering how it will benefit gov’t.

As to how, specifically, lawcrats accomplish this, I have provided an example. Please see the exhibit below, beginning with p. 2(A). This paragraph pertains to federal prisoners only. They have two fewer hoops to jump through than state captives. Innocent federal captives are required by the lawcrats to have somehow uncovered new evidence that would convince judges of their innocence. (“Factfinder” means judge in this instance, and judges are here usurping the jurors’ function, because most “new” evidence is evidence deliberately concealed by the cops and prosecutors from jurors, otherwise no guilty verdict could have been obtained.)

Convincing mere jurors of innocence is as arduous as herding cats that are continuously spooked by cops, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and the media. Convincing judges of innocence is virtually impossible. In the entire history of the US–over two centuries of legal “practice”–innocence has almost never been admitted to by any appeals judges. First, their facade of infallibility makes their throats lock up at the mere word “innocence”. The closest they will come is “not guilty”. When forced, they hide behind neutral words such as “remand”, “reverse”, “rescind”, “acquit”, etc. Only in the past 20 years has there been a “flood” of only about 150 “not guilty” persons released from false and fraudulent convictions The only way that these poor souls ever got away is because lawyerproof DNA has made it scientifically impossible for judges to continue to maintain each individual false conviction. In many cases, science not only proved the victims of legal fraud innocent, but also found the guilty. Judges and prosecutors are happy to leave the innocent in their taxpayer subsidized prisons, but public outcry forced them to prosecute the “newly uncovered” guilty that science kept smacking in their arrogant faces. For this reason ALONE were the 150 extremely lucky innocents finally permitted to leave after wasting years and decades of their lives to convince hardened, cynical judges with appeals to their “reason”.

Think not? Then see p.2 (B). This paragraph is for state prisoners, who make up about 90% of the 150 science-proven innocents previously mentioned. State judge/prosecutor teams, having: the larger task of maintaining 90% of all the fraudulent convictions of innocents, have eased their huge burden by inserting two extra, nearly impossible, requirements for their innocent victims to meet. State innocent-convictees must fulfill every federal requirement. Next, we must convince judges that we are victims of a “Constitutional error”.. This means that the appeals judges must agree with our contention that we were deprived of one (or two, in the case of “ineffective counsel”), of the stipulations in the “Bill o’ Rights:` Hidden underneath this requirement is another requirement: we must not have accidentally “waived” our rights. The primary way that judges and prosecutors determine that we have waived these rights is by noticing that we did not immediately leap up and loudly insist upon them the very moment that a crafty, well-schooled cop or lawyer violates them. The most well-oiled trap door in the lawyer’s system is this one that automatically waives your Constitutional rights before you can even learn that the cop/prosecutor team has trampled upon them. And do NOT expect help from the judge: He is in direct cahoots with them, since he also depends upon your conviction to benefit his profession. This is where ignorance of the law, ignorance of the facts, and ignorance of the cop/lawyer system combine to provide no excuse for the gullible, unwary and the too-trusting. In order to satisfy this requirement, it is often necessary to be clairvoyant and a mind-reader.

On top of this is piled an even more stringent requirement. Proof of innocence is not enough even when coupled with Constitutional errors. One must also prove that the “new” evidence could not be uncovered “earlier”. This is an impossible barrier to justice First, it is usually akin to a miracle that the cop/prosecutor team overlooked, or failed to conceal or de- stroy, the contrary evidence to begin with. Cops and prosecutors know that they can conceal, steal and destroy evidence at whim, .with no possibility of suffering any real punishment even if they do get caught, which is itself highly unlikely. Thus it is standard, routine practice that cops and prosecutors conceal, steal and destroy evidence that is contrary to the conviction of their target. Next, the contrary evidence has a time limit on its “discovery” (the legal term for “uncovery”, because it is usually “lost” within the cop/prosecutor’s files.) Judges and legislators have put a very short time limit on “new” evidence and thus on innocence itself. The cop/ prosecutor team need only steal and conceal the contrary evidence for a single year. Doing so gives the appeal judges the right to waive all your rights to the innocence-proving evidence, due to your lack of “due diligence” in (1) finding that it exists, (2) uncovering the fact that the cops/prosecutor team stole it, and (3) somehow getting it out of their vaults, despite their lies, deceits, delays and refusals. In theory, satisfying paragraphs A or B sound simple if a citizen is truly innocent. In actual reality, however, the barriers to justice are as insurmountable as the lawcrats’ conviction rates are high, (99.55%). As I’ve said for many years, to score this high, you have to cheat. E.g, in over 220 years of operation, the American Lawyers’ System has only released fewer than 200 innocent convictees on appeal and 130 of these occurred in only the past twenty years, and only these because of the rise of IRREFUTABLE-EVEN-TO-LAWYERS DNA evidence.

Evidence of a wholesale, 35-year-long cop/lawcratcheating spree is obvious throughout my case. (see PCR and “exhibits”). Even more cheating is found when one compares the recent tenth circuit “order” (Bauhaus v Reynolds, 07-5094) with the exhibits here. In it the judges pull a very cunning switcheroo to justify their latest fraudulent ruling against this innocent man and for the killer of Mr. Hunt. E.g, the 4th line of p.2, paragraph B requires mere “convincing evidence”. In their “order”, judges Kelley, Hartz and O’Brien switch “evidence” for “proof”, rightfully claiming that I can no longer prove my innocence, now that the cops and prosecutor are proven to have deliberately destroyed the proof, and wrongfully demanding proof where only “evidence” is required. (See the 2nd-to-last paragraph of the 6-21-07 “order” posted elsewhere on my site.) It is slick-lipped pomposity like this that you will find throughout the lawyers’ system. Anyone can be convicted upon “proof beyond a reasonable doubt”, but to become UN-convicted requires proof beyond a shadow of ANY doubt, plus Constitutional error, plus due diligence, plus a year time limit. All this is required AFTER the cops and lawcrats have had every opportunity to steal, conceal, destroy, delay and lie about the innocence-proving evidence. This is more proof that innocence means less than nothing to cop and lawcrat bureaucracies Hell-bent on their own secret agendas of keeping prisons overstuffed and feigning infallibility.

There is no real quality control or oversight on these cops and lawcrats, thus they have juked the system and run completely amok. Jurors used to provide some quality control on them, but have been largely reduced to the function of a rubber stamp for the prosecutor. Citizens have never been in more danger of being convicted by fraud. Citizens need to wake up and FIX GOVERNMENT!


“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.