What are the most brazen constitutional violations accepted as standard practice in US courts?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
A lot of people would say Fourth Amendment, since cops can do whatever they want in the street, and courts let them. But while that might be true, it’s not courts brazenly ignoring the constitution. Because cops lie, and courts play games like saying Section 1983 is for railroad taxes, to put on a theater that they are following the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fifth Amendment<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Probably the most brazen violation is the Fifth Amendment which says suspects can’t be compelled to testify against themselves. Obviously the concept here, is that people in chains will say what the person holding the chains wants them to say. So the government can’t brazenly reward and punish people for saying one thing versus another in court. Government using their power to make sure their preferred viewpoints are produced in court, defeats the whole purpose of having courts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Government uses the power of imprisoning people and letting them go (and making their lawyers go to trial versus the golf course), to get people to say exactly what government wants them to say in court. And everyone who is not an idiot (or profiting from it) can see this is exactly what’s going on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But for those who are complete idiots, government will claim a defendant pleading guilty isn’t being coerced to testify against himself. Because it’s not at trial, or because he’s coerced to say he isn’t being coerced. Or because government doesn’t know if it’s a lie. Or that people being coerced to testify against other people isn’t the same thing. Or that it’s only the jury that can’t prefer a defendant testify that he’s innocent, because rewarding equals compelling only when jurors do it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Supreme Court justices say we can’t afford courts and witness confrontation, so it’s better to just accept the viewpoint of government employees as true. So government can compel prisoners to testify whatever they want, as long as the government can claim to not know what is really true, or to not be directly responsible for the lies. Even as they never prosecute lies that help the government, which makes their intentions obvious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Today’s court outcomes are a complete charade. Jailhouse-confession witnesses are a more brazen scam than anything in history. But they’re accepted practice to get results that are useful to lawyers. What courts call “proper” versus “improper” coercion, is based on whether the outcome is expedient for those in power, exactly what jury trials and courts in general are meant to prevent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Fifth Amendment makes court proceedings honest by saying government can’t tamper with witnesses to choose preferred outcomes. Courts admit witnesses are being told what to say by government, including lies which the government rewards and doesn’t punish. But judges will simply pretend to have no idea what the Fifth Amendment prohibits, while spending years interpreting other amendments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
First Amendment<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The next most brazen Constitutional violation, is police and judges tell local publishers what they can and can’t say about police activity. Not based on truth and witnesses, but based on viewpoints that are politically favorable to government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They do this under cover of defamation law. They say people can’t say bad things about each other that aren’t true. Unless police point the finger at you. Then publishers can invent any lie about you, as long as the lie is preferred by government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This is a way for government to win elections, and publishers to get free local gossip without needing investigative reporters, editors, or lawyers. Local news doesn’t critically examine government activity, it publishes whatever is expedient for those in power, regardless of whether it’s false and harms nobodies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Liz Bradshaw was raped by a family associate Brian Dubey, in Florida when she was 11. But police destroyed the evidence, and lied to her that Dubey was dead. Then years later Liz saw Dubey alive at a gas station, and went all over social media saying this guy raped me and police covered it up. But despite having a witness, local news refuses to say his name because police didn’t say they could.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For comparison, I was arrested for posting “Cops2Prison.org” fliers, and there is no witness of anything but this. But police told publishers they can invent that I was approaching a housewife with stealth and a sexual motive. Despite there being no witness of this, only government preferring this false viewpoint.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Both cases have a sworn witness. In one case a rape victim. And I have sworn in court that the cop who arrested me Pinellas Deputy Robert A. Weil, committed perjury. But whom publishers lie about, and what they say, is determined by whom police point the finger at and what they want publishers to say, not by truth and witnesses. To in essence always say police are honest, and whomever they target are criminals, and totally defeat the purpose of the First Amendment to examine government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Sixth Amendment<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The next most brazen standard Constitutional violation, is your right to an attorney. They will list an attorney next to your name. And then they will pay that attorney to advocate to you on behalf of the government. To persuade you to give up your right to a trial, and that it is very bad to call government employees liars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Your attorney is literally told by prosecutors and judges, that they can only make money if they persuade you to take a plea bargain, and sweep government misconduct under the rug. This is sometimes worse than not having an attorney. Because inexperienced defendants don’t know their attorney is on the government’s side, and will never represent you zealously if doing so annoys his peers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
People who hire lawyers are tricked about what’s going on. When attorneys win your business by saying it’s only a few thousand dollars, they don’t tell you they can’t afford to go to trial or represent you zealously for that price. And the public defender couldn’t get elected if he pointed the finger at other government employees and called them liars. No matter how much they really lie about you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Your attorney depends on the goodwill of his peers every day, but once you get sent up state he will never see you again. Painting you as guilty helps all of them. And sending you upstate fixes all their problems, no person no problem. There is literally nobody in the courtroom with any interest in protecting you.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There’s no point being a good attorney when most people accused of crimes are broke. It would take more money than criminal defendants have, to get an attorney to really work to discredit the state viewpoint. They stretch out your court dates long enough to drain you of every penny, then send you upstate whether you are guilty or innocent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
General Theme<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The general theme, is the Constitution is ignored when it gets officials elected, and makes money for lawyers and publishers, at the expense of nobodies. Viewpoints which actual evidence would contradict, are substituted for witnessed facts because those in power find them convenient.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
What are the most brazen constitutional violations accepted as standard practice in US courts? A lot of people would say Fourth Amendment, since cops can do whatever they want in the street, and courts let them. But while that might …<\/p>\n