slug.com slug.com

8 4

With the recent travesty of the Jussie Smollett case in Chicago, I we need to advocate for judicial reform. As an officer of the court I have seen all kinds of shenanigans from lawyers, judges, court appointed home investigators, guardian ad litems, and others. It is despicable how people in the court system lie and manipulate to thwart justice.

Academician 4 Mar 30
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

That's disconcerting.

1

This is not about shenanigans, but about blatant criminal activity by the Clinton fixer and the Soros-paid prosecutor. I just wonder if Jussie had something on someone, and whether the DA Foxx will go to jail as she so richly deserves...

0

Acknowledged.

1

I'd like to see judicial reform tackled along with significant reforms to both other branches of government, so they could, perhaps for the first time, perform in concert with one another instead of clashing so violently as to stall any significant actions by any branch until the urgency is long-passed.
But people really want to know how I would change things if such magic were available to me, I'll share more details of what I think about our entire system of governance.
Please be aware, and take note: Because the ideas which I carry on this subject are in truth not my own, but adopted and cherished as a sterile woman desperate for a child would adopt and cherish an infant placed into her care: I will quote the actual author of the ideas I would advocate in the following, and so choose to begin with as sane an opinion of government as I've ever seen:

“like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master.”

When it comes to changes in the judicial branch, I will describe the system used in the work which I am quoting from, because choosing quotes to explain it would end up appearing as a chapter, not a paragraph: Judges can be literally anyone of an adult age- adulthood being determined by demonstrably mature actions rather than by any arbitrary age- provided both accuser and accused both agree to hire that individual. And hire him or her is what they do, both contributing equal shares of whatever fee the chosen individual determines he or she requires to hear that particular case. Each side presents their case to the judge- accusation or defense, including witnesses and their statements, physical evidence, and any argument that may support relevant circumstantial evidence. When both finish, the judge considers who has done a better job of supporting their case, and makes a ruling, as well as any sentencing- immediately. The judge is free to determine ANY form of sentence- keeping in mind that bad rulings and sentences would become public knowledge very fast, and have both immediate and serious consequences for him or herself. Both parties have signed a written agreement prior to commencement of proceedings to abide by the ruling of the judge they have chosen to make those determinations. Any case of a criminal caught behaving in such an egregious manner as to have done serious harm or offense to the community at large, the community itself is free to carry out on the spot trials and immediate sentencing doled out to that individual. Sentences of such a serious nature would naturally, over a sufficient amount of time, be automatic, as such decisions would not have to be debated at any length, but would be known and collectively agreed on over time- such as immediate execution of rapists, child molesters and murderers, and relieving a con of the burden of claiming ownership of any personal property, then distributing those items or monies to those who were able to prove financial damages."No better way to improve breed. Certain types of loudmouthism should be a capital offense among decent people.”
I believe that such a system would be easily self-correcting (as most if not all such social machinery will become when not interfered with), because all citizens would be automatically equalized under such social structuring, and because of this, all who choose to become involved in civics are thus empowered to stand up for what is right, as well as ready to stand in place as either judge, jury, and yes, even as executioner; and even more importantly- such people will automatically be willing to pay the freight for their own decisions and actions, thereby will be making far better ones than we have managed. One of the best parts of this system is that the need for law becomes utterly minimal, and such a system has absolutely zero need for lawyers and the ancillary bureaucracy which supports them.

Now, on to my vision of actual day to day governance:
"Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by four thousand citizens. He would then represent those four thousand affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would have been a minority in a territorial constituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice. Or a man with eight thousand supporters might have two votes in this body. Difficulties, objections, practical points to be worked out — many of them! But you could work them out. . . And thereby avoid the chronic sickness of representative government, the disgruntled minority which feels — correctly! — that it has been disenfranchised."
"I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?"
"But in writing your constitution let me invite attention the wonderful virtues of the negative! Accentuate the negative! Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do. No conscript armies . . . No interference however slight with freedom of press, or speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or occupation. . . No involuntary taxation. Comrades, if you were to spend five years in a study of history while thinking of more and more things that your government should promise never to do and then let your constitution be nothing but those negatives, I would not fear the outcome.”
“Comrades, I beg you – do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him.”
“The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it continues until it destroys. I was not joking when I told them to dig into their own pouches. It may not be possible to do away with government – sometimes I think that government is an inescapable disease of human beings. But it may be possible to keep it small and starved and inoffensive – and can you think of a better way than by requiring the governors themselves to pay the costs of their antisocial hobby?”

Why would I favor such arrangements? Because when it comes to my views on politics in general, I tend to hold to most of the political ideology and tenets which are described below:
Yes, I consider myself to be a rational anarchist: a “rational anarchist believes that concepts such as “state” and “society” and “government” have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame … as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world … aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”

And I will now close this long and needlessly detailed answer to a question which was only indirectly inferred to begin with, with a final quote- and note that all quotes which I have shared within this missive are attributed to the Godfather of Speculative Fiction- Robert Anson Heinlein, and all are from only one piece of fiction within the multitude which encompasses his extensive body of work-

“That we were slaves I had known all my life—and nothing could be done about it. True, we weren’t bought and sold—but as long as Authority held monopoly over what we had to have and what we could sell to buy it, we were slaves.”
? Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress

1

I haven't been following the case closely, but my understanding is the prosecutor decided to drop the charges rather than a court. Prosecutorial misconduct is a tough nut to crack and it is problematic. Prosecutors are supposed to exercise discretion toward the end of justice whether that means prosecuting or refusing to prosecute. Unfortunately we see it abused frequently whether prosecuting innocent people or as apparently in this case, not prosecuting somebody with some political pull and resources.

1

In the past, a really long time ago, when I first became a LEO, Judges didn't have to have a law degree or be a member of the BAR. Judges were elected by the people based on their ability to use "common sense". Things worked a lot better then. Maybe if we got the lawyers off the bench, we would get decisions that we could under stand. I saw one of these judges throw a lawyer in jail, I got to book him, for telling his client that he did not have to appear before he judge.

That reminds me of the old joke about hunting. Papa John was a good old boy living out in the country and made a living renting his dog out to hunters. The dog's name was Attorney and every time a hunter went out with that dog they always came back with their game sacks filled to the limit. The fee was $100 dollars and once a hunter took the dog they never objected to that high fee. Then one year some hot shot high priced New York City lawyers came out and rented the dog. But they only came back in with half their limit. The next hunter after them came by to pick up the dog and was very surprised when told the fee was only ten dollars. When asked why so cheap, the owner replied that the previous hunters started calling the dog Judge and now all he does is sit on his behind and bark.

@Marta-Amance Like it!

2

Judicial reform is always a difficult area understand. Considering that our particular form of a system of justice is based on the ideal of trial by combat in criminal matters and common law torts in civil matters, there are problems with reforming the system. Should judges be elected for specific terms or be life time appointments? Should District Attornies and Attorney Generals be elected of appointed? Should we switch to Roman law in which the judges decide what can be considered as evidence?

In the case of civil matters we should place limits of awards that a plaintif can collect and limit attorney fees to set amounts. And while we're at it, let us reform the justice system by requiring periodic weeding of the codes. We lso need to make the various legisatures write the regulations they wish the administrations enforce rather than give the job to unelected bureaucrats.

Judges do decide what can be used as evidence.

Totally agree. However, the conversation is important and we must try to affect change in some way.

1

Agree. We have also seen notable examples of judicial advocacy during the Trump and Obama administrations. IMO, one of the the worst was when Judge Roberts took it upon himself to rewrite the ACA in order to make it legal rather that strike it down as unconstitutional as it was. Is this not legislating from the bench?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25983
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.