Gaming the Courts

Legal (not Justice) System

Imagine that you are convicted of a crime that you didn’t commit and then sentenced to life in prison. Twenty years after your conviction, changing technology makes new ways of analyzing evidence possible, proving your innocence. The DA for the state still, knowing that you are innocent, manages to use the legal system to keep you in prison for another decade. He even does so far as to hide the fact that the only witness in the case had died.

Mr. Lott tried vacate his conviction in 2018 based on exonerating DNA results, but former District Attorney Paul Smith opposed the motion. Instead, on the eve of Mr. Lott’s evidentiary hearing, the DA offered only to modify Mr. Lott’s sentence, which would have released him from prison but kept the conviction on his record. Mr. Lott accepted the agreement on July 9, 2018. In doing so, Mr. Lott was freed after spending 35 years in prison for a crime that he didn’t commit- with 10 of those years being served AFTER the legal system knew that he didn’t commit the crime. That’s a legal system, not a justice system.

“Former District Attorney Smith’s opposition to the irrefutable evidence of Mr. Lott’s innocence was a blatant miscarriage of justice,” said Barry Scheck, Innocence Project’s co-founder and special counsel. “This unwillingness to acknowledge the truth in addition to the systemic factors at play in Mr. Lott’s wrongful conviction cost him 35 precious years — and have plagued other wrongful conviction cases in Ada for decades.”

It’s cases like this that force me to oppose the death penalty. The cops, the prosecutor, the judges, they all work for the same employer. It is virtually certain that some people have been executed for crimes that they didn’t commit. If we as a society execute one innocent person, we are all collectively guilty of murder. That is why I remain opposed to the death penalty- the system is flawed, designed to reward those employees of the government for convicting people of crimes, whether or not the convicted person actually committed them.

In this case, they took his life from him, or at least the part that counts, nearly as certainly as if they had killed him.

By Divemedic, ago

Cry Harder

When you were a kid and played games with other kids, there was always one who decided to cheat. Ever tried to play monopoly when the cheater was the banker? The only thing that can be done is either cheat better, or refuse to play.

There is no longer any such thing as fair government. Everything that the government does is weaponized lawfare. Gun stores being sued into bankruptcy. Or having their ability to accept credit cards taken from them. Fined and shut down because someone misspelled a word on a 4473. Unlike childhood games, you can’t refuse to play.

That’s why I love the fact that Florida just fined an abortion clinic enough money to put them out of business. It’s winner take all. Cry harder, bitches. You don’t like government, the courts, and business being weaponized?

Wait until you see what comes next- weapons being weaponized.

By Divemedic, ago

Next: SCOTUS to Make Pi=3.0 For Easier Math

The reason why tranny insanity is taking hold is because of the Supreme Court. On June 15, 2020, SCOTUS ruled in 3 separate cases that Title VII of the Civil rights act applies to LGBT people, thus making men who believe themselves to be women as official super citizens who are entitled to more rights than the rest of us. This effectively places delusional people in charge.

The cases were Bostock v. Clayton County, Zarda v. Altitude Express, and Stephens v. Harris Funeral Homes. Writing for the six-3 majority, Justice Gorsuch held that Title VII’s protections against discrimination or harassment “because of sex” extend to members of the LGBT community. Specifically, Title VII prohibited firing the Plaintiffs because they were gay or transgender, because sex necessarily plays a role in the decision.

This means that the Federal government has, through SCOTUS, officially granted transgenders the full protections of the law.

It’s gonna get worse as the empire collapses.

By Divemedic, ago

My Comments to Miguel:

Over at Gunfreezone, Miguel posts about people abusing claims of domestic abuse in order to gain leverage in divorce cases. I have twice been accused of this by angry ex-girlfriends who were trying to get revenge on me for daring to be their ex:

the law is abused. Here are the disturbing statistics:

25% of all divorces include accusations of domestic violence.
50% of all domestic violence restraining orders are issued without allegations of violence.
70% of domestic violence restraining orders are trivial or false. (PDF warning)
85% of restraining orders are against men

In fact, a New Mexico woman filed a restraining order against David Letterman in 2005, alleging that she was a victim of his domestic abuse. He had never met the woman. She said that he was using secret code words during his television show to threaten her. The judge in the case found her claims to have merit and granted the order, even though it was later overturned.

The law says that women can make an accusation of domestic violence and the court will punish the man by issuing a restraining order without him being allowed to defend himself. He gets a hearing two weeks later, but by that time his guns have been taken and his concealed weapons permit revoked. There is no fee for the woman to do this.

She gets a free lawyer. He does not. When it is discovered that she lied, nothing happens to her. She will not be prosecuted, and cannot be sued or punished in any way.

The Florida State Supreme Court has this to say on the matter:

Unfortunately, the current version of section 784.046 does not seem to permit the trial court to simply dismiss a sworn petition that does not allege facts that fall within the statutory language. Instead, section 784.046(5) requires that “[u]pon the filing of the petition, the court shall set a hearing to be held at the earliest possible time.” The result is the use of scant judicial resources to conduct unnecessary hearings based on pleadings that could never support the issuance of an injunction. These same hearings often serve only to inflame the parties’ emotions and foster further uncivil behavior. I would encourage the legislature to consider amending the domestic violence and repeat violence statutes to allow judges to dismiss petitions that, on their face, do not contain allegations sufficient to meet the statutory requirements without prejudice to the petitioner refiling a legally sufficient petition if he or she can do so.

Women who lie to use the law as a weapon cannot be punished. From the same decision:

Further, nowhere in section 784.046 is there any provision for an award of sanctions against a petitioner who uses the statutory provisions concerning injunctions as a sword rather than a shield.

By Divemedic, ago

First, Kill the Lawyers

A year ago, I reported on an incident at a Target where a group of “teens” were stealing from a Target store. The store contacted police, who just happened to be conducting training nearby, and the cops attempted to take the young criminals into custody. The criminals, who were illegally armed with at least one firearm, tried to ram the responding deputies, whereupon the cops fired multiple shots into the car, killing one and wounding two others.

The lawyers for our young thugs stepped in and claimed that the police were not in uniform, driving unmarked cars, and did not identify themselves. They then shot into the car while at least one of them had his hands in the air. (If they weren’t known to be cops, why were the criminals surrendering?) Anyhow, Target then declined to file charges.

The reason I mention this is because the criminals are now suing Target for the cops shooting them, claiming that Target allowing the cops to use their parking lot for training was some sort of conspiracy to use the criminals as training subjects, so the police could use vehicles and guns on live subjects.

One of the claims is that Target knew, through their video surveillance, that the three thugs were stealing. They also knew that the cops were outside. The lawsuit claims that Target has a duty to warn all of its customers of hazards that may be present on the premises, and therefore has a duty to warn shoplifters that the cops are outside waiting to arrest them.

This is the kind of thing that lawyers should be penalized for doing. Our courts are overworked as it is, and this is the kind of money hunting, ambulance chasing behavior that needs to be discouraged. There are plenty of companies out there that are total jerks and need to be dragged into court. This case isn’t one of those.

By Divemedic, ago

Threat to Democracy

The Democrats claim that Trump was a fascist dictator because he ignored Congress and said the press was fake news. He was a threat to Democracy because he, they claim, wanted to end run around Congress and the electoral college.

Yet Biden is ignoring Congress and the law while Democrats in Congress are calling the SCOTUS an “illegitimate court.” How that doesn’t count as doublethink, I will never know. We have always been at war with East Asia.

The Constitution is just a piece of paper that they need to figure out how to circumvent.

By Divemedic, ago

SCOTUS and the Revolution

News broke yesterday that Jane Roberts, wife of the Chief Justice, was soliciting large sums of money from powerful law firms in exchange for recruiting lawyers. More than $10 million in eight years. There was a lot of speculation during those years about Roberts being compromised. Theories were bandied about, some involving blackmail. Turns out it was good old fashioned grift.

Now that is going to cost SCOTUS. The left is involved in a political coup against the conservative justices. I don’t think that there is enough there for an impeachment, but after the 2024 elections, who knows?

By Divemedic, ago

Pass an Amendment

Congress wants to pass a law requiring that SCOTUS adopt a code of conduct. I don’t think this is Constitutional. Any rules for SCOTUS would be in Article III of the Constitution, and there is nothing there granting Congress authority over the Supreme Court. If they want to do this, an Amendment would be required.

It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS reacts to this. The left wants badly to bring this court to heel, or even impeach a justice or two.

By Divemedic, ago