Imagine that, infecting a nation has been done before. Now the shoe is on the other foot. But do we just take it and relinquish power like native people were forced to? Maybe what’s infected America is deserved? Why was it OK back then and now America hides behind words? Words like Justice, Equality, Freedom, Legal, Law and Liberty.
I used to believe the propaganda and lies fed to use as children. Only to find it’s how a totally corrupt government gets us to pay taxes. The truth is America is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Infected by greed and need to control.
Soon victims will outnumber the believers, the patriots who blindly protect a monster rising behind them will become victims.
The fact is there are two classes in America. One class forced to obey, pay taxes and be controlled by the other class. The other class is above the law and in fact creates law, abuses immunity and profits by abusing power and law.
Lets get back to the native people the REAL AMERICANS and how they were cheated and slaughtered and today no one wants to talk about it. Until History repeats itself and we’re supposed to feel sorry for all the people sick and dying?
The epidemic of 1837–38 also spawned a narrative of deliberate white genocide against the original Americans: “smallpox in the blankets”—white Europeans and white Americans deliberately promoting the spread of smallpox among unsuspecting American Indians to clear them off the land. Smallpox in the blankets is one of those stubborn legends that can’t be dismissed as myth because it is founded in a mixture of limited historical fact and widespread circumstantial evidence. Based on Raphael Lemkin’s definition of “genocide”— a term he coined in 1944 to describe what the Turks had done to the Armenians during World War I, the Soviets had done to the Ukrainians and upper-class Poles in the interwar period and what the Nazis were then doing to the Jews— the United States had practiced cultural genocide against American Indians since the 1870s, but had not practiced actual physical genocide. The sole documented instance of smallpox in the blankets was approved by an Englishman and instigated by a brace of Swiss mercenaries. White American settlers and soldiers had murdered large groups of Indians, including women and children, from the 17th century to the end of the 19th century with guns, poison and clubs.
A plea deal is an A A plea arrangement to resolve a case without going to trial. This is an option most often taken by those who cannot afford bail and want to go home instead of wait days, months, even years locked up in jail. An estimated 177,624 innocent Americans pleaded guilty in 2013 alone. Does this sound like a justice system to you?
Innocence Is Irrelevant
This is the age of the plea bargain—and millions of Americans are suffering the consequences.
All over America INNOCENT people are being railroaded by dishonest judges and lawyers in a conspiracy for profit. Hiding like dishonest, criminal rats in expensive fancy suits or fake black robes. They abuse power and impunity to terrorize, intimidate and profit off those who can’t afford their ridiculous over priced services.
Many individuals who have been exonerated of wrongful convictions recount the weight that was lifted when their cases were overturned and the state dropped the charges against them. Sadly, not all wrongfully convicted people released from prison enjoy that same sense of relief. As a recent story by ProPublica reveals, in too many wrongful conviction cases, innocent people are pressured by prosecutors into taking plea deals in exchange for their freedom, when, in reality, solid evidence demonstrates that full exoneration’s are in order.
There’s an assumption that when someone pleads guilty to a crime, swearing to tell the truth and allocuting to all the elements, he actually committed it. But this is not necessarily true.
We all know that innocent people can befound guilty of crimes they didn’t commit, but innocent people might actually choose to plead guilty simply because they’re afraid to go to trial. The fear is based on a simple fact — people who go to trial and are convicted get much heavier sentences than those who plea-bargain.
Although the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy and public trial, because the system favors plea bargaining, some defendants give up that right to save extra years in jail. It’s a question of practicality. Whether the person is innocent or not, jury trials are always a crap shoot, with the verdict uncertain until rendered. If you’re offered probation pre-trial by pleading guilty but know a judge will give you jail if you lose trial, you might choose to say you did something that you didn’t do just to avoid jail. It would take the most stalwart belief in justice (and your attorney) to go forward when a guilty verdict has you serving a much tougher sentence.
Adding to this watering down of the Sixth Amendment is the fact that most defendants take pleas without even knowing the strength of the case against them. Prosecutors in most states are not required to share evidence they’ve gathered until the eve of trial. But defendants who wait till then lose the benefit of a plea bargain. It’s not uncommon for judges to tell defendants as they’re being arraigned, “If you don’t take this plea today, it’s off the table.”
There are benefits to this system of course — it diminishes court dockets and saves the expense of conducting a trial. Plus aren’t most defendants guilty anyway, so why gobble up scarce resources just to prove it? Because that’s what the Sixth Amendment compels.
To fight against government tyranny in the criminal justice system, America’s Founding Fathers enshrined into the Constitution the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” Plea bargains, however, have become, as the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) said, “not only an essential part of the process but a highly desirable part.” While plea bargains have streamlined the management of court caseloads, they all too often result in the conviction of factually innocent persons or create final judgments that are legal fiction.
Thomas Jefferson said, “I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
Plea bargaining was first introduced as a legal tool that could protect citizens’ rights and address the need for courtroom efficiency. It, however, was criticized as being too radical from the system’s trial nature and removed jury safeguards against wrongful convictions. By the late 19th century, the nation’s population growth and increased policing systems, combined with expanded criminal codes, placed an increasing caseload on prosecutors, and they normalized plea bargains into the process to quickly resolve cases despite the criticism.
As plea bargains gained momentum in the 1800s, its practice also began to evolve and shift. Prosecutors, for instance, began overcharging suspects to increase perceived performance and to frighten defendants into taking a plea to avoid severe penalties from multiple charges. A practice that continues to the present is the filing of an indictment that contains multiple charges to gain leverage to obtain a plea on one charge, or charging a higher offense to gain a plea on the actually committed lower offense.
“American prosecutors are equipped with a fearsome array of tools they can and do use to discourage people from exercising their right to a jury trial.”
When I first got onto Facebook it seemed like a good idea. Some people spend vast hours of time and effort not only to stay in touch with others but to share and expose the wrongs of the world.
Little did I know how dishonest Mark Zuckerberg was and how bad Facebook is for people in general and the world. Not only are people wasting their time adding content but their helping a monster profit and get stronger.
Censorship is not by the constitutional standard but by that of one man. Consider the history of this man and how he dishonestly stole the Facebook concept.
There is a growing movement of people leaving Facebook and exposing what’s going on. Watch Zuckerberg LIE, avoid and con his way thur questioning. Facebook should be destroyed and removed completely because it’s gotten out of hand and a danger to the world.
The problem with Facebook is anything you post is manipulated and censored. Either no one sees your info, your blocked completely or fake info is allowed or manipulated for Zuckerberg’s gain and profit.
WHO IS MARK ZUCKERBERG?
Facebook: how it all began
In 2003, a sophomore named Mark Zuckerberg hacked into protected areas of the university’s computer network in order to find photos of other students. He then would pair two of them next to each other on a program called “Facemash” and ask users to choose the more attractive person. At the beginning of 2004, Zuckerberg launched “The Facebook,” a social network dedicated to Harvard students, which later grew to encompass Columbia, Yale and Stanford. The popularity of this new service sky-rocketed and in mid-2004, Zuckerberg interrupted his studies and moved his operation to Palo Alto, California.
Facebook employee diversity criticism
Facebook has been criticized for having a diversity problem. As of June 2018, tech positions, as well as management roles in U.S. offices were overwhelmingly occupied by men. Furthermore, almost 47 percent of Facebook employees in the U.S. are White and only 3.5 percent are African-American, which has sparked concern regarding representation and equal opportunities. Around 69.7 percent of senior level positions are occupied by White employees and only 3.3 percent by Hispanic-Americans.
If you’ve not been victimized yet it’s not if but when. Having been a Police officer for almost a decade I saw the problem from both sides when I became victimized by a corrupt judge and greedy lawyers who had no problem rigging justice. The fact is there are no talented lawyers just connected ones who have ins with the courts.
Perjury, fraud, filing false documents, elder abuse, ignoring law, probate code and even embezzlement of over $2 million dollars meant nothing and was ignored by the DOJ, FBI, Commission on Judicial performance or the legal Bar.
Even the police did not care when reported to the Elder Abuse department of LAPD. The fact is when a crime takes place within a court no one wants to get involved. They claim the court handles it’s own crimes and abuse. The problem is most judges don’t want to overturn or address what a corrupt dishonest judge has done before them. My full story
Once victimized I did what thousands of millions before me do. They look for other victims, share their stories on social media and try and get media attention to expose the predators. Problem is there’s and epidemic of judicial crime, abuse and fraud. Worse those involved have not fear of punishment because as public servants or members of the court they hide behind immunity.
Police and courts work as a biased family against the public. They act as the muscle for the courts who when threatened have police abuse, terrorize and even murder anyone who takes a stand. Police in turn are able to murder in cold blood innocent victims and escape punishment and accountability. Police unions, a fraudulent Police officers bill of rights which trumps the original bill of rights allows police to commit crimes, lie and perjure all in the name of fear or law.
It’s no longer a yearly event where police murder, abuse, rape or beat innocent victims it’s a daily event. With the advent of mobile phones audio and video evidence cannot be ignored. However trigger happy, cowardly cops who hide behind the word “FEAR”. Abuse it to the point that they get away with cold blooded murder when no actual danger exists. All this combined and the public has lost all respect for police and justice for that matter.
Anyone who has dealt with the Justice system learns quickly that it’s not about justice but who has more money. It’s about who can buy more justice.
It’s not just in Probate court as I learned it’s in all courts, Family, divorce, civil and criminal.
The armies of victims and families has grown to millions and grows each day and each time a cop, judge or lawyer is exposed for abuse, murder or prosecuting the innocent.
How many billions of dollars are stolen, embezzled or extorted? Thousands of people are executed every year by police who are never held accountable, at least not to the same standard as everyone else.
Getting a badge, robe or civil servant position has become a license to steal, rob, terrorize or murder. Having undeserved impunity gives them a sense of power as well as deadly force which they abuse on a daily basis, guns are pulled for any reason. Pets are assassinated for nothing more than approaching a cop yet Mail carriers deal with pets every day and never has a pet been shot.
“When convictions are clearly wrong, these prosecutors don’t just hinder justice—they actively work against it.” More
On daily basis it’s exposed that innocent people have been in prison for decades. Thank god for DNA and other tests which help set the innocent free. Worse the bad cops, lying prosecutors are never held accountable or prosecuted for their crimes. It’s always the same the tax payer is extorted for legal fees to defend these monsters and criminals, victims are paid via the deep pockets of the tax payer.
It’s time there was change, not next year, not the decade but NOW. Removing immunity when perjury, crime, abuse or anything else that violates justice or law. No more use of irrational fear or hiding behind law or a courtroom. Everything must be transparent; all hearings must be digitally recorded just like mandatory body cams on police. Record the judges and courts. No more statute of limitations because as we know criminals will stall and the courts will help them.
Worse when caught or exposed what do they do, lie, perjure and cover up their crimes?
Facebook went from a good platform for the public to the worst. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg stole the concept and idea from others. He profited from perjury, fraud and dishonesty and now hides behind false propaganda and money. Typical American court system example of how money rules our courts and the term “Justice” is just a bullshit word thrown around to mislead people going to court that they will get a fair hearing.
It’s all about how much justice you can buy. Free speech has been twisted into censorship to stop people from calling a kettle black even if in fact YES 100% it is black. Our constitution has been ripped apart by lawyers and a broken legal system made up of the criminals who manipulate it in their favor.
Did you know “White people” can’t even call other white people on Facebook “White Trash”? Then again it depends who you are and how much money you have as to what you can say in America today. Sad if something looks like a pig you no longer can call it a pig. Yes it’s gotten that bad. Worse there is no honest, fair court in America and even juries are manipulated by lawyers and the judge to come to a conclusion that is not fair or moral. It’s all about making law complicated, misleading and easy to manipulate. Sad but the solution is to ban lawyers from any form of law and make law simple and clear.
Corruption destroys trust and without trust, society breaks down, as described by a piece in the July 22, 2018 issue of The New Yorker, “How E-Commerce Is Transforming Rural China,”by Jiayang Fan.
As Americans are learning, the judicial system is in shambles. California is especially bad, but it is not alone. See also this article. Unlike police officers, judges are free to do whatever they desire, hiding behind judicial immunity. (Mireles V. Waco (1991) 502 U.S. 9)
To add insult to the indignity of being preyed upon by corrupt judges, Californians have to endure the Commission of Judicial Performance [CJP], which is the watchdog agency where the wolves monitor the wolves who are feasting inside the hen house. Needless to say, this situation is lethal to justice, but due to judicial immunity, “us chickens” have no voice. While the CJP is supposed to discipline miscreant judges, it protects them.
The Role of Trust in Society
Because of corruption in the Chinese consumer market, no one trusted his on-line store. Hence, Liu was going bankrupt. However, when someone vouched for his honesty, people began to trust him. After a while his reputation for trustworthiness grew and people flocked to his website. Now JD.com stands right behind Amazon and Alphabet, Inc, (Google’s parent) as the world’s third largest company. Liu knew that actions do speak louder than words and America’s approach of offering lying platitudes about the great American legal system deceives few people. We need to restore integrity to our courts as Liu did to his online stores.
While China recognizes the need to end corruption, Americans have been encouraging it. When people tried to stop the corruption at Enron, the judges protected the fraud until the entire sham collapsed. Likewise, the courts protected the Wall Street criminals during the 2000s while they were destroying the world economy. After the Crash of 2008, there were no prosecutions. Meanwhile, China hands out life prison terms for corruption. FULL STORY
This short video exposes and tells it all, how OUR courts are infested by dishonest, immoral con-artists in expensive suits who have twisted our JUSTICE system into a money making scam
Lawyers are destroying America, Justice, morals and integrity in America
Have you been victimized by lawyers and now told the only way out is to hire another lawyer?
Have you been bankrupted by insane out of control legal fees?
Have you reported dishonest lawyers to the bar only to have them ignore any crime or abuse?
What’s “ethical” for lawyers
Ethical rules vary from state to state. But generally, your lawyer is supposed to work hard, be honest with everyone, respect your decisions about goals, and be loyal to you. Prosecutors are supposed to work hard, be honest with everyone, and pursue justice.
Here are some signs of ethical problems for lawyers:
Encouraging other people to lie
Not trying hard and making many obvious mistakes
Saying messed up, biased things about race, gender, disability, nationality, sexuality, or religion
Taking a case when there’s a conflict of interest (for example, if your lawyer’s brother is the complaining witness in the case, or if the prosecutor used to represent you before becoming a prosecutor)
For your lawyer, promising to do things on your case and then not doing them
For your lawyer, sharing your personal info without your permission
For your lawyer, forcing you to take or reject a plea offer against your will
For your lawyer, not updating you about your case even when something major has happened
For a prosecutor, going forward with a case without probable cause
For a prosecutor, not sharing info that could help the defense
Here are some things that aren’t signs of ethical problems for lawyers:
Losing a case
Making a mistake
Not doing everything you thought the lawyer should do, or not doing everything the way you wanted it done
For your lawyer, urging you take a plea, even if you disagree
For a prosecutor, going after you even though plenty of people have done worse things
Your lawyer and the prosecutor acting friendly with each other
What’s “ethical” for judges Ethical rules for judges also vary from state to state. But generally, they are supposed be fair and impartial.
Here are some things that are ethical problems for judges:
Bribery and corruption
Saying messed up, biased things about race, gender, disability, nationality, sexuality, or religion
Talking about the case with one side while the other side isn’t there
Judging a case that would affect the judge personally
Here are some things that aren’t ethical problems for judges:
Worse these dishonorable, lying, immoral criminals in suits go on to become the worst Judges who now have impunity.
Just google bad judges or search our website for names like Socrates Peter Manoukian
They’re never held accountable and when totally exposed and caught they’re allowed to retire with full benefits but many go on abusing in the private sectors
like the famous “Family Business criminal Aviva K Bobb
Justice is just another word to get you to go along with the propaganda that America is about equality, justice, rights and freedom. The fact is we’re all slaves to a corrupt system run by the rich and dishonest. Our legal system is a gang run by the Legal Bar where judges are given impunity and power to rule the masses. Police lives are put above the public in reward for being the muscle and protectors of the corrupt. Law is written to protect the dishonorable and criminal with money. America is no different than centuries ago when the dishonest ran things. Life was not worth anything and like Jeffrey Epstein who was quickly and mysteriously removed to avoid exposing even bigger criminals who often hide behind false images of being protectors or good. The biggest business in America is killing and by that I mean war, Trillions of tax payer dollars are given to the elite to build weapons of mass destruction. It’s all sold to the public behind false images of fake words. Justice, Equality, freedom and rights. Just try using them and you’ll find out they’re all lies. I found out how really corrupt our system is when I did the right thing to try and inform a probate court that a false petition based on perjury was used to hide embezzlement and elder abuse. Instead of stopping or investigating the real violators the courts protected them and rewarded them. SEE MY STORY
Hundreds of News stories and investigation and nothing changes
Immunity is abused far too often, what it really means is “Some people are above the law”. It’s been proven time and time again that Police, Judges, Lawyers and Government are above the law and no one can be above the law, no one.
On the morning of Nov. 23, 2004, Malaika Brooks was driving her 11-year-old son to school when Seattle police pulled her over for speeding. When the officers gave her a ticket and asked her to sign it, Brooks refused, believing that she had been wrongly pulled over and thinking, mistakenly, that her signature would be an admission of guilt. The officers threatened to throw her in jail, and when Brooks still declined to sign, a sergeant ordered her arrest.
To push Brooks to step out of her car, one of the officers pulled out a Taser and asked her if she knew what it was. She didn’t, but told the officer she was seven months pregnant. The officers chatted in front of her, casually discussing which part of her body they would tase: “Well, don’t do it in her stomach,” one of them said, “do it in her thigh.” The officers twisted Brooks’s arm behind her back and tased her three separate times—first on her thigh, then in the arm, and then in the neck—before dragging her into the street, laying her face down, and cuffing her.
Brooks sued the officers to hold them accountable for their conduct. Six federal judges agreed that the officers’ use of severe force absent any threat to their safety violated the U.S. Constitution. But those same judges dismissed her case, relying on a legal doctrine called “qualified immunity.”
That doctrine has become one of the chief ways in which law enforcement avoids accountability for misconduct and, as Brooks’s case demonstrates, even proven constitutional violations. Ordinary people—whether they’re doctors, lawyers, or construction workers—are expected to follow the law. If they violate someone else’s legal rights, they can be sued and required to pay for the injuries they’ve caused.
Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are held to a much lower standard. They can be held accountable only insofar as they violate rights that are “clearly established” in light of existing case law. This standard shields law enforcement, in particular, from innumerable constitutional violations each year. In the Supreme Court’s own words, it protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” It is under this rule that officers can, without worry, drag a nonthreatening, seven months pregnant woman into the street and tase her three times for refusing to sign a piece of paper.
Qualified immunity permits law enforcement and other government officials to violate peoples’ constitutional rights with virtual impunity. Today, we hear about police shooting after police shooting where officers are rarely if ever held accountable by the criminal legal system, either because prosecutors decline to charge, because grand juries decline to indict, or because juries decline to convict.
Qualified immunity takes away the other avenue that victims of police violence should have available to hold police accountable. But while stories like Brooks’s—abuses of authority that go completely unremedied—occur every day in our legal system, there is a coalition building against qualified immunity, and there is reason to be optimistic that things will change.
The creation of qualified immunity
In the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act), Congress gave Americans the right to sue public officials who violate their legal rights. In Section 1983 of the U.S. Code (the modern analogue of the 1871 Civil Rights Act), Congress said that if a public official violates your rights—whether via police brutality, an illegal search, or an unlawful arrest—you can file a lawsuit to hold that public official financially accountable for his conduct. The language Congress used was unequivocal: “Every” state official who causes a “deprivation of any rights” guaranteed by the Constitution and laws “shall be liable to the party injured.”
Initially, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the straightforward application of this law. In the case Monroe v. Pape, for instance, a Black family, the Monroes, sued Chicago police officers who, in the early morning, broke into their home without a warrant, rounded them up, made them stand naked in the living room, and ransacked every room, emptying drawers and ripping mattress covers. The officers then arrested James Monroe, the father, and detained and interrogated him for hours. In an opinion written by Justice William Douglas, the Supreme Court recognized that the Civil Rights Act allowed the Monroes to sue the officers for violating their constitutional rights. The very purpose of the Civil Rights Act, the Court explained, was “to give a remedy to parties deprived of constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities by an official’s abuse of his position.”
Over recent years, however, the Supreme Court has largely gutted this promise. It has done this by creating out of whole cloth the legal defense of qualified immunity, and then vastly expanding it.
The Supreme Court invented qualified immunity in 1967, describing it as a modest exception for public officials who had acted in “good faith” and believed that their conduct was authorized by law. Fifteen years later, in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Court drastically expanded the defense. The protection afforded to public officials would no longer turn on whether the official acted in “good faith.” Instead, even officials who violate peoples’ rights maliciously will be immune unless the victim can show that his or her right was “clearly established.” Since the Harlow decision, the Court has made it exceedingly difficult for victims to satisfy this standard. To show that the law is “clearly established,” the Court has said, a victim must point to a previously decided case that involves the same “specific context” and “particular conduct.” Unless the victim can point to a judicial decision that happened to involve the same context and conduct, the officer will be shielded from liability.
The Supreme Court has recognized one exception to this rule, in Hope v. Pelzer. There, corrections officers disciplined a prisoner by handcuffing him to a hitching post for seven hours, with his hands above his shoulders, shirtless in the summer sun. At one point a guard taunted the prisoner by giving water to a guard dog in plain sight. Faced with these circumstances, and no prior case that had confronted similar facts, the Supreme Court ruled that the officers’ cruelty was “so obvious” that they should have had “fair warning” that their conduct violated the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment. Far from creating a meaningful exception, however, courts frequently consider the circumstances in Hope to set the threshold for how egregious an officer’s behavior must be before he is considered to have “fair warning.”
And that is the law today: An officer who knowingly violates someone’s constitutional rights will generally be protected from suit unless the victim can identify previous judicial opinions that addressed the specific context and conduct. This is very far afield from what Congress sought to achieve in the Civil Rights Act. Instead of considering whether a person’s civil rights have been violated and, if so, providing that victim with a remedy, courts shut their doors to victims simply because no prior judicial opinion happened to involve the same facts.
Consider this example of how effortlessly courts use qualified immunity to sweep away serious constitutional violations: In April 2013, police officers in Texas responded to a dispatch describing a Black man in a brown shirt, who was firing his gun at mailboxes in a residential neighborhood. When the officers arrived, the man fired his gun in their direction and then hid himself from view. The officers set up a defensive position behind three vehicles and began ordering the man to put his gun down. A few minutes later, the officers saw Gabriel Winzer, a mentally impaired 25-year-old riding a bicycle, wearing a blue shirt, and carrying a toy gun in his belt. Within six seconds of spotting him, the officers shot at Winzer 17 times, chased him down and tased him. He died at the scene. The officers later claimed that they shot Winzer because they feared for their lives.
As in Brooks’s case, a federal appeals court concluded that the officers violated Winzer’s constitutional rights by using deadly force against him when he posed no threat to anyone. But nonetheless, according to the court, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. To support that conclusion, the court offered one meager sentence of analysis: “We cannot conclude that Gabriel’s right to be free from excessive force was clearly established here.”
Why qualified immunity is a problem
Qualified immunity hinders the protection of civil rights in a number of ways:
1. First and foremost, qualified immunity means that victims of brutality or harassment by law enforcement generally get no relief in court and have no ability to hold offending officers accountable for their actions. That means the officers who commit the brutality and harassment—and the governments that employ them—have little incentive to improve their practices and follow the law. This undermines safety and justice for everyone, and particularly for people of color or vulnerable people who are most likely to be the target of police misconduct.
2. Qualified immunity doesn’t just reduce a person’s chance for victory in a civil rights lawsuit; it means many claims will never be brought to court in the first place. As part of a civil rights law passed in 1976, Congress tried to create an incentive for lawyers to represent victims in civil rights actions and ensure that constitutional rights are safeguarded. To do so, Congress guaranteed that lawyers who represent victims in successful civil rights actions would be able to recover the cost of their time. A huge number of lawyers who bring civil rights actions rely on this law or on the possibility of contingency fees in the event they succeed.
But when a case is dismissed based on qualified immunity, the victim loses and attorneys are not able to recover the fees for their work. Thus, as a result of the Supreme Court’s aggressive defense of qualified immunity, victims of civil rights violations may be less likely to find a lawyer who is willing to represent them and suits will not be brought in the first place.
3. Qualified immunity freezes constitutional law. As mentioned previously, in order to overcome the defense of qualified immunity, a victim must show that law enforcement violated “clearly established” law by pointing to a case arising in the same context and involving the same conduct. This has given courts a shortcut to resolving cases: Instead of reviewing, analyzing, and applying constitutional doctrine to determine whether a person’s rights were violated, a court can instead simply say that there has been no sufficiently similar case in the past. The result is that fewer courts ever resolve constitutional issues, and constitutional rights are hardly ever “clearly established.”
This shortcut has led to some outrageous results. In an opinion filed in March 2019, for instance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that officers were immune from liability for the deliberate stealing of property simply because there was no “clearly established” case law governing the circumstances. In that case, police officers who had executed a search warrant seized about $275,000 in property: approximately $150,000 in cash, and another $125,000 in rare coins, but stated that they had seized only $50,000. In other words, the officers attempted to steal $225,000 while on the job.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed the lawsuit against the officers, granting qualified immunity because it had “never before addressed” whether officers executing a warrant could steal property. And, according to the court, it was not sufficiently “obvious” to police officers that stealing property under the guise of executing a search warrant violated an individual’s constitutional rights. As a result, the Ninth Circuit said that it “need not” even address whether the officers’ stealing was illegal.
This example should show the degree to which qualified immunity opens the door for wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement. No reasonable officer needs a case to tell them that stealing property is wrong. But it’s worse than that. Because the court did not say that the conduct was illegal, the law is still not clearly established that officers may not deliberately steal property when exercising a search. So an officer could, again, claim immunity for the same behavior.
As Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett described this phenomenon: Victims of abuse “must produce precedent even as fewer courts are producing precedent. Important constitutional questions go unanswered precisely because those questions are yet unanswered. Courts then rely on that judicial silence to conclude there’s no equivalent case on the books. No precedent = no clearly established law = no liability.”
In other words, Judge Willett said, “Heads defendants win, tails plaintiffs lose.”
Jeffrey Epstein’s indictment on pedophilia charges casts a net into politically powerful waters. The turbulence created by his arrest is apparent, as pundits wonder if former or current Presidents are implicated in his crimes.
At the same time, without any fanfare or announcement, another investigation into a different class of predator may have been quietly shelved.
Like Jeffrey Epstein, Melodie Scott preyed on the vulnerable and unprotected. Like Jeffrey Epstein, Melodie Scott’s political connections seemed to ensure her invulnerability to legal repercussions.
Crimes Protected by the Powerful
Unlike Epstein, most of Scott’s victims ended up dead. At one point in time, Melodie Scott was described as “the richest and most powerful conservator in California.” She controlled the lives of hundreds of elderly and disabled—”files” she called them—whose assets and whose life decisions she managed. Scott decided if an elderly man got to see his kids, if he was allowed to marry or to vote and where he would live. The stroke of a gavel gave her power over these people, their money and their medical care.
When Melodie Scott ordered an unnecessary tracheotomy for Stevie Price, it turned into his death sentence. Stevie, a youngster who was the recipient of a $5 million dollar award following a “hospital error,” died soon after the surgery. At that point, his award, which had been put into a trust which Scott controlled, was found to be depleted due to her expenses.
Lawrence Yetzer, who went into the hospital with a respiratory issue, was put on drugs which paralyzed his breathing, including Versed, Morphine, Phenobarbitol and Atracrium. He was then pulled off the ventilator and, of course, died. Questions remain unanswered about what happened to large sums of money from his trust, which Melodie Scott controlled.
Melodie Scott does not work alone. She is represented by attorneys, usually J. David Horspool or Bryan Hartnell. Her actions as a conservator must be approved by a judge. Following a number of articles in the San Bernardino County Sentinel about Judge Michael Welch and his seeming knee-jerk approval of whatever Scott presented to him, Welch suddenly resigned from the bench. Questions concerning his loan history were also published in the Sentinel.
Welch went on to serve as a “private judge.”
He was replaced by Judge Kyle Brodie, who also has a fascinating loan history. Scott’s cases have also been heard by Judge James Cox, Commissioner Michael McCoy, Judge Thomas Cahraman, Judge Rex Luther and others.
Is the Secret Service Investigation Shelved?
I was contacted in January of 2017 by a Special Agent from the Riverside Secret Service office. He told me that his agency was investigating alleged financial crimes by Melodie Scott. The Secret Service indeed has the mandate to investigate certain financial crimes.
After a lengthy conversation with him, I turned over a number of files to him. I also gave him the names of others to contact about her. Strangely, most of them have not been contacted.
Scott’s license to practice as a professional fiduciary was pulled in 2015, in the wake of numerous reports about her to the police, the FBI and to at least five country District Attorneys. The DOJ prosecutors ignored these reports, many of which claimed that Scott had murdered and robbed loved ones, and found her guilty of failing to read a trust which she had been assigned to manage.
Jonathan Cooper and Rita Lane of the California DOJ represented the state in its case against Scott. Another California Deputy Attorney General, Mark Geiger, attempted to hide a separate complaint made against Scott, stating he lacked the “criminal expertise” to process the complaint. However, through his failure to assign a complaint number, Geiger effectively and rather deftly removed the complaint from the DOJ records.
Melodie Scott’s powerful friends—judges, prosecutors and more—have protected her for decades. Through her unseemly collaboration with federal agent Jack Smith she is also known to have allies in the intelligence community. So when the head of the Riverside Secret Service office, Hank Price, was contacted by me over a year after the Secret Service first reached out to me, I was not terribly surprised at his verbal tongue-lashing. Price accused me of unethical practices because I had not informed him I was press in the first couple of minutes of our conversation (In fact, I was initially contacted by his office because of articles I had written on Scott). Disturbingly, Agent Price was unable to answer my primary question: “With Scott knocked out of working due to the 2015 revocation of her license, was not the statute of limitations soon to expire?” And when I mentioned to Price that there were also concerns that she had killed off a number of her clients, he barked at me “Okay, we’ll investigate that too!”
In fact, the Secret Service does not investigate murders. That would be the bailiwick of the local authorities or the FBI. Both have been repeatedly contacted for over a decade by multiple Melodie Scott victims, without a whiff of interest.
The media representative for the Secret Service and the spokesperson for the US Attorney’s office have declined to comment on the status of the investigation.
What do Epstein and Scott have in common?
Jeffrey Epstein has a sexy story: A fabulously wealthy, good looking guy, allegedly taking advantage of underage girls with a bevy of important people hovering nearby, potentially implicated. Melodie Scott’s story simply lacks the sex appeal. Old people are generally undervalued in American society and if a seventy-five year old goes to her death a bit prematurely, does anyone other than family really care?
Both Epstein’s and Scott’s stories illuminate that the commodification of life in the US is in full swing, impacting both the very young and the very old. The deeper issue would be why so many people in positions of power have failed to address these decades-long sprees. Melodie Scott has cut a wide swath through Southern California, leaving behind her an unmistakable trail of blood soaked money.
The underside of “elder cleansing” is eugenics, where those no longer of use to society are discreetly and tidily removed. If this indeed turns out to be the dominant motive for the army of involved police officers, judges, prosecutors and intelligence agencies which have protected Scott through the years, then isn’t it time we woke up to this?
Back in 2005, the Los Angeles Time ran a much touted series on conservatorship, entitled “Guardians for Profit.” Once again, Melodie Scott was in the spotlight. The kick-off story to the four part series focused on the plight of Helen Jones, under conservatorship with Melodie Scott. While the Times claimed that they “examined the work of California’s professional conservators, reviewing more than 2400 cases, including every one they handled in Southern California between 1997 and 2003, the Times reporters failed to report on the repeated complaint of the family members — that their beloved parents were dying prematurely due to the actions of the professional conservators.
It didn’t take much time or effort to figure that out. A few visits to the basement of Riverside Probate Court produced names of family members of conservatees of Melodie Scott. A review of local phone books provided numbers.
The stories were notable in their similarity. Dora Baker’s catheter was ordered removed against Doctor’s orders, but on order of Melodie Scott, who had obtained Power of Health Care over the elderly woman. As a result, according to Baker’s daughter-in-law, Johanna , Dora died an excruciating and premature death. According to Judy Lampuu, her aunt, Ann Cole, wasn’t even unhealthy when Melodie Scott obtained conservatorship over her. As the family was kept away from Ann, Judy states she has some concerns as to how she died, so quickly, under the care of the woman whose nickname is “the Black Widow.”
The continued cover-up in the mainstream media of “the Probate Murders” provides insight into the political nature of these crimes.
Melodie Scott is a typical Psychopath monster that finds a position behind a false image only to abuse, commit crime, rob and murder innocent people.
More info about this Destructive monster that works with other dishonest lawyers and dishonorable judges.