Shelton, WA (11-3-18) — Terri Drexlar, FKA Terri Jeffrey, will soon be looking in instead of out as she leaves her post as Mason County Commissioner due to her recent marriage to a local area real estate tycoon.  “I never expected to fall in love,” she explained as to why she chose not to run for office again.

Her passing from the public political arena is notable for the following reasons:  Her brittle vanity, ignorance, and capacity to hold a grudge.  When questioned years ago about her candidacy for one of the highest paying jobs ($75,000 + per diem benefits back then) her answers and subsequent style proved the merit of this characterization.

When asked if she was a protege’ (if not prodigy) of the 35th District State Senator Tim Sheldon, given her having interned for him in Olympia, she acerbically defended her independence.  Plumbing her depths qualifying her for such an important position entailing protecting the health and welfare of County residents and their children.  In retrospect, this is all the more ironic given the U.S. Supreme Court recent ruling giving children the right to sue the government for destroying their health and future through policies doing little or even exacerbating climate change and global warming. When asked what she knew about the dioxin contamination in Oakland bay and Shelton harbor (the highest in the Salish sea, 903 ppt in the harbor’s sediments) Ms. Jeffry claimed, “Oh. that’s all been cleaned up and taken care of.”  She dusted off her credential of having worked in the local shellfish industry as a basis for her grossly inaccurate opinion. When this reporter attempted to enlighten her, she grew testy.

Ms. Jeffrey appeared equally ignorant of the fact Mason County is the cancer capital of  Washington Sate.

Terri’s disposition didn’t improve after she succeeded in her her race for the office.  She ran as a political conservative, but to her credit, reached out to local Democratic activists such as Ms. Staley and Katherine Price, et ux, inviting them to a sit-down at a downtown Shelton restaurant to discus the politics and expectations of local residents..  As a result of this reporter’s independence covering local news in ways (e.g. Fiber-One news radio, the Journal, etc.) will not, he was asked to leave.  Ms. Jeffry did nothing to intervene in this effort to blind one of the public’s eyes and ears…so much for transparency in government.

Some years later, behind closed doors, she rejected yours truly’s offer to volunteer to serve on the County’s Board of Equalization.  It was revealed Ms. Drexler had a large capacity for holding a grudge since her failings had been reported in this publication previously.  “Words have consequences,” I was told.  “Some things are worth fighting for,” I replied.

This will be Mrs. Drexler’s legacy and I owe her a debt of gratitude for giving me the unintended opportunity to demonstrate opposition to it.  Still, hopefully her replacement will be more informed…and more competent.

Mason County is a “Shellfish Mecca”?!

Notice how the ‘D’ word isn’t mentioned once in this interview…a word the local mainstream media is loathe to report.  Dioxin is bio-accumulative (for all you shellfish gourmands), mutagenic, carcinogenic, immune suppressive, and cognition impairing–the most deadly chemical known to man dangerous in parts per quadrillion…so dangerous that if it can be measured, it’s a huge problem, causing worse birth defects in second generation children than in the first.  Yet our local contamination levels are tens of thousands of times (903 ppt) that!

Terri Drexler did absolutely nothin during, or before, her years in office to help remedy or mitigate, or even acknowledge the contamination–or hold those accountable who created it. e.g. Simpson accountable.  She remained a shill for the industry throughout her career, both while in politics and out…bought and paid for.

Bon Apetit!

WOMEN’S LIVES MATTER!

---

(Except in Mason County)

---

---

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Shelton, WA (10-27-18) –Watching the interview with chief criminal deputy Ryan Spurling whitewashing the sheriff’s office and none of the mainstream media exposing the hard uncomfortable details of the case against deputy Dracobly left little choice but to publish all of the court documents including/especially deputy Dracobly’s journal diary–the most powerful indictment against the deputy in his own words and what most influenced commissioner Jonathan Lack in his rulings against Mr. Dracobly.

---

The 4th estate and the Sheriff’s office are being disingenuous. Taking the time to read the entire court record involving Dracobly v. Dracobly…many hours, around a thousand pages of evidence, affidavits, briefs, motions, memos. and restraining orders INCLUDING Detective Sgt. (now chief deputy) Dracobly’s very long (over 300 pages) very detailed, very personal embarrassingly intimate journal diary, corroborates virtually all of Ms. Dracobly’s allegations. Jonathan Lack, the court commissioner presiding over the case found Lisa quite credible (as should anyone after reading the entire record). 

---

Commissioner Lack found deputy Dracobly in contempt for openly defying the court’s orders, and ordered Mr. Dracobly to undergo 52 WEEKS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE THERAPY and anger management classes which Mr. Dracobly NEVER COMPLIED WITH.

---

Officer Dracobly’s guns were ordered confiscated, which the Sheriff’s office did, then arranged to store them in their locker until the DV protection order expired at no expense to deputy Dracobly (double standard?)…something no civilian would have been afforded. No mention from the 4th estate (mainstream press) that during his court appearances, Deputy Dracobly couldn’t contain his impulses even in open court (something the court records don’t document) slamming the door entering/leaving the courtroom and rushing Lisa in the courtroom in such a threatening manner, the bailiffs had to intervene.

---

Accordingly, (as a member of the 5th estate) this publication has reported ALL of the court records, including the shocking admissions of an emotionally unstable violently obsessed deputy sheriff who continued to have access to and carry firearms after being ordered to surrender them. Deputy Dracobly was under a doctor’s care (the details in court and diagnosis were sealed) while being prescribed and taking psychotropic drugs WHILE ARMED & ON DUTY, exhibiting extreme narcissism and obsessive behavior focused on Lisa, as well as extreme violent controlling behavior–ALL by deputy Dracobly’s own admission.

---

And yes, the Mason County sheriff’s office DID know about it whether they received a formal complaint or not!

---

Lisa, with good cause, remains terrified of this unstable loose cannon, is in the midst of therapy to overcome her PTSD and was subjected to marital rape. You will be able to read about it in deputy Dracobly’s revealing journal which he vigorously fought to suppress, but ultimately failed to accomplish because he misrepresented its nature (at least in the court’s mind).

---

Initially, the court temporally sealed that journal, but ultimately unsealed it when Mr. Dracobly was unable to corroborate his claims about its nature or produce a letter from his therapist backing up his misrepresentations concerning it. All the documents and more detailed analysis than is shown here will be found here on amicuscuria.com/wordpress as this article is updated.

---

Mason Co. Candidates Strut their stuff, ignore bad cops & Domestic Violence:

---

---

Mason Docket:

---

DracoblyDVrptsumThur14-2-00621-1opt

DracoblyDVrptsumThur14-2-00621-1opt1

DracoblyDVrptsumThur14-2-00621-1opt2
(Chief Criminal Deputy Dracobly’s unsealed diary-journal)

DracoblyDVrptsumThur14-2-00621-1opt3

DracoblyDVrptsumThur14-2-00621-1opt4

DracoblyDVaffDHaller14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVaffJRhoades14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVaffLisaRply14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVmemspprtpet14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVMot2Hrng14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVmothrg14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVMotHrng14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVordnypet14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVpetord14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVrspaff14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVrspmem14-2-00621-1 DracoblyDVsealdmed14-2-00621-1

---

Thurston Docket:

---

DracoblyDV14-2-30825-3

---

JasonLisa13-3-00742-9

Court records show history of domestic violence before murder-suicide in Lacey Friday

Is Thurston County’s system working for domestic violence victims?  Is Mason County’s?

---

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

---

Olympia, WA (10-16-18)  — The city teems with homeless encampments like never before, the desolation and despair palpable even at noon in broad daylight.  Former Olympia Mayor Buxbaum gloated while shepherding the city’s ordinance criminalizing the homeless for being poor and destitute with nowhere else to go.  Buxbaum argued he wanted to create a crisis to force surrounding jurisdictions to the table and help alleviate what he saw as Olympia’s disproportionate financial burden.

All seemed according to plan initially…until the ranks of the homeless kept growing…and growing…and growing…  Then a month or so ago, the 9th Circuit ruled, in a case originating in Idaho, it was unconstitutional to cite/arrest the homeless for sleeping on public property when they had no meaningful alternative.  Being poor is about lack of choices as much as lack of money.  Panic gripped city officials.  “Intolerable!” cried city manager Steve Hall.  Mayor Buxbaum’s chickens had come home to roost…with interest!

A cursory walk near the Billy Frank jr. building and the Thurston county food bank revealed a powder keg of squalor, filth, and criminal abandonment of any effort toward public hygiene/sanitation.  Public bathrooms remain on lockdown during all the wrong hours, the downtown artesian park has been walled off, and the mentally ill shout threats at passing journalists with cameras,  The undertone of potential violence is scarcely veiled…the calm in the eye of the gathering storm perniciously deceptive.  Downtown Olympia has become a place where only fools or the desperate tarry after dark.

 

Shelton, WA. (10-4-18) — This is Darin Holland’s response (very poor acoustics) to a question regarding his candidacy for Mason Sheriff, running against incumbent Casey Salisbury for the position. This was recorded Thursday evening at PUD3’s auditorium.

NOTE Darin envisions a larger county jail, at least in part because he believes it would produce additional income for Mason County. Salisbury also wants more jail space, though for different reasons.

Shelton, WA. (10-4-18) — This is incumbent Casey Salisbury’s response (very poor acoustics) to a question regarding his candidacy for Mason Sheriff, running against Darin Holland for the position. This was recorded Thursday evening at PUD3’s auditorium.

NOTE  Darin envisions a larger county jail, at least in part because he believes it would produce additional income for Mason County. Salisbury also wants more jail space, though for different reasons.

Shelton, WA (10-16-18) — A number of silver haired ladies showed up at Shelton’s Olympic College campus for the League of Women Voters meeting–a nominally nonpartisan nonprofit organization concealing the nature of its politically ferocious, when motivated,  grandmothers.  The politics and demographics of Mason county are conservative and independent by nature.  Not so its chapter of the League of Women voters, a far more hierarchal national organization than might be suspected.  A membership is $60/yr.  Of that, the State and National wings take all but $9.  And weak excuses for considering topical presentations using vetting by the hierarchy were offered.

Much of the meeting was consumed with organizational minutiae. A single white guest male sat at the table flanked by a room full of venerable white grandmothers to be reckoned with and 2 local journalists: Gordon Weeks (for the Journal) and Dedrick Allen (for the Mason Web TV).  The meat and potatoes was a 20 minute Powerpoint  presentation by Amy Davis of the League’s current darling political sop:  Abolishing the Constitutionally mandated electoral college system for U.S. Presidential elections…a controversial position indeed for an organization thought of as apolitical.  As the meeting wore on, it felt more like an extension of the Democratic party headquarters.

Amy’s presentation was followed by a more demure (and possibly more important) demonstration of how to access Washington State’s Public Disclosure Commission database listing campaign contributions, contributors, and expenditures,

Amy began with a brief, sometimes tortured, account of the electoral college’s history and purpose. She accurately acknowledged it was a compromise without which the Constitution would never have been ratified by the delegates from the erstwhile colonies, now sovereign countries. She characterized it as a nod to the slave holding states, glossing over the well known fact Washington and Jefferson themselves were slave holders…or that this issue was eliminated at Appomattox.  The electoral college survived the Civil War and remains a mandate today.

Amy went on to argue the electoral college was conceived to compensate for the vast distances, inadequate transportation infrastructure, and glacially slow communications at the time rathe than an effort to preserve stability for a new nation conceived in a bid for liberty and inalienable rights.  The framers were well educated erudite men painfully aware of the history of governments and the wars triggered by internal struggles for power dating back to the dawn of civilization.

Hence, Franklin responded to a woman demanding to know what form of government the delegates had settled on for our new nation,  “Mr. Franklin, what have you brought us?” she asked.

“A republic. madam,” he said, “if you can keep it.”

Mr. Franklin and this quote often remains poorly understood today. He wasn’t fretting so much about whether the new government could remain uncorrupted within the context of the new Constitution, but whether it could survive the corruption of its own people.  That concern, as we can divine from the thinly veiled partisanship of the League of Women Voters, remains valid and with us today.  The framers conceived of a strategy embodied within the 4 corners of the Constitution intended to attenuate said corruption.

“There’s lies, damn lies, and…statistics!”  Amy proceeded to analyze supposed disparities in the electoral college system as ‘undemocratic’. She used charts, graphs and circular reasoning to persuade.  She deprecated the notion the framers intended to require the President receive broad support from across the new nation, including its heartland, not just primarily the metropolitan population centers.  Then she argued that such concerns were obsolete in today’s America.

Recognizing the unlikelihood 3/4ths of the  states (plus 2/3rds of each house od Congress) would ever support eliminating the electoral college Constitutional mandate, Amy next promoted the League’s proposal to do an end run around the constitution:  An interstate compact between signatories agreeing to pledge all their designated electoral college delegates en masse to the winner of the popular (across the nation/50 states) vote, reasoning that if those signatories controlled a total of 270 (or more) electoral college votes, it would moot or emasculate the existing Constitutional mandate for the President to be elected in the currently prescribed manner.

All this lawyerly sophistry gives scant recognition to the spirit and intent of the framers for the good of the nation.  “It all depends on what the meaning of is is.”  -B. Clinton-

Neither does in make any attempt to interpret the Constitution as a harmonious whole.  Rather, it attempts to find loopholes…end runs around the meaning and intent of the Constitution–again, all in the name of ‘democracy’.

At the close of Amy’s presentation, the chairwoman asked those present if any didn’t agree the electoral college system should be abolished. One lone white male patriarchal hand shot in the air.

“So you weren’t convinced?” Amy asked.

“Nope.”

I wondered what a show of hands would have revealed if the question “Are there any Republicans present?” had been asked.

The false premise of those arguing for abolishing the electoral college system for the U.S. presidency is that the founders gave us a ‘democracy’. Not so. “A republic, madam….if you can keep it,” Franklin said. There was suspicion as to the ability of the illiterate great unwashed to govern themselves (“Why would I want to trade 1 tyrant 3,000 miles way for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away?” said one Virginia delegate.) that remains a valid point of debate and continues to this day. Case in point.

Nevertheless, the framers wanted to create a STABLE government/union of the states, each of which was its own sovereign at the time and remain so in many respects to this day. While egregious errors (women’s vote, slavery) were made, election of the President by the states as apportioned in the terms of the Constitution wasn’t one of them…and the tired invocation of its insertion as a nod to slave holding states is a red herring. That point was settled at Appomattox.

The insistent call to ‘democracy’ misses the real point entirely. Some decisions are too important to be determined by a simple flip of the coin sentiment du jour. e.g. 12 jurors most convict a criminal defendant, not 11 for punishment to ensue and liberty extinguished. 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4ths of the states must ratify a Constitutional amendment. It requires 60 (once 66) for a cloture vote in the U.S. senate. It requires a super majority vote to impose new/increased taxes in many statehouses.

As to 1 man: one vote? Hah! Being a U.S. citizen is insufficient to vote for/against a U.S. President candidate. One must be domiciled in a state, not a U.S. territory. It is the states (through the electoral college system as prescribed by the Constitution) that selects the U.S. President after the state ballots are counted…NOT the ‘federal’ ballots, but the STATE ballots. Each state counts its own ballots and has its own procedure for doing so. Each state has its own laws and rules for what candidate’s name can even appear on the ballot. Some candidates for President fail to get their names on the ballots of all 50 states. Others aren’t awarded any claim to an electoral college delegate unless they exceed a given threshold of the vote and are denied a place on the final ballot unless they exceed a given threshold in the primary. i.e. There is a plethora of voters whose ballots (if they even get one) are effectively ignored in elections for the President.

Were the current electoral college system abolished, it would exacerbate the polarization and alienation of Americans awash in the strains of identity politics. The stability of the nation, which the framers envisioned and over which Lincoln fretted in his Gettysburg Address, would suffer. Moreover, it’s not going to happen because 3/4ths of the states do not perceive such a change to be in their interest. Had they, the Constitution would have been amended to abolish the electoral college long ago. Nor is the end run around the Constitution via interstate compacts going to succeed. If it ever became a threat to the prescribed electoral college, the Supreme Court would strike it down–which, interestingly is another example in our system of government of an ‘undemocratic’ formula. We don’t get to vote for our Supreme Court justices either! They’re nominated (by the President) and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, just as the Constitution prescribes.

So long as the United States remains one nation (a federation of sovereign states) and the Constitution does not become a dead letter, the electoral college will remain. Interstate compacts will not be allowed to emasculate it or to force the ballot to become a federal exercise in all but name only. In America, we have NO federal ballots. We have elected federal positions as determined by the states! May it ever be so.

Each state gets two U.S. senators (a very powerful position) regardless of their population. The whiners challenging the wisdom of the founders might well argue this provides too much influence in the confirmation process of Supreme Court nominees by the least populous states…not to mention the complete lack of influence from U.S. territories that are not states. Undemocratic? Yes. Constitutionally mandated? Absolutely. Lifetime appointments? That was to insure the independence of the federal judiciary from the politics of the day.

The framers were educated erudite men well versed in the history of governments and ensuing wars over power. They knew what they were doing when they prescribed 2 years for a House term, but 6 for the Senate. They chose many buffers to insulate the fate of the nation from the hot passions of popular contemporary vicissitudes. Anyone recall Saddam’s mass weapons of destruction he supposedly possessed? How about ‘Remember the Maine’? Sacco & Vanzetti?

JFK fell short of Nixon’s Ballot count. The pendulum swings with every election cycle along with whose electoral college ox gets gored–one more reason why it isn’t going away. The electoral college is here to stay.

Deputy Prosecutor Dan Crawford’s Past Comes Calling

Shelton, WA (10-15-18) — Daniel Crawford served his country as a Marine. He later went to law school, passed the bar, and was admitted to practice law in Washington State 7 years ago.  Then he hired on as a deputy prosecutor under Mike Dorcy.  Despite Crawford’s handling of the prosecution of the  most serious crimes in Mason County Superior Court, any background check was cursory at best.

Dan Crawford has been zealous in his passion for justice and punishment under the law, perhaps especially in Domestic Violence cases.  Dan is, naturally, a law enforcement agent as well as an officer of the court in his current capacity.  Prosecutors are expected to carry, if for no other reason, then for their own protection–something a Marine would easily understand.  But a Domestic Violence conviction/finding bars possession/control of a firearm.  Dan claims he wasn’t aware he was barred (contrary to his own sworn declaration in 1998!) and hastened to remedy his handicap earlier this year when, once Dorcy was informed of the problem, he was told he’d best take care of it.

Acting on Dorcy’s advice, Crawford filed a petition to have the lifetime restraining order imposed against him by a Pierce Co. Superior Court for DV lifted earlier this year.  He succeeded.  Still, are the optics all wrong, is the appearance of fairness principle violated by a reformed alcoholic or abuser persecuting defendants for the same offense?  Moreover, does this conundrum reflect on elected prosecutor Dorcy’s judgment in who he hires/retains for such prosecutions?  DV is, after all, a serious offense spanning every income bracket, ethnic profile, and demographic.  It is endemic.

Yet, perhaps of necessity, when Dan argues a DV case before a jury, he infers that he and the jury are sufficiently virtuous to cast the first stone…regardless of how fragile the glass houses in which they reside(d).

How fragile is Dan’s glass house? Read the following declarations from a 1998 DV dispute and draw your own conclusions:

Crawford v. Crawford, PCSC No. 98-2-02332-1 (DV)

DanCrawford98-2-02332-1

Crawford v. Crawford slams Persecutor’s character

DanCrawford_v_Crawford98-3-03057-6

UPDATE:

“My office got a call yesterday from an inmate at the jail.  He said that the rumor in the jail is that 3 or 4 deputy prosecutors are quitting because [REDACTED] is putting too much pressure on them.  Don’t know if that’s true, but 3 have said they are quitting, including the very aggressive and unreasonable Daniel Crawford.  Crawford takes the position that if the guy won’t plead guilty as charged, he is evading responsibility and so Crawford will add as many additional charges as possible, even if it means the defendant will do many times more prison if convicted.  He thinks that is fair and so does Dorcy.  I think it’s immoral and have told them so.  I have two felony cases where they are so unreasonable that I applied maximum pressure, and was met with a motion to disqualify me from the case for a non-existent conflict of interest.  Which took all my time away from defending my clients.”

EARLIER:

“My office got a call from an inmate in the jail; the guy said it is going around the jail that three deputy prosecutors are quitting because [REDACTED] is putting too much pressure on them.

All I’m doing, though, is demanding that they actually follow the law.  Futile, because they don’t seem to know any law.  But I did hear that Daniel Crawford, Karin Thuma and Paul Harrison are all quitting.   [Editor’s note: Due to this article?]

Karin is the only decent person in the bunch, and she is quitting because Dorcy doesn’t let her try enough cases.  I think she’s been there longer than Crawford, but he was promoted to adult felonies over her.

I don’t blame her; it sounds sexist, but please do not use my name if you print any of this; the prosecutor’s office and sheriff’s office are trying to get rid of me.  I’ve been through that before on the [REDACTED] case and it was not fun..”

Olympia, WA (10-11-18) — Washington’s Supreme Court has irrationally abolished the State’s death penalty unanimously,  based on principle, if not logic…calling into question the justices’ competency in their current positions.  The end result may be satisfying to death penalty opponents, but the reasoning used in the decision is deeply flawed–some might argue it was even par for the course…proof neither flatulence nor incompetence is any bar to Washington’s Supreme Court.

Solace that the principle of capital punishment is more about us than these hideous undeserving convicted miscreants, that it prevailed, is hardly reassuring in the face of the irrational feckless mental acuity (or lack thereof) taken to reach it.

(Judge George Steele’s Courtroom):

Washington State’s Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is unconstitutional and converted to life in prison all pending death sentences in the State.

The court’s decision on Thursday was unanimous, with the justices determining that capital punishment is applied “in an arbitrary and racially biased manner.”

“The use of the death penalty is unequally applied — sometimes by where the crime took place, or the county of residence… or the race of the defendant,” the court said in its opinion. “The death penalty, as administered in our state, fails to serve any legitimate penological goal; thus, it violates article I, section 14 of our state constitution.”

While all that may be true, it could be said equally of all criminal convictions in our State, burdened by an adversarial system inherently inconsistent with justice for all. Should the entire adversarial court system, as we know it, be abolished?  Perhaps.

Or should we build more and bigger jails, increase surveillance and punishment, lengthen sentences, privatize the cannibalization of our children to stoke the fires of commerce and the industrial prison complex?

Beyond all that, the notion that justice can be had from an adversarial system is a superstition we can no longer abide. Many U.S. trials, devoid of factual evidence, have become little more than an exultation of denunciations…much like the old Soviet model. Rooted in the ancient trial by combat/ordeal tradition, it was thought by most that God was a Yankees fan. He would protect the innocent. God would not allow bad things to happen to good people. Job’s biblical friends believed the same, having no idea God was gambling with Job’s fate.

Women, children, the weak, the infirm, the elderly might hire a champion/gladiator if they had the right connections or could afford one. Today, we call them attorneys. The King always had an army of ‘champions’/combatants eager to serve. And, the King could not be sued for any miscarriage of justice because being God’s personal earthly representative (if the monarch did not claim to be a deity him/her self) the king, by definition, could do no wrong since, by definition, God could do no wrong. Thus the policy of sovereign immunity came about which burdens the people to this day. Judges have this kind of immunity from their incompetence/corruption.

Literal swords are not wielded in modern courtrooms, but the principle of winning at all cost remains despite the seldom realized theory that the proceedings are supposed to be a search for the truth. Judges regularly prevent juries from hearing the entire unvarnished truth. And the superstition remains that a jury/judge can distinguish between who is telling the truth in trial, and who is not. If that proposition were true, every con artist and politician (and not a few judges) would be out of business.

In such an adversarial arena (not all nations sponsor such adversarial forums), truth and justice are inherently inconsistent with the proceedings. Our prisons, and even death row, is legion with condemned citizens who are both factually and legally innocent. According to Washington’s Administrator to the Courts (which keeps such statistics) the percentage of acquittals (both by bench/jury trial) across the State for criminal cases that actually go to trial is a fraction of 1%. Moreover, inmates are denied public record requests that could help them reopen their case and reverse their conviction.

One might conclude from such statistics that either detectives and prosecutors are geniuses at ferreting out the guilty from the innocent…or that Washignton juries are too eager to believe lying cops and unscrupulous prosecutors. They agree with Ed Meese, not our founding fathers. They substitute the inapplicable preponderance of evidence standard (50%) for the required beyond reasonable doubt.

“I have seen the enemy…and it is US!” -Pogo-

Police officers who lie in their sworn written reports and testimony are not unusual. By law, they are permitted to lie to suspects (but not the inverse!) and even encouraged to do so, paving the road to Hell with their ‘good’ intentions. Most judges have never met a cop they didn’t like and will reject the notion one could be lying on the stand out of hand.

The government is permitted by law to offer bribed testimony to jurors. Defendants are not. The presumption of innocence has, in fact if not in law, become a joke in the public’s mind.

“You don’t have many criminal suspects who are innocent of a crime and suspects should not have the right to have a lawyer present when police question them.” -Ed Meese, Reagan’s AG- (Oct, 1985)
None of Mr. Meese’s attempts at scholarship achieve the eloquence of his unguarded response when an interviewer asked, Why shouldn’t people have the protections of the Miranda warnings? ”Suspects who are innocent of crime should. But the thing is, you don’t have many suspects who are innocent of crime. That’s contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”

In other words, guilty until proven guilty. (And “Catsup is a vegetable.”)

Lying Cops case

Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus

DESIDERATUM

PROLOGUE

^^^CLICK ^^^ for prior bad acts

EPILOGUE

Rana Brow my BC n <redacted@redacted.com>

To:Amicus Curia

Oct 9 at 3:09 PM

ERIC VALLEY TRASH EMAIL 5 6_22_2018
VALLEY TEXTS TO RANA CELL PHONE 6_18_2018
Facebook Posts_MESSAGES 06_01_2018
FacebookFriendsValleyContacted 05_13_2013
textsbetweenBear_Eric_DrunkenIdiot2013
05_13_2013invoice response (1)