This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Censorship of Justice

There's a common practice in State criminal trials. It's a huge perversion of justice. It isn't commonly criticized. It's one of the main reasons State prosecutors can easily convict an otherwise-innocent person. I'm surprised more people don't object.

In a criminal trial, there frequently are restrictions on what evidence the defense may introduce. There are restrictions on what arguments the defendant or his attorney may make. For example, defense attorneys are usually barred from making a "jury nullification" argument.

This contradicts two other important principles of the legal system, "You need reasonable doubt in order to convict." and "It's better to acquit a guilty person than to send an innocent person to jail." If evidence or an argument would give a juror "reasonable doubt", then it's a perversion of justice to prevent someone from making that argument.

A "medical marijuana" store is legal according to California law, but illegal according to Federal law. Any "medical marijuana" store owner is subject to arrest and prosecution for violating Federal drug laws. During the ensuing trial, the defendant is barred from mentioning "It was a medical marijuana store, legal according to California law." After the trial, some jurors say "I would have acquitted, if I knew it was a 'medical marijuana' store." Censoring the defendant allows the judge to convict an otherwise-innocent person.

During pre-trial arguments, the judge says "The defense attorney is barred from mentioning 'medical marijuana' during the trial." The defense lawyer agrees. He's a shill for the State, selling out his client. Any decent lawyer would say "Bull****! That's an obvious perversion of justice!" Suppose the defense lawyer disobeys the judge's order. Then, the judge will jail the lawyer for "contempt of court". The lawyer will lose his law license and his career. After investing $200k+ on law school plus time invested in his career, what lawyer would throw that away?

Why should the lawyer forfeit his career? He gets paid hourly. He gets paid the same whether his client is convicted or acquitted. In this manner, the State licensing cartel for lawyers enables judges to censor defense lawyers. Any lawyer who disobeys loses his law license.

The legal system is like a criminal gang protecting its turf. Even if an honest person got a law license, he'd lose it if he attempted to defend someone honestly. Most intelligent people don't even bother seeking a career in law. They intuitively sense it's a parasite-dominated career.

As another example, someone who was previously robbed is barred from mentioning that, if they're later accused of owning a gun without a permit.

If you want to present a judge-banned argument or judge-banned evidence, you have to do it sui juris. The judge might cut you off, but that would create the perception in the jury that the judge is biased against you. The judge could jail you for "contempt of court", but you're going to jail anyway if there's an unjust conviction. If the trial has already started, the judge can't bar you from attending and speaking at your own trial. If the judge declares a mistrial, then the State just wasted a lot of money.

If you're accused of a statutory non-crime, sui jusis might be the best option. I haven't tried it yet. I'm prepared, if necessary. The fact that I'd be a tough defendant, makes it less likely that State thugs will assault me.

Nelson Mandela represented himself, when he was a political prisoner. Serial killers also choose to represent themselves. They usually have a history of abuse by the State. They know their "public defender" is just a shill for the government, designed to provide the illusion of justice.

I'm surprised this point isn't mentioned more often. In a criminal trial, why should there be any restrictions on what evidence the defendant is allowed to introduce or what arguments he may make? If "reasonable doubt" and "don't convict the innocent" are important, then why should the defendant ever be barred from saying something that might persuade a juror to acquit? Unfortunately, due to the State licensing cartel for lawyers, if you want to present banned evidence or arguments, you have to do it sui juris. Even then, a biased judge may jail you for "contempt of court".


Anonymous said...

A while ago I got a threat of a civil lawsuit. Their letter was full of threats and had very little substance.

I looked up the law myself on the Internet and later verified it by looking at law textbooks.

The other side had rushed their letter or maybe they were just incompetent. They made several obvious lies.

What should have been done is that a complaint should have been made to the relevant body regulating lawyers concerning the fact they were asking for money in the same letter as containing obvious, verifiable lies.

However I got the distinct impression the lawyer I saw was trying to protect the other side.

Instead of saying "these people are lying", he said "they are trying to rewrite history".

When I called them on the fact they were making up law that doesn't exist, the lawyer were saying "oh it can be implied".

It really does look like the lawyer supposedly on my side was trying to protect the other lawyer from the bullshit letter he had produced, which was just a clumsy attempt at extortion.

Anyway the case just fizzled out and went nowhere near a court.

But I did get the impression nobody was being honest and the point was to protect the system.

There is a line. If you lie while threatening a lawsuit and asking for money, you should be prosecuted for extortion.

By simply delaying the lawyer made the matter fizzle away instead of being more aggressive and making a complaint about blatant lies.

As another matter the lawyer on the other side using a fictitious name which did not correspond to a registered company. There are rule on the use of fictitious names and I suspect the lawyer was breaking it because he knew the case was bullshit and he wanted to distance himself from it by using an alias.

Scott said...

It's a really important point that defense attorneys are shills for the states. It's especially so with public defenders. Public defenders nearly always meet with the judge and tell them their entire strategy and collude on how to take the defendant down.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at