Convicting people of crimes they are not guilty of, creates fake criminal records, fraudulent criminal records, erodes faith in Government, destroys credibility of the Courts

Author: Stanley Bolten

A society of a Judicial System (Courts) which convicts innocent people of charged crimes (accused crimes) without caring about any evidence and without caring about any facts which disproves the elements of a charged crime (criminal offense allegation) creates what is known as a fake criminal record, fraudulent criminal records. This will overtime, erode the people’s faith in a Government to tell the truth and not lie to the people. When you see people having a criminal record, you wouldn’t normally think they are not guilty, but you would think they are guilty and must have done something awful, something horrible, worthy of being punished for the charged crime, a crime somebody is accused of. What if a charged crime is later proven to be a FRAUD? What if a Court refuses to overturn a case of an innocent man convicted of a crime? What if a Court refuses to tackle the issue of fraud by a prosecutor?

However, there were founding fathers of the United States of America such as (President) Thomas Jefferson, (President) George Washington, (President) James Madison, (President) John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, (President) James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin. Even though they were not perfect and had allowed slavery for quite some period of time before the abolition of slavery (unless your punished for a crime, slavery is allowed), they still advocated for a country with Due Process of Law which is a very complex aspect of a well machined judiciary, a Court system where laws are supposed to be interpreted and laws are supposed to be enforced by prosecutors pushing punishments of people accused of committing serious and infamous crimes. Where actions and situations are interpreted by a Court in determining whether the action of an accused had broken the law or not.

Due Process of Law, does create a system to deter prosecutors and judges from establishing a Kangaroo Court, and deter a Kangaroo Court from being exercised in any matter of interpreted law. Due Process of law actually is codified in the U.S. Constitution, as well as in State Constitutions. The fourteenth amendment applies U.S. Constitutional law to the States, including due process of law.

A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides, and is typically convened ad hoc.^[2] A kangaroo court may ignore due process and come to a predetermined conclusion. The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority which intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical obligations (compare show trial).^[3] Ostensibly, the term comes from the notion of justice proceeding “by leaps”, like a kangaroo^[8] – in other words, “jumping over” (intentionally ignoring) evidence that would be in favour of the defendant. An alternative theory is that as these courts are often convened quickly to deal with an immediate issue, they are called kangaroo courts since they have “jumped up” out of nowhere, like a kangaroo. Another possibility is that the phrase could refer to the pouch of a kangaroo, meaning the court is in someone’s pocket.^[9][10][11]

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

Due process of law refers to decades and centuries of established case law examples describing what due process of law is.

• Due process of law requires that all officers of a Court including judges, clerks, licensed attorneys, and even probation officers (incl. supervisory officers and chiefs) review over all evidence submitted to them when they have any jurisdiction over them. Any and all evidence that is legally admissible as a matter of law. A judge cannot intentionally ignore evidence and must make a determination whether the evidence itself is lawful or unlawful, an attorney cannot ignore evidence. Ignoring evidence to the detriment of a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights such as the right to own property and not lose that property, be free from any imprisonment or detainment, and to not have the Government take away a person’s rights and liberties. Ignoring evidence is the dereliction of duty by a judge or any other judicial officer. It is unethical, it deprives a party (of a criminal or civil case before a judge) of due process. It deprives a party of presenting a case or defending against accusations by a presented case whether it may be valid or fraud. It is up to a judge to determine if evidence is valid, illegal, inadmissible, or fraudulent. If a judge ignores evidence by acting like it does not exist when it was filed or presented to the judge, then this opens the door to the judge operating a Kangaroo Court, and jumping over evidence and facts like a kangaroo.
• Due process of law requires that both sides of a case (meaning the parties to a case) get equal application and equal treatment under the law. The law makes no sense if it applies to only a certain class or group of people but does not apply to others. The purpose of a law is that it applies to everybody in it’s jurisdiction. If a law does not apply to everybody, then it legally creates a multi-class system which would fare no better than the conditions of Great Britain before the American revolutionary war of 1776. Where certain protected class of people (nobles, nobility, aristocrats) don’t have to obey the law that the average citizens have to obey and follow. Where the law is one sided, where the law applies to the citizen but not to those marked as special citizens who do not have to obey the law simply by being labeled a special citizen by the Government. Due process of law requires that everybody be held to the law, or nobody be held accountable to the law as the law would hold no merit. Because if a special class of people can break the law in the same society of those who have to follow the law, it creates an unfair, unbalanced, corrupt system of law and government. See Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 483 (1928)¹, ², ³, ⁴. The judge must take into consideration all admissible evidence which every side had offered to the judge. If the judge selectively ignores evidence and not even make an admissibility determination of proffered evidence, then it deprives a party of due process of law. Equal treatment meaning that all sides have a right to make argument before the judge, all sides have a right to bring up evidence and be given equal opportunity to be heard.
• Due process of law is split into two separate categories. Procedural due process and substantive due process. Procedural due process is regarding the Court’s/Tribunal’s procedures in both criminal and civil cases, usually governed by rules and by the usual behavior of officers of a court acting in a certain acceptable manner. Where a procedure must allow all parties of a case to be heard, be given an opportunity for a notice of a case and any notices involving a hearing, and be allowed to participate in hearings. Once at a hearing, the person whether a prosecutor or defendant in a case has the right to make arguments and statements before the judge. If the judge blocks a person from such right, then due process of law is violated and deprived of. The right to challenge the prosecutor or defendant. What is known as the adversarial system, where both sides have a right to challenge each other in front of a judge who is supposed to act as a mediator of both parties weighing evidence and facts, weighing arguments from both sides, the right to file evidence and submit evidence before a judge. If the evidence is legally admissible, then it must be taken into consideration. Refusing to do such as violation of due process.
• Both the U.S. Constitutional inherit powers of the Judicial Branch of government, and the powers delegated by the Due Process of Law clauses of the Constitution (5th Amendment, 14th Amendment) require that a Court give every single defendant the presumption of innocence. The reason why is the wording of the due process clause stating that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That gives weight to the whole legal argument of “presumption of innocence”. They cannot take away your rights or liberty unless both law requires such and when the evidence proves every element of the civil law being broken or criminal charge of a criminal law being broken which provides the evidence sufficient to prove that the crime did in fact happen without any reasonable doubt. Only when a crime is fully proven, all elements to a crime being fully proven, can a Court ever be authorized to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property. Anything less than that violates due process of law. It has to be proven and causality (the relationship between cause and effect) also has to be proven between a person’s actions and the cause of those actions constituting breaking a civil law or criminal law. Can the prosecutor prove that a person’s actions caused a certain incident or action where a law may have been broken here? Every element meaning the Mens Rea (mental state at time of action which may have been illegal), the body of the criminal offense (Corpus Delicti) such as what the person did which may have been considered illegal, and any additional elements necessary to find a person guilty of a crime or guilty of violating a civil law, whether civil or criminal. Elements such as the person being of sound health when a person’s health affects the mental state at the time of an accused offense. Like for example, an elderly person being found naked in a public place but had alzheimer’s disease or dementia at the time police found an elderly person naked. That person may be guilty of indecent exposure but the Mens Rea element cannot be satisfied because there can be no intent with a deteriorating mental state of an elderly individual who at the time would have alzheimer’s disease or dementia. Also an elderly person may not have any sexual perverted intents when they have deteriorating brain condition and should not be held culpable for simply being found naked. So an elderly person found naked with alzheimer’s disease or dementia usually is not supposed to be convicted of indecent exposure due to those issues. However a corrupt prosecutor does not care about the facts or mental state and will push for a conviction, then it is up to the judge to see reason when all facts are examined by the judge. If the judge is corrupt, they would convict even elderly people (with deteriorating brains, deteriorating health who may need a nursing home) with indecent exposure or even Jay-Walking. Judges who refuse to see reason are also violating due process. The due process of law allows the flexibility to where all elements of a crime must be met before somebody can be convicted of a crime.
• Courts have the duty and obligation not to have falsehoods, fraud, and lies treated as true. Courts have the duty and obligation not to treat lies as truthful in the case records of a Court. Everyone is supposed to assume that a Court is always truthful, and makes legal opinions which are truthful and are interpreted based on both fact and law. When a Court does not tell the truth or permits lies on its record, then that Court has aided and abetted in a hoax, a falsehood, a fraud. A Court should never engage in this in any courthouse in the United States of America. Even if a prosecutor wins a criminal case or civil case by any technical or procedural means, but later evidence may surface proving the opposite is true. If any evidence or facts surface at a later time disproving the prosecutor’s story or claims, a Court has a legal obligation or moral obligation to overturn a decision favorable to a prosecutor if the prosecutor’s case was later found to be fraudulent in any way, shape, or form. Fraud is not something Courts should ever tolerate. If courts ever tolerate fraud, then it becomes a fraud itself, a COURT BECOMES A FRAUD, part of the fraud. This totally discredits a Court, deprives the victimized party of due process of law, and creates a world where courts no longer tell the truth and erodes faith in the judicial system institution to peacefully fix any issues by usage of peaceful and lawful remedies. Justice of the peace is right, if there is no justice then there is no peace. Courts are the main resolution to peacefully resolve conflicts and disputes, and prevents civil war or rebellion (Note: Bacon’s rebellion for example) being a necessity as well as preventing anarchy. If a Court disregards the law or allows fraud on its records, then a Court is an anarchy onto itself. It becomes a broken law, where there is no justice, and justice has no merit. It is a fake justice which cannot be remedied through any peaceful means. It creates contempt for the law as well as its enforcers. It can create things like vigilantes where the people take the law onto their own hands, it creates violence where people see violence or revenge as a means to exact justice rather than through the courts as no due process of law can ever exist under a fraud, under a Kangaroo Court. It ends the ability to peacefully resolve a legal issue or life issue without violence or retribution. It breaks down society and crime becomes more of a necessity in a society of gangs or tribes attacking each other to establish self-proclaimed rights by use of force. It breaks down order, and eventually erodes the Government into the strong and the weak. Much like the haves and the have nots. Where those who can overpower other people become the dominant force, a society of barbarism. The law must be enforced, even enforced against the judges and officers of the court if any of them are breaking the law. The law must not be applied to only a select group. Fraud must never be allowed, even if the government is committing fraud on a court. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (“Of particular relevance here, the inherent power also allows a federal court to vacate its own judgment upon proof that a fraud has been perpetrated upon the court.”) Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991) (“ This “historic power of equity to set aside fraudulently begotten judgments,” Hazel-Atlas, 322 U.S., at 245, is necessary to the integrity of the courts, for “tampering with the administration of justice in [this] manner . . . involves far more than an injury to a single litigant. It is a wrong against the institutions set up to protect and safeguard the public.” Id., at 246. Moreover, a court has the power to conduct an independent investigation in order to determine whether it has been the victim of fraud. Universal Oil, supra, at 580.”)

The point being made is this. Now we face the issues of fake criminal records. If a Court completely refuses to acquit somebody who has proven innocence to the elements of a crime, then we now face a situation where criminal records are no longer true. People must no longer accept criminal records as being valid and honest. They are not and should not be treated as honest. Criminal records become black propaganda referring to dishonest and untruthful propaganda. Deceptive propaganda. Gray propaganda refers to truth and lies by a propagandist. White propaganda refers to spreading truthful propaganda. If courts refuse to fix any frauds on its record then they are now engaging in black propaganda if not gray propaganda, and can no longer be trusted as institutions. They become corrupt, no longer based on truth and facts, cannot be trusted as a institution of facts and truth, and can no longer be believed. They are as fake as a counterfeit money. Criminal records provided by law enforcement should be treated as iffy, not true, or to be treated with rational skepticism.

A Court must provide due process of law, and allow even the guilty to have a chance to defend his/her actions in a court, regardless of a civil or criminal case subject matter. If we cannot allow a person to be proven totally guilty or totally innocent, then this distorts the justice system to being of that of a struggle session, backed by armed thugs such as Sheriffs or U.S. Marshals acting as thugs for the struggle session. It is nothing but a circus of a courtroom, a public drama you see on TeleVision, a public spectacle, and has no merit or truth or any facts. It is a Kangaroo Court, a nightmare, a horrible tribunal meant to strip people of their rights to life, liberty, and property. It is meant to strip away their freedom without good justifiable cause. It is meant to strip away their dignity, might as well be naked in the courtroom being laughed at and shamed. There is no dignity, there is no common sense, and no logic. A court that does not adhere to the truth is fraudulent. A Court that refuses to investigate the facts before it is a fraud. A Court that refuses to take all credible proven facts into consideration is as broke as a joke. It is a fraud, and is meant to take away a person’s life, liberty, and property. To violently overpower an innocent person by usage of armed thugs calling themselves MARSHALS or SHERIFFS or whatever.

Criminal records become fake, people should treat them as entirely black propaganda. Not to believe the criminal records, even if some criminal records are based on truth, because the lies of the Kangaroo Courts contaminate both truly guilty people of crimes, and people who are innocent. If a Court cannot and will not be a place of truth, a place of facts, an institution to accurately apply the law to an honest factual situation when making a determination whether somebody broken the law or not, then it is no longer a Court of law, it is a Court of Tyranny, a Kangaroo Court. That is it, there is no other way to put this. The institution of a Judicial Courthouse becomes the monster if it believes the laws can be broken or if the laws are not followed by judges. The institution of a Judicial Courthouse becomes the monster if it believes that fraud is acceptable or permissible even in light of new evidence disproving the prosecution of a case. When they allow fraud and refuse to correct the lies and misinformation, then a Court becomes a non-credible institution perpetuating fake legal standards just as credible as fake monopoly money or counterfeit money. It holds no moral weight and holds no constitutional weight. That is all, prove me wrong, anybody in the comments.

God bless you.

Footnotes

^1. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 483 (1928) (“And if this Court should permit the Government, by means of its officers’ crimes, to effect its purpose of punishing the defendants, there would seem to be present all the elements of a ratification. If so, the Government itself would become a lawbreaker.”)

^2. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 483 (1928) (“The Government was innocent, in legal contemplation; for no federal official is authorized to commit a crime on its behalf. When the Government, having full knowledge, sought, through the Department of Justice, to avail itself of the fruits of these acts in order to accomplish its own ends, it assumed moral responsibility for the officers’ crimes.”)

^3. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) (“Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.”)

^4. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 483-84 (1928) (“The governing principle has long been settled. It is that a court will not redress a wrong when he who invokes its aid has unclean hands. The maxim of unclean hands comes from courts of equity. But the principle prevails also in courts of law. Its common application is in civil actions between private parties.”)