It's interesting what has transpired in the last 2 years, and especially the last two weeks of my life, given what I heard on Glenn Beck's talkshow this morning. A caller identified herself as an older mother who felt the only way to stop the tyranny of the government was to stop paying taxes (which I've been saying for a while now, although not advocating it). After an emotional outcry, Glenn told her that the most important thing for her to remember, was that she was a mother, and it would be better to be at home with her child of 10 years, showing to them what the meaning of freedom was, rather than sitting in jail, away from their little one.

Freedom. That's an interesting thought. Because, you see, just recently, I was told by a great many sources, that if I didn't surrender my freedom; if I didn't give in to the lies and tyranny of the corrupted public officials and law enforcement, that I too, would be away from my child and hurting him, and that was not the best answer. Of course, what choice did I have? When the government can hold my child over my head, like some sort of bargaining chip, than I am, truly helpless. When the people we place in charge of law and law enforcement are permitted to lie and act without accountability (think your politicians are corrupted? Try following it down the trail back to the "little" guy, and remember where those politicians came from and what they were before politicians), then We, the People, of this most perfect union, are deprived of our Constitutional rights, labeled as dangerous lawbreakers and thrown to the wolves by our peers who are ignorant of the truth behind the facts.

But, I had to make a choice. My child, or my freedom. Am I teaching him about freedom by doing what I did? I don't know. He will hear a great many things said about me now that will forever affect his life. I will spend the rest of my life labeled and in purgatory on Earth because an overzealous and corrupted Congress passed corrupted laws that are enforced by a broken system.

But, I'm just whining because I lost, right? I'm just guilty of everything charged and am only trying to cover up the facts, right? After all, that's what they say on the news. That's what "Oprah," blasts all over the media and her show. That's what the "honest," and "sincere," news reporters and Congress people tell you everyday. No, no - forget all the other lies. Thinking that these people lie all the time and about everything would just be absurd. True, but absurd. And, no, forget about the media, because we know for a FACT, that news only reports facts that are true and accurate, right?

Because, if I was guilty, why would the prosecution "use," against me, my own ten year old child, showing me that he would be ripped away from me and left to a dangerous world should I do what's right and fight for my innocence and freedom. And, why would any prosecution lie about prosecuting somebody? It's not like they get PAID, the more they prosecute. That would just be ridiculous, because it might undermine the entire purpose of protecting the public interest. And, don't tell me about the dishonesty of the police, or the corruption therein, simply because the State says that: The authorities have a right to lie to people, to make false promises and threaten them to get a "confession." Of course, I do "see," the fallacy in "innocence," pleas, such as Alford pleas, that are merely shells over a guilty plea, whereby one is required to assert that they haven't been threatened or coerced into the plea. Because, if I was, I am going to trial and would be gambling with my child's life. It's better that I do as the mafia.. um, oops.. sorry - Freudian slip there - the authorities require, and accept guilt for something I didn't do, in order to defend the FREEDOMS for my son.

Freedom. What a joke. The Bible says that the very basic element of God's gift of life is: free will. But, we're not free. We can't choose to make the mistakes to get us in trouble and learn from them. We can't choose right and wrong. Your television and radio and even the internet blast you daily - hourly - minute by minute - with senseless garbage telling you how to live. Your cable companies switch to high definition because you HAVE to buy a high def tv. The cell phone companies switch to new "frequencies," albeit worse reception, so that you have to buy texting/internet phones. You can't own property. You can't have food from your own two hands of hard work. You can't breathe air without paying for it. You can't have water without paying for it. (taxes on all of that for those of you that didn't get the meaning there). You can't WALK IN THE FREAKIN' FORESTS WITHOUT PAYING A FEE.

But, my son will have a father (that is, if the system doesn't push this even farther and try to mess me over even more - which I am fully prepared to accept that it might). Is he free? By no means. Just today, on the news, was the report of a 14 year old boy with pics on his phone of girls his age. While we shouldn't have our children running around doing this - the girls who sent him pictures - will see no punishment, while he, will face criminal charges for indecent child images. The fact: HE'S A CHILD. Heaven forbid my son gets ahold of an adult magazine ever, or is so into girls that he can't control his hormones without intervention. But, I wouldn't be turning him into the police, in an attempt to turn the girls in who are acting this way - because my child would go to prison for being - A CHILD. Yeah, that's freedom.

The recent New York Mayor's "sting," to analyze the ease with which weapons could be obtained took place in Ohio, Tennesse and Nevada. The laws in Ohio state that it is not necessary to have a license or permit to buy a gun. In Tennesse, the State also does not have many of the rules that the "undercover," cops were there to test. WHAT? Wait - WHY were they there? What right did the Mayor of New York have in costing tax payers a nice, big chunk of money, to undermine the independence of these States? Look, I'm not questioning the actions of the sellers at the shows - they could have been very wrong - I don't know. What I am questioning is the ILLEGAL actions of the authorities! Are these sellers secure in their persons or things? Are they permitted FREE TRADE under the Capitalist system? NO!

What’s going on? Want to see “freedom,” being abolished: just read the laws regarding the Brady Background Check from Nevada:

• is an ex-felon.
• is an illegal alien.
• has been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
• has renounced U.S. citizenship.
• has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
• is under indictment or information for a [crime] punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

BEFORE YOU JUDGE – BEFORE YOU SAY ONE WORD – lest you be more wicked than they, let me break this down for you:

1.       An ex-felon – someone who has PAID THEIR DEBT TO SOCIETY – but now shall be held without the same Constitutional freedoms as any other. WHAT are we doing? How do we expect “law” to provide reform, when we punish people for their whole lives? How do the people who make these laws expect the people to act – when THEY THEMSELVES, create harmful and harassing laws to govern the people?

2.       An illegal alien – hey, I’m not in support of illegal immigration – but this is NOT to protect the public interest – did you know that? This IS to protect the cops who go hunting these guys down. Maybe, if we had a better system, created better laws, were more “just,” and “decent,” as we, as a country, so blatantly claim to be, standing vainly before the world – we wouldn’t HAVE THIS PROBLEM! Fix one problem of Constitutional violations by creating another Constitutional violation? Only in America…. *sigh*

3.       Has Renounced U.S. Citizenship – that’s right! If you’re not with us – you’re against us! You’re a “commie!” I digress – please watch “Battle for Terra,” a very WELL DONE, and amazingly wonderful show for families of all ages, and try to understand the horrifically deranged, mental attitude that must be adopted in order to support this decision.

4.       Convicted of misdemeanor of Domestic Violence – You mean, like, their kid, while high on drugs, tried SHOOTING his mom, but dad stepped in, disarmed his kid, and struck him in the face in the process to try and bring him down and the cops arrested dad for being a violent offender against children, but in retrospect, based on a SCREWED UP system, dad only got a misdemeanor because he only hit his son once, trying to stop him from killing his own mother while high? Yeah – makes PERFECT SENSE.

5. Now – I’m going to take an extra special look at this one – because all the others – you can justify with the mental, hysteria, media-driven, brain dead mentality that governs most Americans as my just being another ignorant person who believes in Constitutional freedoms. But, this one – “is under indictment or information for a punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” Do you KNOW what constitutes an “indictment,” by a grand jury or the truth behind these fictitious documents? Try reading more about it if you want to have your brain blown away! Here are some facts:

• Grand Jury indictments are used in only half of the States of this Republic, because according to the 5^th amendment of the Constitution – THEY ARE ILLEGAL.
• Grand juries do NOT require ALL of the evidence, and no one is allowed to defend themselves prior to being indicted.
• Prosecutors – include those who have been proven to lie repeatedly – are left to “good faith,” in presenting the so-called “facts.”
• GRAND JURORS ARE NOT SCREENED FOR BIASES! That’s right – hate-mongers, family members of police and prosecutions – and all the rest – sit on these panels!

WELCOME TO FREE AMERICA. Yes – YOU can be indicted while sitting at home, with your family, in the quiet of the evening, reading scriptures together. You can be indicted while on vacation. YOU can be lied about – legally – without accountability to the lying party. YOUR indictment will sit on your record – for life. And, based on this LIE – you can be denied your right to go out hunting with your best friend, or keep a gun in your house in Arizona to protect yourself against terrorists who might raid your home, kidnap you, rape and kill you.

THAT’S FREEDOM.

THAT’S YOUR RIGHT TO EXERCISE YOUR FREE WILL AS GRANTED BY GOD.

…

…

Oh wait, no it’s not! That’s the OPPOSITE of freedom. Yet, the police went to these shows, with undercover cameras (albeit an ILLEGAL act by ANY other person than the authorities who are given exemption to do ANYTHING they want), and bought guns without background checks where NO background checks were required.

Did you read my last article on “red herrings?” If not – you may want to peruse it – you know, when you’re done getting through this long monstrosity. You see, we will not hear anymore about this. We will hear more and more about innocent people being shot, in the news, while this “investigation,” is underway, so that by the time they present a bill to Congress, they’re sure the people won’t complain about it. Know what the red herring is?

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Let us examine the role of a Grand Jury:

The first instance of a grand jury can be traced back to the Assize of Clarendon, an 1166 act of Henry II of England. In fact, Henry's chief contribution to the development of the English monarchy was to increase the jurisdiction of the royal courts at the expense of the feudal courts. Itinerant justices on regular circuits were sent out once each year to enforce the "King's Peace." To make this system of royal criminal justice more effective, Henry employed the method of inquest used by William the Conqueror in the Domesday Book. In each shire a body of important men were sworn (jure) to report to the sheriff all crimes committed since the last session of the circuit court. Thus originated the modern grand jury that presents information for an indictment. The grand jury was later recognized by King John in the Magna Carta in 1215 on demand of the nobility. (are we recalling the first post, in which I clearly explained that part of the Constitution’s purpose was to no longer follow European traditions?)

Early in U.S. history, the grand jury served to screen out incompetent or malicious prosecutions. The advent of official public prosecutors in the later decades of the 19th century largely displaced private prosecutions, but also led to their capturing grand juries and using them in ways for which they were not originally intended. But, is the practice of a Grand Jury today, still at as much risk for corruption as they were back then? Grand juries are today virtually unknown outside the United States. England abandoned grand juries in 1933 and instead uses a committal procedure, as do all Australian jurisdictions. New Zealand abolished them in 1961 and Canada in the 1970’s.

In fact, only HALF of the States in our Union use Grand Juries. Yes – HALF. What does that mean? That means, that the U.S. is NOT using the fair and equal standard across the Country, meant to Form a MORE PERFECT UNION, as the justice system has slowly come to realize the corrupt and unconstitutional nature of grand juries. – Slowly – As it is, the “other” half of the U.S. relies upon preliminary hearings in which Judges are allowed to be presented with ALL of the evidence, from BOTH sides – to ensure fairness and accuracy of the issues. Where Grand Juries do exist, such as it is in Oregon – the one sided argument – from Law enforcement AND the DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S office (the ever-scrupulous bastions of fairness and hope.. right?), before dragging you into Court – and sometimes – JAILING you – without your even knowing that ANYTHING was going on!!

A grand jury is meant to be part of the system of checks and balances, preventing a case from going to trial on a prosecutor's bare word. A prosecutor must convince the grand jury, as an impartial panel of ordinary citizens that there exists reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a prima facie case that a crime has been committed. The grand jury can compel witnesses to testify before them. Unlike the trial itself, the grand jury's proceedings are secret; the defendant and his or her counsel are generally not present for other witnesses' testimony. (a special thanks to Wikipedia, for this information – and references YOU can follow up on to find more arguments defining the unconstituionality of the Grand Jury process).

I won’t even waste the time in this argument to discuss the Double Jeopardy clause, except to say this: the TENS OF THOUSANDS of arguments, in our Judicial system against this practice, is reminiscent of what I said in regards to the Fourth Amendment violations by the District Attorneys- they are NOT upholding the principals of the Constitution as they claim – but are fighting them to their own benefit (see Findlaw for even more, detailed explanations).

''It is now the settled doctrine of this Court that the Due Process Clause embodies a system of rights based on moral principles so deeply imbedded in the traditions and feelings of our people as to be deemed fundamental to a civilized society as conceived by our whole history. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and right and just.'' (Justice Frankfurter)

Standing by itself, the phrase ''due process'' would seem to refer solely and simply to procedure, to process in court, and therefore to be so limited that ''due process of law'' would be what the legislative branch enacted it to be. But that is not the interpretation which has been placed on the term. ''It is manifest that it was not left to the legislative power to enact any process which might be devised. The article is a restraint on the legislative as well as on the executive and judicial powers of the government, and cannot be so construed as to leave congress free to make any process 'due process of law' by its mere will.'' (Lessee v. Hoboken) Let us begin by examining the more recent, “Adam Wash Act.”

On December 7, 2006, in U.S. v. Crowell, Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio held that the Adam Walsh Act's requirement that specific pretrial release conditions be imposed on all defendants accused of certain crimes violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause, and separation of powers. So, the question presents itself – is the District Attorney’s (and Judge’s) right to impose “pretrial” conditions on an individual’s release, a direct violation of the Constitution? Here’s where the Grand Jury indictments come in – for no person shall be deprived of life OR liberty, without the due process of law. But, in a grand jury indictment, for the few states that still choose to against the WORLD WIDE accepted standard and use this unconstitutional and outdated method, that IS due process. Yes – you are guilty. I define that by: the imposing of legal restrictions, as would be imposed on an individual found guilty of a crime in a court of law. You are guilty, because they impose limitations on you: curfews; use of the internet; the ability to drive; to go to a public bar; to go into certain locations; to possess legal and lawful items; and so on. You are guilty, and these impositions will continue to be placed upon you until such time as you can be proven innocent. Otherwise, if you are found guilty, then these impositions are increased and you are PUNISHED TWICE.

That’s…. real…. Constitutional.. isn’t it?

Finally comes the matter of personal property being taken for public use. Let me put this to you in the most clear and simple matter possible: search and seizure. The taking of your belongings, for examination by law enforcement, use as evidence in grand jury indictments (and court hearings), is a direct counterpart to the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. Perhaps some of you might be thinking: “Well, this means they can’t take your T.V. to watch it for themselves.” Why? That would deprive you of the item’s: 1) ownership, 2) use, 3) freedom of liberty and 4) your Constitutional rights as they apply here.

But, what’s the difference? Whether the State’s taking your belongings to “build a case,” in which they are committing all four infringements listed in the previous paragraph, or to “use it for their own, personal reasons,” – it’s the same thing! Your items are in their possession for their use. Your items will now “profit” them. Not only will YOUR possessions be used against you – but they will be used for THEIR profit. If we were talking something as simple as unlawfully downloaded music, which you cannot legally possess, then, that would be something that could possibly be debated. But, if that music was on your computer, where you also kept your personal files, your letters, your email, your taxes and whatnot – then they are DIRECTLY violating the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution by keeping those items – WITHOUT just compensation.

Let me give you an example: Your computer’s taken under the false pretense of an accusation. But, in Oregon, false pretenses count as probable cause in the eyes of the law (somehow – that too – is believed to be “Constitutional??”). Your tax records are on there and you have them nowhere else. The IRS or Dept. of Revenue come knocking at your door, claiming you made a mistake in your tax filings seven years ago and owe them $50,000.00. The only proof you have is on your computer – but the State, without just compensation (which would mean equal and fair – not of value – of content – clearly stating that ALL of your information could be duplicated and returned to you immediately so you were NOT deprived of your belongings without said compensation), is preventing you from presenting your case. Now, the IRS/DOR, garnish your wages. You lose your home, your vehicle, can’t afford your meds and lose your health.

THIS IS EXACTLY why the Fifth Amendment exists. To overcome such dangerous situations that not only infringe upon your liberty – but YOUR LIFE!! However, the Oregon District Attorney’s Office, even in light of precedence set by the State Courts and multiple other States, will hold onto your valuables and abuse their power and privileges over you. Why? If you simply plead guilty or no contest -  your items are returned. You take the penalty, pay the fines (probably only around $3,000 or so – just losing your car, not your home or health), they get PAID for doing this to you, and the Constitution – well – it means NOTHING.

Does the Oregon D.A.’s office uphold the Constitution, as per their mission statement, the first Doctrine, as it pertains to the Fifth Amendment?

No. They argue and fight and spend OUR taxpayer dollars, to circumvent the Fifth Amendment. Once again – we have DIRECT EVIDENCE, that their office is lying, violating our Constitutional rights, and doing so without any manner of checks or balances. Of course, Oregon believes in Grand Juries – the “once upon a time” check and balance to prosecutions, and, in that corruption, has more prosecutions, per capita, than almost EVERY other State in the Union, justifying the taking of children and offering them up to rape, death and abuse; the imprisoning of innocent people, even before trial; and the continued abuse of power that remains unchecked.

State of Oregon
District Attorneys Mission Statement
The mission of the Oregon District Attorney is to uphold the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of the State of Oregon, to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity.
(excerpt from http://www.odaa.state.or.us/mission.htm)

Excerpts from The Constitution of The United States of America, as quoted by the District Attorney's office, to be the FIRST doctrine that they exist to uphold:

(note - thanks to Steve Mount at http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html for the Constitutional references):

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. (Ratified 12/15/1791.)

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

First, let me point out the emphasis I maid above on: accused. That means: not guilty of, not yet determined to be guilty of, and only by mere “accusation,” has been brought forth for trial (refer to 5^th Amendment post on pretrial punishments). But, Congress HAS instituted laws that directly and blatantly violate the premises upon which the Sixth Amendment rests:

On January 28, 2008, in U.S. v. Winslow, Judge Smith, D. Alaska, found that the government's conditions for the defense's review of the computer hard-drive seized in the case violated the defendant's due process, fair trial and Sixth Amendment rights. As a result, the court ordered the government to provide the defense attorney with a copy of the hard drive, under specified conditions. Is this isolated? No. And, I’ve been trying to avoid ‘specifics,’ to avoid the unnecessary argument as to whether these violations are limited. The fact is, that Oregon has been putting more people in prison, for a violation of the Adam Walsh Act and associated laws, without a trial or hearing, because the Defense Attorneys, even those who are paid, are recommending that their clients automatically say “no contest,” because the Attorneys KNOW, they cannot adequately provide for their client’s defense. You can go to the State of Oregon’s, Public Defender website and read the numerous articles on this FACT, for yourself.

What’s really at the heart of the matter here though, is the violation of the Constitutional Right to confront the witnesses and the evidence. The Oregon D.A.’s office PREVENTS any “accused” individual from confronting their offender, in a court room, for many types of crimes, including sex offense. You cannot force the Courts to have to listen to the possibility that someone is lying, or that the ACCUSORS DON’T EVEN EXIST!! Yes – you cannot even prove that they are NOT REAL!! This has given way to the Oregon D.A.’s office blatantly abusing their power by trying cases solely upon “Circumstantial Evidence.”

In such cases where ONLY circumstantial evidence exists, the idea is to convince the trier of fact (a Judge or Jury), that you are probably MORE guilty, than not. And, in cases of internet pornography, murder, theft, and other such cases, the D.A. will present the so-called “evidence” to the trier of fact to help establish their disgust or anger against you. Do you need to see a picture of a nude child to determine that they are a nude child? Do you need to see the picture of a dead body to determine the individual is actually dead? Isn’t that what evidentiary hearings are for? To prove whether or not the evidence is real?

Here’s the catch. The Sixth Amendment does NOT say you are entitled to ‘competent’ or ‘effective’ counsel. It does not guarantee you protection against attorney’s who just want to take the money and run. Individual States are supposed to do that. And, where the D.A.’s office claims that part of its “mission,” is to preserve the safety of the public, to protect the rights of crime victims and to pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity, the question is whether or not, their trying a case against you where you are not provided with effective or adequate counsel, is within the boundaries of “skill, honor and integrity?” I would argue that clearly, it’s not.

But, how do you even get a “fair” trial in front of a so-called, “jury of your peers?” The mere definition is an oxymoron. A Jury of my peers, that represents the peoples’ choice in this matter, is not 13 people sitting on a witness stand. It’s half a million people, it’s the entire nation. In fact, it goes so far as to be: NONE of the above. The truth is, that Jury, without any factual evidence such as “Witnesses to the crime,” are only being presented with evidence. And, in many cases, it is NOT EVEN evidence that a crime occurred! Ah, there lies the rub that makes calamity of so long life….

In Internet crimes, where the content of an individual’s computer contains contraband, the State and Federal laws BOTH, clearly state, that the crime is not in the mere possession of the evidence, in a digital format (as such would violate an individual’s free right to legally copy music they own and would most CERTAINLY violate the 4^th Amendment right to be secure in your personal and private belongings), but in the knowing downloading, accessing, storing and use (and distribution in certain instances) of that material. If I show you a hard disk with music on it that I believe the defendant had accessed off the Internet, I did not show you their ‘knowing’ download, just my opinion that it “more likely than not, beyond a ‘reasonable,’ doubt, occurred.” But, what is the reasonable doubt? Who determines what’s reasonable? A Jury of 13 people that don’t know me, anything about my values and morals, anything about my history or life or even what actually happened at the time this supposed ‘download’ occurred? Maybe a jury of technically incompetent individuals who don’t know enough to understand the whole entire “hacking/identity theft” industry? And, that’s where the D.A. comes in…

You see, the D.A. is permitted to be involved in the jury selection process. Why? Is that to ensure fairness to you? Of course not, they want to ensure there’s no bias against them, right? What bias is there – when YOU are the accused, YOU are the one being falsely accused of committing terrible and horrific acts against the welfare of those 13 people judging you. The only purpose the D.A. has, and you can read this on the NATIONAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S WEBSITE, under the area of articles, where they list a specific article pertaining to the Jury Selection Process in digital crimes. It specifically states that: “Most jurors have an 8^th grade intellect…” it goes on to say that it is imperative that the D.A. see to it that technically savvy individuals NOT be chosen for the jury, because they could identify the holes in the D.A.’s case, where it’s actually impossible to prove an individual was in front of their computer. It also states that: Completely unsavvy people should not be selected either, because their lack of computer knowledge will make it too difficult for you to explain to them that someone is guilty when you can’t actually prove that guilt. Instead, an individual of bare-minimum computer skills must be chosen, as they will be able to only understand that computers contain data, good or bad, but not understand the principals of how you actually “identify WHO” was on the computer and “who” committed the crime.

Okay – unconstitutional?

"....by an impartial jury...."

How much MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL would you like to make this? What about the TV and media CONSTANTLY blasting horror stories about these types of crimes, creating an ENTIRE SOCIETY that is driven to be pre-determinately against the Defendant? If this is not an absolute violation by the D.A.’s office, ESPECIALLY in Oregon, I don’t know what is:

"….Pursue justice for all citizens with skill, honor and integrity,"

How much MORE against the D.A.’s so-called, “mission,” could this be? In fact – it gets worse. The State of Oregon has had it argued, with the help of the D.A.’s office, to reduce payment for Defense counsel and reduce the amount of financial aid provided by the Oregon Public Defender’s Financial Assistance office, making it virtually impossible for the Defense to adequately mount a case!! Folks – you can go online and read all this for yourself. I, sadly, cannot. As I write this, I do so with a pen and paper, using notes provided for me by my brother, because of some of the very issues that exist in this one, exact violation of the Constitution, and amongst others.

How many more INNOCENT people will have to be released from prison before someone realizes, that the inability to hold the D.A.’s office accountable to their “mission” statement, is perpetuating the violation of our rights?

Has the D.A. upheld the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

No, they haven’t. They have abused their authority to help select bias juries, to falsely and wrongly influence them, in the MIDDLE OF A TRIAL, without punishment for doing so, to prevent the Defense from proving his innocence – and for what? The “pursuit of justice?” When is it a pursuit of “justice,” when you blockade the “accused,” from proving their innocence? When is it a “pursuit of justice,” when you present so-called ‘evidence,’ to a legally unknowledgeable jury, falsely making them ‘believe,’ it’s evidence of a crime? When is it justice when you work to make the jury ‘hate’ the defendant, rather than rely upon facts?

When is it the pursuit of justice with SKILL, HONOR and INTEGRITY, when you try people based on the possibility they committed the crime, not the facts? Is this protecting us? Did this actually protect the crime victims’ rights (that is – going after the wrong person and possibly letting the guilty one free to do it again)? Is this supporting the Constitution of the United States, as claimed by the Oregon’s D.A. office?