New Law Country Novel to Occupy

The title comes from a literal translation of Nostradamus’ quatrain known as III-97.  The quatrain talks about the creation of the State of Israel, but these words in the title are the main theme.  In a microcosm-macrocosm way, the explanation is of one event that becomes the explanation of all events subsequent.  Thus, the main theme is about a time when “law” will become a  “novel” way “to occupy” the minds of the people, to the point that injustice prevails in important “New” ways. With that in mind, I watched a show on cable news last night.  It was one where the talking heads were recapping the events of the day in the Casey Anthony trial.  One talking head was identified as a “defense attorney.”  That identification was letting the viewing audience know that his expertise was being utilized to spin the evidence presented in some “equalizing” manner.  His opinions would be used to offset the side that leaned heavily towards, “She’s guilty as sin.” This defense expert then expressed his views on the style of the arguments used against witnesses representing evidence for the prosecution.  This talking defense head then went in a direction that analyzed the value of the defense, more than the value of the evidence. In the segment I watched, the talking head defense attorney made the statement (and I paraphrase somewhat), “The O.J. (Simpson) trial demonstrated the way American justice has been established.  The measure of innocence is not the goal.  No one was guiltier than O.J. Simpson was; but the measure is reasonable doubt.  O.J. Simpson was found “not guilty,” meaning the prosecution did not prove guilt to the jury, beyond reasonable doubt.”  This says, “So what if Casey Anthony is guilty?  All Jose Bias (purposely misspelled) has to do is make one juror see reason to doubt the evidence presented by the prosecution.” It seems I heard some figure mentioned, quite a while back, that was in the area of “millions” of dollars.  That figure was the guesstimation of how much the State of Florida was paying to put on this circus trial, with costs beginning to mount back in 2008.  Someone asked a question, as to who was paying for Casey Anthony’s defense.  The answer was, “The State of Florida.  The people of Florida are paying for the defense of Casey Anthony.”  Obviously, the money the parents got from selling TV rights and baby pictures of little Caylee (they had nothing but baby pictures to sell, given she was still a baby when killed) went to pay Jose Bias and his band of circus clowns, who would help him put on his act.  All the costs of doing his court work are on the state’s dime.  For justice to be properly served, the innocent must pay. It also seems to me that I have recently heard news of people believing the sky is about to fall, as far as debt ceiling, devaluation of the currency (specifically the dollar), home foreclosures, unemployment, recession, depression, yada yada yada.  It seems some think the economy has a poor outlook.  Wouldn’t it be funny if an economic collapse brought about the end of such luxuries as the state paying to defend the guilty?  Wouldn’t it be funny if the states could no longer afford to allow criminal defenders to question every conceivable aspect of forensic analysis, simply because all the states went bankrupt? As long as the defendant is an accomplished liar, and sticks to the lie that (in this case) she did not do what she is said to have done, without any direct eyewitness testimony, a video of the crime, and an unforced confession (or a “smoking” chloroform gun), there can always be the defense that doubts everything.  Jurors will be disappointed in the reality of forensic investigators.  Simply from the probability that the jury pool has watched so many C.S.I. shows on television, where actors playing forensics investigators easily prove beyond a shadow of a doubt EVERY questionable case each week, real-life people (no Mark Harmon – isn’t he just adorable still?) lack the flair of TV.  Jurors will not be entertained by real-life analysis of air that “smells like there has been a dead body in the car!”  The reason is the TV shows never show anyone questioning their science. Imagine a future where YOU come home and find a crime has been committed against YOU.  Suppose a loved one of yours is found murdered in your house, with signs of a struggle all about.  Suppose you do the natural thing and call the police department.  I imagine you would report in a way like, “Help!  There’s a dead body in the house.  I think my loved one has been murdered!  Come quickly.”  It seems like a natural, real-life thing one would do. Then suppose the person on the other end of the phone says, “I’m sorry, but due to the high costs of investigative work, and the high costs of making that work stick in court, we no longer investigate crimes.  However, you can spend your life savings to see if you can find the guilty party, through private enterprises that might be able to nab the criminal and bring them to justice.”  Due to budgetary restraints, suppose the State of (fill in the blank) can no longer foot the bill for high profile criminal casework.  Suppose it was all on YOU to solve the crime YOU experienced, but were innocent of involvement otherwise. Imagine a world that would have reached that point of legal ineptitude.  It is like the Superman comics, where one finds oneself in the Bizzaro world.  Law and Justice would stand for Crime Support and Injustice.  In the Bizzaro world everything is wrong. twisted, dirty, and opposite the way things should be.  It is a world where the guilty are presumed innocent until proven guilty.  Are we not there, now?  Do we not celebrate the guilty to the point of secretly hoping they will go free?  Isn’t that the difference between a Hollywood clean wrap-it-all-up-neatly ending and real-life?  On television all criminals get convicted.  In real-life, give us something fresh! It seems that something needs to change.  If a system has been reduced to letting guilty criminals go free, simply because a clown can question the evidence and the jurors can be swayed by circus antics, it calls for something being done to right that wrong.  I wonder if a juror has ever really been swayed beforehand to find reason to let a guilty person off, by hanging the jury.  I saw that on television before.  I wonder if the criminal elements of this country are more in control of the legal system than are the people actually trying to protect the population from criminals.  I saw that on television before too. I wonder if paying defense attorneys more than prosecuting attorneys is a good idea.  The trend, as I have heard it put, is to begin one’s law career as a prosecuting attorney, then graduate to being a shyster lawyer.  The word “law” has become synonymous with “loophole.”  They say loopholes (gray versus black & white) are purposefully written to avoid getting something wrong written into law.  The reality is, as long as you can pay the price, one can buy one’s way out of a crime through loopholes.  (See any and all Hollywood actors/starlets getting off with tiny slaps of justice as proof.)  Just pay a good defense attorney.  They are good because they know loopholes. I wonder what would happen if the juries were given less trial responsibilities, as far as determining “guilty” or “not guilty.”  What if the crime investigation had to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to a judge, before an arrest could be made?  Arrest would mean guilt, as determined by a judge.  What if a judge could only be elected if the judge passed a test on the law?  The “simple minds” of jurors would then not be placed in the precarious position of judging technical elements of investigation. In this scenario, guilt or innocence would be the decision of a judge, based on arguments for or against evidence, presented by attorneys.  The “defendant” would be one “accused,” but not yet incarcerated.  No need for bail bondsmen, or jails full of people not found guilty by judgment.  However, if someone was to run away before trial before a judge, that would become evidence of guilt. Think about this for a moment.  DNA research has recently (the last decade) been used on much LONG held evidence, from past trials that have led to convictions at times when such technical evidence was not possible, to reexamine those convictions.  The results of DNA evidence has allowed several locked up persons to go free.  Those have been exonerated by the science of evidence investigation.  However, if this same “freeing evidence” is used to show why someone is guilty and should go to prison, the defense says this evidence is “junk science.”  That is reason enough to see how judges only, and not jurors, should hear such trick arguments.  Judges hear evidence that frees, meaning they know what is and is not junk science. Suppose how it would be if arguments had to be presented by prosecutors to a judge, with the defense allowed to object, but all prior to one ever being arrested.  If the judge deems, after evidence is presented for the judge, “Arrest that man (or woman)!” then, and only then, would there be any need for a jury.  The jury of peers would be called upon to judge the degree of punishment that the guilty deserved, not judge their personal degree of doubt or disbelief about the evidence in a case.  The defenses’ need for a bag of tricks could then be only to use on judges, who would come from the same law schools breeding defense lawyers.  Both judge and lawyer would have been taught what is a trick and what is junk defense. In that situation, a judge could even deem the guilt of an accused to be based on the level of shyster defense an accused person was receiving, a decision coming from a lack to a real defense being presented.  Laws could even be chiseled in stone, designed to punish shyster lawyers, via some “Anti-Shyster Laws.”  Minimally, defense attorneys using tricks should have to pay all court costs, as well as refund anything they charged their clients.  This would keep lawyers from wanting to defend the guilty, beyond to represent a guilty plea.  All those who stand accused would be able to defend themselves, if guilty, or convince a defense attorney to defend them, if innocent. I seem to remember someone a long time ago saying, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”  When one gets over the thought of beating a child with a rod (the original word in that saying, translated as saying “rod,” can actually mean “green twig,” or “switch”), one can see how the overall meaning of that statement boils down to, “Less punishment in means more punishment out.”  One can then see how we have now reached the point of being punished by crime, twofold; with this state being a direct result of thinking it is best to “spare the rod.”  The innocent are always abused by criminals, but that punishment is followed by allowing the guilty to go free, free to continue their abuse of the innocent. Instead of justice, we have turned into a society of “couch potatoes.”  We eat popcorn at home or work, fascinated by the latest “show trial” on television.  We are waiting for the next amazing development to happen, where some will scream, “How can they let that happen!”  Meanwhile, at the same time others shout, “Yes!  I wanted that to happen, because I am emotionally throbbing for injustice!”  (It seems some live by the adage, “Two wrongs make a right.”)  We have fallen in love with reality TV, and couldn’t care less for justice … unless we become the victim.  By becoming that way, we are the victim regardless. All the time the television radiates towards us the sense that we have done something, when in reality we have done nothing.  We have experienced a virtual reality, when the true reality is that we have watched a “tube,” becoming emotionally drained in that process.  We experience all the feelings of having acted like responsible adults, when we have been irresponsible.  We avoid life by feeling we have experienced life through actors on television (reality or pretend).  We complain to our televisions that law and justice are being mocked, as if the television has heard our complaints and will act judiciously about them.  Instead of changing a broken system, we feel like there is nothing else we can do.  “That damn television will not play the way I want it to play!” The talking heads on television are so bold they can tell it like it is, knowing that the worst that will happen is some angry viewer will send a card, letter, or email giving them a piece of their mind.  No one will get off the sofa and change anything.  If a defense attorney is not being paid the big bucks to make a circus out of a courtroom, then he, she, or it can make some bucks laughing at the way they would control the three rings.  A defense attorney is nothing but a showman, in a courtroom or as a commentator on television.  I see this as a sign.  I see it as a bad sign.  I do not see it so much as a sign of the end being near; but I do see it as a sign that the end needs to be near.  This way of justice needs to end, or this way of justice will put an end to us. R. T. Tippett

#mockeryofjustice #OJSimpsonmurdertrial #justice #Nostradamus #injustice #guilt #law #innocence #criminaldefense #CaseyAnthonytrial #notguilty