On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:38:09 +0000 (UTC)
jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:


>  From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com>
>   
> On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 18:51:39 +0000 (UTC)
> jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:



>> Human Rights watch is complaining about the ease with which the Fed
> Courts can convict Federal defendants, a problem that has long been
> known.  They state the problem very well, focussing on the issue of
> drug crimes.  Yet, they do not even hint at a solution.  Assuming
> they are serious about wanting a solution (why should we suppose
> otherwise?)
   

 
>    We should suppose otherwise because if they really wanted a
>    solution they would be doing something meaningful by now. 

I cannot say if they are doing something meaningful.   What I do believe is that whatever they are doing, it is not effective.

>    But you are free to make any proposition to them I guess. Their
>    answer might be entertaining. If they bother to return your
>    call.

That's a good question.  Seeking a solution and actually WANTING a solution are two different things.  A few weeks ago, an organization was given the Nobel Peace Prize for opposing nuclear weapons.  I suspect, however, that nothing they have ever done have resulted in the dismantling of even one such bomb.  

Whereas, I've proposed a system (AP) which claims that it can force all owners of nuclear weapons to dismantle them.  Do you think they will want to talk to me?



> I will be showing up with a solution which might cost as
> little as $10 million per year for the entire country.    What's not
> to like?

>    So in the land of Free, if you cross a red light, the government
>    will accuse you of 'money laundering', 'drug trafficking',
>    'sexism', 'mass murder' and some other things. You can confess
>    and renounce your 'right' to a 'fair trial' or you can
>    be charged with 100 more fake charges. I'm not seeing how $3000
>    per govt victim will fix that.

Then you didn't pay attention to what I proposed.  The current system "works" (does what those controlling it want) because it can threaten all non-cooperators with a large amount of extra punishment if they don't cooperate.  But if we give everybody a good reason to not cooperate, and inform each of them that everyone else has the same motivation, "everybody" will refuse.  And so, 95% of them will have to be set free.  Everybody will understand this.    Moreover, this "hack" as you call it will generate its own publicity.  If "they" resist, "we" can use that against the ones who operate the system. 

>    The system is completely corrupt by design. And has been
    polished for hundreds of years. Good luck 'hacking' it.

You first need to understand the 'hack' I propose.  

                         Jim Bell