(Posted on behalf of an anonymous thoughtful person.) To paraphrase an associate from some years back: Many of today's "justice system" problems are the direct consequence of KPI based policing. KPI = Key Performance Indicator Similarly for courts as for police - when the KPIs for an individual human are used for monetary and career assessment and promotion, such as "number of parking tickets issued in the past year", then it is almost axiomatic that increasing KPI quantums shall result. It is also asserted that increasing KPI quantums for police, magistrates and judges, does not necessarily correspond to the common man's conception of "justice". It is only the supreme elevation of statute law above individual conscience, free will and common sense that even allows for the "community" to miss the obvious corruption of justice into the abhorrent proposition that "the more statute laws are enforced, the more justice we experience in our community". In the USA, the "gang of 12" trial by jury (or "grand jury"?) is enshrined as a (remote/frequent?) possibility of having unjust statute law declared illegal and or unenforceable. The situation is different here in Australia, where the State parliaments claim: - sovereignty, - the right to pass any law within their state constitutions, - the right to change their state constitutions with no involvement by the people (by voting or otherwise) - that every law they pass is valid before the courts, - and that all power not reserved to the Federal Commonwealth is the balance reserved to the states, thus leaving almost nothing to the lowly humans except for their right to vote once every 4 years. Excuses for this despotic corruption of common sense and the corruption of much of what the common man would call "moral behaviour" are readily prostrated in the public dialogue, from everyday conversations between friends to the mainstream media and more, with the most obvious fallacy being "more enforcement of statute law equals more justice"; Fallacies of enforcement of statute laws (there are plenty more): - More enforcement of all statute law equals more justice. - If we don't enforce all the statute law, we'll have chaos. - I'm not doing anything wrong, so enforcement of unjust statute law does not effect me. - Humans cannot be trusted to exercise conscience and common sense, so we must impose statute law universally and make no exception for individual conscientious objection. - When another human consumes a drug I don't know about, they must be punished for their exploration and their personal choices, even though their exploration and choices effect no one else. - There might be a few small areas for improvement, but in general society, justice enforcement, and government, are working really well, since we have so many shiny things. So: 1) Are there any studies which directly quantify or otherwise analyse (e.g. KPI- based) systemic pressure to injustice? 2) If not, it ought be obvious to the entitled class that there are enormous accolades currently on offer to any and all who nail this scientifically, e.g. directly correlating KPI based policing with quantifiable unjust actions/ outcomes. King makers? How about hero makers - heroes of human rights, justice and common sense.
But, but, but... it's DUH LAW! On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
(Posted on behalf of an anonymous thoughtful person.)
To paraphrase an associate from some years back:
Many of today's "justice system" problems are the direct consequence of KPI based policing.
KPI = Key Performance Indicator
Similarly for courts as for police - when the KPIs for an individual human are used for monetary and career assessment and promotion, such as "number of parking tickets issued in the past year", then it is almost axiomatic that increasing KPI quantums shall result.
It is also asserted that increasing KPI quantums for police, magistrates and judges, does not necessarily correspond to the common man's conception of "justice".
It is only the supreme elevation of statute law above individual conscience, free will and common sense that even allows for the "community" to miss the obvious corruption of justice into the abhorrent proposition that "the more statute laws are enforced, the more justice we experience in our community".
In the USA, the "gang of 12" trial by jury (or "grand jury"?) is enshrined as a (remote/frequent?) possibility of having unjust statute law declared illegal and or unenforceable.
The situation is different here in Australia, where the State parliaments claim:
- sovereignty, - the right to pass any law within their state constitutions, - the right to change their state constitutions with no involvement by the people (by voting or otherwise) - that every law they pass is valid before the courts, - and that all power not reserved to the Federal Commonwealth is the balance reserved to the states,
thus leaving almost nothing to the lowly humans except for their right to vote once every 4 years.
Excuses for this despotic corruption of common sense and the corruption of much of what the common man would call "moral behaviour" are readily prostrated in the public dialogue, from everyday conversations between friends to the mainstream media and more, with the most obvious fallacy being "more enforcement of statute law equals more justice";
Fallacies of enforcement of statute laws (there are plenty more):
- More enforcement of all statute law equals more justice.
- If we don't enforce all the statute law, we'll have chaos.
- I'm not doing anything wrong, so enforcement of unjust statute law does not effect me.
- Humans cannot be trusted to exercise conscience and common sense, so we must impose statute law universally and make no exception for individual conscientious objection.
- When another human consumes a drug I don't know about, they must be punished for their exploration and their personal choices, even though their exploration and choices effect no one else.
- There might be a few small areas for improvement, but in general society, justice enforcement, and government, are working really well, since we have so many shiny things.
So:
1) Are there any studies which directly quantify or otherwise analyse (e.g. KPI- based) systemic pressure to injustice?
2) If not, it ought be obvious to the entitled class that there are enormous accolades currently on offer to any and all who nail this scientifically, e.g. directly correlating KPI based policing with quantifiable unjust actions/ outcomes.
King makers? How about hero makers - heroes of human rights, justice and common sense.
On 13/06/2017 8:54 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
The law ends at the courts, not the police. Let the police use it and then argue for it's unconstitionality.
The courts are corrupt. We need Duterte's solution to judicial corruption and lawlessness. The courts are no substitute for a disciplined police force - it is easier for judges to get away with wicked, abusive, and corrupt behavior than it is for police. As for example patent law and the silicone lawsuits. The various protections for criminals are part of an endless effort to get black conviction and imprisonment rates down to white levels, thus in practice these protections apply to black criminals, not to law abiding cishet whites. Consider, for example the conviction of Martha Stewart, supposedly for insider trading - but what she was actually convicted of was obstruction of justice, which she obstructed by not confessing to things that they they could not prove her guilty of. She sold a bunch of shares just before bad news hit, which is illegal if you know the bad news because of your insider position, and have neglected to make it public before you sell the adversely affected shares. But they could not prove that she knew the bad news before she sold the shares, so she was in fact convicted for obstructing injustice, convicted her for not confessing to a crime that they plausibly suspected, but were never able to prove. Compare the Martha Stewart case to a recent supreme court case, where some blacks in a car doing a drug deal drove in a reckless and dangerous manner, because they were distracted by the drug deal. The supremes ruled that though police could ordinarily arrest them for dangerous driving, and, surprise surprise, find the drugs, it was improper to do that in this case because the dangerous driving arrest might be motivated by the fact that they saw them dealing drugs, and seeing them dealing drugs has been deemed insufficient grounds for search. Had police not noticed the drug deal going down, then they could have arrested them for dangerous driving and found the drugs. But because police saw the drug deal going down, the drugs that they found were ruled inadmissable. If you are doing a characteristically black crime, police are not allowed to see what is right in front of them. If you are suspected of doing a characteristically white middle class crime, you are subject to the most lawless and arbitrary inquisition. Duterte for president in 2024!
On Jun 30, 2017, at 6:57 AM, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 13/06/2017 8:54 PM, \0xDynamite wrote: The law ends at the courts, not the police. Let the police use it and then argue for it's unconstitionality.
The courts are corrupt. We need Duterte's solution to judicial corruption and lawlessness.
The courts are no substitute for a disciplined police force - it is easier for judges to get away with wicked, abusive, and corrupt behavior than it is for police. As for example patent law and the silicone lawsuits.
The various protections for criminals are part of an endless effort to get black conviction and imprisonment rates down to white levels, thus in practice these protections apply to black criminals, not to law abiding cishet whites. Consider, for example the conviction of Martha Stewart, supposedly for insider trading - but what she was actually convicted of was obstruction of justice, which she obstructed by not confessing to things that they they could not prove her guilty of.
She sold a bunch of shares just before bad news hit, which is illegal if you know the bad news because of your insider position, and have neglected to make it public before you sell the adversely affected shares.
But they could not prove that she knew the bad news before she sold the shares, so she was in fact convicted for obstructing injustice, convicted her for not confessing to a crime that they plausibly suspected, but were never able to prove.
Compare the Martha Stewart case to a recent supreme court case, where some blacks in a car doing a drug deal drove in a reckless and dangerous manner, because they were distracted by the drug deal. The supremes ruled that though police could ordinarily arrest them for dangerous driving, and, surprise surprise, find the drugs, it was improper to do that in this case because the dangerous driving arrest might be motivated by the fact that they saw them dealing drugs, and seeing them dealing drugs has been deemed insufficient grounds for search.
Had police not noticed the drug deal going down, then they could have arrested them for dangerous driving and found the drugs. But because police saw the drug deal going down, the drugs that they found were ruled inadmissable.
If you are doing a characteristically black crime, police are not allowed to see what is right in front of them. If you are suspected of doing a characteristically white middle class crime, you are subject to the most lawless and arbitrary inquisition.
Duterte for president in 2024!
You are so full of shit, your eyeballs are as black as the african skin you consider sub-human. I'd scream "fake news!" for a laugh, but it's been successfully coopted by your bunch to the point of being totally meaningless.
On 6/30/17, James A. Donald <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
On 13/06/2017 8:54 PM, \0xDynamite wrote:
The law ends at the courts, not the police. Let the police use it and then argue for it's unconstitionality.
The courts are corrupt. We need Duterte's solution to judicial corruption and lawlessness.
The courts are no substitute for a disciplined police force - it is easier for judges to get away with wicked, abusive, and corrupt behavior than it is for police. As for example patent law and the silicone lawsuits.
No it isn't. First of all the courts are open to the public. Secondly, both sides are represented in the courtroom. The issue of inadequate public defenders who aren't willing to buck the system is indeed an issue. The solution to that is informing the press, so that there's a third party involved.
The various protections for criminals are part of an endless effort to get black conviction and imprisonment rates down to white levels, thus in practice these protections apply to black criminals, not to law abiding cishet whites. Consider, for example the conviction of Martha Stewart, supposedly for insider trading - but what she was actually convicted of was obstruction of justice, which she obstructed by not confessing to things that they they could not prove her guilty of.
All of these things are happening in weird so-called "district courts" of "ninth circuit" and such unconstitutional horseshit. Defendents need to demand that the Court is operating under the U.S. Constitution. Look for a US flag, if it's not there tell the court your observations and ask what jurisdiction they're operating under. Because you have no obligation to account to some all-seeing-eye proceeding. That's all I can get out for now... \0x
The courts are corrupt.
Don't people say like govt politicians... judges and courts paid for by tickets, force, etc. But they have more fun by deciding either way.
First of all the courts are open to the public. Secondly, both sides are represented in the courtroom.
No! FISC, gitmo, grand jury, jury, warrant, sealed ex parte en camera, corporations without attorneys banned, "practicing law" including appointing your "layman yet better than you at pro se" friend as attorney, trying to go pro se in shit PD capital cases, probate, family, mental, etc.
The issue of inadequate public defenders who aren't willing to buck the system is indeed an issue.
Public defender is a license to stardom for those with balls, at least until judges arbitrarily revoke PD's access to practice in their court. Then there's all the freeman, sovereign, right to travel (drive), jury nullification etc sort of folks experimenting with the system. Youtube is full of fun there.
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017 18:57:59 +0800 "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
The courts are no substitute for a disciplined police force - it is easier for judges to get away with wicked, abusive, and corrupt behavior than it is for police.
that's a new level of moral crazyness.
participants (7)
-
\0xDynamite -
grarpamp -
James A. Donald -
Jason McVetta -
John Newman -
juan -
Zenaan Harkness