the american legal system in a brief definition:

the system will work for you if:

- you have a lot of money
- there are some circumstances around your case which the braindead media can make into a story for stay at home parents to sit and chew on as if it is really that important.
- you aren't white and something happens to you by a white person.
- you do something so horrible then follow it up with a minor crime, the horrible one will be forgotten.
- you are a trial lawyer who did something bad.

the system will not work for you if:

- you are poor.
- you did not do something horrible.
- you can't get a scumbag attorney to represent you. the public defender is as crippled as the prosecution.



in most trials the following are included:

- a judge
- a jury
- a bailiff
- a court reporter
- a defendant and lawyer(s)
- a prosecution


if there is a jury, it is supposed to be comprised of 12 people who will decide in a rational fashion on the fate of the defendant. in the current system this is a major advantage to the defense, as all they need to do is get one moron off the street to believe their lies and the defendant walks. this is not that hard to do. look at all the vermin leaving the court not in cuffs, but cuff links. ucla rape case, the orange county injustice, i could go on and on.

the prosecution has a very limited and finite budget, whereas the defense has unlimited capital if there is a financier or pro bono dirtbag lawyer involved. we as a people employ the prosecution to look after our best interests and uphold the so called 'laws', yet at the same time, we form the jury that is at odds with our own employees, be it the prosecution, the judge, or a public pretender.

in a trial, before things get set to begin, both the prosecution and defense can screen potential jurors, hoping to find those that would be more able to agree with their case. once again, advantage defense. all it takes is one unemployed loser, welfare cheat, or disability fraudster to throw the damn thing out of court on account of their own stupidity.

so trials will keep happening, and one or more morons will continue to let rapists, murderers and other evildoers out because we as the people on the whole are dumb and unqualified to sit on juries.

[thought change]

there is no justice in america. keep arresting those victimless criminals and putting the predators out on the street. like this 5 time felon who got conked in the head with a flashlight, after driving a stolen car and running from the local law enforcement in los angeles. this is a scandal! we got the urban league and all these 'reformed' ex-cons [muslims] running their mouths about how much of a travesty of justice this is. nevermind the obvious. this man has failed in society multiple times, yet we offer chance after chance. sometimes it's justifiable. there are a lot of ex-cons out there doing things with their life other than plotting and committing more crime, i know this. but that is not the issue here. the issue is this guy stole a car, ran from the police, then bailed the vehicle and ran some more. he had a metal object in his pocket, which turned out to be wire cutters, but for the officers chasing down a suspect in the heat of struggle, a metal object could have been anything. while i agree the force was a bit much, it would have never happened if he didn't run. what about that? the police are not 100% at fault here. are they now not supposed to chase people that drive stolen cars?

[thought change]

that's the same mentality we use to defend our borders. we'll chase you up to a point, then once you have made it far enough in, we'll leave you alone. and then the temecula office of the BORDER PATROL starts sweeps of the 'interior' and all the activists start screaming civil rights and such. well let's see what mexico does when people enter their country illegally. if they don't torture and extort money, they simply deport your ass. no questions asked. you're out of there, plain and simple. but when america starts enforcing the influx of illegal immigrants, we're a bunch racist assholes, right? if that's the case, why do we have a border patrol, much less a border? as a taxpayer, am i supposed to get warm fuzzies knowing that my tax dollars are going to pay for some person's kid born here even though they are here illegally? i'm surprised you don't hear more about 7-8 month pregnant women walking through arizona just to get that almighty green card. 347,000 people detained last year in arizona alone. i would presume that is about 10% of the total, based on the resources we give towards our border protection. israel? now they get it. big ass fence for the win.

if by now you think i hate the mexican people, nothing could be further from the truth. i just don't like their government [ha!], and apparently they don't either, if that rally in mexico city is any indication. mr fox, clean up your act. none of this we can deport people, but you can't you filthy gringo american nonsense. if mexico had a strong economy, this would not be such an issue. and they don't have an alan greenspan. and no, mr fox, i don't want to eat any of your tacos. however, i will eat with the wonderful warm friendly people of your country any day.

okay this 'outrage' over seven minutes of no reaction by bush in that classroom on 9-11 is total crap. why is it the same people that lampoon and point and cry foul about this behavior, in the next breath say something stupid about how bush does not care about american youth and sends them off to die pointlessly in iraq.

here is the deal for those who don't get it. kids aren't stupid [well most]. they pick up on the actions of the 'adults' around them. if you had just found out a plane hit a building in nyc and were not sure what was going on, and were in a classroom listening to students read because you hate the youth, what would you have done? gone into a flurrying panic? bolted out of there and got onto air force one immediately and fly to the white house? made a huge commotion and upset the children?

i would have done exactly what bush did. wait, stay calm, do not scare the children, and leave after the session was up. after all, bush has two daughters, one of whom is going to yale and the other univ of texas, both credible schools in the world of academia. he is a parent and the president. he did the right thing. and for that canadian moore to make issue of this is childish. if he's got all the answers, why doesn't he run as kerry's veep?

would seven minutes spent by one man have been the difference in stopping 9-11 or halting permanently worldwide terrorism? is that what this mental giant argument is implying? if you were to honestly think that, you are an imbecile.

i'm really hoping america has another terror attack, when john kerry is in office. and another and another until americans stop wringing their hands to the fact that ragheads want us dead by the millions. they will stop at nothing to achieve that goal. so keep on blaming bush for everything wrong in the world, all the while forgetting that the government is only as corrupt and inept as the people that put it to work. it is my fault and yours too.

onto other pointless effects...

i will not see this moore flick unless:

a- i download a divx rip from the internet, thus giving 0 dollars to that propgandist piece of crap.
b- wait for the dvd that some moron will inevitably buy and watch their copy.
c- go see some other movie and 'hop' theaters to watch it [not likely, i loathe dark places with the 'public'].

"If you tell a big enough Lie, and keep on repeating it, in the end people will come to believe it." Joseph Goebbels.

if you make a movie with inaccurate historical context, call it a documentary, then when convenient label it satire, enough stupid people will believe it as fact. -tehrawr-

i'm waiting for monday when the world will be blathering on about how great michael moore is and how poignant his flick is. he's so right, bush is a terrorist! yeah yeah!

michael moore is pro-terror, anti-american. after all, without bad happening he cannot point it out to those too stupid to get more than one man's self absorbed opinion. and he won't be interviewed by potential exposers of his fraudulent portrayal either. instead, he gets sucked off on national television by fellow moronic brainwashed mouthpieces with nonsensical softball questions. just like OJ, who is still mad at nicole for not being there for the kids [laugh].

i am still hoping for the michael moore vs. phil hendrie interview, because it would be a classic. i would not want a bill o'reilly interview, because he would just use words like 'ideologue' and 'fair and balanced'. he really is forehead boy. and ever so boring. he is a constant reminder of why i do not subscribe to the reaction box with moving pictures. i prefer those with 100 or more keys, proaction for the win.

because this is america, the land of the free, moore can make this lie and sell it to all the thoughless sheep without any worry from the government. the american government nor any of its agencies have never censored michael moore, even though he thinks they are responsible for buena vista's decision not to carry the movie domestically. i think his next movie should show how corrupt the saudi royal family and the hardline islamic iran mullahs and clerics are, and have him attend the openings in riyadh and tehran. if he got killed, his family could always blame america, like that one guy who got his head chopped off when he went to iraq. i think his name was berg.

what's the status on the abu ghraib investigations? i haven't been hearing about those much lately, what with all the foreigners heads rolling along arab street. at least we keep most of our prisoners alive.

ragheads suck, god is great.

hi, my name is scott, i murdered my wife.
i also killed my unborn baby which everyone calls connor.
i'm only significant because of a retarded sensationalist media.
they made a 'made for tv' movie about me killing my wife.
some women apparently think i'm hot. i'd like to kill them too.
i like to have affairs with trashy whores.
my daddy defends me from the mean public like my loser attorney.
my attorney got fired by that weirdo michael jackson.
i can't get my story straight, but i will walk. chicks think i'm hot.
bitches.

yet another al-qaida endorsed terror attack over the weekend. this time in saudi arabia.

these 'holy warriors' don't follow conventions and don't care about soveriegn borders. their goal is simple. disrupt the economy of the world, which hurts everyone, not just americans. i'm wondering how serious the wahabbi saudi royal family is on fighting essentially themselves. i guess we will find out soon enough.

who fears a democratic system in iraq? saudi arabia and iran.

why? both are theocracies ruled by royalty, clerics and mullahs. while there is nothing inherently wrong with that, did i mention that these theocracies reek of corruption? all that money from oil and the people still suffer in poverty

how is it that 3 of 4 'suspects' got away, and they were able to kill 22? i blame the lackluster effort of the saudi special forces with their neat american supplies. perhaps we should train them how to use such things. then again, if they are letting terrorists get away, maybe it's better we don't.

onto other terror stories:

in 2002 off the coast of yemen, some 'terrorists' attacked a french tanker ship, killing 1 person and injuring 12 others. those accused are going on trial in yemen, so rest assured they will be found innocent.




onto domestic legal issues:

scott peterson killed his wife. this is not a spectacular case. loser men kill their pregnant wives all the time in this country. could it be that a ru-486 taken in march of that year would have saved her life? pro-choice for the win.

even though scott peterson killed his wife, lied about it to try to shack up with some trailer trash, he will be found innocent. why? because you take 12 'preselected' and 'qualified' members of anything and get them to agree on something. it can't be done. just another case of our failing justice system. scott goes scott free, that's my prediction.

and then there is this story from the daily bruin about a woman raped in her dorm room by three high schoolers on a field trip.

what is the result? all three got off [literally] the charges because of an indecisive jury. that is, except Deshawn Stringer, who is facing 6 months for grabbing another coed's butt.

how is it that gang rape is less of a crime than 'feeling' someone up? i fail to see the logic.

"Defendants Chuwan Anthony, Jamar Dawson and DeShawn Stringer were found not guilty on charges of collectively contributing to forced rape, oral sex and burglary."

"The jury split evenly 6-6 on Stringer's charge of forced rape, and the jury cast seven votes guilty to five votes not guilty on Stringer's count of forced oral sex. "

"The jury voted 11 votes not guilty to one vote guilty on Dawson and Anthony's charges of forced rape and oral sex. "

hmm... this just doesn't make any sense because:

"After entering several rooms and meeting different people the defendants went to the Fir building where they knocked on the door of "Jane Doe," the name the court is using to protect the woman's identity.

Stringer entered the room and had sex with the woman after Dawson and Anthony left. Earlier in the trial the woman testified she said "no" several times while Stringer forced her to have sex with him.

After Stringer left the room, Dawson and Anthony entered and had oral sex and intercourse with the woman – sometimes concurrently.

The woman testified she did not say "no" or fight back during the sexual encounter with Dawson and Anthony, something the prosecution attributed to "frozen fright."

also take into account that:

[would] a woman would have unprotected sex with three men whom she knew for less than 10 minutes? i think the answer here is no, especially in the middle of a day in a dorm room whilst studying. it doesn't add up. they raped her.

i feel terrible that such acts do not go unpunished. based upon what i know of people with names like Chuwan, Jamar, and DeShawn, is it safe to say these are black men? and since black men get screwed every which way in society and by the justice system, we should understand their sexual prowess and need to sacrifice a coed for their carnal needs. what other explanation is there? surely they did not rape this young woman. i should be a defense lawyer.

then you have the strangest part of the whole story.

"Defense attorneys painted a different picture of the encounter, maintaining the sex had been consensual and that in some cases the woman had implied consent." yeah, and defense attorneys get paid to represent guilty parties most of the time in this country. nothing new here. but from a previous story [link]

During a break in his son's testimony on Wednesday, Robert Dawson, Jamar's father, said he was confident the defendants were going to be acquitted.

"It cost me a lot of money to get the right attorneys for him," Dawson said, adding the entire process has been a hardship for his family.

well blow me down and break the stereotype! now we can't blame the actions on one of these rapists on lack of a father, just a father figure. when scum breeds and makes more scum, we all suffer. am i supposed to feel bad your rapist son forced you to get an attorney to defend him? some father figure you are. maybe he would have been better off if he had no father around.

i'm off to kill someone now, since the likelihood that i get convicted by a jury is a mere 13%. and then these same morons complain about crime on the streets.

pro-choice, pro-death. the pro-life results are displayed above for all to see. there is a solution.