Category: Legal Commentary

So today’s post is about an obscure federal sentencing fact, that allows a federal court to base a criminal defendant’s sentence on conduct for which a jury has acquitted the defendant.

As you can see from the link, there is case – that has been in litigation for quite some time – and it appears that the SCOTUS is considering taking it, as a ton of preliminary briefs have been filed by the various concerned parties. This is a case to watch because the practice should be banned. For example: drug defendants have often complained about the problems of “ghost dope“.

Even though McClinton doesn’t deal directly with the problem of ghost dope, the SCOTUS might address it and the other troubling aspects of “relevant conduct” in sentencing. As the link explains: relevant conduct can include dismissed charges, uncharged conduct, and even acquitted conduct. Under certain circumstances, relevant conduct may further include conduct of coconspirators, and conduct beyond the offense of conviction.

Here’s hoping the SCOTUS will render relevant conduct unconstitutional. It looks like Gorsuch & Kavanaugh lean that way. But this highlights a greater problem with the “Justice System”, it’s a system that flows with the political winds. And as we saw this year with their “Dobbs” decision, settled law can become unsettled in a day. Given that our population is extremely ignorant of where most of our cherished rights come from (the Warren Court: 1953 – 1969) and that all Courts since have endeavored to erode those rights. Note that the Burger Court (1969 – 1986) gave us Roe; BUT, also gave us the nonsensical “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule.

The bottom line is: all of the rights you think you have were given to you by the SCOTUS from 1953 until 1980 and the SCOTUS has been slowly limiting them or taking them away ever since… this case could reverse that trend.

UPDATE (August 15, 2023): The SCOTUS punted the issue, arguing that the Sentencing Commission is going to review the issue and “should” outlaw the practice.

The Typical American Citizen (TAC) thinks: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you shouldn’t worry about government surveillance.”

When the TAC is then informed that the government has illegally collected THEIR communications; they react with, “That is un-American. It is a clear abuse of MY privacy and it must be stopped; AND, Congress feels the same.

As I’m sure you’re probably well aware, I’m about to tell you that their view of surveillance is wrong. The FBI is not a benevolent organization. While note as bad as the KGB, it has the same mission as a new book entitled “The Gospel of J. Edgar Hoover explains”.

I’ll assume that you’ve watched My Cousin Vinnie AND that you don’t understand this fact, that scenario plays out across this nation many times each year. That is, an innocent person stands accused of a crime they didn’t commit by a corrupt prosecutor. (The blame lies solely with the prosecutor, not the cops or the FBI). Unfortunately – for the vast majority of these defendants – their dilemma will end with an illegal conviction (usually for a lessor included offense) via a “plea deal” with the likely corrupt prosecutor.

The current season (2023) of The Accused on A&E shows this reality in dramatic – one hour crime drama – form. So to continue the “Vinnie” analogy, just think what would have happened had Vinnie not shown up in Alabama. It’s clear that their stuttering & inept public defender would have lost the case and Vinnie’s cousin and his friend would currently be on death row AND their only hope for exoneration would be the exoneration project, even though the evidence – when looked at accurately – proves their innocence.

Several biases are at work to keep our corrupt system of justice motion. The first is falsity that law enforcement officers are benevolent, they are not (and cannot be), simply because too much behavior is illegal. Like I explained before, EVERYONE has violated a federal or state law. (Speeding, Jaywalking, Sharing your Netflix password or eating a French Fry in the wrong location etc…) And in a surveillance (i.e police) state, the only thing stopping you being prosecuted for the many crimes you commit are the various prosecutor’s time & discretion and that should really, really scare you.

As I’ve explained – ad nauseam – on this site, I am the victim of a malicious prosecution by a corrupt prosecutor named Keith A. Becker, who teamed up with an FBI that has always practiced “the ends justifies the means” law enforcement. The Palmer Raids initiated the FBI’s illegal enforcement stance and it continues to this day even though Hoover is long gone…

This philosophy trickled down to every other law enforcement agency in the nation, under the guidance of the biggest piece of shit ever to be in federal employment, J. Edgar Hoover. Many books have been written about this closeted and ridiculously paranoid homosexual. (Again see the book mentioned above) So anyone who denies what a massive piece of shit he was is simply uninformed or completely dishonest, because his evilness is an objective statement of fact… In other words, claiming Hoover was great is akin to claiming Hitler was great and we know that’s absurd. LOL

Americans need to face the facts head on and to become a lot more skeptical of law enforcement methods and motives…

For example, see US v. Kurbanov… But, what is it?

First, The NSA “taps” the internet backbone and temporarily stores it (all the data) in a massive data center. (Currently located in Utah) then:

• The FBI is allowed to search this massive data center for “selectors” they’re interested in. “Selectors” are e-mail addresses, IP addresses, Phone Numbers or several other identifiers that can differentiate certain data streams from others. (It is not clear if the FBI can ask the NSA to target a specific selector BUT the NSA can target a selector if it wishes. Targeting a selector results is “content” collection. For example, if the NSA targets phone number 555-555-1212 then their systems collect the content of all the communications associated with that number, including the apps the phone uses)
• After the FBI searches the massive data center, it then uses that illegally obtained data to “re-obtain” it through legal subpoenas and warrants. (In other words, the FBI obtains those subpoenas and warrants with perjury.)
• Federal Prosecutors then prosecute the FBI’s target BUT do not disclose the illegal methods used to obtain the indictment. That is an egregious Brady Violation.
• Parallel Construction continues because no defendant is able to challenge it due to the egregious perjury the government commits to conceal it.

Hopefully, you’ll never need to use anything you’re about to read; but, the sad fact is that the United States of America is becoming a Police State, when compared to free states like Canada. Therefore, unfortunately, it is appropriate to start acting as such – since there are least 4,450 federal crimes, the chances that you are guilty of a least one of them is highly likely. Consider, for example, the simple fact that using a fake name online or sharing your Netflix account are crimes under the broadly worded Computer Abuse and Fraud Act (CFAA).

I used those two examples to drive home the stark reality. Due to our digital surveillance state, all of the crimes that you have committed “online” or “on camera” are known (or could be known) to the over 100,000 federal agents AND the only thing stoping them from prosecuting you, sadly, is their limited time.

So let’s discuss how they spend their time. Before we went down the path of becoming a police state, there were far fewer federal agents and they didn’t do anything until someone complained to them about someone doing something illegal. If they found the complaint credible, they would investigate. This process took up all of the available agents time. (And when the did have spare time, they spent in on harassing civil rights activists or investigating congressmen for black files) Now, in the digital age, there is another activity for them to spend their time on, they try to prevent crime. And you should note that “crime prevention” is a purely police state activity because it is in direct opposition to our bill of rights.

No matter how their investigation started, their initial goal is to acquire enough evidence to get a judge to issue a warrant (arrest or search) against the subject. Most of the time they request a search warrant to obtain evidence to support an arrest warrant. In either case, your first notification that they’re investigating you usually arrives with them knocking on (or knocking down) your door. You should not that their intrusion lightly (i.e. “a simple misunderstanding”) and exercise your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and your Sixth Amendment right to counsel as soon as they try to talk to you. I cannot stress enough how important it is for you to remain silent and demand a lawyer. You need to resist the natural human urge to co-operate and be cordial. The agents aren’t your friends and quite often they aren’t good people. They are zealots, pathetically committed to an erroneous sense of infallibility.

It’s important to remember the hurdles they had to surmount to be at your house. They had convince a judge that you are probably guilty of a crime AND that they have probable cause to believe that they will find evidence of that crime at your location. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for them to converse with you in any way, that’s why – under our Constitution – you are under no obligation to assist them in their search in any way AND I strongly suggest you enforce that right.

To help you in this defiance, I suggest you leave the premises because you do not have to be there. I understand the temptation to want to stay and watch the jackbooted thugs rummage through your belongings, but it is a waste of your time. Thugs do what thugs do. Remember, they are zealots who are already sure that you committed whatever crime they are investigating, it’s time to get a lawyer.

As I noted in an earlier post regarding Trump’s indictment, it isn’t a matter of “if” but “when”. (As this legal commenter points out). Trump has never been in this kinda trouble before and because he isn’t that bright, he doesn’t understand what’s coming in 2023. The documents case is pretty much done, it’s just a matter of presenting it to a jury (grand then trial) and both will come to the same conclusion, Trump is very guilty. Then it will be up to the judge to punish him, and this is where things will get draconian and perhaps expose our clearly unfair federal sentencing procedures.

You see, under those draconian procedures, the Judge will be able to consider “uncharged conduct“. For example: in the Silk Road case, the judge used a Maryland indictment against Ross during sentencing. As “Reason” explains in the “uncharged conduct” link, the Supreme Court declined to hear his challenge to this unfair sentencing procedure.

So, one of the many good things that may come from a Trump conviction will be, perhaps, the SCOTUS addressing this fundamentally unfair procedure after the Judge uses it to put Trump behind bars for whatever is allowed by the statutes & number of counts he’s convicted of… (The government could charge Trump individually for each document illegally in his possession, so based on a 20 year maximum penalty for each document, it would be easy for the judge to put Trump away for life by “stacking” the sentence.)

Regardless, 2023 is going to be a very bad year for Trump.

So, it’s hard to argue against the USA being some sort of police state, when you can literally be arrested and prosecuted for making fun of the police. The argument becomes more convincing when the courts grant the police “qualified immunity” after you’re acquitted by a jury and sue them for violating your rights (noting the fact that this case actually went to trial, is – in of itself – proof that we live in a police state).

I don’t think most people understand what an indictment means. As I can tell you from first hand experience, it’s worthless from an evidentiary standpoint. Let me explain the prosecution template that has been completely distorted by shows like Law and Order as John Oliver pointed out in a recent episode.

Prosecution Step One: Before the USA became a “police state“, prosecutions were initiated by a complaint of some sort. A complaint consisted of a citizen complaining to a police officer that something unwanted happened to them or someone they know. The police officer then investigated the complaint and if he found enough evidence that there was “probable cause” to believe that a crime had been committed, he/she arrested the suspect and then informed the prosecutor (often called the district attorney) that he arrested this guy for doing this thing that he thinks violates this law.

Now, since the USA became a police state, prosecution step one has another avenue, it’s called “crime prevention“. That’s where the police go out into the community looking for people who may be committing a crime. It’s un-American but part of our current existence nonetheless…

So for Trump, this first step was started when the people who work at the National Archives informed the Department of Justice (DOJ) that Trump was refusing to comply with the Presidential Records Act. So the DOJ initiated an investigation into their complaint. The DOJ soon found that the National Archive’s complaint was valid and ordered Trump to comply. He did so partially, probably not realizing the serious legal jeopardy he was now in… It’s not surprising that his partial compliance pissed the DOJ off and if Trump had competent lawyers, they would have informed him that partial compliance was a HUGE mistake. But Trump is dumb as a box of rocks and didn’t understand this fundamental change in his legal position. He didn’t understand he was now under criminal investigation.

Criminal Investigation becomes formalized in the form of a Search Warrant. Again, I can tell you from personal experience, search warrants carry with them a strong presumption of guilt. This is because the officer has to file an affidavit – under oath – attesting that he believes that the subject of the search has probably committed a specific crime (or crimes) and that he will probably be able to find evidence of that crime (or crimes) at the place he is requesting the court to allow him to search.

In my case, this initial search warrant was deemed “void ad initio” (which means it was void on its face because the magistrate had no authority to issue the warrant); but, the courts have assumed it was obtained in good faith so there was no need to suppress the fruits of their illegal search. I contested the government’s “good faith” because they lied to the magistrate about the evidence that the NIT Report provided. (As I explained in a previous post)

In Trump’s case, he has no such argument and thus why I believe that his indictment for the charges stated in the search warrant have already been filed and is currently under seal. This is because I know…

Prosecution Step Two: Once they have executed the search warrant and found what they were looking for, the next step is to present their one sided view of the evidence they’ve collected to a grand jury with a one sided narrative. (That’s why there is a saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. It’s because he gets to select the evidence and compose the narrative without any opposition.)

In my case this step was also fatally flawed. They used the NIT Report, that was solely based on a fabricated and falsified MySQL table, to present a false narrative to the grand jury that my IP “accessed” or “attempted to receive” contraband from a server under FBI control on or about November 19, 2012.

Again, in Trump’s case, he has no such argument and he and his lawyers know it. Thus all this nonsense with the special master, that is nothing more than a futile stalling tactic. In the end, the courts will rule (as the Eleventh Circuit has hinted) Trump has no legal claim to any of the documents. That means Trump has no legal defense against the charges listed in the search warrant.

Prosecution Step Three: Trial or Plea Deal. That’s it, those are your options after indictment. Although there is a third, and it’s what I tried in my habeas petitions. There is only one way to get an indictment tossed, you have to prove – by a preponderance of evidence – that the indictment was obtained in bad faith. Trump is hinting that he’ll try this tactic as well, it will eventually fail because his claim, unlike mine, is baseless.

My case was initiated with simple FBI perjury. My proof is this: I have an expert report proving that Tinyboard doesn’t have a visitors table, doesn’t issue session ids to visitors and doesn’t track visitor activity. That means that the FBI fabricated the visitors table, falsified the session ids in it and committed perjury when they told the grand jury that their fabricated table provided probable cause that my IP accessed” or “attempted to receive” contraband from a server under FBI control on or about November 19, 2012.

Trump can make no such argument. So all we have to wait for now is to see what his punishment will be…

So I just finished reading Thom Hartmann’s “Hidden History of Big Brother in America”. It is full of very useful information among its pages. One thing of particular interest to me was his review of China’s “Social Credit System” and how all the systems are in place to implement it here, we just need a receptive government. (Authoritative President + Sycophant Majority Congress + Corrupt Courts = Dystopia)

I think my experience as a Second Class citizen after leaving prison suggests that we may already be living in that dystopia. Take for instance, NY State’s law regarding employment of “convicts”. It states:

An employer in NY state who employs 10 or more employees may not refuse to hire an applicant based on a prior conviction unless hiring the applicant would pose an unreasonable risk to property, or to public safety, or the conviction bears a direct relationship to the job.

NY Corr L § 752 (2019)

In my experience, all employers appear to be blatantly ignoring this law when it comes to me. But it is what it is I guess. But it feels like the social credit system is already here…

Take this article on one of my favorite sites. It states that, in regards to NYPD: “In addition to its ~$10 billion (with a “B”) annual budget, the city (via the billfolds of residents) hands out more than $250 million a year in lawsuit settlements.”

That means a Liberal city has a serious problem with bad police. What do you think the “bad police” stats are in Conservative cities? Perhaps this problem can be traced back to conservative judges who support the police in unsupportable situations, as I mentioned in a previous post, and the fact that Trump Judges pose an existential threat to our nation; nonetheless, many other judges – both “liberal” & “conservative” – have coddled police with a concept the SCOTUS invented out of thin air in 1967 called “qualified immunity”.

With that fact in mind, We really need to start teaching real history in high school again and forgo this nonsense of teaching towards standardized tests. (It’s a simple fact that it’s a major part of making our nation stupid.) We’ve also become a nation a busybodies all up in everyone else’s business. Maybe because most of us are too stupid to read an adult book?

Without real history being taught to our teens, they become adults who don’t know that ALL of their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS basically came in to existence during the Warren Court. How many of you know that Warren’s SCOTUS gave us the right to remain silent when arrested? Or that his Court gave you the right to an Attorney and as such one will be appointed to you if you cannot afford one? Or that this Court gave us the “exclusionary rule” and that subsequent courts have been trying to take it away?

All this proves that post Warren, all SCOTUS have steadily tried to remove the rights secured during his tenure. And that’s why America has a big problem, we cannot be the land of the free without the Warren Court’s decisions. Attacking them is the same as attacking out nation as we know it. I think Dobbs was just the beginning of our possible end. Dobbs tells women they are second class citizens, which is an obvious offense to our previous American ideals.