Some of the implications of the various subjects discussed here are clearly within the realm, and the purview, of the judiciary, but not in the sense CLEOs would like. What, for instance, is the value or the purpose of laws pertaining to search and seizure when military slime is available to steal or corrupt personal property for the benefit of law enforcement? I have no remaining personal property that wasn't already accessed or confiscated by law enforcement, but the corruption that occurred was clearly the result of military slime tampering, hacking, switching, and in some cases handing me that which law enforcement would find expedient. The thefts perpetrated by military slime were clearly tactical in nature, and part of the various scams described here.
What is the purpose of laws pertaining to investigative authority, the sort obviated by the Patriot Act, when Corporate Stooges can create bogus phone or financial records without fear of criminal or civil liability? Like other CLEO stooges, they simply follow instructions, knowing that there is no legal authority supervising their activities, their methods or considering their motives. The first of the Corporate Stooges that I encountered was AT&T in June of 1997. I discovered that Michael E. Bartley had established phone and utility services using the fraudulent ID. I had the utilities disconnected, but AT&T refused to acknowledge or accept the court orders or the other evidence presented to them that I had not made the calls, or incurred the charges, they had allowed for when they established service. I was told that small claims court would not hear such a case, and wrote a letter of protest, but AT&T ignored all of the evidence and correspondence and like so many other people harmed by the felonious activities of DMV personnel, the unpaid bill became another example of the residual damage caused when fraudulent IDs are issued. (Of course, I didn't know at the time how that bill would actually become part of the scam described here, that those calls would also be attributed to me for reasons I didn't understand at the time. Since then I have become an expert on false attribution tactics by law enforcement, so AT&T must have had knowledge of the phony "profile" that law enforcement was trying to establish when they selected Michael E. Bartley to be the patsy and the vehicle for that profile to be falsely attributed to your humble writer).
There is also the issue of selective prosecution, or perhaps more accurately, criminality sponsored by law enforcement for their benefit. If the analogy presented in the previous essay has any merit, then law enforcement is essentially directing criminal activity, probably providing the props and "evidence" as well, which to me indicates not only complicity, but participation. When I reported the theft of my personal belongings the effort to disprove that the reports had ever occurred was amazing to watch, something like an emergency operator hanging up on you when you told them your house was burning down and your kids were trapped upstairs. "I'm sorry, we're busy right now. Try calling back later. Did you know we don't have to respond anyway according to the law?"
So what are the legal responsibilities of law enforcement anyway? I really don't know, but after I had gathered enough evidence to figure out how Lasher's narrative was intended to refer to your humble writer, but only after all of my property, records and identification had been stolen and my mother could no longer provide testimony, the reason became obvious. At that point I appealed to Mr. Cooley again, through Adult Protective Services and directly with correspondence, basically begging for medical assistance for my mother, and the assignment of some sort of medical professional to supervise her care, because John Andrew Whitcraft, Jr., with protection provided by Piece O' Shit "Fairlane" Ford, were preventing it. So it became obvious that the identity scam, perpetrated by "Book-em Dan-O" Lasher and Paul "Pffft" were connected, and it also became clear that to accomplish it, the perpetrators had carefully avoided judicial scrutiny when they falsified the reports and made the bogus database entries.
The alleged "residential burglary" for example, like the other bogus "arrests" described by Lasher, could not have been adjudicated at the time because the perpetrators knew they could easily be disproved. They couldn't bring any charges for the same reason, so Lasher's narrative becomes a comical rendition of what a real cop would ask a real perpetrator that admitted to a burglary. Lasher couldn't ask those questions, because he knew they would undermine the scam, and until all the evidence had been stolen or destroyed there was no way any part of that report could withstand scrutiny. In other words, law enforcement had a motive not to acknowledge the report of the thefts that contributed to that scam or the other forms of criminality associated with the misappropriation of those belongings. And they also had a motive to destroy the ID that was in my possession on May 4, 2007 when two military pieces of shit caused a police response which resulted in that ID being removed from my possession.
So there are a range of issues, from selective prosecution to equal protection to the violations of First and Fourth Amendment rights. All of the violations I've described reliant on the relationship, and the shared motives and interests of military personnel and law enforcement, many of whom were ex-military themselves. My experience, and one of the subjects I think is significant for consideration by the general population, is the consistent participation of military slime to commit what would otherwise be criminal offenses with the tacit approval, and in some cases the participation of law enforcement officials. Why do they get a pass, when some of the offenses that have been reported constitute serious felonies, some of which resulted in others that would not have been possible if simple, common law enforcement procedures had been followed. Like acknowledgement of a theft report, for instance.
If the judiciary can't or won't hear my arguments, or even see my presentation because of the barrier that exists at the window of the clerk, then it became apparent that the issues I intended to present to the judiciary should be considered by the general population. My grievances continue to this day, the same parties, hostile to my efforts for obvious reasons, using the same tactics of complaints and falsifications. Today's complaint or falsified police report is no different that those I wanted to present to the court four years ago. Today's assault, slander, theft or tampering are no different than those I described, and sought relief from, years ago. But without judicial review, these subjects are necessarily relegated to the public forum, and it appears that those I consider defendants will not be accountable either for their professional misconduct, criminality or responsible for financial losses associated with their conduct.
So the Accusing Fingers rule. Those that have a compelling interest to preclude judicial review of these issues and see the exercise of First Amendment rights as a threat, continue to use the same tactics, clearly intended to result in further losses of property, rights and freedoms described here. In other words, they don't give a f*** about any of those things as long as they can remain immune from culpability or liability. And unfortunately for myself and the rest of the population that doesn't live above the law, their aw-thor-i-tay has also provided the means of precluding these issues from being reviewed by the judiciary or even being discussed in the public forum.
The bogus complaints made against me since May 2007 are not only specious, but obviously intended to be overwhelming in volume, yet in no instance have they, or the complainants ever faced any sort of judicial scrutiny. So Mt. CLEO, the construct that is the manifestation of this strategy, an amalgamation of CLEO bullshit much of which was donated by military slime, is their shield as the Accusing Fingers continue to deflect attention from the clear and valid presentation I've made here and to the authorities with jurisdiction in the past.
© humble journalist
No comments:
Post a Comment