The journal of Harvey Wendt

28 February 2009

In the Dallas Morning News of 2-7-09, in the crime section, is an article headlined: "Man who died in prison cleared." It's about a man convicted of rape who for years said he was innocent, and who died in prison - with no one caring. Finally, years after his death in prison, the Innocence Project managed to get a DNA test done which conclusively proved his innocence. The actual rapist gave a confession, in which he asked forgiveness from the rape victim.

Dramatically at the hearing, she shouted out: "I'm going to try to forgive you, but it's going to take a long, hard time."

Well, lady (?) that's just great. You're going to forgive the man who raped you. But, tell us this; since your victim, the innocent man you lied about to send to prison, is dead, who is going to forgive you for the horrible way you murdered him? He can't do it - he's dead! And do you know how many innocent men are still in prison now, convicted like him because somebody like you lied? No, I don't think we'll have an easy time forgiving you and those like you either.

In the Dallas Morning News for 2-11-09 is a follow-up article headlined: "Answering Injustice," with a lower headline: "We can't allow other innocent men to die in prison."

That doesn't make a very good joke for the thousands of innocent men who are right now dying daily in prison for sex crimes they did not commit, or for those who will eventually get out only to discover that there is no place they will be allowed to live, no job they will be allowed to work at, and no public assistance they will be allowed to receive. We won't even be allowed to leave the state of the country to try to find a place where we can live.

This 2-11-09 article openly admits that the persecutors deliberately acted to obtain an illegal conviction, and that they manufactured a false case to send him to prison, though the evidence showed he was innocent.

On top of it all, the real rapist confessed in 1995 and DNA tests proved he did it, but the persecutors still kept the innocent man in prison until he died in 1999. The article: "Those authorities have never answered for their actions." Don't look for them to. They will never be punished for their crimes. They are " good-old-boys" - immune to the law.

It's not as if their crimes are unusual, though. In fact, they did nothing that is not done day after day in every criminal court in Texas, and every criminal court in the U.S.A. So, why should they be punished while persecutors everywhere in the country continue doing the same crimes day after day?

And what about the jury members who sit through the trials every day being shown innocence by the evidence, but ignoring it and convicting anyway? What they do is just as criminal.

And then there are the judges in appeals courts and habeas courts, all the way up through the Supreme Court. They can all read the trial records, even the many that are falsified y corrupt court reporters, and the see that the evidence utterly failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To the contrary, in the majority of sex cases today, there is often nothing at all that qualifies under the written laws as actual evidence, and jurors are told, in violation of the law, that they can convict just because they think the accused is guilty.

Who is going to punish all these criminals for illegally convicting so many innocent men? And who is going to forgive them? Like the Roman Empire, the U.S.A. is destroying itself with its own internal corruption. It needs no other enemies.

2 March 2009

As reported on page 2A of the Tyler Morning Telegraph, legislators and other good-old-boys are jumping on the band wagon now, hacking and slashing in righteous indignation at federal judge Samuel Kent since he has been caught with his hands full of someone else's anatomies. Of course, they want everyone to believe that they are seeking to clean up an unusual spot of corruption among the good-old-boys. If only that were the real reason.

The real reason is that if they don't promptly claw him to death, he might let out the secret that what he has been caught at is only the tip of a monstrous iceberg. The public might discover that his acts are insignificant compared with what they and the rest of the good-old-boys are doing. The easiest way to hide the fire is to blow the smoke away.

3 March 2009

"The Week" magazine for 3-6-09 has on page 22 item headlined: "Your memories are replaceable" which once again points out a well known face which has for years been testified to by experts in trials of wealthy people accused of sex crimes - but never permitted to be mentioned in trials of common people. It is a fact heavily relied upon by corrupt persecutors and judges to convict innocent people deliberately. The fact is well know, easily utilized with adults, far more easily used with children, and frequently used to people to prison when there is no legal excuse for doing so, by charging them with sex cases which, contrary to he law, almost always result in conviction of common people without a necessity for any evidence. The fact is that is easy to replace a person's actual memories with memories custom built to fit the desires of the authorities in the criminal system. The article says: "new research shows that human memories are often faulty, and are highly susceptible to influence by authority figures."

Actually, the new research merely rehashes the results of similar researches conducted repeatedly for many years, always demonstrating the same result. This is simply one more proof that people never learn from past experience and always opt for the worst of any two choices previously experienced. They don't learn simply because they don't want the truth. They prefer to be lied to.

4 March 2009

The Dallas Morning News for Feb. 22, 2009 shows clearly how the American good-old-boy system operates. Beginning on page 1 is an article by Tanya Eiserer headlined: Dallas Police "Allegations never seem to stick." It begins on page 1 telling of a Dallas cop who fondled a woman with her 6 year old watching, has been having sex with a high school student since she was 16, had sex with a woman while he was on duty and was fired for it but reinstated, and was investigated over and over again for sexual molestation while on duty. He denied that his behavior was inappropriate. That was in the 3 paragraphs on page 1. Then the article jumps to page 21 - all of the entire page 21. This article goes on and on about incidents where this good-old-boy cop has been reported, investigated, fired, and reinstated over and over again, for sexual abuse of common women and girls, frequently while on duty. In fact, he was hired as a Dallas cop despite having been forced to retire from the army for the same thing. This good-old-boy has been fired over and over for his sexual abuses while on duty, but always reinstated. The article ends by pointing out that he is now fired again, for sexual abuses again, and will probably be reinstated again.

If he were a common person, like you or me, he would long ago have been sent to prison, probably never to be let out. But he is a cop. A good-old-boy. This is the kind of person you want to have in power over you. Go ahead and huff up your feathers and claim that is not what you want, but the facts prove it is. You continue to support corrupt judges, cops, and prosecutors who send innocent common people like yourselves to prison without a shred of proof and continue allowing these good-old-boys to keep their jobs - and do nothing about either situation. That can only be because it is what you want.

5 March 2009

The Tyler Morning Telegraph for March 5 gives a clear example on the first page of section B of how the system operates. The headline reads: "Tyler Man Convicted of Indecency with Child." It tells how a girl, who according to an earlier article didn't want the man going with her mom, accused him of trying to fondle her, but she wouldn't let him. Then it reveals that the girl is a frequent liar. Even further, she wrote and signed a statement to give to the defense lawyer confessing that she had lied about the man and he didn't really do anything.

The one thing the article neglected to mention is the frenzy of accusations and threats the prosecutors make against a child who attempts to recant such a story, convincing him or her that if they don't return to the original story, they will be sent to prison for lying.

Throughout the article and other articles on the same story, the one thing most glaringly absent is any evidence at all which proves the charge true. The article concludes with the closing arguments, which reveal the most commonly used trick by prosecutors in such cases. He told the jury the girl was asking the jurors to believe her, then set the jurors up for a guilt trip if they don't believe her.

That is a clear violation of the law. With this type of argument, the prosecutor makes himself a law violator, a criminal! He also makes criminals of the jurors who fall for it, and makes a criminal of the judge who permits it.

The law does not allow a jury, or a judge, to convict merely because they believe the accuser of the accusation. The law requires as a mandatory compulsion that the accused may not be convicted unless the prosecutor presents legal evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation is true. To make it even more clear, the law prohibits the accusation from being considered as evidence unless and until some actual legal evidence is given proving that it is true.

But in this case, as in most such cases, the conviction was made without a simple piece of evidence, but solely because the prosecutor, judge, and jury members are all criminals, willfully violating the law to send a men to prison not caring if he is guilty or not.

A short time ago I read an article about a case being set for a new trial because a hung jury could not all agree on whether the accused was guilty. Having once been in a "hung jury" case myself, I am well aware of the threats the judge makes to such jurists trying to force them to come o with a guilty verdict. The hung jury and the judge's threats are blatant criminal acts for the same reason that the conviction merely because the jury wants to believe is a criminal act. The law does not allow a hung jury. The law mandates that a not guilt verdict must be given in such cases. That is because the law prohibits any conviction unless the prosecution presents legal evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the reasonable doubt that results in a hung jury mandates a not guilty verdict no matter what anyone believes. And it is the duty of the judge under the law to enter a not guilty verdict if the jury won't, just as it is the judge's duty to enter a not guilty verdict when the prosecutor fails to present the mandatory legal evidence in proof. Yet you can't find a judge anywhere in this country who obeys the law.

6 March 2009

Now compare what is happening in America with what is happening in the rest of the world. The Associated Press published the story about the boy who was 12 years old when he got his 14 year old girlfriend pregnant. When asked, he didn't have a clue what was meant by the question of supporting his newborn daughter financially. In America, of course he and the girl would both have been sent to prison and the child thrown away to "foster care." In England, the boy and girl are going to do their best to raise their daughter, and local agencies are supporting them.

The most interesting part of he article, though, was the statistics. The countries with the least punitive reactions to teen sex acts have the lowest rates of teen pregnancy. England, with its more punitive laws, which still allow this couple to raise their own child with community support, have a rate of teen pregnancy more than twice as high as the less restrictive countries. The good old U.S.A., with by far the most punitive Draconian laws of all mentioned, has a teen pregnancy rate almost double that in England. We just couldn't get it, can we? We never learned a thing from the philosopher Lao-tzu (604-531 B.C.) who said: "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." Nor do we understand the old Latin legal principle: "To a person who consents, no injustice is done."

21 March 2009

In the Tyler Morning Telegraph of 3-11-09 on page 4A, there is an article titled "Can Congress Mandate Citizen Exercise?" It's by Walter Williams. Everyone in the U.S.A. should not merely read it, but seriously study it.

As a result of my study of human nature and human conduct over many years, I have often contended that modern man, who calls himself Homo sapiens, has allowed himself to be overcome by the over-inflated flatulence of his ego. Why have I reached that conclusion? Homo sapiens, we call ourselves, from the Latin homo, which means man, and sapiens, which means intelligent ones of thinkers. Yet, looking around at the world, it is painfully obvious that homo sapiens are among the least able to think rationally, of all animals on Earth. WE thrive only because we kill and destroy for pleasure every thing we touch or see.

Even the most stupid of Earth's animals, when they are harmed often enough by another creature, or by their own acts, eventually learn to avoid the creatures that harms them, or not to do the acts that harm them. There is one invariable constant I observe in my study of human history: although there are a few rare exceptions, homo sapiens in general NEVER learn from experience, neither that of others' nor their own. Throughout human history, they have continued over and over doing the same things that have brought great harm, even unto death, to their ancestors, their neighbors, and even themselves. They even make a sick joke about it by saying: "If you keep doing what you have been doing, you will keep getting what you have been getting." Yet still, they continue doing the same stupid acts, over and over, since the species appeared on Earth.

Nowhere is this more readily obvious and apparent than in their dealings with one another. Keep this in mind as I discuss the article mentioned above, and again after this discussion, when I quote words from the past.

Mr. Williams begins his article speaking of his exercise habits, to which he attributes his good health at the age of 73. Then he asks readers if they think regular exercise is a good idea, and states his belief that it is. Then, assuming that the readers agree that exercise is a good idea, he asks, "Would you support a congressional mandate that all Americans engage in regular exercise?" Here we have the heart of the article, which is not really about exercise at all.

Williams points out the precedent set by belt and helmet laws, and the twisted reasoning used to convince Americans to permit and tolerate those laws. He asks: "If it is a good idea for Congress to force us to buckle up and wear a helmet on a motorcycle, isn't is also a good idea to force us to regularly exercise?"

I must confess that he almost lost me as a reader at that point. I have long chafed over the abomination that our Supreme Court has become, destroying our Constitution while pretending to uphold and protect it. However, I gritted my teeth and read one more paragraph. He had me.

He said, "The only relevant question is: Is it permissible under the Constitution?" He concluded: "the Constitution grants no such authority." Exactly what I said when they made the helmet law, and the seat belt law, and many, many other laws that have been made in violation of the Constitution, yet supported by the traitorous Supreme Court.

Williams went on to quote from our founding fathers concerning the provision used by Congress and the Supreme Court to justify what was clearly unconstitutional, ending with the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." Obviously, the government holding power over America today is not the "democracy" our founders created, and so many soldiers have died to protect.

Mr. Williams said, "Today, we are commended by legislative thugs who, with the Supreme Court sanction, issue orders commanding particular people to do particular things. Most Americas neither understand nor appreciate the spirit and letter of the Constitution and accept Congress' arbitrary orders and privileges based upon status.

I could easily buy my way out of the Texas prison system is I had a dollar for each time I have told listeners that people formed governments and made laws because they were too weak to protect themselves from criminals, and either too cowardly or too greedy to work together to protect each other, with the almost immediate result that the criminals took over all the positions of power and made themselves both the makers and enforcers of law. And how many times, when someone in power has done, or threatened to do, some illegal act, have I heard people say, "They can't do that!" in horrified reaction? I always answer that they can do any damn thing they want to, because they have the guns and you are too cowardly to do what must be done to prevent them!

And Mr. Williams concludes: "While Congress does not have Constitutional authority for most of what it does, it does have police and military power to inflict great pain and punishment for disobedience."

Wow! Among all the millions of Americans, there are now two homos who are sapient enough to understand what is being done to us, with out eager cooperation and participation.

Anacharsis, 600 B.C.: laughed at Solon, the great law maker, "for imagining the dishonesty and covetousness of his countrymen could be restrained by written laws, which were like spider's webs, and would catch, it is true, the weak and the poor, but easily by broken by the mighty and the rich."

Lao-tzu, 604-531 B.C.: "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

Publias Terentius, 190-159 B.C.: "Extreme law is often extreme injustice."

Jonathon Swift, 1707: "Laws are like webs, which may catch small flies, but let wasps and hornets break through."

John Adams, 1735-1826: "The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger public liberty."

James Madison, 1788: "I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of these in power than by violent and sudden usurpation."

William Pitt, 1759-1806: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

George Hegel, 1832: "What experience and history teach is this - that people and government never have learned anything from history, or acted on principle deduced from it."

Lord Denman Thomas, 1844: "Trial by jury, instead of being a security to persons who are accused, will be a delusion, a mockery, and a snare."

Henry David Thoreau, 1842: "Under a government which any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison...the only house in a slave state in which a free man can abide with honor."

Robert Maynard Hutchins, 1954: "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment."

Saint Jerome, 342-420 A.D.: "Even brute beasts and wandering birds do not fall into some traps or nets twice...The scars of others should teach us caution."

Alexis de Tocqueville 1835: [About American Democracy] "I know of no country, indeed, where the love of money has taken stronger hold on the affections of men and where a profounder contempt is it pressed for the theory of the permanent of equality of property."

John Stuart Mill, 1859: "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self protection....The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people...whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called...The individual is not accountable to society for his actions, insofar as these concern the interests of no person but himself."

Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438,478 [1928]: "They [the makers of the Constitution] conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men."

F.D. Roosevelt, June 19, 1941: "We, too, born to freedom, and believing in freedom, are willing to fight to maintain freedom. We and all others who believe as deeply as we do, would rather die on our feet than live on our knees."

[Yet we have now voluntarily surrendered our freedom to despots and willingly kneel before them, not to say what we have wrapped our lips around, hoping to get a piece of the pie that can never be ours while we practice such antics. - H.W.]