Do lawyers practice law or do they administrate?

          It is really discouraging, after practicing law for over 40 years, to watch Common Law abandoned and distorted, replaced by Civil Law under the Napoleonic code, combined with the alleged specialization of lawyers. I believe with the myth of specialization, there has been a corresponding decline in ethics, civility, and respect for the law and for lawyers. We lawyers have turned law and the courts into an assembly line which processes cases and people the same way cattle are processed at Montfort Meat Co. Very few lawyers today reflect either upon their profession or upon their conduct. They appeared to be too busy cranking out billable hours and sucking money from whatever source they can in any manner available.

Many of you may find it hard to remember, but it hasn’t always been this way.  Things changed after Viet Nam and the threatened impeachment of Richard Nixon.  Politicos with law degrees got as nervous as whores in church because many of the Nixon criminals had law degrees, although most didn’t practice.  The ethos changed with the Hill and Knowlton crowd playing at governance.  Fact was replaced by propaganda and politics became viewed as a game.  Prostitution became virtually extinct in Washington because the politicians were prostituting for less money and putting out more.  Most of us felt a duty to both our clients and to society.  That attitude didn’t come out of the civil rights movement but existed prior.  It was from the centuries old development of lawyers.

Open government was the agreed upon goal of the people.  Reigning in predators was the shared goal of both citizen and official.  Consumerism, civil rights, crime reform, fighting poverty, and co-existence were professed goals of the young moderns.  Libertarianism didn’t exist, Ayn Rand was ridiculed, greedy selfish businessmen were to be shunned.  Of course, the privileged rulers fought back.  They backed propaganda TV shows, bought the media outlets, and lobbied for conservative ideology.  However, with the radical views and outrageous conduct of the John Birch Society, most people didn’t concern themselves with Mussolini like ideas or plans.  But mainly we had common law.  We shared common language, common customs, mores, folkways, and taboos.  We all learned English and mastered the archaic Latin terms.  We were taught law as a methodology, not as a body of knowledge.  Laws changed with every meeting of legislators or appellate courts, whereas “The Law” didn’t.  Law was the embodiment of our society.

          But, globalization was upon us.  Large corporations chafed at having to comply with various laws, rules and regulations in various countries.  They wanted simplicity.  They also wanted cheap.  They wanted opinions and written rules, not speculation as to meaning.  They wanted a totalitarian construction of things, not a social construction of things.  All that was involved was reading rules and drafting things.  It was simple, in their minds, just like repealing a health care law.  Nothing to it.  Courts?  Who needs them.  They interfere with efficiency.  Instead of teaching the citizens how to govern themselves, the masters taught them to worship the rich merciless business and eschew taxes.  Taxes were the enemy, not greed and avarice.

Thus, a new generation of lawyers.  Steeped in the desire for money, no concept of justice, lacking in intellect and curiosity, indoctrinated to management by objectives, sight was lost of the function of law and Government.  Government was evil, business was good, no matter how many wars were started, no matter how many innocents killed, we were efficient.  So, as the richest, most powerful nation in the world, we cheer when the greedy rich screw the poor, making them starve, lose their health and homes, convinced that they could compete on any terms with a large bureaucratic entity.  And, they were convinced to destroy their safety nets before they discovered the truth.

So, like Eloi of Well’s time machine, the public happily wanders about until they are summoned by their underground masters to be chopped up for food for the Morlocks, who have hidden out under the surface for generations, making the planet work.  Eloi are blind to the fact that they only exist for the benefit of the Morlocks.

When lawyers practiced law, rather than administer regulations, there was a semblance of fairness.  We were trained for a greater good.  Opinion letters could not be purchased like brothel whores to write anything the masters wanted and ignoring their education.  In criminal law, most initial decisions are made by police officers, not policymakers.  The lawyers are too ignorant or fearful to counteract or advise the police.   Most young lawyers are young, right out of the country club.  Taught to get along, and arrogant in their privilege.

When I first started, there were no professional prosecutors.  There were lawyers.  I remember discussing many cases with prosecutors where they actually cared about police abuse and crime.  Prosecutors too were lawyers, charged with looking after their clientele, not crime victims.  If a situation were pointed out to them that might expose their jurisdiction, they would recognize and try to do something about it.  They could call the county or city attorneys and set up a conference.  They could recommend grand jury action.  They could ignore the situation.  In any event, any deal tried to limit the exposure of liability to the people (taxpayers). 

It is entirely different today.  With specialization, law administrators are taught to ignore social policy issues as well as liability.  “So what if the city or the cop gets sued?”  They don’t care.  Or they realize how hard is to sue in the current court structure and can cynically ignore justice for the greater good of conviction.  Look at how much is paid out in civil rights and brutality claims.  Chicago paid over $500 MILLION DOLLARS (500,000,000) in the period between 2004 and 2014.  Meanwhile, the City is going to hell in a handbasket.  Prosecutors blithely back up the officers, no matter how corrupt.  Or the proceed in blissful ignorant, unaware of the lawyer’s obligations.  Then, after they have been employed and hardened in a prosecutor’s office, they are turned into a judge, with no inkling what a judge should do other than convicting criminals and moving cases at the speed of light without any thought or soul.

Well, I am tired of the big con.  Lawyers who ignore the big picture and subject the citizens to a lawsuit for police misconduct should themselves be prosecuted or disbarred.  Like the barons of England demanded, we should demand that our judges are learned in the law, not experts in expediency and procedure.  No, like healthcare, law isn’t simple.  It is not a body of knowledge, it is a way of analysis and life.  WAKE UP, CITIZENS.  DON’T ACCEPT THIS KIND OF ABUSE AND DECEPTION.  SPEAK!!

Shootings and school

 GUNS, SCHOOLS AND VIDEO GAMES:

SHOOTINGS WON’T STOP WITH GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION

1Dennis L Blewitt, March, 2018

It is almost pathetic to watch the various politicians and experts fall over themselves in the stampede to cast blame and recommend solutions to shootings of students in public schools.  It would be funny if the matter weren’t so serious We have been stupefied to the point where critical analysis and thought are almost non-extant.  We want simple answers that can be applied quickly and not interfere with our lives in any significant way.  So, when there is a shooting at a school, people debate gun control rather than causation.

              Like ancient druids, who blamed inanimate objects for misfortune, we place blame on guns and demand gun control, rather than examine what factors in our society create such conditions or tragedies.  In the debate, emotion replaces logic and, rather than evidence-based legislation, we have opinion or propaganda-based legislation.  In the time of the Druids, if a person fell out of a tree and was harmed, the tree was chopped down because it hurt someone.  It didn’t matter if the person falling was careless or clumsy.  Someone was hurt, something had to pay.  Simple, right?  The tree is chopped down, and everyone can quit worrying and go about their business.  The bad tree was punished.

              Unfortunately, we are not Druids, nor do we live in a Druidic society, although our degree of ignorance and superstition may rival theirs.   We are a complex and sophisticated collective, not easily analyzed or fine-tuned.  Simple answers might work for the simple minded, but won’t work for a modern, complex society.  One only has to remember the space shot where astronauts died in a multimillion space launch in the Challenger shuttle because of an "O" ring failure to appreciate this.  Society is much more complex and sophisticated than a space shuttle, but we treat it as a simple thing which can be fixed by applying band aids. We don’t expect to go into space without devising complex systems and complex equipment, why would any rational person think that we could somehow control human behavior without complex systems, complex analysis, and complex solutions. However, the delusional public, refusing to see the complexity of problems, particularly if it will cost money to fix, blithely ignore examination or solution.  We spend billions of dollars exploring space and launching men and monkeys in the space but will spend nothing on research into the nature of human suffering or violence.  There are people who believe that humans can be modified, or behavior changed with something simple, such as just say no or walking away.

              I don’t see how these people managed to convince the rest of the world that they are not suffering from LSD hallucinations, but they seem to be able to do so.  I first started studying the problem when I was in college after reading about snipers picking out students in a Texas tower.  There were many theories back then, but no real research. That hasn’t changed over the last 60 years. There is still no more research. One reason, that the issue has become politicized. The parties would rather argue with each other than think or do research.  Arming teachers or chopping down a tree in the time of the Druids did not prevent children from falling out of trees nor will arming teachers with guns solve the problem of school shootings?

              We live in a fractured, splendid, disassociated society.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to go into a coffee shop and see everyone  sitting around looking at video screens or telephones, not the person with who they are sitting. If one looks around to see people walking with ears plugged listening to their iPods or iPhones, oblivious to their surroundings and things going on. Not only are the people not living or even aware, they don’t care. As a society, we become detached from fellow humans and humanity is something to have others worry about, rather than us to waste our time. Besides, these problems are too hard to solve and give people headaches anyway. Robert Putnam explained this in his book, "Bowling Alone."   So, it does no good to say, "let’s arm teachers and have them protect our students" or "let’s abolish guns." Either way the solution doesn’t exist in simplistic form, especially when there hasn’t been much studied about the problem in the first place and therefore, no data.

              Even simple mental health debates" Simple minds won’t solve the problems associated with dissociative society. The problem with mental health counseling is that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to treat same people to deal with an insane world, which is what would have to.  There is little evidence that the shooters in schools are crazy or insane under classic definition. The problem is much deeper. Durkheim described it as anomie, but that doesn’t quite fit either. It could be said that the shooters are choosing a rather dramatic way to commit suicide, but again that is simpleminded. The genuine answer is we don’t know. We need to find out. We need to think about the problem. We need to study the problem and what we don’t need is an army of armed teachers or a bunch of regulations concerning weapons that are passed to make people feel good and feel that are doing something about a problem of which they know absolutely nothing.  It is time that our representatives start acting on behalf of the people, not the propagandists and rich donors.  Research needs to be done regarding causation.  As long as the debate is focused upon guns and not evidence or causation, the public will lose.  L don’t know much, but I do know that firearms legislation or even debate will accomplish nothing.  It will only aid the profiteers and propagandists.

              Unlike other civilized parts of the world, we do not have evidence-based policy.  Ours is based upon propaganda and advertising.  To be effective, the public or consumer must be ignorant and capable of manipulation.  No real solutions will result in the process, but many will make money.  The public will love it because they ignorantly perceive that their leaders are doing something.  How can they do something rational or beneficial?  They are clueless regarding the causation.  And, of course, finding causation will take time and money, which we only spend on the war the machine.  As in the lack of funding of research on marijuana, fear, rather than rational thinking is the state of our policy.  Facts are not allowed.  We really don’t want to know, and the resulting drug war expenditures, a moneymaker for the rich bankers and not imperiled.

              If the video game manufacturers, were serious about the threat by the blame game, they would be well advised to spend money on research rather than counter propaganda advertising.  Are video games the cause of violence and disconnect, or are they an escape mechanism used to cope with a society spinning out of control? As set forth in "Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan's Workplaces to Clinton's Columbine and Beyond " by Mark Ames,  stress is one of the main factors of workplace rage.  If so, do games relieve stress?  But, who cares?  It is cheaper to apply band-aids to the situation, arm teachers, outlaw firearms, make schools more like prisons, and give the corporations more money to sell solutions and gimmicks that don’t work.  It is time to think.  It is time to learn.  It is time to tell the politicians and lobbyists to shut up and find out what causes these incidents.

ARE WE PERSONS, COMMODITIES, OR JUST PLAIN PREY?  D. L. Blewit, Jan 2018

After relaxing after my eviction from the hospital, I still am still frustrated by the stupidity of the actors after I left.  For those of you who haven’t read previous posts, I was ill with flu and exacerbated COPD, for which I was given a steroid called prednisone.  I was admitted to the hospital.  The next day, after little sleep, blood sugar levels all over the place, massive IV dosages of steroids, a physician visited me and said I might be released in 2 more days.  She was off then and told me I would be seen by another doctor.  That was the last time I saw a doctor.  

An alarm kept going off when I moved in the bed and, when I inquired about it, I was told that a physical therapist ordered the alarm.  I explained that I saw no physical therapist and was then told that I had refused one, which was a total fabrication.  In frustration and because I believed that the nurse couldn’t or wouldn’t understand me, I used a court technique that I had been taught.  I raised my voice.  The nurse, (later claiming to be in fear for her safety, like police who murder citizens claim) told me that if I didn’t shut up, she would call security.  I said that if she did so, I would leave.  She called security and I got dressed to leave.  The nurse came back with some documents to sign, which I signed, and I left.  I saw no Physician or hospital official and did not leave against medical advice because none was given.  Downstairs, a security guard asked if I was the patient from room XXX.  I said I was, and he told me to leave because I was trespassing.  I went to the cafeteria and vented on Facebook.  Since I dictate everything and was hyper, I babbled some nonsense of my experience.  People responded with concern, but missed the point I was trying to make, is that no patient should be threatened with eviction by a nurse, especially one in my condition.  I was outraged.

So, here I was, taken off high dosage IV prednisone, threatened with arrest, oxygen level at 71, no orders or instructions from physician or hospital and traumatized by threats of incarceration.  Angry. Frustrated.  Extremely congested lungs.  Oxygen at 71% at a hospital more concerned about rules and showing respect to incompetence and arrogance than for patient survival, sick, tired, frustrated, angry and short of breath.  

I attempted to contact my healthcare provider upon returning home.  It was Saturday afternoon.  After listening to various frustrating announcements, I was asked a series of questions by a machine.  Finally, I was connected to a real person (I assume) who asked the same questions that I had just answer.  I sarcastically said that the answers hadn’t changed from a minute ago and was informed that he had no way of knowing what the answers provided were.  I asked why they were asked then if no one could use them and he chose to make excuses.  I said a naughty word that I learned on a public-school playground in the third grade and was threatened with being cut off.  I said, "you got to be fucking kidding!"  Click.  Well, back to the phone tree.  

Now, I confess that at my age, I can become crotchety. I have been told that sometimes I am intimidating. I struggle every day over, my background, and often in very unsuccessful. However, I do not believe that any sick person should have to endure what I just went through.

I started delivering papers. I then worked for Safeway, carrying groceries and stocking shelves. I spent 7 years behind a Barber chair, listing the people, patiently empathizing with them and, waiting on them. I have run to several degrees and have at least 30 hours of postdoctoral study in sociology and conflict resolution. I have been a lawyer for 50 years. I have been a judge. As a defense attorney, I have had experience with people.   I have represented many different types of people from campus radicals, unions, organized crime figures, CIA figures drug dealers and government assassins. Even while being held for an hour with a knife at my ceratoid artery wielded by the leader of the San Quentin area nation, whom I was representing, I never faltered, feared or let anything interfere with my duty to my client or my oath as an attorney.  

When I worked for my parents and grandparents I was taught that the customer was always right. If a person did not want to cater to customers, and your occupation was chosen.  The only thing for which I was punished was being a bully either mentally or physically. My family, through many generations until my father, and all been Masters of ships since Vice-admiral Blewitt of the British navy sailed the Indian ocean, 5 centuries ago. Salty language is not a new to either myself or my Family. Nor is tolerance and understanding.

The question that I wish to ask you, dear readers, is a matter of perspective and training. When I studied criminology, one theory of treatment was that offenders had to be taught that there is a difference in degree between running a stop sign and murder. The lack of ability to do so was one sign or criminality.  When I studied judging, I was taught that my main job was one of public relations and listening to people. When I taught students, I was taught patience and the humility, which, for me, is a hard for the period.

What kind of training are people getting that teaches them that it is permissible for them to hang up on any person seeking medical assistance? Since when is it the privilege of a gatekeeper or anyone engaged in health care to arrogantly punish a person for the use of crude or coarse language?  What kind of training allows a nurse to evict the patient because he became loud? What kind of system allows a policeman to shoot as is the spherical or his safety? How did we become such a society, and what we do next?

I was wrong. I should have capitulated. I shouldn’t have shown frustration. I shouldn’t have let 2 weeks of intervener’s prednisone agitate me to such an extent. I have been trained differently, and I realize this. But, it has been 3 days since the incident, and I still not been contacted by the hospital. For all they know, I could be dead.

I know I’m one person and this is probably making a mountain out of a molehill, but I think it is time we demand that we are treated as people and not as a commodity. I would hope that some of you would contact the people that train others in this area and expressed concern.

Nurse arrest

THE PURPOSE OF GREEN

Post- Modern Reefer Madness

              After days of sobriety combined with prednisone, I’ve finally solved the puzzle of the green tongue.  It is a natural consequence of our addictive society.   We usually think of addicts as green-eyed monsters, hiding from public eye, secretive in their ways, lying, cheating and stealing in a desperate attempt to get their next fix, while preying on our innocent children, stealing our property, leering at our wives, daughters and girlfriends, generally instilling fear in hearts of all.  Creepy like the beginning of the radio show “Inner Sanctum” or mystical like “The Shadow”.

              The problem with the popular perception or addiction is that the media only applies this definition to the “other.”  But, as any idiot can see, there is another group that isn’t “the other” that fits this definition.  They are universally feared and every bit as dangerous to our society as heroin addicts.  It is this group that needs to be discussed, particularly in the context of the mythical self-regulating “free market” invented by the rulers to maintain their power.  This group of addicts is addicted to money.  Their addiction causes them to lie, cheat, steal, murder, and act in a generally lawless fashion in a mad power grab on behalf of our occupiers.  These addicts have manipulated their way into our society and now act like a cancer on it, feeding and growing on our irrational fear and collective insecurities.  The more fearful they can make us, the more they can extort to feed their ugly money habit.  They have built up an extortionate infrastructure to aid in this shake down.  It is not based upon science of reason, it is based upon fear, panic and an attempt to appear to be doing something about perceived problems to show control.

              For instance, programs reports in the news show that the DUI treatment programs set up in response to the MADD hysteria are in trouble.  With designated drivers, and more moderation, there are fewer arrests for drunk driving.  The public is starting to question the rationale and basis for some of the arrests for drunk driving.  The fraud on the public is ongoing and gets more brazen by the year.  This started twenty years ago when police had videos in their stations, filming arrestees performing sobriety tests.  The problem was that after the testimony of the officer, the jury saw the film.  Inevitably, the videos showed the exaggeration by the police. Prosecutors, learned that they could achieve more convictions without the films than with them.

              With the advent of programs paid for by the arrestees and not the government, and with reporting and record keeping replacing any correctional counseling, turning ancillary court services such as probation into profit centers, the system needed paying bodies to keep it going and to support the false premises of privatization of crime and citizen control.  Privatization is a failure and extremely antidemocratic.  It brings out the predatory nature of business and destroys the traditional altruism of the civil servant.  It shifts the cost of governing from the rich who need protecting to the poor, who can least afford it.  Such is the Oligarchy.

              So, what the hell am I talking about?  What has all this have to do with green tongue?  To what green am I referring?  Is it the money that turns tongues green.  I need a few drinks to really think this through, but, since I am on meds that proscribe it, I will try.  At least I hope so.   I may be trying, but what the hell.

              There have been many accounts of warnings to police that more bodies are needed to keep these programs running.  There are programs for addiction, alcohol use, domestic violence, anger management, assertiveness training and other programs waiting to be fed. This wasn’t a problem when the government was running them.  The government did not have to make a profit then.  Now, not only does a government have to make a profit, it has to operate in a way to prove that privatization is efficient and good for the people and making the corporate masters both beneficiary and in control for our protection.  (defined as the occupation force) 

              Alcohol related traffic enforcement has been a good source of income for the state and private entrepreneurs working in tandem.  To keep the assembly line going, the legislatures co-operated by continually lowering the alcohol level necessary for conviction to keep the privateers in business.  Bolstered by the advertising, groaner tales and public relations of MADD, programs have opened and expanded all over the country. 

              Additionally, science and math is deliberately falsified and erroneously presented to reinforce the problem and solution.  The police PR department and MADD report “alcohol related” offenses.  The question doesn’t inquire or require any facts because, just like Anthony’s description of Caesar, the cop is an honorable man.  He should be praised.  He should be rewarded.  He should be followed with unquestioning loyalty.  If not, he will contract blue flu or some other loathsome disease that threatens the funding and the furtherance of the police state.  What isn’t reported is the number of accidents CAUSED by drunk drivers.  They reporters are very clever.  They report data as “alcohol related.”  Many traffic violations are alcohol related because the victim had a drink, not the driver.  The lying bastards don’t even explain the term alcohol related driving.  additionally, there is no records kept on the conditions of the roads, grades, or physical condition of the drivers.  Using this form of logic, one can say that all traffic fatalities are related to breathing.

              In addition, there are the great crackdowns like the Heat is On to shuffle money to the predatory program owners, which rewards such cooking of the books.  Obviously, the police and Court PR learned this from watching Wall Street manipulate the stock market.  Additionally, the push against alcohol has closed one of the great community centers for the exchange of political opinion and information, the bar.  A Wisconsin Criminologist did a 9 volume tome about the function of bars as a point of transmitting culture and of socialization.  With the pressure in bars and taverns, more and more people are drinking at home in isolation from society, bonding with their TV sets and stagnating socially and intellectually.

               Some don’t drink at home.  They toke at home.  However, this activity is generally a solo activity and not a part of social discourse.  We know why this isolation leading policy has been encouraged by the government.  It is to make certain that information is transmitted by television and that TV commentators and advertisers set agendas and transmit well formulated ideas to serve the corporate masters.

              However, it takes money as well as power to fund a police state and to control a population.  And the money is the necessary by-product of these programs.  It is generated and the flow sustained by increasing the nature and substance of crime. 

              Additionally, the Court system is set up to shake down the citizen.  Trials are the exception, not the norm, creating absolutely no feedback to the rulers.  Citizens are forced to abandon and denounce rights guaranteed under any Constitution by creating a legal fiction that to be allowed to drive a car, one has to waive his rights under the constitution which was intended to prohibit just that sort of thing by a State.

              So, the problem is how to keep these programs going in light of an aging population and decline in drinking and socialization.  Well, our masters have solved the problem.  The  solution is to charge drivers with driving under the influence of marijuana.  This has not been serious problem or offense, but that doesn’t matter.  The monster has to be fed.  And no amount of science, statistics, justice or any other obstruction is going to stop the feeding frenzy.

              Driving under the influence of drugs is the new scourge on our society, according to the chicken littles. The flock does not recall the days of the hippy van with the stoner driving down the street, impeding traffic. The press has cited some estimates by government, but no hard data based upon valid research design.  Instead, the problem is created, so that a magic bullet can be found to treat it and more money extracted from the peasantry. This writer does peer review for the International Journal of Drug Policy,  and recalls a recent review concerning drug policy in the European Community.  The European Community has enacted a policy that social policy and law must be research based.  The UK tried to increase penalties for marijuana possession after a change in administration.  It couldn’t be done.  There was no research on which to base the policy.  In fact, research tends to prove the opposite.  It is pointed out that legislatures in the United States are not bound by such restrictions.  In the US, the authorities go to the press, print an anecdotal story and apply it as the common condition, appeal to jealousy, hysteria and fear, thereby greasing the legislative procedure for passage through the legislatures, executive branch and a Court endorsement.  That is because no one in the system has the courage or possibly the intellect to challenge the process.

              So, without any research or reason other than a request by the occupation to do so, legislation is being proposed to put a numerical value on tests for cannabis.  With a magic number of THC in the blood, proof of a driver’s behavior isn’t necessary.  The number product of the test becomes the guilt determinate and can’t be cross-examineded or questioned.  The council of Chief Judge, Public defender and District Attorney will meet and determine how to implement the policy and what reasonable dispositions will be.  There will be no debate or test cases.  There will be no research.  Someone will come up with a rehab treatment for marijuana.  The monster gets fed.

              Ironically, the legislation is being proposed by a State Legislator from Boulder.  One has to wonder if the legislator slept through her school days and afterlife in Boulder.  Upon checking, it is easy to explain her position.  She wasn’t in Boulder when hippies in psychedelic looking Volkswagen busses wandered around town. She was too young.  She didn’t pay any attention to the Stoners driving because they didn’t constitute a problem.  Suddenly, they are a problem.  Why?  Because, the programs are in trouble.  No one has noticed a problem.  There is no data to rely on.  There is just the need to control, the need for money and the need to project the illusion of someone doing something.

              There is one small problem that has not been addressed, however.  That is how to design a program to treat the marijuana problem and how to counter the research from the UK and Canada departments of transportation, as well as the experience of a great percentage of the public who know better.  Also, how can the impairment be established without any discernable erratic driving.  Well the answer is simple.  Stop the car and tell the driver that marijuana is smelled.  When asked if the he has as patient card the cop can then ask when the last time the person medicated.  At that point, the driver is told to stick out his tongue and is told that it is green.  Since the driver can’t see his tongue and the color is imaginary, the officer can confront the driver and he will confess.  He will then fail “voluntary” roadside tests, to then be passed on to a drug recognition expert, trained by prosecutors to get convictions with unassailable testimony and conferred with voodoo science credentials. He then will be told he must submit to a bodily fluid test or immediately lose his driver’s license and “privileges.” 

The test will show a certain content of drugs and a conviction becomes automatic without any relationship to driving ability or performance. Of course, there is no visual record of any of this.  The defendant must rely on the absolute honesty and integrity of the arresting officer.  They are honorable men.  That is, of course until a program becomes threatened or if the electorate votes something into law that the police don’t agree with or approve of.  The officer reads from a script about the stop and tests. Unlike science experiments, these tests can’t be redone by others. They can’t be replicated or even questioned in any objective fashion.  Then comes the Drug Recognition Expert, who testifies that, as an expert the driver was a menace to himself and society. 

              The interesting thing about this procedure is that the proposed test is for either THC or the inactive cannabinoid, THE-COOH, which can stay in the system for weeks.  .  Urine tests, which are relatively cheap, only tests for the cannabinoid, and not the active ingredient will be the test of choice of greedy counties.  Therefore, if anything shows up, there can be a prosecution.

              The other good thing for the police and prosecutors about the numerical value is that the body’s tolerance level  and other factors won’t be considered.  Most pain management physicians, and in fact, most MDs and pharmacologists know about the adjustment factor with medications.  That is why most FDA warning labels caution against operating machinery until the effects can be measured and use adjusted to the dosage.  There are many instances, for instance, where addicts on methadone and oxycotin operate vehicles and even precision machines without incident.  But, that fact can be ignored as inconvenient.  Also, metabolic rates can be ignored.  There is a relatively simple calculation that can be made to calculate the last dosage of THC, which is commonly ignored..  That would be disastrous.  The sole purpose is to make money and justify the billions spent over the last few decades on the drug war.  It isn’t about drugs, it is about a philosophy and belief structure. Marijuana is irrelevant.  Cultural survival is at stake.  We know what reality is.  We experience what we believe and then we confirm with our minds.  The true believers actually see green tongue.  They actually see a drug threat.  They actually see danger and feel compelled to kill for protection.  There is no answer in light of the overwhelming prejudice and ignorance.  The only answer is to recognize things as a structural matter and strive to change the structure.  A good place to start would be to just vote no on all judges.  Next, abolish all the oppressive legislation of the last five decades. Policy should be research based.  And, it should be a felony to lie to a citizen like it is for a citizen to lie to a policeman or Federal agent.  Then maybe there will be some benefit of law to the people and not the occupation force and rulers.  If not forfeit their pensions.

Trials of the Green Tongue;  Excerpts From the Fringe.

this is a transcript from a hearing regarding perjured evidence from the state of Colorado.
OR
Controlling the perils of dope smoking.
NO ONE AT THE HEARING HAD TAKEN ANY DRUGS, THE RULING JUST LOOKS THAT WAY
A hearing was had regarding the matter of the tongue.  Three witnesses testified as to Green Tongue’s guilt.  Trial transcript quotes follow; ending with testimony of Cynthia Burbach MS. BURBACH: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Laboratory Services Division
Q. And, do you do both testing and supervising.
A. I do. I just did some toxic vapors yesterday, and I interpreted those today.
Q. Okay. And, you said you have taught in the field of forensic toxicology? This is claimed although she has not chemistry degree or chemistry major.
A. I do. I sit on a national panel called The Technical Advisory Panel for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration through the International Association of Chiefs of Police for the Drug Recognition Expert Program. I am the national expert toxicologist for that program. . I also belong to the Society of Forensic Toxicologists, International Association of Chemical Testing, and the Colorado State Managers Association. And, I teach for the Drug Recognition Experts. I teach the Drug Recognition Experts in Colorado and nationally.  This is extremely unsettling.   It shows the extremes the police establishment will go to push its agenda
Q. Great. Are you familiar with Standard Field Sobriety Tests?
A. I am. I make policy for NHTSA --National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -with regards to the Standard Field Sobriety Maneuvers, and I am certified in Standard Field Sobriety Maneuvers
A. Well, the program started in 1978 in California and they moved to Arizona, and Colorado was the third state to get it. So, in its inception in Colorado, I was part of teaching the drug recognition experts, then became the national tox -- the toxicologist expert for the program. I was elected to that position in 2007. My term expires in December -- this December -- but expect to be re-elected to that position.
Q. With your training and experience, have you had any opportunity to evaluate the presence in marijuana in suspects?
A. At least once a week, I read an eval from a drug recognition expert with regards to an evaluation that specifically is about marijuana and how that correlates to the biological specimen that is attached to that eval.. Furthermore, I teach the DREs with regards to the signs and symptoms that you would see in a -- when you are calling that category cannabis.
Q. Okay. And, you have a degree in chemistry?
A. No
. Q. Okay. Do you know Professor Waterworth at University of Colorado?
A. Which -- would -- there's many --
Q. University of Colorado, Boulder, and University of Colorado, Denver?
A. No. I just recently received an e-mail from Dr. Barry Logan that asked me if I knew Jay Waterworth -- Waterworth -- and I said, no.  Dr. Barry Logan was a principal in the manual that put green tongue into the curriculum.  When busted, the writers agreed to warn the readers that green tongue was but anecdotal and sent a copy of the remedial email to Dr. Watterworth.  This shows that a nerve was struck
Q. All right.
A. He was looking into some information about him being -- him -- I don't know if it is a him or her -- about being a defense expert.
MR. BLEWITT: Okay. I would object to her giving expert witness as far as the drug recognition expert. We have already got two people testifying to that, and she wasn't there. It is total hearsay.As far as the urine test, she concurs with the expert I had -- have requested, so I don't see any reason for her testimony whatsoever.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay., a response to that?
MR. DA: Your Honor, I believe her testimony is in contrast to the testimony that defense expert may bring if called. Specifically, in regards to, not the fact that urine is not -there is no correlation between a positive test in urine and an equivalent BAC, per se, but rather that it is part of the totality of the circumstances that can be taken into account when deciding whether or not a person is impaired by the use of marijuana.
Q (BY DA) When you reviewed the reports in this case, what factors did you look for?
A. I looked at the 12-step protocol that the DRE followed and if it was in accordance with the national standard set forth by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the standards for the Drug Recognition Experts. I looked at the narrative that was written, and I looked at the results from the laboratory. So, it was the totality of the situation.
Q. Did the urine sample play into your decision at all?
A. Yes. Always, biological specimens play into the decision.
Q. Now, does a urine sample alone provide any indication one way or another whether a person is under the influence?
A. A urine sample by itself can never tell you if a person is under the influence or impaired by a drug.
Q. But, if that urine sample is corroborated by other indicia, would you be able to make a determination at that point?
A. Yes.  We call it the investigation triad. It is -- at the top of that triangle is the reason for the stop; any information given at the time of the contact. To the left would be a drug recognition expert, and to the right would be toxicology.
Q (BY DA) What, particularly, about the reports that you had read in this case and the DRE, did you believe were indicators of impairment. Of  the defendant in this case?
A. The psychophysical tests that were performed as part of the DRE. They were classic signs and symptoms for indicia of marijuana.
Q. Now, based on everything you received, including urine sample, the DRE evaluation, and the observations of the officers, what is your opinion with regard to this case?
 Based upon reading reports based upon observations that can not be duplicated, and not direct observation or evidence, she can venture an opinion
MR. BLEWITT: Objection.
MR. DA: Thank you, Your Honor. It is my understanding that being qualified as an expert, she is authorized to issue an opinion on the ultimate issue with this -- in this case. Based on that -- Rule 72, I believe -- she is allowed to enter that opinion, and she has laid the proper foundation, saying that she read the reports, that she knew what to look for in terms of this, and she is qualified as an expert in forensic toxicology to render such an opinion.
THE COURT: Well, under Rule 30 -- or, 703, that does say that facts for a particular -facts or data in a particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing. So, that means we do not have to worry about her being personally there and having witnessed it personally as we would with a lay witness.
Further, Rule 704 says that the testimony is to the opinion or inference otherwise is not --  otherwise admissible -- pardon me -- is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier or fact.
So, I will overrule both of those objections.
MR.DA: Thank you, Your Honor.
A. My opinion was that he was impaired.
Q. I see. And,  a brown-green coating on his tongue. The other officer said it was a white-green. Which was it?
A. It could be either.
Q. Okay. So, you are basing it also on the brown-green coating on the tongue?
A. It is just one clue.
Q. Okay. Dilated pupils? So, one of the clues was that he raised his arms while walking. Somebody with scoliosis has a little trouble walking at times; doesn't he -- wouldn't he?
A. I would imagine so.
THE WITNESS: It does. But, I can tell you, sir, in 26 years, I have never seen an incorrect DRE report.  The experts are always competent and truthful
THE COURT: Okay. Given the information you received before you came here today, the information you have received today, do you have an opinion about whether Mr. Strasser was either impaired or under the influence of a substance?  The Judge is helping the prosecutor out here
THE WITNESS: My opinion was that he was impaired, sir.
THE COURT: Okay. By what substance?
 THE WITNESS: Marijuana -- cannabis.
The Court ruled, partially described in the following”
THE COURT: That, Trooper Mack walked to the vehicle, asks Mr. Strasser to perform roadside maneuvers, and that Mr. Strasser did agree to do those voluntary roadside maneuvers.
That Trooper Mack administered what he referred to as SFST, which is the Standard Field Sobriety Tests, or as we call roadside maneuvers, and that in his opinion, for various reasons,
Mr. Strasser did not perform as Trooper Mack expected a sober person would.
That, during the contact, Trooper Mack asked the defendant to stick out his tongue, and defendant stuck out his tongue. There have been various descriptions of what the color of the tongue was, but that it has roughly been described as being green, and that was an indication of recent marijuana use, and that the defendant denied any recent marijuana use, and that he said he hadn't smoked within the last 30 days.
Ms. Burbach appeared before the Court and testified that given the information that she received from the reports that were written up by the officer who made the stop, the drug recognition expert, and the toxicology reports, she made a determination based on her training and experience that the defendant in this case was under the influence of THC…... There was no bad driving, but all of these things will be determined by a jury if it goes to a trial.  A rural jury found the defendant guilty.  It ignored the fact there was no erratic, and the judge allowed the testimony of the drug recognition expert, even though based upon voodoo science.
Aug 2019.
The state chemist was fired after this hearing.  The State auditor submitted a scathing report upon her conduct and her department, citing wrong and misleading drug analysis, lack of credentials and the commission of perjury.  She bragged to co-workers about “beating defense attorneys” and her conduct, contrary to law and in violation of her oath of office.  The Attorney tried to conceal the auditor’s report.  Unlike other states such as Massachusetts, the Attorney General didn’t rectify this injustice and continued to prosecute using tainting evidence until the report was publicized.  One of my grad students examined the drug recognition expert training manual and found it to be based in superstition rather than fact.  To this day, police are still training these false witnesses to convict citizens and to make money for the criminal justice enterprise, supporting counseling programs which bleed poor defendants dry.   This was known to the state in March of 2013.  The state’s solution?  Close down the state lab and privatize the tests.
Without training or credentials, her testimony has helped imprison or extort money from the citizenry with impunity.  She even testified to the legislature as an expert  in 2011, when a bill was proposed to convict drivers of driving under the influence of marijuana.  The testimony was based not upon science, but political expedience to make money for the state.  She repeated to lie in 2102.She committed wholesale perjury and then bragged about it.  1700 samples had to be retested by other labs.  However, the real problem is that corrupt prosecutors and judges let her testify as an expert witness without any reservations.  I believe that this is a worse crime, the moral equivalent of German judges sending hordes off to concentration camps for extermination.  He helped get convictions and had a bias against defendants.  The supreme insult to the citizenry was that she didn’t even have a chemistry degree, and judges and prosecutors enabled this outrage.
It is time to wrest power from the corporate rulers.  Teach them that Government is for the people, not a non-person entity.  Corporations are the creation of Government and we, the people, through our government demand that they be held accountable to us, not some stock exchange.

This is a course I taught to lawyers.  If there is significant interest, I will revise and turn it into some form of manuscript for people to read and study.  I have a CD that went with the course.

COURSE OUTLINE

Surviving a Criminal Practice in a

Postmodern Age

Dennis L. Blewitt

INTRODUCTION

1. Introduce instructor, course materials, procedures, etc
2. Introduce participants
1. POV
2. Influences views
3. Causes understanding of interpretations
3. Discuss readings, assignments, discussions.

1. Like Inns of Court
2. May have guests
3. Emphasis

2. Books

1. Criminal Justice Through the Ages, by Medieval Crime Museum, Vol IV(b) Forsberg, Rothenberg o.d.T, 1993
1. From Rothenberg Crime Museum
2. Court orders form time of Charlemagne
3. Saxonspeil
4. Norman and Roman Law
5. Rights of peasants
6. Equivalent of const
7. Torture devices
2. Barbarism To Jury Justin Fleming, Harper Collins, Aukland, 1994

1. British Barrister
2. History of development of common law
3. Africa, US , India, Pacific, Australia and New Zeland
1. Perpetual Prison Machine

1. Good statistical survey
2. Emphasis on Media
3. Explains politics
4. Introduction to postmodern thought in Political system
1. Discipline and Punish

a, French school

1. Reviews punishment in Civil Law countries
2. Age of Surveillance
3. Basis of Continental penology

Lecture on Historical Development

1. From Roman times
2. Development of crime and punishment
3. Views of crime
4. Remedies
5. Idea of sovereignty
6. Discussion
7. 
   
8. Magna Carta
9. Materials

1. List from CD
2. Open History folder and read for next time with 1st book
3. Assign discussion participants

Close at 10

WEEK TWO

1. Discussion of materials

1. Hammurabi
2. Magna Charta
3. Rights of Man
4. Law of Wm
5. Rights of Man
6. Colonial rights

1. Freeman
2. Duties
3. Weapon
4. Corp structure
5. Puritanism
1. Constitution

1. Drafting
2. Bill of Rights
3. Contrast with Crim Justice
4. Compare with Crim Justice
5. Contrast with Jury
6. Compare with Jury

III Discussion

1. Why history
2. Why develop
3. Why compare and contrast
4. Philosophical basis

IV Modern era

1. Industrial Revolution

1. Why
2. Movements afoot
3. Themes
1. Slavery, serfdom and status
2. Emancipation
3. Developing Sovereignty
4. Religion and the Church
5. Predatory behavior
6. Forming Groups
1. Rights
2. Obligations Inherited
3. Geography
4. Cities and States
5. 
   
6. Concept of State
7. Corporation
7. Hierarchy

1. Inherited
2. Challenged
3. Important in French and German school
1. Folder on policy prior to 1848
2. Liberties of Englishmen
3. Ohrmey Origin of State

V Discussion

WEEK   THREE

1. Review
2. German and French folder

1. German School

1. AKA Frankford School

1. Hitler ascending
2. Mostly Jewish
3. Pessimistic
4. Contrast with Weber

1. After Weber
2. Weber WWI
3. Started discussion on Political entity and bureaucracy
4. Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
1. Practice capitalism like religion
2. Puritanism
1. Values of puritans caused development
2. Tocqueville
3. Predestination
4. Can redeem through work, straight, etc.
5. God rewards good and punishes bad
6. Welfare recipients bad
1. French School

1. Marcuse
2. Boudriard
3. Eccho (Italian)
4. Sartre
5. Particularly concerned with culture and its transmission
6. Write your own history
7. Step on own shadow
8. Technology influences
1. Affected American thought in 70's and 80's

1. Mc Cluhan
2. Chomsky

III Today

1. Z magazine
2. Dot com
3. Impact on internet
4. 
   
5. Bowling Alone
6. Eleanor Rigby
7. Lonely Crowd

IV Introduction to Capitalism

V Introduction to Social Capital

VI Theory of Change

VII Conflict Study

VIII Discussion

WEEK   FOUR

1. Critical Theory

1. Habermas

1. Between schools
2. Now with German Govmt
3. Some optimism unlike French and German Schools

II Review and Discuss

III Introduce Culture and Cultural Studies

1. Different from Sociology
2. Media theory

1. Mc Cluhan
2. Media is the message
3. Discuss Perpetual Prison Machine

IV Review and relate

V Evaluate course and feedback

WEEK   FIVE