On August 31, 2010. Seattle Police Officer Ian Birk shot John T. Williams to death in broad daylight, in downtown Seattle, WA, and was permitted to simply quit the police force and move away.
In 2005 WA State Trooper, Michael Idland. was permitted to plead guilty to misdemeanor counts despite having sexually assaulted at least nine women in fake DUI traffic stops and subsequent arrests, thus avoiding the requirement that he register in the future as a sex offender. He received administrative pay during his 16 months in jail pending trial.
These are just two examples. in just one American city (Seattle, WA), that prove the criminal justice system to be wholly inept, and indifferent, when it comes to serving justice in the instances of crimes committed by public servants. Far too numerous to count or review, these instances and this systemic inadequacy are utterly unacceptable, and they serve to prove that community action is required to reacquire and preserve a civil society for America�s children, its women, and the family.
CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMISSION – We the People have to address this problem on our own because our servants have failed us. When a group of competent individuals can confirm that a crime has, in fact, been committed by a public servant, without the participation of or interference from, prosecutorial authorities, political pressure can then be asserted to diminish or vanquish altogether the official right of the perpetrator to approach any individual in the future about any matter related to their office.
�Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen . In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy . To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face .�
See Olmstead v. United States. 277 U.S. 438, 471-485 (1928).
OBJECTIVE – Members of the commission or panel will be studious and versed in weighing evidence and testimony against the language of criminal statutes to accurately determine which crimes, if any, have indeed been committed against the individual who approaches the panel for a determination. If successfully proven, a statement affirming the accusations will issue, and the accuser will then be armed with the public�s view of the conduct, in writing, and could then approach the media and, more importantly, the superiors of the accused, with reasonable proof that public service on the part of the accused should be terminated.
A PUBLIC RECORD – The cases heard by the commission will be formally presented and argued at hearings, video recorded, and placed on the commission�s YouTube channel, and the documents relating to the case will be posted in an orderly fashion on the commission�s web site. Documents will include proof of service showing that the accused was given a chance to appear and defend, and that radio, t.v. and news outlets have been apprised of the commission�s findings and the places where more information is available.
GETTING THE WORD OUT – From individual instances of abuse to systemic fraud and extortion, the occasions when justice is truly served are virtually nonexistent. The public has to know of the commission�s existence and goals, and it must be within the reach of victims of government abuses. Social networking, online and otherwise, must be a part of the commission�s activities in the first months of its existence. The education and experience behind this effort are substantial and will prove in stark detail many ways the law is subverted on literally a daily basis, and in every state, county, and city.
. Nevertheless, merely disagreeing with the law does not constitute a good faith misunderstanding of the law because all persons have a duty to obey the law whether or not they agree with it.
See Ninth Circuit Model Criminal Jury Instruction 9.42.
On its face, this is an attractive argument . Petitioner urges that, in view of the severity of the result flowing from a denial of suspension of deportation, we should interpret the statute by resolving all doubts in the applicant’s favor. Cf. United States v. Minker. 350 U.S. 179, 187-188. But we must adopt the plain meaning of a statute, however severe the consequences . Cf.Galvan v. Press. 347 U.S. 522, 528.
See Jay v. Boyd. 351 U.S. 345, 357 (1956).
THE LAW IS PERFECT – With only statute as the tool of choice, standard operating procedures of municipal, state, and federal agencies and courts will be exposed as mere racketeering schemes, or worse, in relation to income taxation, motor vehicle code enforcement, and other daily intrusions that have become all too familiar and menacing. This effort is a step boldly taken into the personal space of the individual who would have everyone believe that honest Americans have no remedy. Don’t tread on me.