Utopianstates Blog

The book “Introduction to BUDDHISM”, starts with a definition of Buddha:

“In general, Buddha means ‘Awakened One,” someone who has awakeed from the sleep of ignorance and sees things as they really are. A Buddha is a person who is completely free from all faults and mental obstructions. There are many people who have become Buddhas in the past, and many people will become Buddhas in the future.”

Perhaps we need a few Buddha in Washington.

Edwards said in a recent speech that they know they need Universal Health care, to help the environment, to reduce global warming, to create jobs and reduce poverty. More importantly Edwards truthfully admitted that they don’t know how to get there. He says also the he has spoken for principled action. This is good. I wish he would say something about the need to improve our judicial-police-incarceration system and the associated flawed laws. Edwards is talking about most of the right things.

The following saying amusingly differentiates between a specialist and a generalist. A specialist knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing. A generalist knows less and less about more and more until he knows nothing about everything. The point is that it is not possible to know everything. Some things must be ignored in order to better focus on what is important.

Government cannot know everything about everything. Government will be ignorant of something. The supposition here is that government must not ignore data, facts and truths that are important to the betterment of government.

It is a further supposition or premise that government must know about law, principles of law, justice, democracy, constitutional rule, the rights of man, education, taxation, police forces, the military, war, education, management, happiness, and homo sapiens.

If a government ignores any data, truths or facts relating to governance, then they are ignorant. Ignorance could also result from not actively seeking facts. Ignorance could result from not recording the facts of investigations. Ignorance could result from, not acting on the recorded investigatory data. Knowledge of the principles and axioms of good government certainly should not be ignored.

An ignorant government wouldn’t know that they didn’t have all the data they needed. An ignorant government wouldn’t interview and record data from victims of arrest, victims of incarceration, victims of civil trials, victims of police brutality, victims of unjust taxation, victims of government perturbations, victims of government prejudice, victims of government outsourcing, or victims of government wars. An ignorant government wouldn’t have books of facts about why they started a war, what the plans were for the war and what went wrong. They would not have books by experts critiquing the war. They would not have books tying governing principles, agreed on by two thirds of congress and the senate, which would give the reasons for starting and conducting all wars.

Any government that does not have and will not get, record, disseminate and discuss all facts, data, and truths relevant to governance is ignorant.

A totally ignorant government will not know what their governing problems are. Consequently, they will naively think their government the greatest in the world.

To quote our leader: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

John Edward’s Plan is good, but , but sans judicial reform and other plans to eliminate government ignorance

Al Gore’s Plans are good too, but also sans judicial reform and other plans to eliminate government ignorance

The plans of other democratic and republican candidates – as revealed on their web sites – are too glib for any serious comment.

Crack 11 in the liberty bell is illustrated by this quote from the CANON 1 of Judicial Conduct for the state of Massachusetts.

“A judicial decision or action determined by an appellate court to be incorrect either as a matter of law or as an abuse of discretion is not a violation of this Code unless the decision or action is committed knowingly and in bad faith.”

Perhaps you noticed that for the judge to be found guilty, the appellate court must not only find the judge has broken a law, but has done so knowingly AND in bad faith. That is a tall order. I wonder how many judges have been found guilty of violating CANON 1 by reason of a bad judicial decision.

Crack 11 is that the judges are not required to follow the law. Nobody is keeping score. It takes a hell of an effort for a litigant to appeal a decision. To go further and try to get a judge disciplined is too much an expenditure of resources. Nobody has the time or motivation. Furthermore, a lawyer needs the goodwill of the court. Government could supply the manpower, but does not.

From the massbar and the Code of Judicial Conduct:

Grounds for discipline
Rule 3:09 of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s Code of Judicial Conduct includes eight canons of judicial ethics. Violation of any of these canons is grounds for discipline. The canons are:
• A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
• A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.
• A judge should perform the duties of his office impartially and diligently.
• A judge may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system and the administration of justice.
• A judge should regulate his extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties.
• A judge should regularly file reports of compensation received for quasi-judicial and extra-judicial activities.
• A judge should refrain from political activity.
• Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct (two regulations for retired and resigned judges).
The code includes detailed provisions for each canon.
In addition to the eight canons, the following are also grounds for discipline:
• conviction of a felony
• willful misconduct in office
• willful misconduct which, although not related to judicial duties, brings the judicial office into disrepute
• conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice or conduct unbecoming a judicial officer, whether conducted in office or outside of judicial duties, that brings the judicial office into disrepute
• any conduct that constitutes a violation of the codes of judicial conduct or professional responsibility

I hope you noticed that there wasn’t anything that sanctioned a judge for not following the law or for making poor judicial decisions. The main thing that a judge wants is to be in harmony with those that pay his salary. He as a good job and would rather appease those that pay his salary than to follow any law, rule or precedent that is not in vogue with the group.

New York Times Reports:

Oklahoma County Forensics

Corrupted courtroom science is the ninth crack in the liberty bell. Bad courtroom science is the tenth crack in the liberty bell.

From www.patrickcrusade.org: “An investigation initiated by the FBI into a former Oklahoma County forensic chemist continues. She has been repeatedly accused of false testimony and shoddy results in her work during the past 15 years. She has been involved in approximately 3,000 cases, including at least 23 cases where defendants were eventually sentenced to death and have either been executed or remain on death row. 11 of those people were executed during the past two years, including Marilyn Plantz. A lawsuit has been filed to re-examine the case of Malcolm Rent Johnson, who was executed in January 2000. On September 25, 2001, the Oklahoma forensic “expert” was fired due to “laboratory mismanagement, criticism from court challenges and flawed casework analysis”, according to Police Chief M.T. Berry. “

Think about it for a moment. One person has the power to ruin the lives of 3000 individuals! One person who doesn’t care about ruining lives can ruin 3000! How much time is that over 15 years? 200 a year! That’s one working day per life wrecked. Eight hours of slip-shod work can ruin a life.

Perverting science simply to get a person in jail defeats the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to discover the truth, not to deceive jurists and judges into grotesquely immoral acts of disproportionate punishment on not only the falsely convicted, but his family, friends, lawyers and the entirety of society that puts so much misplaced trust in the “judicial” system.

The tenth crack in the liberty bell is simply bad courtroom science. Matching hairs, fibers, and the metallic composition of bullets, has been proved to be suspect science. Yet the statistical reliability of evidence is not required by a court as far as I know (this needs to be verified). Without statistics and statisticians, courtroom evidence, presented as science, is fraud – especially when presented to a jury of non-scientists (our peers).

Lyrics from the song: “Do You Hear the People Sing?” from the musical Les Miserables.

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?

From the song Red and Black:

It is time for us all
To decide who we are
Do we fight for the right
To a night at the opera now?
Have you asked of yourselves
What’s the price you might pay?
Is it simply a game
For rich young boys to play?
The color of the world
Is changing day by day…

Red – the blood of angry men!
Black – the dark of ages past!
Red – a world about to dawn!
Black – the night that ends at last!

Les Miserables is the story of four people. Bishop Myriel, Jean Valjean, Famine, and Marius Pontmercy, who meet, part, then meet again during the most agitated decades of nineteenth-century France. It also tells the story of the 1832 revolution and describes the unpleasant side of Paris. The novel is in essence a plea for humane treatment of the poor and for equality among all citizens.