Paul Haeder, Author

rule of law is the bullshit yammering junk belief system to corral the majority into thinking there is some innocent until proven guilty, or, that justice is blind

I’ve written about my friend who was smothered by her husband, Nov. 11, 2022.

(Black and Blue: The Many Ways of Domestic Violence World by Paul Haeder / November 28th, 2022)

He — the abuser, the narcissist, the misognist, the son-of-a-bitch pussy macho jerk — was laughing all the way, saying he was going to kill her. Of course, she didn’t die, got the phone video of his attempted murder, and called 9/11.

Cops, warrant for his arrest as he barricaded himself in a bedroom, and cry baby and he just sat it out in county jail — no drug treatment, no mental health assessment, no mental health treatment. Just a son-of-a-bitch sitting it out, hoping for dismissal or, a fucked up pleas.

Then, alas, today, July 21, the son-of-a-bitch who stayed in the County lock-up, refused to post bond, and just waited it out, refusing one plea after another until today, he took a slap on the wrist plea: two charges, of the original 12, and they are pussy charges — menacing and strangulation.

This piece of human stain pleas next week, then is sentenced, and then, he has 52 weeks of quasi supervision, and those mandatory (fucked up bullshit) classes: domestic violence, substance abuse and anger management.

If he can scam the one year, look like he is listening, then, he graduates in a year, no charges left on his record, and he is free to carry on with his serial abusing.

Now now, almost 94 percent of cases go the plea bargain shit hole route. Most counties have a shortage of prosecutors, and there is always the bullshit defense of “they overcharged you so no worries, we’ll get 90 percent of the other charges dropped.” So many violations, violators, so many crimes and over-policing, so much booze and meth and, well, you get the picture — capitalism U$A style is a cancer of violence and dysfunction.

A grand jury agreed back in Novemeber that the original 12 charges were kosher, and alas, now, a new DA today, since my friend’s original ADA from the start is knocked up, and was ready to drop another child last month. Family medical leave, maternity leave, so a new woman from this DA’s office takes the case, and this is a prosecution team of all women, and most of the judges are females in this county.

The piece of shit county prosecutor stated that it is not just a chance of the offender getting off, but a slam dunk the jury will side with him. Imagine going to law school, and then spinelessness gained in that process, to end up at $140,000 a year human stain, thinking that a case like my friend’s will be lost because, a, the video of him suffocating her proved he was drunker than a skunk (impaired) and, b, that she at first told the cops that hour of the event she wasn’t sure if she was having throat and neck pain, breathing impairment.

This is how spinelessness rolls, and the system is clogged, broken, full of milquetoast shits, middlings, dangerous in their spinelessness; and here we are — even if you hit and pound someone into death, the defense can work wonders on the impairment defense, and no manslaughter charges will stick.

You get the picture, no, in this misogynistic, misanthropic, patriarchal shit storm, where the women in the tweed skirts and pants suits are just slithering men in disguise.

And here is how the leech lawyers work the sytem:

When you know that Texas laws take domestic violence, or “family violence” as it is referred to in Texas very seriously, you probably expect that the percentage of cases that get dismissed will be pretty low. After all, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) arrests almost 225,000 offenders for family violence, which refers to an act of physical harm or threat of harm against a member of the family or household. A breakdown of this figure reveals that:

• Almost 95% of all arrests are for assault, with simple assault being the most common.
• Sex offenses represent 3.4% of all domestic violence cases.
• Almost 2,500 people are charged with kidnapping or abduction.

Therefore, you might assume that the vast majority of these individuals will face serious penalties in a domestic violence case. It might come as a shock to learn that many do not result in the worst-case scenario that you expect. A dismissal, acquittal, or another favorable outcome may be possible with help from a Galveston domestic violence defense attorney. In addition, a summary of the relevant legal concepts is useful.

This is the way of the flimflam, the dirty roots of law, you know, the law in favor of the king and dukes and earls and corporations and company and pigs and, well, it just trickles into the Oregon crapshoot of calling 9/11 and then months believing you are working the case as the victim, until the prosecution caves, and they continue living their fucking bubble lives in their captured worlds and they never have to taste the ire of the people who get screwed by their incompetence and inane fear of, drum roll, prosecuting a case?

More from the Texass defense attorney page:

Standard of Proof for Dismissals

In a criminal case, including domestic assault, the prosecutor must prove the highest burden of proof in the practice of law: Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any question or uncertainty in the mind of the jurors requires a verdict of not guilty. Keep in mind that the government is required to establish each element of the domestic assault offense in accordance with this standard. The prosecution may face challenges with:

• Proving state of mind, since your actions only constitute domestic violence if you acted intentionally, knowingly, and or recklessly.
• The victim’s state of mind as it pertains to what contact could reasonably be deemed offensive.
• Evidence showing that the victim’s injuries were serious.
• Proving two or more cases of domestic violence in the past 12 months, which is necessary to pursue charges for continuous domestic assault.

If the prosecutor does not have sufficient evidence to meet the burden of proof, the domestic violence charges should be dismissed. Galveston domestic violence defense attorneys can often get them dropped through a motion to dismiss before trial, but you will also get a chance to fight the allegations at trial. Technically, this strategy does not involve a dismissal of the case, but rather an acquittal, i.e., finding of not guilty.

How Domestic Violence Cases Get Dismissed

There are many different defenses and strategies that could lead to a dismissal or acquittal, so keep in mind the following:

• In a criminal domestic assault case, the government is the plaintiff, and the alleged offender is the defendant. The victim is not a party but acts as a witness. If the alleged victim does not cooperate, there may not be sufficient evidence for the prosecution to meet its burden.
• If the accuser has a history of pressing charges based upon false allegations of domestic violence, the prosecutor may elect to dismiss the charges.
• When a judge has entered a protective order related to domestic violence, the respondent will be required to avoid contact and communication with the alleged victim, among other conditions. However, if the victim engages in acts that put the respondent in violation of the order, the allegations of criminal domestic assault are weakened.
• Emotions can run high during a domestic altercation, so the victim may also be to blame for how the incident escalated. In such a case, he or she may claim the right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The prosecutor cannot rely on the victim’s testimony, so the charges may be dismissed for lack of evidence.

This is the Biden-Trump-Obama-Clinton-Bush way, really, and a country that sends depleted uranium to rain hell onto civilians and cluster bombs to rain hell on civilians, it gives a flying shit about we the people.

Everyone in these administrations are spineless, toadies, rotten to the core sycophants and ass kissers and blow job experts in not doing justice for the world, doing the bidding for the dirtiest folk on earth — the political class-less. Read and weap:

“He was punching me while I had her in my hands,” said Reese. “I ran out the front door, called the police. They took pictures and everything.”

To Reese, the 2015 incident now seems like a missed opportunity to hold Crawford accountable. After that attack, prosecutors charged Crawford with domestic violence in Cleveland Municipal Court.

However, Crawford was never convicted – never even went to trial – because the case against him was dismissed.

“The system, to me, with the domestic violence cases, is lazy,” said Reese.

Dismissed cases

5 On Your Side Investigators found what happened in Reese’s 2015 case is not unusual.

Our team analyzed domestic violence cases in Cleveland adjudicated between January 1, 2016 and Dec. 30, 2018 in Cleveland.

We found 60% of domestic violence cases were dismissed.

Even more troubling, we found the percentage and total number of dismissed cases has continued to climb over the three-year time period we reviewed.

In 2016, 54% of cases were dismissed. Just two years later, in 2018, 66% of cases were dismissed.

Cleveland case.

Go to the site and use the slide bar:

My friend is way ahead of the game, out of the abuse of five years, putting him through the divorce proceedings while he is locked up, soon to get out next week with these spineless people in charge. It is not just Cleveland or here, in Oregon, where the dirty hell-hole capitalism digs graves for women:

“The numbers are going in the wrong direction,” said Ronald B. Adrine, the newly retired Presiding Judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court.

An expert on domestic violence cases, who is often recruited to speak to groups that have included the FBI and CDC, Adrine spent 36 years on the bench in Cleveland watching how offenders often gained the upper hand.

“It is a complicated mix of circumstances that cause cases to be discontinued,” he said. “My interest really came because this was something, I saw every day playing out in front of me.”

‘A witch’s brew’

When asked why many domestic violence cases are dismissed, Adrine replied, “It’s a witch’s brew.”

Some accused abusers threaten their victims, he said. Others sweet-talk them.

Adrine said victims’ also fear financial hardships, separating children from their fathers, and for their safety, if an abuser is convicted.

We can’t clean up the shit in our overflowing stormwater systems, and the sewage plants dump shit into our waters, so why is this so unusual?

Attorneys filed a court motion Wednesday that aims to halt the long-running practice of overloading public defenders with more clients than they say they can ethically and legally handle. They say excessive caseloads violate the right to effective legal counsel the Constitution grants any person charged with a crime.

Shannon Wilson, director for the Public Defender of Marion County, has asked in the motion for Marion County Circuit Court to withdraw public defenders from certain cases, to stop appointing the nonprofit defense firm’s lawyers to new cases and to dismiss the remaining charges for anyone left without court-appointed counsel.

Every time one of Wilson’s attorneys gets a new case, “they are compelled to violate their ethical duties by expending their limited resources on one client at the expense of another, with neither client receiving the resources and time necessary for a proper constitutional defense,” the motion states. “The time has come for the legal community to work together to stop these ethical and constitutional violations.”

For public defenders to take this step underscores the impotency of Oregon’s efforts thus far to shore up its indigent defense system.

The motion, which would almost certainly disrupt the flow of cases through the courts, appears designed to get quickly before the Oregon Supreme Court. National public defense experts say a ruling in favor of the public defenders in Marion County could force the state’s entire court system to ensure poor defendants finally receive legal representation that abides by the Oregon Constitution.

As recently as 2019, Oregon was operating a system deemed unconstitutional because it pitted the interests of lawyers representing many of the state’s poor and most vulnerable against their clients by encouraging attorneys to take as many cases as possible.

Now, the problems are even more acute.

For the last 15 months, Oregon’s public defense system has failed to provide attorneys for hundreds of people charged with a crime, including people in custody. This week, more than 700 people were awaiting counsel, including approximately 80 in custody, according to state court data. Most of the people in custody without attorneys are in Multnomah, Klamath and Washington counties and have been charged with felonies. Statewide, 18 people are in custody on misdemeanor charges and do not have lawyers, according to the data. (Oregon public defender asks court to withdraw overworked attorneys, dismiss cases)

I’ll let Toothless in Wisconsin (he’s also driver’s license-less in Wisconsin) have the final word in my piece, that is, his text to me once I told him the news about my friend’s attacker, but I am sure he will be tapping out more once he reads this mellow and not too over the top piece on intimate partner violence and the system and the mother fucking patriarchal hell hole:

I’d reject that shit. File a complaint for criminal conspiracy against the DA’s office.
I hope that Jojo isn’t as pissed off, and disappointed, as I am.

I can relate. My rapist got a free ride, and so did the savage that bludgeoned me to unconsciousness and toothlessness.Maybe me and your friend could reenact the last scene in Three Billboards.

Cheri’s son Todd completed two DV courses, years apart.  Must not be very effective.  Fucking abuser got away with his shit again. Does it give him a sense of impunity?  Based upon his, and his mommy’s attitude, I’d posit he already has one.

Is the fuck going to be required to wear an ankle bracelet for the duration? Best way to monitor compliance with the court’s order. I feel personally betrayed, and pissed off  by this whole fucking thing. Gotta learn to quit getting my hopes up. 

Go to fucking Google, and put in, “why are domestic violence cases dropped,” and you will get dozens of hits advertising how you, you bastard wife and girlfriend abuser, can get out of prison time, get charges dismissed, etc.

This shit hole, this Anglo American shit hole, it all goes back to U-Inbred-Kingdom and what those illegal aliens from UK and Europe have seeded this land with:

Equality before the law fails in an unequal society. Instead of one legal system, class-ridden Britain now has three. At the top, the barristers other lawyers most admire have escaped the constraints of the nation state and chase multimillion pound briefs from the global plutocracy. The downwardly mobile members of the squeezed middle find the costs of going to law cripple them. And at the bottom, the coalition has decided the rule of law no longer covers the poor.

Educated readers of the Observer are unlikely to experience the contempt with which bureaucrats treat the inarticulate. We can threaten to report haughty officials to managers, MPs or councillors. Class so pervades Britain we may not need to threaten at all. A bureaucrat knows we can cause trouble as soon as we open our mouths. For although your clothes no longer announce your status to the British, your accent still betrays you. As an experiment, ask for help in perfect sentences. A few days later, drop your aitches, or talk as if English is not your first language, and see if you receive the same service.

Advisers at law centres tell me that they spend most of their working day trying to persuade the state to do what it was meant to do in the first place. Their guidance on how to challenge officialdom and expert legal help on taking more complicated cases to court will vanish when the coalition slashes legal aid.

Citizens Advice, which is not an organisation given to hyperbole, warns that the overwhelming majority of its caseworkers say that it will soon be “impossible to provide a specialist service, while over half say that it may be impossible to continue providing any advice service at all”.

The government’s abolition of legal aid for whole categories of cases is a direct assault on the essential notion that one law covers us all. Unless those at the bottom of the heap can represent themselves, and the inarticulate will not know how to woo judges, they will be outlaws. (source — his name is Nick Cohen, and doubt he sees his mother ship, Isra-Hell, as that same shit hole giving Zionist Jews one thing, and the original people, Palestinians, the short shaft and the bullet to the head)

Goes back to ancient Greece? Oh, Plato:

The Republic examines the meaning of justice, looks at different types of government, and outlines the ideal state. It touches on many subjects, including law and tyranny.

Plato looked at four existing forms of government and found them unstable. The best, in his view, is timocracy, a military state, like Sparta, based on honor. But such a state will fall apart:

The accumulation of gold in the treasury of private individuals is the ruin of timocracy; they invent illegal modes of expenditure; for what do they or their wives care about the law? . . . . And then one, seeing another grow rich, seeks to rival him, and thus the great mass of the citizens become lovers of money. . . . And so at last, instead of loving contention and glory, men become lovers of trade and money; they honor and look up to the rich man, and make a ruler of him, and dishonor the poor man.

An oligarchy, the rule of a few (the rich), leads to

a city of the rich and a city of the poor, dwelling together, and always plotting against one another. . . . [The government] will not be able to wage war, because of the necessity of either arming and employing the multitude, and fearing them more than the enemy, or else, if they do not make use of them, of finding themselves on the field of battle . . . And to this must be added their reluctance to contribute money, because they are lovers of money.

The poor will overthrow the oligarchy and set up a democracy, the rule of the people (the poor). Plato thought that democratic “life has neither law nor order.” An unquenchable desire for limitless liberty causes disorder, because the citizens begin to

chafe impatiently at the least touch of authority and at length, . . . they cease to care even for the laws, written or unwritten; they will have no one over them.

Stressing moderation, Plato warned that “the excessive increase of anything often causes a reaction in the opposite direction,” such that the “excess of liberty, whether in states or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.”

Like an oligarchy, a democracy pits the poor against the rich. The poor see the rich plotting, and they seek protection:

The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. . . . This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears above ground he is a protector. . . . having a mob entirely at his disposal, he is not restrained from shedding the blood of kinsmen; . . . he brings them into court and murders them . . . at the same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands. . . . After a while he is driven out, but comes back, in spite of his enemies, a tyrant full grown.

Plato deemed tyranny the “fourth and worst disorder of a state.” Tyrants lack “the very faculty that is the instrument of judgment”—reason. The tyrannical man is enslaved because the best part of him (reason) is enslaved, and likewise, the tyrannical state is enslaved, because it too lacks reason and order.

In The Politics, Aristotle rejected Plato’s ideal state. He said that it fails to address conflicts that will arise among its citizens. He claimed Plato’s ideal state will

contain two states in one, each hostile to the other . . . . [Plato] makes the guardians [the warriors] into a mere occupying garrison, while the husbandmen and artisans and the rest are the real citizens. But if so, the suits and quarrels and all the evils which Socrates affirms to exist in other states, will exist equally among them. He says indeed that, having so good an education, the citizens will not need many laws, . . . but then he confines his education to the guardians.

Unlike The Republic, The Politics does not depict an ideal system of government. Instead, Aristotle explored practical constitutions that city-states can realistically put into effect. His aim was to “consider, not only what form of government is best, but also what is possible and what is easily attainable.”

He studied the different governments in Greece’s many city-states. He identified six different kinds of constitutions, and he classified them as either “true” or “defective.” He stated that

governments which have a regard to the common interest are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic . . . .

“True” constitutions served the common interests of all citizens. “Despotic” constitutions served only the selfish interests of a certain person or group. The chart below shows the “despotic” and “true” constitutions. (Despotic is a synonym for “tyrannic.”)

Tyranny perverts monarchy, because it “has in view the interest of the monarch only.” To Aristotle, tyranny is the

arbitrary power of an individual . . . responsible to no one, [which] governs . . . with a view to its own advantage, not to that of its subjects, and therefore against their will.

Aristotle wrote, “No freeman, if he can escape from it, will endure such a government.”

Aristotle believed that tyranny is the “very reverse of a constitution.” He explained that

where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution. The law ought to be supreme over all.

Aristotle stressed that these laws must uphold just principles, such that “true forms of government will of necessity have just laws, and perverted forms of government will have unjust laws.”

Aristotle held views similar to Plato’s about the dangers of democracy and oligarchy. He feared that both pitted the rich against the poor. But he recognized that these types of governments took many forms. The worst were those without the rule of law. In democracies without law, demagogues (leaders appealing to emotions) took over.

For in democracies where the laws are not supreme, demagogues spring up. . . . [T]his sort of democracy . . . [is] what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the [demagogues] correspond to the edicts of the tyrant . . . . Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution. The law ought to be supreme over all . . . .

Aristotle made the same argument about oligarchies.

When . . . the rulers have great wealth and numerous friends, this sort of family despotism approaches a monarchy; individuals rule and not the law. This is the fourth sort of oligarchy, and is analogous to the last sort of democracy.

Aristotle stated that “the rule of law . . . is preferable to that of any individual.” This is because individuals possess flaws and could tailor government to their own individual interests, whereas the rule of law is objective.

[H]e who bids the law rule may be deemed to bid God and Reason alone rule, but he who bids man rule adds an element of the beast; for desire is a wild beast, and passion perverts the minds of rulers, even when they are the best of men. The law is reason unaffected by desire.

Rulers must be “the servants of the laws,” because “law is order, and good law is good order.”

In addition to law, Aristotle believed a large middle class would protect against the excesses of oligarchy and democracy:

[T]he best political community is formed by citizens of the middle class, and that those states are likely to be well-administered in which the middle class is large, and stronger if possible than both the other classes . . . ; for the addition of the middle class turns the scale, and prevents either of the extremes from being dominant.

In fact, one of Aristotle’s true forms of government is a polity, a combination of oligarchy and democracy. This type of state arises when the middle class is strong. (source: Plato and Aristotle on Tyranny and the Rule of Law)