Forum Post: The heart of the matter and the single reason why the 99% are in the position they are in, is due to the fact that most judges and attorneys are being criminals and gangsters.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 3, 2011, 10:34 p.m. EST by joe100
(306)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If the govt bail outs were prevented by the Courts, that would have saved the 99%
If the police abuse was prevented by the Courts, that would have saved the 99%
If the drug war abuse was prevented by the Courts, that would have save the 99%.
If the fathers in prison for no crimes were released by the Courts, that would have saved the 99%
If Google was convicted of their felony crimes, that would have saved the 99%
If the Patriot Act were stopped and found unConstitutional by the Courts, that would have saved the 99%.
If citizens' private property that was stolen by govt and corporations were returned to its owners, that would have saved the 99%.
If all the mortgage bankers were convicted by the Courts, that would have saved the 99%
If the illegal and unjust foreclosures were properly prevented by the Courts, that would have saved the 99%
The heat of the matter is not the politicians and corporate management and police that are abusive, its the courts who let them abusive.
The heart of the matter is the unjust justice system in America. And the Supreme Court in DC is just as bad as the rest of the Courts. There are a few good judges in America, but not many, and they don't carry any real power.
Make the Justice system just again, and everything else will roll the way it should.
I think this is making it out too black and white, though i do agree that the courts are not really doing such a bang up job in many instances of upholding justice. But then you look at who is on the supreme court, what are their allegiances? In reality, people make the laws, or break the laws, and decide whether a law that is broken was in fact broken etc. So it gets into the realm for me at least of having enough people demand that true justice be done.
This internet and the new defense bill for example is clearly a case, to me at least, of laws being made in order to suppress freedoms, so if the people responsible for making laws are making laws that give them unwarranted and unjustified power over the rights of the American people, then it is up to the American people to make their voices heard and say 'no, this isn't going to fly' and be firm in that stance.
Part of that is getting people to realize that this is in fact what is going on, that it isn't some far fetched conspiracy theory, but to make the connections themselves and recognize the reality of the situation, not that i claim to know absolutely what that is myself.
I agree with some of what you are saying. My point is, that even if there are all kinds of rights being violated, if the courts were just, that would the hammer to stop things. In the end, its the justice system. But when one bad apple gets away with it, and the justice system does nothing, then another bad apples does the same, and it just keeps going.
In the end, the justice system has brought us to where we are today.
Ok, i get that i think. But then the question becomes, how did the justice system become so seemingly unjust? A difference of political philosophy? Or is it people with the money and the power buying there preferred version of justice so they can benefit from it, at the expense of others, and at the expense of what is just? Is justice itself some arbitrary thing which changes according to any given different opinion, or is there something regarding justice that we can all more less agree upon?
you ask some great questions. And lots of time, asking the right question IS THE ANSWER!
Someone in this forum mentioned taking the money out of justice, and I think they had a good point.
Here is an idea - I am not saying I support it 100%, it's just an idea to think about.... and it's one idea, and its not necessarily THE solution, it just may help...
Suppose there was a new law and policy. In a court case, if the plaintiff or the defendant wanted to hire an attorney and have legal fees, suppose all the legal fees were pooled into one amount.
For example, suppose the defendant put in $50,000 for legal fees, and the plaintiff put in 0. The rule would that each side gets $25,000 for legal fees. This would at least, be a fair fight. It's just an idea.
But the entire idea that its ok for wealthy people to have "better" and "more" lawyers, so no one else can afford justice, is completely insane.
Our justice system is based on an outdated English system. It's not based on the US Constitution. And the current system needs to be completely thrown out.
Why should people have to wait 3 years for a trail and a case?
Cases that normally take 3 years, should take 3 weeks. Delayed justice is not justice.
There are justice systems in other places that are more like "Judge Judy", where the judge participates in the case much more. For example, suppose some rich corporation and some poor individual are in a lawsuit against each other.
Suppose the poor person has no money for a huge legal team. The rich corp has a huge team.
Further suppose that the poor person's legal team is not aware of some key precedent or key law or some critical thing that would sway the case toward their favor. Now, the judge knows about this critical thing. But if the poor person's legal team doesn't bring it up, the JUDGE PRETENDS ITS NOT THERE and then this critical piece of information is ignored.
There are courts and justice systems where the judges are not so passive. Judges treat justice like its a law school class, instead of a court room of justice.
The entire legal process needs complete re-write and with the Internet, I think there will be a digitization of law that will completely change the justice system.
Thanks for your comment
yes, i see what you mean. Justice should not be dependent upon who can afford the to throw the most money at it. More money does not = more justice.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Police_Abuse,_Corruption,_Misconduct,_and_Treason added
You seem to post the same crap on multiple topics. Can't you think of something new?
Assbitch.
see http://occupywallst.org/forum/individual-rights-their-source-the-nature-of-gover/
I read the other post before and I just reread most of it again. That post both supports this post, and also in some parts, objects to this post. I am not sure if you are in agreement or not.
But think about it.... There are all these problems, all these rights being taken away by govt, corps, police, etc. If the courts were just, wouldn't that be the balance? Isn't the root of all these problems a lack a just and powerful legal court system?
It is the lack of rights which individuals may call upon in court, which supersede government power and are recognized (necessarily, as a result of documentation regarding the purpose of the court) by the courts as inviolate. The fault of our constitution which prevented this from occurring is that it does not implicitly or explicitly incorporate the Declaration of Independence. If it did, all the contradictions in the constitution and all the unjust arrogations of power by our government would be easily overturned.
That may be relevant is some cases. In most of the cases I have experienced or been exposed to or study, there are violations of constitutional rights by the Courts. But I definitely like the post and find it interesting.
One of the major errors in the current political philosophy is the idea that rights are provided by the Constitution (i.e. by government). This idea allows the courts (esp. the Supreme Court) to justify violations of "constitutional rights".
The US Constitution is NOT the government. The US Constitution gives limited powers to the government by the people. The people are responsible to protect the constitution. The govt is NOT RESPONSIBLE to protect the US Constitution: the people are. It's very interesting if you have never learned this stuff. I know the first time I understood it all, and learned the stuff, I realized it all is VERY different than what I thought too.
The constitution declares some rights to the people. I just took a class on this stuff, and I think you should read up a little. You don't understand the US Constitution....
I quickly looked up some links - Not sure if they are excellent or not, but it will explain to you the nature and purpose of the Constitution. I can tell by what you wrote, that you are not a lawyer, and that you don't understand the nature of the constitution being a document that limits the govt. Rights are NOT provided for by the govt. Rights are provided for by nature, Gd, and the US Constitutuion, and the US Constitution specifies some of these unalienable rights.
http://www.freedomlessons.net/freedom3.html
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0291c.asp
I believe I have been misunderstood. It is not my intention to suggest that the constitution or government is the source of rights. I recognize that the constitution is supposed to be a limitation of the powers of government. Unfortunately, there are serious contradictions between the idea of individual rights and the powers granted to congress in the constitution. It is (seemingly) the job of the supreme court (who belong to the abstraction known as 'government') to have the final say on whether or not a piece of legislation is valid. The criteria they use in order to determine the validity of legislation has been the language of the constitution and their interpretation of its meaning. They have argued that powers granted to congress may violate individual rights. One can only hand down such a ruling if one believes that rights are nothing more than government favors.
"rights are nothing more than government favors."
Great statement - that should be a post by itself! Because that's exactly what's going on.
you are adding this stuff to occupythiswiki right? Could an ARTICLE V convention explicitly incorporate the Declaration of Independence? Should this issue be on the list of grievances of the 99% Declaration? Thank You.
Haven't yet been to occupythiswiki. Will check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg
There was a philosopher name Ortega I think of Spanish descent that wrote a book on 'courts', essentially all courts come out of military power and judges are assigned to split the spoils of war during 'peacetime',
The USA circumvented this process initially in the States because judges came from the people, but today county judges must have law degrees and be of the 'bar', and in general don't even have opposition candidates, judges in the USA are so far out of touch with the people they represent that US DEMOCRACY is a fucking joke. In the USA if a lawyer can get rich stealing he does, if hes a bad lawyer but a good old boy he gets to be a 'judge' then retires like a king. The majority of kings, congress, and senate in USA are lawyers,
It's been said over&over in human history the "More the laws the more rotten the nation", ... USA is the most rotten nation on the planet
I agree - thanks for your comment
Alright lets grab one of these bits
If the illegal and unjust foreclosures were properly prevented by the Courts, that would have saved the 99%
So people that bought half million dollar homes when they only made 50k a year should be allowed to live in these homes permanently. These assholes caused the economic crises, it's because of individual consumer greed that caused the housing bust. Why would anyone buy a house they know they can't afford, because they expected the value to rise and they were going to get rich quick.
Ok lets say we let them stay in these houses without paying, if they get away with that, than I am done paying as well. If I stop paying, why wouldn't everyone else. If nobody is paying for houses anymore, then why would anyone pay someone to build them, so now all the residental construcion workers are unemployed, everybody has quit paying all their bills, the utility companies are shutting down. Nobody works anymore, including farmers and the 99% starve and freeze to death.
Your logic is purely moronic, all of it.
Again, you are being one of those immature people doing name calling. We are exchanging ideas. Leave the "moronic" stuff out. I am not a moron, I assure you. I was a top student at a gifted school, I have patents, etc.
I don't agree with your idea that the reason of the housing crises was the consumers bought houses they cannot afford. The examples I think about, are people who purchased a modest home, and it was not their fault the govt caused an economic crisis, and mortgage problems that was caused by Wall Street.
Yet these people, in the middle of their lives, have to foreclose, and sometimes ruin their families lives, for somethings that were really not in their control.
I think the entire mortgage idea is bad idea - either pay cash for a house, or rent. I never suggested no one pay for all houses. Perhaps you should look at other economies, like in France, where things are done differently.
Kicking 10,000 people and more out of their homes because Wallstreet made mistakes doesn't seem very fair nor just to me.
You really think all these people getting kicked out of their homes are not hard working people? They don't deserve to live somewhere? They should bear the costs of WallStreet Greed?
You sound like one of the 1% people.
I never suggested that foreclosures should be illegal - that's your "moronic", as you put it, logic. Saving foreclosures, in my opinion, should be done by legislation, not the Courts. But it seems, according to you, anyone who has an opinion not like yours, is "moronic".
I don't think so. I think people tend to follow other people. In the mortgage case everyone constantly heard "the American dream is purchasing your own home! Get a mortgage and own! Why rent?"
It sounded good, but really mortgages is the worst of two worlds. Take the worst things about owning and take the worst things about renting, that's what a mortgage is.
It's better to buy for cash or rent. I have been saying this for over a decade. Now others say the same.
In your "moronic" example no one pays for homes anymore. Whatever - that's not my idea - its yours.
Try to exchange ideas, be polite and learn. I don't know everything in the world and neither do you.
i happen to agree that paying with cash is always best but would anyone ever own a home trying to pay that way
There are LOTS of economists, and "financial help" type people - you know the ones, the people on the radio and TV who give free financial advice, most people agree.
The other thing is that you, and before me, but not now, were BRAINWASHED into believing that a purchasing a home with a mortgage is OWNING a home.
It's completely NOT owning a home. Anyone who has a mortgage on their property really DOES NOT OWN the home. The bank owns the home.
To rent, means to pay every month. Stop paying, you get kicked out. Owning for cash means you don't have to pay every month. All you have to pay is taxes, which is pretty little compared to rent or a mortgage.
so with a mortgage you pay the same, or MORE than rent, if you don't pay the mortgage on time, you get kicked out, like rent, and your credit goes to hell.
With rent, you can move anytime you want, just pack up and go. With a mortgage, if you can sell, you usually have to wait SIX months to move before finally selling. If you can't sell, oh well, you can't move.
With rent, you don't have to pay for major repairs. With a mortgage, you pay rent, AND you pay for major repairs.
If you own, and you want to move, at LEAST you CAN rent your home pretty easily, usually within a month, and then you can use the rent money to rent something else! Zero cost to you to rent a new place for yourself. Your costs are taxes and major repairs, and rent may pay for that too. Depends if you are lucky that year.
If you have a mortgage, and try and rent, the rent will usually be lower than the mortgage, so you lose a little every month, AND you still have to pay repairs and taxes.
So purchasing a home with mortgage IS NOT REALLY OWNING. It's a complete myth that we have been told over and over and over so we believed it.
I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE who sees this as the logical truth. Most financial "experts", I mean the real ones who are good, agree with this idea that purchasing a home with 20% down, is not really owning anything.
That's why there are thousands of foreclosures, because the people NEVER owned the homes to begin with.
I heard mortgage translates in french to 'death pledge'. Imagine the marketing materials put out by the banks!!! Good work Joe : )
Thats hilarious! and true I think - "Death Guarantee" or "death engagement" which is like death pledge - I speak french fluently - and i never thought of that!!!! hahahaha! Yes - mortgages are no good! thanks for your comment!
A typical response, "Im not a moron because I went to college." The dumbest people I ever met were college grads. But your argument to mine is,"I don't beleive people bought homes they couldn't afford." Well I live in the East Bay in California, ground fucking zero for morons that bought homes they couldn't afford, half the people that I work with bought houses they couldn't afford and then walked away from them, when they realized there was no point in paying their mortgage. So unlike you I am not just some elitist college grad talking about shit I don't know, I know it from experience. They are hard working people, they took a financial risk and lost, yet they are not paying the bill. Most of them are buying houses now while their credit is still good and then defaulting on the half million dollar mortgage they should never have taken. It's funny that these guys are definitely not paying the price, in fact I know many of them still have the cars and boats they bought with their second mortgage. The people getting foreclosed are definitely not the victims and anyone that beleives that is a moron.
You are moron. Only a moron would claim they are intelligent because they went to college. Also only a moron would post what you posted.
How about this jerkoff, I am going around the country, and I can stop in your town, and then we can see, if you have the nerve to call me a moron in my face. I am sure you don't have the nerve punk ass. I am sure I am better than you at basketball, soccer, hand to hand combat, mathematics, economics, and building houses and doing construction work. I can outwork you, I can out-think you, I can kiss your ass.
If you don't think so, let's create a challenge, and video it, so we can all see how smart you are, how tough you are.
We can do chess, we can to fighting, whatever your game is, jerkoff.
But you are probably scared. You play a big game in a forum, but in reality you are punk. Anytime you wanna go battle, I am ready, any place.
Sorry you were to stupid not to go to college.
I was voted number one at Harvard once, for some ideas. Not you, me.
This is an exchange of ideas, We all think of genius ideas and stupid ideas. To say "your are stupid" instead of "your idea is stupid" is doing a personal attack for no reason. You don't know how to conduct yourself on a forum CUZ U DUM. You may think my idea is wrong, but that's no reason to attack me personally. Jerkoff. Chump. Any day, any time, on video. Let's let the world see how tough you are, and how smart you are. I dare you.
Internet tough guy in this day and age I thought all you guys went the way of the dinosaur. Here it is 2011, and your making physical threats in a forum. Man I got you good. Violence is the tool of ignorance, like I said total moron. Are you quoting Breakfast Club as well? Here is my address 1300 Ontario St. Cleveland, Ohio 44113, please come in for a visit anytime.
Cool, we can hang out. Violence got use, violence will get us out. Where they use lethal violence, we can use non-lethal violence. Don't get caught up in the "violence" definition brainwash....
"Where they use lethal violence we can use non lethal violence" That sounds as dumb as the saying bringing a knife to gun fight. Moron
No, bring sleeping gas, dart guns that put people to sleep, like the animal dart guns, stun guns, star trek like phasers, tear gas, microwave guns, sound weapons, are all non-lethal weapons that can take DOWN gun toting people. Moron - you can't think out of the box. See if idiots like you needed to take someone down, your only way is kill, kill, kill, when with body armor and non-lethal weapons you could avoid killing.
But morons like you, can't even THINK of ONE non-lethal weapons that would work. Moron.
This is coming from the guy that just wanted to fistfight over the internet. Another rambling post from Joe. When have I talked about killing. The only assumptions of you I make are the statements you make, laughable fool. Typical stupid OWS person, no clue of reality.
You are another immature name caller. Calling people STUPID who don't agree with YOU. Again, I am sure you don't have the balls to call me an idiot in my face. But you can be a coward here. Cause you can hide. You are a typical punk - everyone is an idiot who doesn't agree with you.
I doubt you have helped too many people in anything in your life.
Does your problem stem from never being "good enough" when you grew up? Never won much? Never was respected?
You probably have a confidence problem. I recommend you work out, get in shape, read a few self-help books.
Name calling and calling people idiot doesn't make your comments "cool" or "likeable", Try to be "intellectually reactionary".
chestRockwell - another punk.