[ExI] Gender-Neutral Side Note

[spike at rainier66.com]

...> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
Cc: Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com>


>...The rest of us look at the documentation and see that the courts said he was guilty of felonies, full stop...

The rest?  Adrian that view is the minority.  The rest of the voters (the majority) see that the courts tell us that defendant was guilty of felonies they never identified.  The majority could think of no other legal case in history which a defendant was found guilty of something they never identified.  But if left to stand, any one of us can be convicted of unidentified felonies.  Conclusion: that wasn't really a legal case, but rather a transparent interference with an election, which is illegal.  It was further an full frontal attack on our legal system, which was repelled.  For now.

A defendant is presumed innocent, but a judge and a prosecutor are held to higher standards.  Even the appearance of impropriety destroys the case.  Example: the case against OJ Simpson fell apart after the prosecutor's main witness testified he had never used the N word.  He had read a script for the drama A Raisin in the Sun, in which the character he was portraying used the word.  So he was reading a script.  The witness was impeached and the case fell apart over that.

Now, compare that level of appearance of impropriety to a "judge" prosecuting on a "felony" which he never identified.  That certainly has the appearance of election interference.  The "judge" and the "prosecutor" appear to have committed election interference with this absurd notion of prosecuting an unidentified felony.  

>..."But it was just record-keeping" is irrelevant...

Record keeping violations are misdemeanors.  The statute of limitations had run out.  It was the felonies they never identified.  

>...If the court says it found him guilty of felonies, then it found him guilty of felonies...

What were these felonies please?  You don't know?  Neither do we.  But we can be charged with whatever that is.  If one person can be, then we all can be.

>...Now, whether it properly did so - whether, perhaps, the crimes he was found guilty of should not have been counted as felonies...

To answer that, we would need to know what the felonies were.  Do you know, Adrian?  Why?  Because they never told us.  If the court system is allowed to convict one defendant of an unidentified felony, then it can convict you.  It can convict me.  It can convict John.  It sacrifices the presumption of innocence on the alter of political expediency.

I choose to sacrifice political expediency for the presumption of innocence.  Adrian I presume you didn't commit any felonies, I presume John didn't.  I already know I didn't.  

>...or whether there was other critical information that should have made him be found not guilty - is a matter for the appeals courts.  IIRC, the case is being appealed.  But that the court did convict him is a matter of historical record...

Of what felony please?  You don't know?  None of us do.  The court never told us.  If they can get away with convicting a defendant of an unidentified felony, then we can all be convicted of unidentified felonies.

>...regardless of what you think should logically have happened or whether you think it makes any sense whatsoever...

It makes sense in this respect: the American people recognized that this case sacrifices the legal system for political gain.  If the legal system is sacrificed to convict one person of unidentified felonies, it can be used to convict you.  It can be used to convict John.  It can be used to convict me.  It can be used to convict any of us, regardless of our innocence or guilt.  Any check you ever wrote can be declared false record keeping, with the court arguing it was really to cover another crime which you didn't actually commit, and the court arguing it doesn't matter if you didn't commit the other crime, only that there exists another crime.

The voters just said no.  Good for them.  Now we still have a legal system.  No one is above the law.  No one is below it either.  We are all innocent until proven guilty.

spike

_______________________________________________