Monday, February 7, 2011

Is This Blog "Anti-Government"?

One of the ways to smear anyone today who points out abuses committed by government agents is to claim that the person making the point is "anti-government." Interestingly, the smear comes from both the right (Fox News) and the left (MSNBC, New York Times).

When I started this blog, I wanted to deal with issues of economics and some about criminal and civil justice, and it bumped along for about a year until Buzz Franklin and Chris Arnt decided to put Tonya Craft on trial for alleged child molestation. Because the charges were ludicrous and because it was obvious that Arnt, Franklin, and "judge" brian outhouse were tag-teaming to deny Ms. Craft even basic rights, and because even at its best, the local media was unable to say what needed to be said, so I figured that someone needed to fill the gap.

As in the Duke Lacrosse Case, the more I found out, the more I dug into the material, and the more I listened to people who knew something about the case, the more I realized this was an out-and-out railroad. As people know, I have very strong feelings regarding prosecutorial and police misconduct, and have zero tolerance for criminal behavior coming from prosecutors and cops.

Now, a lot of prosecutors and cops take offense at this, not because they actually are honest people, but they just don't like someone messing with their power parade. Furthermore, because they are officers of the court and have a sworn duty to tell the truth, when they lie or encourage lying, it goes to the heart of the system, and to the heart of our very society.

When a person charged with a crime lies under oath, that does not go to the heart of anything. Criminals lie, and that is expected. However, criminals don't represent a system of justice; they represent attempts to attack persons or their property; they are anti-social creatures and we regard them as such.

However, when a prosecutor suborns perjury, as we saw in the Craft case, what he is declaring is that the entire system of justice is a lie. When outhouse permitted Joal and Sarah Henke's testimony is court -- and I guarantee you that outhouse knew they were lying -- he was declaring to the world that his courtroom was about lies.

When outhouse held ex parte meetings with the prosecutors and prosecution witnesses and then refused to report them, he was declaring that his courtroom is a lie, and that he is free to flaunt the law, judicial ethics, and the very truth he was sworn to uphold. This is not trivial stuff. Outhouse is a judge who does everything in his power to keep the truth out of his courtroom.

Chris Arnt, Buzz Franklin and Len Gregor have very strict ethical guidelines for their profession, and they openly trashed them in the Craft case. This is not a matter of opinion; it is fact, as none of the people involved even attempted to hide their actions.

Why did they get away with it? Because they knew they could do it and pay no professional or legal price. While it is true that Arnt's political career may not turn out as rosy as he had hoped, nonetheless he, Gregor, nor Franklin have had to pay a dime in outside expenses, unlike Tonya Craft, who had to shell out more than a million dollars to fund her defense, or the family of James Combs, whom Franklin is trying to railroad with similar charges.

Prosecutors have a term they use to destroy people: "Bleed 'em and plead 'em." The idea is to use their powers to drain ordinary people of their finances so that they cannot afford decent legal representation, or that they run out of money.

This is not done to protect the public. This is done because prosecutors can do it. It is immoral, it is dishonest, and it is the standard way of doing things in this country.

However, according to a lot of people out there, even to timidly point out such things is to engage in "anti-government" behavior. Furthermore, you can bet that future governments at all levels will find ways to criminalize even the most gentle of criticism in the future, labeling it "anti-government terrorism."

So, I will say forthrightly that I am not "anti-government" per se. I am a believer in the message of Romans 13, although keep in mind that the same state Paul was describing in that passage later was lumped into the category of a "beast" in the book of Revelation.

I am against government agents who break the law, as we observed repeatedly during the Craft trial. People who do such things deserve all of the criticism they receive and more.


Kerwyn said...

I think people confuse anti-government with anti-lack of integrity. When you uncover blatant lying, the railroading of an innocent by the police/prosecutors, the extreme lack of common sense shown by people surrounding a case and the basic lack of honor and integrity, that is NOT anti-government.

It is up to us, the PEOPLE (remember the whole "We the People" thing) of this country to expose and report on anyone in power (government or otherwise) who is using their position to destroy, unfairly, any other person or entity.

That is the very essence of being an American. Not only do we have the freedom to do that, but we must take on the responsibility to do that. Each man or woman MUST question, relentlessly, the actions of anyone that has been placed in a position of power. If you cease to or choose not to question, then you hand over your freedom as an American.

Don't you all think it is interesting, that people in a position of power don't want to be questioned? They do not want their actions shown in the bright light of honesty. They want to pat us on the head, tell us it is too hard for us to understand or it must be kept a secret for the "betterment" of the people, and to not worry "they" will take care of us?


William L. Anderson said...

The thing to keep in mind is that I am not anti-government or anti-authority. I do believe, however, that people in positions of authority (1) should obey the law, (2) show integrity, and (3) have mechanisms available that hold them to account.

Unfortunately, all too often none of those three things come into play. And when I point out that fact, I am accused of being "anti-government," as though that were a meaningful statement.

liberranter said...

One of the ways to smear anyone today who points out abuses committed by government agents is to claim that the person making the point is "anti-government."

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"The state is a gang of thieves, writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I am proud to share these sentiments expressed by two titans of our civilization. If that makes me "anti-government," then it is a label I wear with tremendous pride.

Justine Valinotti said...

An anti-government person would never have taken the time to learn about the specifics of judicial and official wrongdoing, as you have, Bill Anderson. Such a person simply would have quit everything.

One sees such people, or people who purport to have such beliefs, in conservative and libertarian movements. In a way, they contradict themselves because a real conservative wants to protect the integrity of institutions and documents that could be made to work for the people, and a real libertarian wants people to be free.

The latter, hopefully, are closely watching what's happening in Egypt. The protests are "anti-government" or, at least, anti-Mubarak. But simply opposing government (rather than opposing the wrongdoing of those who happen to be in power) opens the door to rulers who are as bad as, or worse than, those who were deposed. That has happened in any number of countries, including Cuba. And such will be the fate of Egypt if nothing but anti-government force rules the day.

Anonymous said...

If Bill is anti-government, then so were the drafters of the First Amendment (particularly, a free press). That amendment exists for the express purpose of questioning government. The drafters knew that a free press was essential to keeping King George in check. So those who try the "anti-government" smear tactic are really nothing more than cheerleaders for an oppresive government. They may not think they are, but that is the net effect of what they are doing.

Doc Ellis 124 said...

Dr Anderson,

I am with liberranter. I regard the state and government as enemies.

Thank you for writing this.

I will share as usual.

Doc Ellis 124

KC Sprayberry said...

Perhaps the Supreme Court indicated it best when they've upheld the right of cops and prosecutors to lie. These people given the responsiblity to protect law-abiding citizens are no better than the criminals themselves, who will lie to get out all kinds of trouble - that's exactly how I and probably any reasonable person reads those rulings. I don't believe Bill's anti-government. I believe he's anti-criminal action for those charged with upholding the law. As officers of the court, no matter how the Supreme Court rules now or in the future or in the past, those individuals have a higher standard to meet, so they do their jobs as they've claimed they'd do. However, in the case of Buzz Franklin and his minions of LMJC, they're doing just as they said they would. We didn't get the message until innocent people started going to prison. Keep shining a light down here, Bill. You are doing something good if just one person with false charges hanging over their head goes home a free person.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Bill, I would like to say they all stick together. One thing i WILL HAVE TO GIVE GREGOR CREDIT FOR he knew the law he knew they would stick together, and they did
the surpreme court went along with the rest of those crooks in Dade co.
And they wonder why anyone goes off the deep end and takes matters in their own hands I can see why. You can not get a fair Judge or Lawyer or anyone to listen. We are going to keep hammering till someone reads
the paperwork. That is all they have to do is READ it...I am going to sit on the Governor and Attorney
General steps till they do... Brad Wade's Mother.

John Washburn said...

RE: If Bill is anti-government, then so were the drafters of the First Amendment (particularly, a free press)

More on point for the First Amendment is the Redress of Grievances clause. Item 3 in Bill's list:
(3) have mechanisms available that hold them to account.

Item 3 is exactly this: To where do you take your grievance regarding wrong doing by agents of the State? Preferably without being put into an "anti-government" database.

Because there is no way in Georgia (or other states for that matter) to seek redress of prosecutorial misconduct, one could make a very good case that the State of Georgia does not have a republican form of government as required by the second, current constitution.

The second constitutional provision violated by the Georgia Bar's position that; ”Perjury is just a prosecutor doing their job.” is that 14th amendment expressly incorporates the 1st bill of the Federal Bill of Rights into Georgia law. To refuse to investigate is to deny Tonya Craft the ability to seek redress for her grievances arising from her persecution at the hands of LMJC.

Nullifier said...

Mr. Anderson asks, "Is this blog 'Anti-Government'"? So what if it is? Or isn't for that matter?
As if we need permission to hold an opinion.

William L. Anderson said...

Now, I do like Tom Woods and am excited about his new book, Rollback!

No, I don't need permission, but my larger point is that I don't mindlessly criticize the government. Nonetheless, the government and its allies often mindlessly criticizes people like me!!

Anonymous said...

Prosecutors have a term they use to destroy people: "Bleed 'em and plead 'em."

More Brutal Criminality by the Cops

Prosecutors and Wrongful Convictions: They Don't Care, Anymore

those who are entrusted with finding the truth -- care whether or not the charges they are pursuing even are true (or logical, for that matter)

You claim to identify government agents who do wrong when in reality you attack a whole industry which is one arm of the government. Identify the individuals you feel are not representing the system as you feel. When you attack the whole judicial branch like the above quotes from past post you are anti government. Most of your posts have baseless allegations like these. Kind of like saying all teachers are bad because the education system is a failure.

I read this post and others like it to keep up with radical groups.

William L. Anderson said...

First, the notion that I am part of a "radical" group is amazing. In other words, to point out real-live instances of lies by people in authority is illegitimate.

Second, where have I ever endorsed violence? Most likely, you are a cop or a defender of cops, and we see time and again cops being violent in situations that did not require it. But, I suspect you support that because, well, to believe otherwise is to be "anti-government."

By the way, are you also against the Constitution? I suspect you are, which makes you much more radical than I ever could be, for I believe that we should follow the laws that were present at the founding of the USA.

"Bleed 'em and plead 'em" is a very popular saying in prosecutorial circles. I suspect you support it as well.

While it is true that I often condemn with a broad brush, you have chosen to lump me in with violent radicals, which is pretty much a broad brush approach.

Furthermore, cops have a term called "testilying," and it is common among them. Are you telling me that police always tell the truth when under oath? Are you telling me that only a few rogue prosecutors are out there, and most of them are the soul of honesty.

We have a very honest and decent prosecutor in our area, and he and I were discussing this very thing a while back. He especially was scornful of federal prosecutors because he regarded them as being dishonest.

So, I guess that this ex-cop who has a sterling reputation is an anti-government radical, too.

Anonymous said...

This is so typical of cheerleaders for dirty cops. In a blog clarifying that Bill is not anti-government, but rather anti-bad government, there are still those who insist otherwise.

I recently had the pleasure of cross examining a cop at a suppression hearing. He testified that he pulled my client over just to find out if my client knew anything about an unrelated incident. He admitted he had no other reason to pull my client over. Of course, the evidence that was seized later in the stop was suppressed. (It was an empty bottle and my client was not drinking or charged with DUI). After talking to the cop later, he candidly told me that he learned something that day and he would testify differently in the future so the "guilty" would not go free. Yep, testilying. He didnt have to call it that. His response was just his natural gut reaction. It came out of him so smoothly and easily it was scary.

William L. Anderson said...

Well, I guess that makes you a radical who needs to be monitored. Maybe the Southern Poverty Law Center will label us "Enemies of the People."

I appreciate your sharing those comments with us. You have given yet another example of how cops justify lying. It is not up to cops to determine who is guilty and who is innocent.

Anonymous said...

"I often condemn with a broad brush" That's an understatement.

"where have I ever endorsed violence". When it has been mentioned you dismissed it with little regard.

"I am part of a "radical" group".

Like I said that is why I read blogs like this. I didn't say I read them because I want to.

"Are you telling me that police always tell the truth when under oath? Are you telling me that only a few rogue prosecutors are out there, and most of them are the soul of honesty." Is that the broad brush again or your true feelings and contempt about the government coming out again?

William L. Anderson said...

What kind of violence? Police violence? Beating and shooting unarmed people who pose no threat? That, of course, is OK with you.

Police have a term called "testilying." Are you denying that, or are you endorsing it?

You still do not show where I have "endorsed" violence. I'd like to see where in this blog, in my writings, I have called for violence against the authorities or anyone else.

During and after Tonya's trial, the Usual Suspects of the LMJC and their supporters made fantastic claims and dismissed anything that would even smack of the truth. This blog was able to verify lies, half-truths, and fabrications.

Your response (and you most likely are part of that "justice" [sic] apparatus) was to put your fingers in your ears and not listen.

By the way, since you have not addressed my questions with real answers, I will conclude that you support perjury and document fabrication when it suits you and your friends.

Now, if someone lies and it harms your person, then you are against it. So, "truth for me, but not for thee."

In your view, being "pro-government" means being "pro-lying" when you like it.

Trish said...

Keep going Bill, seems like you must have hit some nerves, when you are exposing the truth!!

Passerby 01 said...

"I read this post and others like it to keep up with radical groups." This is the first indication that you have a troll on hand. Clearly an individual who is looking for someone to fight, whether he/she disagrees with the initial argument or not. They consider all people lairs and deceivers, notice that you were attacked, and no defense of the government agents was made. In one case, you were attacked because you said abuse was common, then the second letter attacked you for saying that it wasn't. This person hates other people that have opinions and stand up for them; disregard trolls like this until they can come up with logical disagreements and everyone will come out ahead. In regard to the article itself- I don't think you are 'anti-government' at all.

A Duke Dad said...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

--- Juvenal

Translation from the Latin:

Who shall guard us from [our] guardians ?

Anonymous said...

Charges against Eric Echols were dropped by the DA's office yesterday. Question. If a young child's coerced statement is sufficient evidence to railroad a woman to trial (keep in mind a child's statement is all they have sometimes), why isnt a video of an undeniable assault on a black man not sufficient evidence to at least charge her?

Anonymous said...

Though I do not wear an "anti-government" badge, I must admit that I find more than a little fault with the present state of affairs.

I do agree that those write and legislate law, mandate and institute law and enforce law, including all who hold any public office, should be far more accountable and answerable to the law, than any common citizen. It simply comes down to this: The law is real and valid and applies equally to all....or The law is not real and valid, and therefore applies to no one.

In reality though, I find the very idea of one man governing another man to be utterly preposterous. Call me anti whatever....but the whole thing is as rediculous as imaging that you owe a multi-tillion dollar debt (deficit), when in reality the money was never real, never possessed any intrinsic value in and of itself and never physically existed at the time it was loaned. It was never more than an idea....someone elses idea....and not a very good one at that.

Ronald Borst said...

Lebanon Oregon. April 2012. This town and this judge is a fraud. Someone should look into this. How are cops writing bogus tickets and this muni court judge upholds them? Look up the articles and letters to the editor in The Albany Democrat-Herald.

Doc Ellis 124 said...


Links please. I went to the site and never did find the articles to which you referred.

Thank you

Doc Ellis 124