Does the Justice System Actually Dispense Justice ... Or Does It Just Serve the Powers-That-Be, Like the Other Branches of Government?

George Washington's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Crab Cake's picture

Judges are just politicians in robes. There is no justice to be found in this God forsaken cesspool of a nation. The judges serve the same interests that the two headed political monster does; bought lock stock and barrel. In many ways the judiciary, and it's partners from law enforcemement, are the most to blame. Where are the fucking cops? Oh thats right, the laws are only for the little people. Get caught with some pot, go to jail have your life ruined. Steal a few billion, and get a pat on the back.

Bob's picture

Steal a few billion, and get a pat on the back.

Or a loving knob-job in the hot tub from Robert "Honey Pie" Mueller.

Buck Johnson's picture

Spot on, spot on.  The double think is exactly why it's so dangerous.  It's almost as if we know deep down it can be unfair and unjust, but we have to believe it will do right even when we see it's not.  We have to hold onto the fiction, we just have too.  Our judicial system and our govt. and even our country has becomed aged, in such a little amount of time unlike other empires who take centuries.  Eventually we will go down the well trodden road of all empires in their twilight.  We are told that you can repeat history if you don't learn anything from what happened in the past.  The problem is many of our people truly believe the exceptional propaganda that has been coming out of our leaders for decades, that we can do no wrong and it's our right. 

Rome had a right, Ottoman Empire had a right, British Empire had a right etc. etc..  Where are they now, they are just shadows of what they used to be.  And I'm afraid that we will be a shadow also.

honestann's picture

I do not consent to be governed.

That is the first answer to this article.  Think about that principle and what it means.  When the "system", whatever that system is where you live, becomes sufficiently corrupt, any rational human SHOULD formally state, "I do not consent to be governed".

Now, will this stop thugs paid by the predators-that-be from taxes extracted from you?  Rarely so.

Another important part of the answer is --- fundamentally law correctly identifies all organizations as "fictitious entities".  Thus, all governments, all corporations, all societies, clubs and other organizations literally (not figuratively) DO NOT EXIST.  That is a fact - one that very few humans understand.

Therefore, what a human can ethically do "on behalf of government or corporation or other organization" is identical to what that human can do absent those organizations.

Government is obsolete --- infinitely so.

Kina's picture

Buy silver, crash this enterprise by skewering the corruptors.

weinerdog43's picture

Great post George.  When the people lose respect for the law because it is implemented and enforced unequally, the societal fabric starts to tear.  We've had a good 200 year run with our Constitution, but when it is ignored by those who are sworn to uphold it, why in the world should the rest of us abide things we don't want to do?  Small acts of rebellion can quickly turn much bigger if people become frustrated and have nothing to lose.  It'll be interesting to see what happens when the 99 weeks expires.

Kina's picture

Just one word for judges, banskters, corrupt politicians. Robespierre.

America will end up needing its own Committee of Public Safety.

Bob's picture

This is indeed the waterloo for the rule of law in America. 

Bob's picture

George, this is the latest breakthrough in your illustrious evolution. 

Forget 1984

We've breached complete dystopia in real time

breezer1's picture

well written and articulate gw. the us is dead and the dream only lives in a small percentage of citizens. save me some of that chicken and pass me the remote.

Irwin Fletcher's picture

Poor people have known for a long time that the justice system serves TPTB. When it's their word against that of a law enforcement officer, no matter how reasonable the doubt, they're often just screwed. This isn't new, nor is the Supreme court's facilitation thereof. How about the Dawes Act of 1887, which was facilitated by the Supreme Court case of Kagama vs U.S? The Dawes Act essentially offered an ultimatum to sign on to the government's breach of treaty for a lousy consolation prize, or to lose everything for yourself and your ancestors. From enotes:

The Supreme Court explained the basis for this new approach to Indian policy when it ruled in the case of Kagama v. U.S. (1886) that Congress has complete power to regulate Native-American affairs. The Court stated that Indian tribes, "once powerful," were now "weak and diminished in numbers," economically and politically dependent on the United States. As a result, the Court said, the government had a duty to protect them, and with that duty came the power to regulate all aspects of their affairs.

Grill Boss's picture

You gave up your rights when you got a birth certificate or "berth certificate" you docked into the USA out of your ship your "mother" then you became a strawman or the corporate entity that now represents the human or "freeman" that once was you.

Unwittingly your parents gave up your rights and you continue to do so as the owners of your "bond" or bondage are the bankers so now you are no more than mere cattle or cow

the certificate is issued to say what "cargo" has come off the ship. THIS IS CALLED UCC or UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE. This is how and why they collect taxes, as this is the interest or future payment of your labour and life on the bond, bought.... the certificate  at your birth or "berth" hence why on your cert your date (human date) and the date of issue (the day the corporation that represents what once was you) is different, at which point you have given up all your rights or you parents did for you before you even new what a "right" was


Look up strawman, UCC, and you will find that indeed this is very much true and very much true everywhere

Irwin Fletcher's picture

Ah, so THAT's what backs our currency now. Nice.

Miles Kendig's picture

The concept of lawful plunder is now so deeply ingrained that even honest servants of justice have been reduced to serving the very thing they are committed to oppose.  This unhappy state of affairs permeates every aspect of society to include philanthropy rendering the whole false.

thedirtybubble's picture

So, we all know the ugly truth now... What are we going to do with this knowledge? Will we resign ourselves to becoming slaves to the CORPORATION or will we wake up and start living life the way we were meant to? It's high time we all started ignoring these washed up old men with the mentality of Pinky and the Brain and took a step into the bright dawning future. The first one now will later be last, for the times, they are a changin.

Citxmech's picture
US Justice Department Prepares For Ominous Expansion Of Law Prohibiting 'Material Support' For Terro In late September the FBI carried out a series of raids of homes and anti-war offices of public activists in Minneapolis and Chicago. Following the raids the Obama Justice Department subpoenaed 14 activists to a grand jury in Chicago and also subpoenaed the files of several anti-war and community organizations. In carrying out these repressive actions, the Justice department was taking its lead from ...

More of the same, fyi... 

nmewn's picture

And yet...voter suppression by "selected" groups get a pass.

Strange days indeed.

e_goldstein's picture


interesting read as usual. however, you may want to check your title.

Mitchman's picture

For many decades, particularly since the '60's conservatives were vilified for wanting a "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution where the words meant exactly what they said.  Instead, we were told that the Constitution was a "living breathing document" that had to be flexible to the complexities of today's world as interpreted by a judge.  So how's that flexibility working out for you now?

Fred Hayek's picture


I remember articles in Reason and Liberty, two libertarian magazines, from around 20 years ago which tried to make lefties see the basic libertarian point that you might like the extra-constitutional power that you create today but you have no idea how it will play out in the future.  Your only protection against it is to not create it.  Gambling that it will only be used for really nice things like you would do with it is naive.

Bob's picture

As one of those complainers, I gotta give it to you: The law of unintended consequences should be kept front and center.  Too little, too late?

This is clearly a negation of the court rules themselves. 

Rainman's picture

Scalia returning from a duck hunting trip with Cheyney and has no steelshot in his torso....??  That says volumes. Like his hunting partner, Cheyney never gave a rat's ass about legislative intent either. These boyz musta' got along fine.


nmewn's picture

To this very is still safer to hunt with a Cheney than to drive with a Kennedy ;-)

George Washington's picture

Thanks, nmewn, that actually made me laugh.

If you know of an example of a Democratic supreme court justice engaged in politicking, please let me know, and I'll add it.

nmewn's picture

"Thanks, nmewn, that actually made me laugh."

Aim to please GW ;-)

"If you know of an example of a Democratic supreme court justice engaged in politicking, please let me know, and I'll add it."

I don't believe I mentioned party affiliation...but I'm sure I could dig up a few...if that's really what you want...would the "enhanced revenue streams" of the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee do or will I have to stay within the confines of normal jurisprudence?...LOL.

George Washington's picture

nmewn, I'm post-partisan.  Any dirt could be interesting...

nmewn's picture

Well I think we can leave the Pelosi windmill interests aside as that's old is Maxine Waters "banking" about this for "post-partisan dirt"...this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship ;-)

What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.

And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for "lack of evidence," it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush's top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being "no evidence" to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that "bull****."

knukles's picture

Ditto.  Orwell was right.