The U.S. government, in fact every government, is created and promoted for precisely one reason; to enable a very small group of people who control that government to exploit, through “authorized” force, the much larger group of people, who do not. You and I, my brainwashed friend, are “the much larger group, who do not”. I know that most people don’t believe this about “their country”, and that is their right. But their failure to accept reality does not change reality.
So what I’m going to do today is show you 3 separate cases from the supreme court, and you can draw your own conclusions about who that court and your government really serve.
The first case we’ll look at is where a State sought to sterilize a woman against her will because the State said she was an “imbecile”.
The next case involves the criminal conviction for publishing politically charged communist material advocating mass strikes to bring down the government.
The last case involves a multi-billion dollar international company getting a 2 million dollar punitive damage award levied against it to punish it for blatant consumer fraud.
So let’s look at the cases briefly and see how the court “protected your rights”.
The first case is Buck v. Bell, 1927. The “august justice” Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion “for the court”.
The basic facts, as set forth by the court, are simple. An imbecilic girl was placed into a state “institution” by her family. The person in charge of the facility wanted to sterilize her for the good of society. We will accept the facts as presented for our purposes today. The truth appears much more complicated.
The girl apparently had an out of wedlock child and the family felt “disgraced”. The overall back story appears to be that the entire case was a friendly suit , unbeknownst to the poor girl of course, used to “clarify” and to thereby approve of eugenics laws which would later go on to sterilize 10’s of thousands against their will here in freedomville. Here is an excellent law review article for those who are interested in pursuing it more closely.
The issue before the court was straightforward though far from benign. Here is how the court described the situation:
“The statute then enacts that, whenever the superintendent of certain institutions, including the above-named State Colony, shall be of opinion that it is for the best interests of the patients and of society that an inmate under his care should be sexually sterilized, he may have the operation performed upon any patient afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity, imbecility, &c., on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse.”
There is a lot there. Let me simplify it for you. If some arbitrarily appointed bureaucratic quack at some state institution you were unluckily housed at, thought, based upon the “highest science” that you weren’t what society needed or wanted, then you were getting sterilized. But relax, the court assures us that the government has provided “very careful provision” to protect us all from abuse by this “law”. So we’re good, you can go back to watching TV.
It is difficult to imagine a much more fundamental right that the court should protect than this. So what did the court find? Well you can read its 1 paragraph “analysis”:
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
I hope you re-read that and really think about what type of a court of so called “justice” would produce an opinion like that. If you aren’t appalled by the court’s language, I can only hope that it is because you don’t understand the import of that language on your “rights”.
The court’s “analysis” is bereft of any concern at all for YOU and your rights. The court, with a waive of its hand, finds that it would be “strange” if the state could not “obviously” sterilize you. Why? Well because it can draft you into war and kill you, so clearly it can sterilize you. (I have written about the legitimacy of this alleged power to draft you, here .) The STATE’S interest towers over yours. Forget batting second. You’re not even in the lineup. So much for the court protecting your “rights”.
And let me say this. There is so much blather about what a “great “justice” Holmes was. Judge for yourself. Authorizing the STATE to sterilize YOU with no analysis based upon fake facts is what he stood for when the chips were down.
So let’s look at the next case Gitlow v. New York, 1925, just a few years earlier than the previous case we looked at.
In this case the person was convicted of “criminal anarchy”. Basically he published and promulgated a communist pamphlet about how the government was taking advantage of the working people, “the much larger group” I referred to earlier. The pamphlet advocated for this group to rise up and throw this tyrannical abusive government off by coordinated mass strikes.
This type of political “speech” is EXACTLY what the laminated-in-every-school-room Declaration of Independence states is the peoples’ duty to do. Throw off unjust governments. If the first amendment is not there to protect speech like this, then what is it there for at all?
Let’s be clear. There was no evidence of any so called revolutionary “conduct”. The guy just published and promoted a pamphlet the government didn’t like. In fact here is what the court said about that issue:
There was no evidence of any effect resulting from the publication and circulation of the Manifesto.
No effect means no action, no conduct. This case is strictly about criminal liability for publishing a political manifesto. This is precisely the kind of conduct that needs to be protected from prosecution as “un-American”.
Remember, it is only speech people DON’T like that even needs protection. You don’t have to protect middle of the road milk toast bs like you hear and see peddled everyday on your boob tube and radio. THAT speech is what the small group in control WANTS YOU TO HEAR.
So did the court throw out the conviction as a violation of the 1st Amendment? What do you think? Here is the heart of the justification. It quoted from the state court’s findings and then, in effect, confirmed that.
‘As we read this Manifesto … we feel entirely clear that the jury were justified in rejecting the view that it was a mere academic and harmless discussion of the advantages of communism and advanced socialism’ and ‘in regarding it as a justification and advocacy of action by one class which would destroy the rights of all other classes and overthrow the state itself by use of revolutionary mass strikes. It is true that there is no advocacy in specific terms of the use of … force or violence. There was no need to be. Some things are so commonly incident to others that they do not need to be mentioned when the underlying purpose is described.’
So if the public has been swept into a red scare panic, then the first amendment doesn’t apply. Gotcha. I thought the ENTIRE purpose of the court being there to hear these cases is to be sure that this exact type of thing didn’t happen to the rights of “minorities”?
Also, notice that the court admits that there was not only no action, but there was also no advocacy of force or violence either! But they nonetheless uphold the conviction outlawing the speech because there was “no need to be” any such showing. That element would be READ IN against the citizen.
Now I’m not going to waste time going over which made up pseudo “constitutional analysis” the court purports to use in this situation, e.g. clear and present danger, balancing, microwave for 2 minutes -add water slowly while stirring. It doesn’t matter what they claim to use. The proof is in the tasting. And this case tastes like proverbial sh*t.
It is only one of two things. Either, whatever test was used by the court is faulty, or the application of the test by the court was faulty, because the only thing that matters is the result. The decision either supports the peoples’ freedom of speech or it does not. And the result here is the court preventing the people from getting information about how they can organize and defend themselves against the government. Regardless of how misguided or wrong headed the “information” was or is, that kind of “speech” is supposed to be protected. So whatever “test” the court used, can’t possibly support freedom of speech as it purports to do. By definition.
And don’t for a second imagine that I support “red revolution”. That’s laughable. This poor confused pamphleteer thinking that another kind of “government”, communist or otherwise, was the answer, was just lost as the rest of the duped masses who stood on the side defending our system. Neither of them understands what government actually IS.
Despite what you have been told there is nothing complicated about legitimate 1st amend analysis in a case like this. The problem is the court doesn’t do that because it has another agenda. Protect the government. Look the amendment says shall make NO LAW ABRIDGING. What part of that is unclear? How could the language have been any stronger? Yet STILL these jokers dream up intellectual word games to justify “laws abridging” purely political speech.
Why do they do this? Simple. This is what they are THERE TO DO. They are protecting who they actually serve, the government. They make it appear as though some solemn and complex analysis is being done in order to hide that reality. What people don’t understand is that all of their opinions, first amendment or otherwise, are just reverse engineered distractions designed to justify their predetermined outcome. Nothing more. Once you understand that they all make sense.
How is picking sides in a political battle part of the court’s job under the 1st amendment? Even if the dissemination of the “information” led to the government being overthrown, isn’t the form of the government something the PEOPLE CHOOSE, not the supreme court? What more do they have to do for you to see reality??
So lets review what we have so far. The court supports the state sterilizing people if the state feels it should, and the court supports the state arresting anyone who produces political pamphlets that threaten the state’s control. Take a moment to sip on a bit of that freedom Kool Aid.
Now let’s fast forward to 1996 and finish this trifecta of justice with our last case, BMW v. Gore. No, not Al Gore. And so there can be no charge that I am not being fair, I am going to use the NSA’s own version of the facts from Wiki:
“The plaintiff, Dr. Ira Gore, bought a new BMW, and later discovered that the vehicle had been repainted before he bought it. Defendant BMW of North America revealed that their policy was to sell damaged cars as new if the damage could be fixed for less than 3% of the cost of the car. Dr. Gore sued, and an Alabama jury awarded $4,000 in compensatory damages (lost value of the car) and $4 million in punitive damages, which was later reduced to $2 million by the Alabama Supreme Court. The punitive damages resulted not only from Dr. Gore’s damages, but from BMW’s egregious behavior across a broad spectrum of BMW purchasers over a multi-year period of time in which BMW repaired damaged vehicles and sold them as new to unsuspecting buyers as a matter of routine business operation.”
So fairly straightforward facts. A big company was lying to people and ripping them off. Selling them repaired vehicles as though they were new. BMW had been doing it for a long time. This wasn’t some one off thing. This wasn’t a rogue dealer. It was BMW policy to rip people off. Apparently the jury was none too impressed with the conduct.
So this case, at its heart, is about the citizens’ right to a jury trial so that the people, through the jury, can protect themselves against powerful interests who can easily control the government. Again, how do you get any more fundamental than this?
After getting the 4 million dollar jury award against it, BMW went to its friends at the Alabama supreme court. That court did the bidding for their masters and summarily cut the award in half. How? They used a procedural trick called “remittitur”, which is a scam the people have never heard of. The court claims the right, in the interest of justice of course, to substitute its own judgment for that of the jury. That is a small taste of what your right to a jury means in actual practice.
So how had the jury come to the amount of the punitive damages awarded? Simple, it took the actual damages in the case, the 4k, and then multiplied that by the number of similar fraudulent sales by BMW. So they were just saying in effect, you got caught in this case, we’re gonna punish you for all the sales you weren’t caught on as well. What is unreasonable about that? Nothing. But still the Alabama court cut it in half right off the top.
But even being cut in half wasn’t enough for BMW, they kept going. And guess what? The supreme court reached out and took this case. The court takes about one in a hundred cases. One in a hundred. Do you think they’d take yours? But for some “unknown” reason the court felt it “needed” to take this case.
Maybe it will be to vacate the remittitur and to re-instate the full award the jury found for egregious and deceptive conduct by BMW? Maybe? Probably not.
Here’s what happened. The court dreamed up a new sophisticated sounding 3 prong so called “constitutional test”, then “applied it” to the supposed facts and presto chango the jury’s award “failed” the test. What an unexpected TWIST! The truth of the matter is that this so called 3 prong constitutional “test” is NOT a constitutional test at all. That is absurd. If it was, then how was it unknown for more than 200 years? The fact is the complex sounding 3 part test is just a made up thing imposed on the people to cover the court’s tracks while it protects the real interests of those who control the government.
Here is what the court said in concocting the new 3 step test:
“Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment but also of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose. Three guideposts, each of which indicates that BMW did not receive adequate notice of the magnitude of the sanction that Alabama might impose for adhering to the nondisclosure policy adopted in 1983, lead us to the conclusion that the $2 million award against BMW is grossly excessive: the degree of reprehensibility of the nondisclosure; the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered by Dr. Gore and his punitive damages award; and the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. We discuss these considerations in turn.”
Are we clear people? A 2 million dollar award for outright fraud against a huge multi BILLION dollar company is “grossly excessive”. Remember a billion is a Thousand million! So how is a 2 million dollar award in any way “grossly excessive” AS A MATTER OF LAW against a multi- BILLION dollar company?? That is absurd on its face.
And don’t miss the fact that the court refers to BMW as a “person”!
So the court comes to the aide of BMW by using high sounding platitudes about justice and fairness and goes so far as to concoct a whole new 3 prong test to cover its trail. But the same court condones the STATE forcibly sterilizing an actual person against their will on nothing more than the summary conclusions of some bureaucratic QUACK, with a brush of the hand and no analysis. Do you see the pattern yet?
And now do you understand why the court reached out and took this one in a hundred case?
And make no mistake about it. This is the kind of case that the “back to the constitution conservatives” are fooled into supporting under the rubric of being so called “pro business”, anti-slip-and-fall lawyer, and to “help create jobs”. The work a day people who are tricked into supporting this “philosophy” have no idea what they support. None. But to be fair, big business does run on massive government protected fraud, so when you think about it, this is a classic pro business case after all.
And just to put a bow on all of this let me show you how it ended for Dr. Gore and his BMW, according to Wiki:
“On remand, the Supreme Court of Alabama ordered a new trial unless plaintiff accepted a remittitur of all but $50,000 of the punitive damages awarded.”
Yes, you read that right. The Alabama S.Ct. made the good doctor an offer he couldn’t refuse. And for anyone with half a brain and any sophistication as to how the process works this outcome was crystal clear.
Message sent. Message received.
So the case goes from the front page screaming headline of a “4 million dollar out of control jury verdict” that the masses are told justifies “tort reform”, to a take it or leave it 50k dollar award years and years later reported on the back page. THAT my friend is what the just-a-system in the United States actually looks like for you and me who make up, “the other large group, who do not” control the government.
I could show you dozens and dozens of more cases just like these. The only reason this stuff surprises you is that you don’t understand the system or what government actually is. That’s all. It’s not your fault, you were lied to by the government in its mandatory schools. But it is your fault if you continue to refuse to accept that you have been fooled and you then continue to support and defend this kind of exploitation.
Do you now see how the system works? Do you now see what your “constitutional rights” are in practice? Do you now see what the courts are actually there to do TO YOU, not for you? Do you now see the fantasy you live in?
Make no mistake. THIS IS THE CONSTITUTION IN ACTION. These cases ARE the result of the constitution. They are not aberrations. They are not “unconstitutional”. They are not outside the system. They are the system.
I know none of this will get through to people, because nothing gets through to people. They will continue to believe that they live in a freedom fest. Why? Because they’ve been told they do all their lives. Their parents told them. Their teachers told them. The nice man on the news told them. All their Hollywood heroes live out the glorious freedom on the big screen. Everyone has been raised on a steady diet of propaganda and lies about what their system is, and so the cognitive dissonance is just too great for most people to overcome.
If you try and show the great mass of people the truth they get angry at YOU. They will say that you hate America and you should leave. They are utterly irrational. They get viscerally upset. It is amazing to watch. They defend the country and the system that does what I just showed you by imagining that those cases and all the others just like them are all mistakes and bungling or the result of “liberals” and that it is “still the best system out there”. It is dark comedy to watch such stubborn ignorance. They refuse to accept the hard truth that these cases are examples of what the system is designed to do. The system is not benign. Can you say Stockholm syndrome?
The vast majority of the people are not reachable. No point trying. They are the third class of people who Da Vinci said, “can’t see”. Or as Albert Jay Nock said, are ineducable. Or as the masses like to say in the vernacular, “you can’t fix stoopid”. And they are all right. Don’t lose any sleep trying. It ain’t gonna happen.
And that, my fellow inmate, is why I no longer even try and convince people of these truths anymore than I try and teach my cat about the constitution. It is a waste of time. I write for my own sanity and for an honest record. Nothing more. And that has to be enough.
That’s all for now my brainwashed Brethren. I have stared at the sun-of-freedom long enough today. I think I’ll have drink. Take care, move toward the light and tell someone the truth about the law.