1. A clear detailed description of the Project, including particular outputs or products, any arguments and ideas the Project will put forth, and the need for the Project;

The outputs and products of this project are twofold:  1) it will provide a forum for individuals dealing with the courts to control their own access to information by setting up an alternative docketing system to bring publicity to their own cases in a form and manner outside of the control of the lawyers and the courts, and 2) it will establish an alternative media outlet focused specifically on the workings of the third branch of government.

There is no greater need in the modern American political and legal climate than for serious judicial reform, which includes reforms in the very nature of the practice of law, as well as the way that the courts are covered in the media.  The greatest obstacle that is faced in the modern political world is the courts, which, while a co-equal third branch of government, are largely run completely in secret.  The experiential background of this proposal comes from a civil rights practitioner in the Pennsylvania state and federal courts, and the real life experience of representing disenfranchised individuals who have tried to pursue their civil rights claims through the courts.

Currently, and for the past four years, I have been working on an organization I have developed, with the intention of turning it into a credible national civil rights organization, known as the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network.  The major themes of the effort are found at www.pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com.  There have been thousands of individuals with whom I have been in contact through the network from all over the country who have had experiences with the courts that have brought them to me.  I continue to work with these people, and have received wide appreciation for my insights into the courts and insights into the difficulties with gaining access to justice.

When an individual experiences the interference with his or her civil rights, i.e., those “inherent, inalienable rights endowed by our creator,” there is a visceral reaction that strikes at the core of their humanity, and is very difficult, and almost impossible, to explain to others who have not shared such an experience.  These individuals come to the legal system feeling broken and abused, and have lost trust in their employers, police, and governments, and have been damaged and injured economically, often facing the very survival of their families, which they risked to do the right thing.

The courage that it takes to be a whistleblower or to stand up to official oppression or abuse is immense.  All-too often, when these injured and abused, courageous people come to the courts with the hope that they finally are going to get the vindication they deserve, they only end up suffering the same abuses, and face the same losses all over again, and walk away feeling doubly damaged and inured with all hope lost.  This is what motivated me to create the Pennsylvania Civil rights Law Network.

One of the key problems that I have noted, both as an active practitioner, and since, is the control that lawyers have over access to justice and how, despite the fact that there are many conscientious lawyers representing individuals across the country, lawyers are an oppressed group of professionals, and those who speak out against the system become targets for the disciplinary enforcement arms of these courts.  While in the past, attorneys performed valuable roles in policing the courts and judges, through the process of acculturation, driven largely by their selfish desires to maximize profits, and protect business interests, attorneys have failed to effectively ensure their clients fair access to justice.

The nature of the practice of law itself has caused the deterioration in the quality of fair and equal access to justice.  Lawyers are more concerned with maintaining their social status, and their ability to get “results” by gaining the favor of judges and other lawyers that the needs of the client are no longer their primary focus.  This may work in many cases, as in the case where a truly guilty client needs a favorable plea, or when a few more dollars are needed in a personal injury settlement, but it does not work when vindication of the core civil rights of an individual are involved, and it does not work when those lawyers need an advocate to fight against that very system.  While it is not this way in every case and with every lawyer, I have been around enough courts, and enough individuals who have come to me after years of abuse and mistreatment by other lawyers, who they have paid many thousands of dollars to, to know that there is a real problem with the quality of representation that people seeking justice get.

The fact is that the control that lawyers and bar associations have over the practice of law is a de facto monopoly that has become a good old boys club, and has enacted rules and practices to make lawyers a necessity, when, in reality, they are not.  Our courtrooms need to be opened up to private litigants, who are the most competent persons to handle their own legal problems, with the assistance of counsel and friends, particularly when it is their very lives and futures on the line, and their core human rights that have been violated.  They are not having their most basic rights adequately protected in the current climate.  Lawyers can be very competent, skilled, and effective, but they can be very unskilled and inept as well, and there is no reason that they need to have an exclusive monopoly on the practice of law.

Judges are almost universally former lawyers, who have come up through the system and been elected or appointed to their positions based upon the affinity of their fellow lawyers, who are the primary contributors to campaigns and supporters of their bids for judgeships.  As a result, the courtrooms have become bastions built up to protect and preserve the institution of the practice of law, and cases and litigants who present a threat to these collegial institutions are treated with hostility.  The very nature of the civil rights practice goes against these institutions, and involves the reality of government being corrupt and elected official and others in who we place our trust as American citizens doing bad things, and present threats to these very institutions.

Lawyers are products of these institutions, and, myself included, have a very hard time accepting that abusive and dishonest public servants exist in our world to the extent they do, and, when the abusiveness and dishonesty occurs in the courts themselves, which is our a co-equal third branch of government, the ability to accept and expose its existence is compounded.

This is due to a confluence of the following factors:  1) lawyers’ need to protect their own standing and financial status, 2) the subconscious need for lawyers to believe they are working in an honorable profession, and 3) the fact that the judges whose conduct has fallen short are the ones who have control over lawyers’ professional lives.  As a result, blind eyes are turned to obvious mistreatment, and psychological defenses are built up to not allow the conduct to be seen or accepted, and the individual litigants who experience it are ostracized and discounted, and justice in American courtrooms suffers greatly.

Over the past four years, in particular, I have witnessed the utter lack of access to courts that individual citizens have as what are called “pro se” litigants, i.e., individuals who choose to attempt to access the courts on their own, without high-priced lawyers who are acculturated products of the system, in order to gain justice in their own cases.  I have worked with numerous such people, courageous and talented people, and it is nothing short of tragic to see and hear about the abject abuses they have suffered through the courts, and the lawyers and judges who run them.

Lawyers and judges control the litigation process through obfuscation and legal chicanery, and the courts themselves conduct almost all of their functions in private, from deliberations to rule making, and, pertinent to this proposal, the media give the courts a free pass in many ways.  While many high profile cases of public importance get wide coverage, and decisions get discussed and debated, there is a real failure of the media in performing the proper policing function of the courts.

The foregoing is the basis for the first aspect of my proposal – a legal private docketing system where individuals can post their own documents in their own cases, and invite readers to view the specific aspects of their cases that reveal the true victimization they have suffered.

While modern courts boast of the access that the average citizen has or may have to their decisions by posting them in user friendly online dockets (for which excessive fees ore often charged), the court opinions that people read often do not resemble the actual facts of their cases; yet the public accepts what the courts say as a true representation of the facts of their cases, and people who get mistreated by the courts, or whose case is compromised by their lawyers, get a third victimization when they have to deal with the shame and humiliation for life of having not received the vindication to which they were entitled.  I have seen it many times.

The private docketing system will allow them to highlight the documents and arguments that they have made that have been discounted and neglected by the courts, and, through the networking aspect of the Civil Rights Law Network, to find other people who have had cases like theirs, and exchange ideas and even documents, so as to reduce the need to rely on lawyers to make the arguments they wish to make.  This will also involve use of the PCRLN youtube channel for publication of testimonial videos.

The second aspect of this proposal relates to an equally important part of the problem regarding access to justice – the failure of the media to provide adequate coverage of the courts in civil rights cases.  These cases often involve public corruption at high levels of state government, or large institutions, which, because of their size and reach, affect cultural climates all across the country, and the mistreatment that litigants receive in the courts often become part of the problem; yet, for institutional reasons, these cases never receive the full coverage in the mainstream press that they deserve.

It cannot be stressed enough how much control that the courts, and particularly the federal courts, have over setting cultural climates and allowing chrony politics to persist.  Almost every civil rights case of varying natures, involves one or more lying witnesses, without which the truth and justice of the cases would be clear; yet, due to political concerns and other agendas, they receive protection by the courts.  In the federal courts in Pennsylvania, there is a real reluctance of the courts to pierce these corrupt institutions, and the judges far-too-often act to protect their political friends and institutions, often lawyers protecting lawyers at all levels by turning a blind eye, over and over, to what are nothing short of perjurers.  One strong rebuke by a federal court could cause a sea change in these corrupt institutions, which, in itself, could serve an effective docket control purpose.

The average American citizen knows very little about the courts, and the vast majority of them never have any dealings with the courts.  What we all know about the courts, i.e., that they are “the best system of justice in the world,” as we learned in our formative years, becomes the lens through which the majority of people view the legal system, and there is a real, and very natural, prejudice, in favor of the system, i.e., people tend to accept what judges say as true and valid, and distrust and view with skepticism any real and valid criticism of the system.  An honest and aggressive media is essential to educating the public that our system does not always provide the quality of justice that we are lead to believe it does.

It is difficult enough for the average reporter who gets a story concerning a case involving issues of public corruption to understand and address the full import of the issues in these cases from a legal standpoint, and these difficulties are magnified when, as is often the case, there are suggestions of misconduct of the courts that all-too-often contribute to the injustice.  It is at this point that the control of the lawyers and the courts presents the obstacle to justice.

The editors who get these stories take them to the lawyers, and the lawyers’ licenses are controlled by the courts, and the newspapers often have legal problems of their own, and they, like most Americans, want to have politically friendly courts, and, as a result, these sensitive stories get scuttled.  These cases often only get media coverage if or when they are thrown out by the courts, in which case the only thing that gets reported is what the judges write in their sanitized opinions based upon their often jaded views of the cases, and the average John Q. Citizen either accepts these opinions as the only truth behind the story, or does not know enough about the workings of the courts to understand that what they read from the courts very often tells very little about the real case that has just been decided, and this, then, becomes the narrative of civil rights in the courts.

What has happened as a result of this dual failing – the lawyers failing to perform their policing function, and the media failing to perform its functions of ensuring openness, is that the courts themselves control the perceptions of their functions.

What is needed, and is already reflected in the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network site, and which will be further developed through the Pennsylvania Gazette, is an effective media outlet that has the courage, commitment, and understanding, to address these civil rights, and other court-related issues, with the depth and insights offered herein.  The Pennsylvania Gazette will be a news agency devoted to coverage of the third branch of our government.

2.  An explanation of how the Project builds on existing efforts or charts new terrain.

While there is starting to be a proliferation of websites from largely disgruntled litigants, there do not appear to be many, or any, with the unique focus, insight, and depth of coverage of the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network, as developed by this writer.  That effort centered largely on and around the civil rights practice of attorneys Don Bailey, and how he became a political target and victim due to his courage in both representing disenfranchised American citizens, and, quintessentially, the “little man” in their courageous battles against their governments and employers who violate their individual civil rights.

The site www.pennsylvaniacivilrightslawnetwork.com will be used as the platform from which our effort will be launched.  There is nothing that exists in our country that offers such a comprehensive and aggressive challenge to the legal institutions, including the monopoly that lawyers have on justice in America, and presents a credible alternative to, and check on, the way justice is administered.  It is my firm belief that in the years to come, the subject of this proposal could not just equalize access to justice, but could revolutionize the effectiveness and quality of its administration.

3. A description of the Project’s expected impact and how you might measure it;

The guiding principle behind this project is that “sunlight is the greatest disinfectant” in the sense that, knowing what this writer knows about lawyers and the courts, the greatest impact that will be had in opening up access to justice for all is to shed light on the real nature of the problems, to put the people back on a par with the courts.  I intend to build into the docketing system specific statistics on handling pro se litigant cases, and measuring the success in civil rights litigation.  The courts do keep fairly detailed statistics on caseloads and types of cases (interestingly, lawyers in civil rights cases receive about 80% of the sanctions administered by federal courts), and these can be modified to provide specific measures of success and advancement in civil rights cases.

4. A detailed account of how you will achieve your goals, including a communications and/or outreach strategy. Please describe the specific audiences you hope to reach, your reasons for focusing on them, and how you intend to influence them;

The outreach has been effectuated as much as possible under all the present circumstances.  There have been thousands of unique visitors to my site, with as many as 12000 views in some months.  I have a facebook page and twitter for the PCRLN, and many persons in the network who have volunteered some of their time and energies in helping me.  I have the domain for civilrightslawnetwork.com, and will use that to expand the network to each state by adding, for example a .ohio or .texas, etc. to the www.civilrightslawnetwork.com platform.  The Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network will be used as the template.  We will reach disadvantaged litigants, and the lawyers and courts, who will see and know that the people are taking control over their own access to the courts.

I also am a graduate of the Widener University School of Law in Harrisburg, and have worked with some students there as legal interns, largely on a volunteer basis, though it is difficult to find the best help available without being able to pay them.  My hope and desire, however, which I will continue to work toward, whether or not through the foundation, is to staff the PCRLN with law students and even lawyers who will work individually with litigants in helping with their cases.

5. The reasons you are especially suited to carry out this Project;

I believe that my website and my videos speak for themselves in terms of the insights that I have into these issues, and that I am uniquely qualified, through experience, to deal with these issues.  I have been involved with many dozens of federal civil rights lawsuits representing clients across all socioeconomic strata, and, in every case, I have been out-resourced exponentially.  There are, of course, other attorneys across the country who have handled cases like I have handled, but what qualifies me uniquely is my commitment to the humanity of my clients and others with whom I deal.  I care about people individually, and have made my career out of service to the person, and not service to the dollar.  I have never turned a client away who needed help because they have not had money because I believe that the true commitment to justice requires selflessness.

6. A description of how you expect the Project to fit into your career trajectory and future work;

This project, as should be clear from all of the foregoing, is my life, and I will accomplish what I am working on, and be a force for change in the civil rights landscape for years to come.

7. A Project timeline;

One year would be sufficient to complete this project, and have it set up according to this proposal, with all reporting and a long-term relationship with others established.  I have gotten an extraordinary amount of work done, and established network connections over the past four years, and the past year, in particular.  There are many, many talented and resourceful people outside of the traditional legal system who are fully capable of understanding the legal system, and the travails of what it takes to correct and change it.

8. An explanation of how you might engage with other projects, and how these interactions could add value both to these other projects and to your Project;

As I have said to many over the past four years, no matter what your issue is, be it race issues, green agenda issues, lgbt issues, banking issues, HOA issues, or any other issue, they all depend on a fair court in the end.  Whether or not any individual dealing with any of these issues ever ends up in a court, they all depend on a fair court.  I have seen from other projects that there is a central focus on the access to justice, and this proposal, and the understanding it brings, will be of tremendous benefit to many of the other projects I have reviewed.

9.  Estimated Fellowship Expenses in USD;

I estimate the expenses of building and marinating the website and databases, which includes the fees for the administrator and basic research, to be $15,000-$20,000 for one year.

10.  Any other relevant information.

The failings that have been generally discussed in this proposal are, in this writer’s view, the core reasons that our society does not progress in the area of civil rights and public corruption, and this proposal presents an innovative and unconventional approach to the most basic of open society challenges – one dealing with the openness of access to justice.

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington

I do not own a firearm, never have, and have no intention of doing so.  They scare me.  I think I’m left-handed, too, which seemed to be a problem the few times I did shoot them.  I agree, however, in every respect, with the view as fairly expressed by our one truly qualified founding father in the field.  It should be modified, and brought forward, to include the right of the people to own assault rifles, and even machine guns, so long as the restraint of evil interference is the goal.

The popular debate misses the mark – the MSNBC brand-second-amendment-supporters-as-the-paranoid-black-helicopter-crowd, or the NRA/Fox canned-line-contrived-by-monied-interest-crowd – and it misses the mark because it misses the meaning, and why, as with all other things covered on this site, it is the courts – fair and honest courts – that hold the key to striking the proper balance to maintain peace, order, and security in our society.

This is not a statement of policy, just the opinion of one writer, but we must, in this debate, err on the side of the caution so clearly and deliberately expressed by General Washington.  It is, after all, evil with which we are concerned.  In a nation, however, with a justice system fairly administered, guns and the absolute right to own them, without qualification, registration, or other than reasonable use restriction (i.e., a municipal ordinance or criminal statute banning shooting them in cities, towns, and the like, except in defense) is irrelevant to the debate, which does nothing but distract from the real social ills that have people all over America, like no other country, killing each other.  It is not in the nature of man to go around killing other men, and no gun is going to change that.  We are otherwise creating the conditions where people kill, some, perhaps, deliberately.

When we talk of the justified use of guns in popular social and political debate, we talk about them in terms of protecting “life,“ and “property,” and have wide agreement that their use is fully protected when in defense of those principles.  Though I don’t need to hear Joe Scarborough say “Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have told us that we have a right to own a shotgun and a handgun to protect our families and property,” one more time, because he uses it in a misguided way, the fact is he is right (not about his view of the edicts Scalia issues from the bench), but that we can own a handgun and a shotgun for those purposes.  Where that leaves all those poor souls in Chicago, and on the streets of cities across America, in this gun debate, a much more enduring problem, is for another day, unfortunately, if one comes.

What General Washington was discussing, and what the Second Amendment is concerned with is “liberty,” which somehow seems to be the forgotten Constitutional right in this debate.  Our exalted founding fathers, who exercised their political will to construct our Constitution around the institution of slavery (a will we have failed, as a people, to carry out to its moral conclusion), also declared, properly, in this writer’s view, in the Declaration of Independence, that man is endowed by his creator, God, Allah, Yahweh, with “inherent and inalienable” rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” i.e., they are sacred, and signify our bond, alone, to our creator.  When there is risk that those bonds with our creator may be broken, our civil laws and codes provide for the justified use of all appropriate force to meet the threat.  Liberty is of no different quality or character of our bond with our creator, it is the essence of life itself, and everything our soldiers have fought and died for, and its defense is of no different character, legally or factually.

The “life” and “property” defense cases are typically very easy – was there a threat, and was the response appropriate to meet it.  Courts can administer these fairly easily, and maintain an appearance of order in a civilized society.  The case where a rogue and dishonest, sheriff, on the other hand, comes down a driveway with a bogus warrant, or gains entry onto your property under false pretenses, and you shoot him in the leg, lest he succeed in taking you away in handcuffs, while maybe a little different on the conscience, should not be any different analytically.  This is, in essence, what gun rights activists posit.  The gun restrains evil interference with the liberty with which you are endowed by your creator.  It’s nothing but an extension of the same physical force that would allow you to refuse to submit to a request to extend your hands so they can be cuffed.

To characterize this as “black helicopter” thinking is dishonest, and more.  I, personally, have sat in depositions and trials with police officers, often representing police officers who dared challenge them, who I have no doubt would abuse their power and exceed all authority, and enter houses, and violate people’s rights if there was no check, in the individual, to match their power on more than some rudimentary level – they’ve done it already.  Lest the reader get distracted by the Scarborough “but Scalia said we can own a handgun and a shotgun to protect ourselves and families,” I am stressing that these things take on an entirely different meaning when dealing with your government, and the visceral reactions that people have to them, and the internal struggle that goes on over wanting to believe the very best in the people to whom you have entrusted power, and the enduring struggle it is to try to overcome that evil does, indeed, exist, in its most Machiavellian form.

These things also take place on a gradient.  There are one sheriff towns with one bad sheriff, and ten police officer boroughs, with 3 bad ones, and 7 that turn the other way, and they all have guns.  There are good police officers and forces across America, to be sure, and I apologize to all of those fine police officers who I have represented along the way, but just like Judges and lawyers, my experience is that there are far too many that are not.  The opportunity for intrusions on our liberty are magnified in modern society, as is the temptation for abuse of power.  The tendency is for people to submit to that power and authority, even when used excessively or oppressively, and to go to jail, leave the house, or otherwise agree to cede your liberty, rather than risk further loss.  This is why recourse to the courts for restraint and remedies is essential.

Now, to the so-called “extreme” “black helicopter” argument, it is, frankly, shocking that this is passed off and reviled as paranoid imagination.  We just went through two suspect, some mainstream theorists say contrived, wars that drained our nations till to the point of near economic collapse.  If you add to that collapse, which we are all preparing for the coming of, daily, and, perhaps, a dirty bomb in LA or New York by some rogue nation that harbors terrorists, and uses terror, which, ala the Patriot Act, etc, we are told is a daily threat, there may be a rush and grab for power that may be the last – the immense military power of the United States of America in the hands of who is in power at the time, whenever that time comes.

With the collapse of the United States at risk, which, as we are told, is a daily thing, it is so dishonest as to be highly suspect that the media resoundingly brand the gun rights advocates as black helicopter paranoids.  The public comments of that NRA fellow appear to be contrived nuttiness to feed right into the frenzy to “soften,” slowly and deliberately, legislators and the public to in incremental intrusion on their Second Amendment rights.  Who knows what may happen if a Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Eric Cantor, or some other Koch brother “frog”/Dick Cheney water-carrier, ever gets power.  While these frogs may be kissed, and become the leaders of the people’s hopes and dreams that support them, right now they are frogs, and all we hear about from them is gloom and doom, and cliffs, and austerity, and sequestration.  When is this God-forsaken “Reagan revolution” going to stop?  They are at a tipping point, and are desperately gasping at the last straws of power, in this writer’s view – and they are in the vast, vast, vast minority.

Rachel Maddow just broadcast a documentary credibly positing that political leaders to whom our futures have been entrusted in the past may well have duped an entire nation into committing the lives of our sons, daughters, and fellow citizens, and the heroic servants themselves, to a completely contrived cause creating the very circumstances behind the near-collapse.  Having your guns – your machine guns, and assault weapons, with high magazine counts, canisters, calibers, and the like – would certainly seem to be a high priority on the minds of people capable of such things, and registration databases would point them right to where they need to go.  If they come with that state of mind, under my purely legal scenario, and facts that are reasonably conceivable, you would have a completely justified legal right to shoot them, and kill them, if necessary.

These things don’t need to be done with black helicopters, and it was very suspicious the way Alex Jones was uniformly vilified in the popular media for suggesting that drones could be used to kill American citizens, when just a week or so later, a memo authorizing exactly that, without judicial review, was released.  There are various networks in place in law enforcement, the masons being one, that allow the power to be executed on a very local level, and centrally controlled from above.  I know this from many cases, too.  The handgun and the shotguns that, in Joe Scarborough’s view, Justice Scalia has bestowed upon man as his natural right, simply won’t mean much in any scenario beyond the one-horse town, and there just aren’t many of those anymore.

42 United States Code Section 1983 (“Section 1983” as it is commonly known), is a statue, that, in one of Don Bailey’s iterations, is “ordained by God himself.”  Indeed, before resort to the gun, as outlined above, stands Section 1983, a civil law enforcement statute, used primarily in the federal courts, but also applicable in state courts.  It allows American citizens to sue officials who act “under color of law” for violations of their constitutional rights – to restrain them, and to seek remedies for them.  In modern America, the quintessential Section 1983 suit would be when a sheriff comes and arrests you and takes your property on a bogus or fraudulent mortgage claim reduced to judgment by a court beholden to the bankers (sorry, Condoleeza, education is not the civil rights issue of the 21^st century, yet).  They come with guns, en masse, and take property, and arrest people, and, short of shooting them when they come – there is evidence of it right on this site, some that I witnessed – the courts must be open to redress these grievances in a proper due process proceeding, with hearings, and witnesses, and proper documents, and the like.  Whistleblower cases, i.e., reporters of official fraud and corruption, are another common Section 1983 case, and one Don Bailey has committed his professional life as a lawyer to more than any other (Ms. Rice hasn’t mentioned these either – See the Garcetti trilogy).

If there is one thing that is made clear on this site, it is that there is a fundamental failing in the courts of the United States to protect your constitutional rights.  These Courts understand this.  I have made suggestions on this site, and they have watched, and they know exactly what I’m saying – that they are deliberately, through the most nefarious of plans, creating an environment where no attorney ever will bring a Section 1983 claim again, or suffer the abuse that Don Bailey and I have suffered, or have your pro se case swept behind a wall of obfuscation that no reasonable, even intelligent, American citizen, will ever understand.  The courts, in failing to enforce their Constitutional mandates, are becoming the vehicles through which official oppression is allowed to corrupt endlessly, and the fillers of the bankers over-stuffed coffers – all at the expense of your individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness – it is that simple, and we will lay it out in endless detail, and give you every opportunity to understand it for yourself, and I will teach you through my case, which I intend to re-file.

As far as I know, other than Switzerland, America is the only country with fairly liberal gun ownership protections, for assault-type weapons.  I believe America is the only country in the world with a civil enforcement law that stands between man, his gun, his rights, and his God.  An evil influence is behind what is happening in the Courts, however you define and give face to that term, but there is no moral goodness known to man by which the conduct of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court, and those surrounding the Don Bailey proceedings are anything other than that – evil.

I don’t submit that God himself gave us guns, though appear so-inspired, nor that they are the only defense we have against official oppression and abuse on the scales we have seen.  God endowed us with minds, hearts, voices, and wills, too, and you must use them to see that the rights that bind God and man – life, liberty, and the pursuit of YOUR happiness – are being eroded, drastically, through the very institutions conceived to protect them but, as you will see through my lawsuit, are specifically designed to suppress them.  The gun is a mere technological extension of our carbon-based selves through which to exert our power, our will, thoughts, and ideas, and that is what the Pennsylvania Civil Rights Law Network is all about.  If they are going to take away Section 1983, and they effectively are, and I’ve written about the Supreme Court Garcetti trilogy, and other things, then we need to have institutions built by the people to serve as a check to protect, through political will, and moral duty, against the resort to guns, as the only alternative.  I did hear, after all, that Haliburton has been building some mass internment camps out in Dick Cheney’s stomping grounds somewhere.  I don’t think he’s in the cattle business, and it doesn’t sound like a place where there’s much liberty.

Lest anyone think that this writer has forgotten about those children and their protectors in Sandyhook, it is the tears that I shed, and sickness that I felt, too, that compels me as a civil rights lawyer to speak what I have to speak.  People with mental illnesses, on drugs made in laboratories by people who aren’t studying the conditions of society, and companies that are connected as deeply as any other “person” into this corrupt, chronyist state of affairs, are doing the killing.  They have been oddly timed and spaced, geographically, in recent years, and there also appears to be a video game connection.  I understand they wear head phones when they play these things for hour after hour, day after day, and get all kinds of suggestions about killing, and expressions of the exertion of raw power.  Somewhere in this mix has to be why these poor, ill, Americans are killing innocent people all over the country.  These drugs are bad, and Dr. Stefan Kruszewski knows all about that.

I had a case for a fellow in the United States Army named Kurtis Arman, that I was never able to get going – he is a brave and brilliant man, and he was used for experimental drug treatment when he was a soldier – he was a programmed assassin, and killed a man when things went wrong.  I’d have to confirm the exact facts.  When he was in prison, he had some emergency surgery, and a capsule was removed from his leg, which was used to put the drugs in through which his behavior was controlled, through various environmental signals, and things of that nature.  I have pictures, and all of the documents.  My message, first, is to EA – it is time for you to move on what you have, and thank you for what you have done.  My message second is that there are some very real issues that need to be looked at before people start giving away their guns, and compromising the rights of hundreds of millions of Americans to protect their liberty as they deem fit as the panacea for a plague committed by a very “select” few mentally ill people.

As to the President, I voted for him, and believe he has done a great job given the hatred he is up against, which is appearing more and more contrived itself, and, frankly, the “we need a vote” line, repeated, over and over and over the way it has been, is just very irresponsible, and a bit suspect itself.  We don’t need a vote, we need some societal solutions for these institutional ills, and mass injustices – we need people to look up from their ipads, and iphones, and take some time away from the phony sense of fulfillment they get from their face books, and they need to see what is going on, and how it is a moral decay with which we are involved.  The wisdom of the one founding father who learned his lessons in an actual battle for freedom, with guns, needs to be honestly and thoroughly discussed and debated before this direct encroachment – one vote for now, even, softens the political climate for further erosion down the very near road.

I express my power with the mind and will God gave me, and intend to magnify it with this great equalizer we call the internet, and place a call out for all to do the same.  Guns scare me.

SirLeroy – I was paying just enough attention – if you’re still out there.

Thank you.

Based upon her fresh, aggressive, and progressive message suited to the immediate needs of Pennsylvanians, and a strong and polished debate performance, PCRLN endorses Kathleen Kane, Democrat, for Pennsylvania Attorney General.

We have focused in prior articles on the immediate political and law enforcement needs of Pennsylvania, and endorsed Don Bailey in his earlier effort to be Pennsylvania’s next Attorney General.  Don had the message and the track record to back it up, and, while Kathleen Kane will have much to prove in terms of her courage to really go after the problems that plague Pennsylvania at their heart, her message promises a fresh and honest look at the issues that face us all.  Kane is a candidate who clearly believes in her message, and her care and concern for all Pennsylvanians, and not just the political elite, is manifest.  One thing that is clear is that in the legal profession, it takes a measure of courage to even say some of these things critical of the system, and at least Kathleen Kane has that courage to address the issues as she sees them.

David Freed, on the other hand, is distinctly not a viable alternative.  His debate performance was focused on the Republican Party line of overselling to the fiscal conservative tea-partiers, putting administration and budget ahead of vision and commitment.  We presume that every Attorney General is going to be committed to protecting children from predators and the elderly from scammers, and, if the military is the protection arm of the federal government, where fiscal management should never override the security of the citizen, the Attorney General’s Office should not be turned over to someone’s whose first priority is administrative.  There is a time and a place for ferreting-out administrative waste, but, with the law enforcement issues that Pennsylvania is facing, it is not the first day on the job.

There is a real question as to whether Tom Corbett even did fulfill his basic, and oft-recited, pledge to protect the children of Pennsylvania from predators when he was Attorney General, and Kathleen Kane has boldly taken the lead in promising a full, open, and honest inquiry and investigation into all of the problems that led to that Pennsylvania catastrophe.  The Freeh report was a report prepared by and paid-for by Penn State, and only a truly independent Attorney General, beholden only to an electorate of her own, can show that what happened at Penn State is a Pennsylvania problem, and not just a Paterno problem, or a Penn State problem.  On her words, Kathleen Kane is the only candidate who will ever give us a chance to confront these, and other, real problems facing Pennsylvania.

The central statement of principle of this site is “working to provide equal justice under the law in Pennsylvania,” and Kathleen Kane for Attorney General is the clear choice for all working toward that mission.

Thank you.