(No response so far....from anybody)
April 6th, 2019
U.S. Attorney Joseph Harrington
P.O. Box 1494
Spokane, WA 99210-1494
cc. Chris Heinen, Mark Peterson
Dear Joseph,
The other day I volunteered to help clean up litter in our local parks. I reached down and picked up what looked like a cigarette butt. I then realized that it wasn’t a cigarette – it was actually a marijuana joint, and there was still some plant matter in it.
Now, since I’m on Federal probation – I just possessed cannabis in violation of the terms of my supervised release, and I’m in violation of the law.
What are you going to do about it?
On one hand – you can piously uphold and enforce the law, revoke my supervision, imprison me again, and destroy everything I’ve rebuilt in the last couple years. Personally, I would be honored to have your office destroy my life again for the sole reason that I was trying to make my community a better place. It wouldn’t be the first time. It would demonstrate to the community exactly who you are as a person, Joseph. It would demonstrate to the public precisely what the FBI, US Attorney’s Office, and US Court system are really about. It would demonstrate, to whatever God or Gods you all believe in, precisely who you are as people. Most importantly – it would completely validate what I’ve been saying about all of you for a long time.
On the other hand – you can refuse to enforce the law against me because morality always trumps the law. If you do that, however - how can you and your fellow attorneys and agents continue to prosecute people, in good faith, for simply possessing things without a victim or any evidence that the defendant caused harm or injury to anyone else? The hypocrisy would be absolutely glaring. It would be the complete opposite of the very meaning of the word “justice”. How would you stand before God on your day of judgment and explain to Him that the reason you tore people away from their families was to uphold the law – when God would certainly point out you ignoring the law in this case? I would never put myself in a situation like that. I actually have integrity. That’s why I will never be a liawyer, judge, or an FBI agent.
If you believe ‘The Law’ is a morally valid cause of action, in and of itself, to initiate force and violence against others in the furtherance of the social and political objectives of those in control of the government – then by all means, prosecute me. I’ll make it incredibly simple for you as well. If you provide me with the facts and evidence you personally rely upon which prove that the Constitution and the Laws of the United States apply to people for the sole reason that they are physically present in the United States – I’ll plead guilty right there on the spot and save everyone a bunch of time and hassle.
If you don’t possess any facts or evidence which prove that those written instruments create legally enforceable obligations upon people for simply being physically present in this galaxy, in this solar system, on this planet, on this continent, and inside this country – perhaps it would be morally consistent to save the initiation of force and violence for people who have actually caused harm or injury to others.
Either way – the call is yours to make. I’ve copied in Mark Peterson from KXLY as well, so please make sure to respond to him with your decision, as Mark has a responsibility to share with our community exactly who you are as a human being, and what the US Federal Government is really about. Just be as honest with everyone as I have just been with you, Joseph. Don’t hide from honest questions like the FBI and AUSA Rudy Verschoor are doing (evidence enclosed). Be up front. Act with some actual integrity, fidelity, and bravery, and tell everyone what you and your cohorts are all about.
Let me know how you want to proceed.
Sincerely,
P.S. I’ll leave you with some quotes from Dr. Fred Rodell, Professor of Law at Yale, being absolutely candid about ‘The Law’. I haven’t seen anyone in the liawyer cult refute his allegations yet:
"Before I ever studied law I used to argue occasionally with lawyers – a foolish thing to do at any time. When, as frequently happened, they couldn’t explain their legal points so that they made any sense to me I brashly began to suspect that maybe they didn’t make any sense at all. But I couldn’t know. One of the reasons I went to law school was to try to find out."
"In TRIBAL TIMES, there were the medicine-men. In the Middle Ages, there were the priests. Today there are the lawyers. For every age, a group of bright boys, learned in their trade and jealous of their learning, who blend technical competence with plain and fancy hocus-pocus to make themselves masters of their fellow men. For every age, a pseudo-intellectual autocracy, guarding the tricks of its trade from the uninitiated, and running, after its own pattern, the civilization of its day."
“It is the lawyers who run our civilization for us – our governments, our business, our private lives. Most legislators are lawyers; they make our laws. Most presidents, governors, commissioners, along with their advisers and brain-trusters are lawyers; they administer our laws. All the judges are lawyers; they interpret and enforce our laws. There is no separation of powers where the lawyers are concerned. There is only a concentration of all government power – in the lawyers. As the schoolboy put it, ours is “a government of lawyers, not of men.”
"The purpose of this little inquiry has rather been to show that the whole pseudo-science of The Law, regardless of its results, is a fraud."
"It is a fraud, not because of its results but because of the manner in which it purports to arrive at them."
"Yet no inquiry into The Law could pretend to be complete without at least some slight consideration of The Law’s famous tautological boast about “equal justice for all.” For the boast is a lie. The Law not only can be bought – although usually not in so direct a fashion as it was bought from ex-Judge Manton – but most of the time it has to be bought. And since it has to be bought, its results tend to favor those who can afford to buy it."
"Moreover, the fact that The Law is constantly for sale, and generally to the highest bidder, ties right into the fact that The Law as a whole is a fraud. For The Law could not be bought and it would not favor those who can afford to buy it if the vaunted principles of which it is fashioned really were the ready keys to certainty and justice which the lawyers claim them to be. It is because those principles are so many and so meaningless – because they can be chosen and twisted and sorted out to support any result under the sun – that The Law does not produce justice (which, in itself, implies equality of treatment for all)."
"For, as cannot be repeated too often, The Law is not by several long shots the certain and exact science as which it masquerades. If it were, even the richest corporation in existence would not throw its money away on the tremendous fees that the leading lawyers charge their clients. Any lawyer, or perhaps no lawyer at all, would do just about as well. But the corporations know and the lawyers know that a master manipulator of legal mumbo-jumbo is a far more useful thing to have on your side in a lawsuit than all the certain and impartial justice in the world."
"True, in a great many legal disputes, there will seem to be more principles of Law or more compelling – in the abstract – principles of Law available to one side than to the other. But the other side will always have some principles left to play with. And just as in the game of bridge, so in the game of Law, an expert player will beat a run-of-the-mill player nine times out of ten despite the fact that he may hold worse cards"
"Yet it is not only and not chiefly in the purchase of smart counsel to represent you in actual court cases that The Law has to be bought. The Law, although it oversees all human affairs, does not apply itself automatically to the settlement of human grievances. The man who thinks he is being cheated in a personal or business way, who thinks he is being deprived of his just rights so clearly that it is even a violation of the legal system of far-fetched principles, must go to court to try to get any satisfaction at all from The Law. And it costs money to go to court. It costs money even before the bills for lawyers’ fees begin to come in. That is why most people never in all their lives become plaintiffs in a lawsuit. Farmers and factory-workers and housewives and unemployed people have their legal grievances just as rich men and big corporations have their grievances. But they cannot afford to buy so much as a shot at The Law."
"What is ever to be done about it? What is ever to be done about the fact that our business, our government, even our private lives, are supervised and run according to a scheme of contradictory and nonsensical principles built of inherently meaningless abstractions? What is to be done about the fact that we are all slaves to the hocus-pocus of The Law – and to those who practice the hocus-pocus, the lawyers?"
"There is only one answer. The answer is to get rid of the lawyers and throw The Law with a capital L out of our system of laws. It is to do away entirely with both the magicians and their magic and run our civilization according to practical and comprehensible rules, dedicated to non-legal justice, to common-or-garden fairness that the ordinary man can understand, in the regulation of human affairs."