Patrick Spurlock

To: WIRED c/o Mr. David Wolman

re: “Convictonomics (Nov. 2012 —- WIRED 20.11, pp. 029-030)”

Mr.Wolman’s stab at the subject of penology gone burnt toast, here in the United States, does not give proper voice to those who have already stated the truth.
Although Mr.Wolman’s attack truly seeks to land a mighty blow against this juggernaut, that old adage is in full affect: “without knowing the cause, treatments are mere sugar pills”.

Thus, please allow me to show you some trends.
Between 1980 and 2000, the pay scale and demand for lawyers skyrocketed by more than a thousand percentage points across the United States.
And, although that increase in pay was, in obvious part, a substantial driver of the demand —- quality suffered to the exact degree that it was precisely commensurate with such demands.
The wealthy and corporations absorbed the most talented and skillful; whilst the national and state governments absorbed the competent. Those on the lower rungs of the middle class and the poverty stricken(i.e., criminal classes) simply got whatever was left over.

A tangible example of this is readily at hand in Washington State, which employs a biennium legislative clock and calendar.
From 1989 through 1991 $5,013,000 was budgeted for “indigent appeals”.
Between 1993 and 1995, that budget grew to $9.82 million.[1].
//{Washington State pop. 5,894,121 – compare with New Jersey pop. 8,414,350; New York City pop. 8,008,278; and Los Angeles pop. 3,694,820}.
Let us not give consideration to the fact that even appointed counsel(“Public Defenders” or “Public Pretenders”), in criminal cases, easily receive as much as $150 dollars an hour, per case.
Let us take notice, however, that according to that States Legislature, “Washington is in the top five states in terms of indigent cases per 1,000” persons.Id.
51st Leg.Sess., Laws of 1989(Final Report, Ind.Def.Servs. in Wash., at 92-98).

This proverbial selling of The People of the United States up some river, is no lone-wolf anomaly. According to some reports, it is almost always intentional and goes virtually unchecked by judges.[2].
Even the Congress of the United States has been forced to look upon the greed of some at the Expense of the rest of US.[3].

As a ghetto book worm, I ask that you clean out your ears and open your mind’s eye.
Why? Because, this type of American Life has painful benchmarks.
So let us begin by recalling the Alberto Gonzalez confirmation hearings which, I believe, illuminate the kinds of practices necessary for the intentional crashing of the U.S. Housing market.

According to the American Bar Association(ABA), “[s]uspension is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed to the profession and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.”[4].

Mr.Gonzalez was the lawyer from Texas who a particular President Bush tapped to become the Solicitor General(A.G.) for these United States.

As such, he clearly owed a plain duty to the Public, the legal system, and the Practice Of Law, to candidly and truthfully respond to the questions asked by that lawfully established body We named the Senate Judiciary Committee, during said confirmation hearings.
For those of you who may ask; just how well established is the law behind this proposition?….
The answer is, vary well established indeed. Not only could Mr.Gonzalez be disbarred, but People have been sent to jail for refusing and otherwise failing to cooperate with similar tribunals since as early as 1906.[5].

In speaking to the realized potential and nature of these kinds of special inquiry tribunals, the U.S. Supreme Court read from even earlier U.S. case law as follows:
“They are not appointed for the prosecutor or for the court; they are appointed for the government and for the people…”Id.

The People and the Senate Judiciary Committee got zero from the “soon to be confirmed” U.S. Attorney General during said confirmation hearings. If the judiciary, either state or federal, had taken action and suspended Gonzalez from the Practice of law for about four years, which they had the authority and responsibility too do, both The People and citizens of the U.S. would be able to enjoy some well deserved and desired faith in OUR officials and institutions.

Certainly We The People presume that the Senate Judiciary Committee enjoys more power than a mere grand jury!
Do We presume too much?

As to the intentional crashing of the U.S. Housing market, We now know the names of those who drove and profited from said treason.
Just as We also now know that
de-regulation gave way to those extremely complex financial instruments Wall Street flooded the market with, just-post said de-regulation. That is to say that the papers were already drawn up prior to said de-regulation.
Noticed the way politicians avoid the term “contracts” when speaking about the collapse of the Housing market…. Therefore, I believe We must avoid another meaningless conversation with judges over their possible interpretations of statutes like the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Volker Rule, or Glass Stiegle.

Instead, let US review the unquestionable principles at the foundation of many of these laws; such as the “doctrine of unconscionability”:

“Those cases interpreting the doctrine appear to fall within two classifications:
(1) substantive unconscionability; and
(2) procedural unconscionability.
Substantive unconscionability involves those cases where a clause or term in the contract is alleged to be one-sided or overly harsh,
procedural unconscionability relates to impropriety during the process of forming a contract….
Procedural unconscionability is best described as a lack of ‘meaningful choice’…consideration must be given to ‘all the circumstances surrounding the transaction’, including ‘the manner in which the contract was entered’, whether each party had ‘a reasonable opportunity to understand the terms of the contract’, and whether ‘the important terms were hidden in a maze of fine print’.”…[6].

If a party’s manifestation of assent is induced by either a fraudulent or a material misrepresentation by the other party upon which the recipient is justified in relying, the contract is voidable by the recipient.[7].

The “recipient” is anybody who has a mortgage. The mortgage itself is a real estate contract.Therefore, any fraudulent or material misrepresentation by the Mortgage Broker, or a Brokerage Firm, grants the recipient authority to void the mortgage instrument.[8].

We now know that the de-regulation of Banking and Brokerage Firms is directly responsible for such corporations being allowed to merger. And, thereby, overcome long standing SEC regulations that were designed to prevent exactly what occurred.
What occurred after de-regulation is that big Banks and Brokerage Firms merged and began aggressively moving bulk units of those fabled and extremely complex “Credit
Contract-Swap” instruments.
Most, if not all, of those fabled instruments were drawn up by the lawyers specifically to conceal “the important terms… in a maze of fine print”. And, all of the terms and clauses in said contracts were “one-sided” and “harsh”.
Thereby, the conspiracy to sell homeowners up the river without a paddle cannot remain merely theoretical. It’s a fact. And to add insult to injury, neither the judges nor politicians are siding with The People even though the spirit and content of the Laws fully support the Homeowners, not the Banks or Brokerage Firms.[9].

A “cost benefit analysis” can do nothing to offset corruption, greed, or treason.
Indeed, some say that Benedict Arnold hated Free People, while others say he loved money? You tell Me.
See 51 Legislative Sess.of Wash., Laws of 1989, ch. 409, 1- 6; Compare Laws of 1993, 1st Sp.Sess., ch. 24, 113 p. 2901(compiled by the “Indigent Defense Task Force” as filed in the “Office Of The Administrator For The Courts Of Washington”)
// The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2004){pp. 937; 920; 920; 914;};
See “The Misguiding Hand Of Counsel – Reflections On Criminal Malpractice”, Kaus & Mallen, 21 U.C.L.A. Law Rev. 119(1974);
See H.R.Rep.No. 864, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 6(1963), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1964, p. 2990; S.Rep.No. 346, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 2(1963) ; 110 Cong.Rec. 454(1964)(remarks of Rep.Fraser); Hearings on S.63 et al. before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 249(1963);
See ABA Ctr. For Professional Responsibility, Standards For Imposing Lawyer Sanctions std 7.2, at 14(1991);
See Hale v.Henkel, 201 U.S. 43,61,26 S.Ct. 370,50 L.Ed. 652(1906);
See William v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445(D.C. Cir. 1965);
See Restatement (Second) of Contracts 164(1)(1981);
See Restatement (Second) of Contracts 159(1981);
See United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309,321(3rd Cir. 1992); and United States v. Casper, 956 F.2d 416,422(3rd Cir. 1992).

Thank You for reading My presentations. Feel free to submit any donations you choose, and all donations are greatly appreciated.
Respectfully Yours.
Again Thank You***

Patrick Spurlock
DOC #882513

Categories: Patrick Spurlock

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s