Patrick Spurlock

Re: REPOSE UPON THE “AVIDITY TO PUNISH” ~~[circa 05/05/2007]

On the subject of prisons, Solzhenitsyn wrote:

“If we are speaking not about the meat grinder of unwanted millions, not about the cesspool into which they are hurled without pity for the
people “.~~

This is but an interlude; A short yet hopefully potent reflection upon the “binality of evil” that takes hold of those who contrive to usurp the PUBLIC TRUST for the vain benefit of their own prejudices and or greed.

Although many are speaking about the injustices of the UNITED STATES’ PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX(PIC), few have been willing or able to explain why this phenomenon is occurring.

For those of us who have been permitted to use mass media to assign these failures to their true causes of greed and racism — we have often found ourselves either confronted by those who declare us the bigoted ones or, we are able of only pointing at ephemeral forms of evidence with which to state our claims.
This state of affairs has left our population meandering about in the grey halls of suspicion with those who claim that the disenfranchised classes, and particularly Black People, are somehow specially interested in levelling the spector of distrust against government officials as our only means of justifying Our Own communities promotion of racist ideologies?….

In defense of all those truly Good and Righteous Peoples who have bravely made the effort to state THE TRUTH, I submit the following evidence of our government official’s, and the lawyer’s, treason in petit against We The People;

“A rather recent development in the practice of law, that has been called the ‘vanishing of trials’, emphasises in a dramatic way the importance of writing for the legal profession. As stated in a front page article in the New York Times of December 14, 2003, ‘U.S. Suits Multiply, But Few Ever Go To Trial.’
The article states that, notwithstanding the tremendous increase in cases that are brought to court, the trial in court is becoming ‘uncommon’.
Some refer to the recent trend as the
‘ passing of the common law adversarial system ‘. In the words of Professor Arthur Miller of Harvard, ‘ this is a cultural shift of enormous significance ‘. Many lawyers and judges state that the ‘ vanishing trail ‘ reflects a ‘ growing antagonism to trials by lawyers and judges, who consider them costly and risky ‘.”~

WE THE PEOPLE have never found Our adversary system to be burdensome, costly or unworkable.
As to the questions of risk, it is again WE THE PEOPLE who have taken the chance that a jury of OUR peers might find US not guilty of the district attorney’s allegations.
Or, that a jury may decline the district attorney’s request to seize OUR property or charge US a fine.
But exactly when did The People of the United States grant lawyers or judges the responsibility or, the discretion to determine which cultural precepts they must obey? And, of even greater importance is this, when did these judges and lawyers decide that the “adversary system” is merely a cultural invention?
I, for one, definitely consider this kind of activism from the Bench to be way beyond constitutional boundaries.

And, whatever proofs these judges and lawyers attempt to submit as support for their treasons — will not serve them well, to wit:

(“The Michigan Supreme Court has declared that ‘the public policy of maintaining a vigorous adversary system outweighs the asserted advantages of finding a duty of due care to an attorney’s legal opponent.'”)~.

The “public policy” as established by We The Public!!!!

(“We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law.”)~;

We! As in We The People, have elected to employ an adversary system….

In the words of the Honorable Justice Ginsburg:

“Deriving protected liberty interests from mandatory-language in local prison codes would make of the fundamental right something more in certain States, something less in others.
Liberty that may vary from Ossing, New York, to San Quentin, California, does not resemble the ‘Liberty’ enshrined among ‘unalienable rights’ with which all persons are ‘endowed by their Creator.’ Declaration of Independence; see Meachum(“The Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations.”).~

Other judges in various other courts have pivoted to the other facets of this subject matter as follows:

(“The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that, if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not ‘still be
done.’ “)~;

(“The right to sue and defend in the courts is the alternative of force. In an organized society it is the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the foundation of orderly government.”)~.

I, along with many others, have long declared that both African American Attorneys and the Congressional Black Caucus are actively engaged with the body on Capital Hill in subverting the actual influence of We The People.
When one gives serious consideration to the above stated facts, coupled with the knowledge that over 95% of all criminal convictions in the U.S. are the product of the Plea Bargaining process – and, that the United States has more People incarcerated than any other nation on mother earth, We can not doubt what so many have declared for so long; African Americans are not getting OUR day in court.
And the suggestion that such a trend as that shown above is merely the effect of one or two bad apples is the devil’s lie in the flesh.
Mathematically and materially such trends are impossible without wide spread collusion and tacit consent at all levels of government. This has been clear to all those who pay attention to this subject for quite a long time now.

“All the falsehood of the representative system rests on the fiction that a government and a legislature arising out of popular elections are absolutely bound or are even able to represent the real will of the people.”

The depths that a government goes too in its efforts at concealing or downplaying such treason in no way mitigates the harm done to the social fabric of the nation.
In the context of a democracies social fabric, general cohesiveness as to the central-unifying ideologies has always been recognized as the most crucial pinion upon which the rotary of Democracy stands or may be seized by the evil that man do.
Giving substance to what such an understanding realizes may never be overstated:

“Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher.
For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.
To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means —- to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal —- would bring terrible retribution.
Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.”

Will lawyers and judges pursue this form of patriotism before it’s too
Both mind and muscle are required to engage in politics; and politics always requires other means.

Table Of Authorities;

“Dissertation on First Principles of Government”, in Common Sense and Other Political Writings,
THOMAS PAINE 174 (1776)
(W.F. Adkins ed. 1953)- – “An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws.”;

“THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO”, ALEKSANDR I. SOLZHENITSYN, Vol.2, at 630(English ed. 1975){writing as Dostoyevsky in “The House Of The Dead”};

CHIEF JUDGE Edward D. Re{9th Cir.} [Attorney Re’s
litigation summary;

Heuft Systemtechnik GmbH v. Indus.Dynamics Co.,230 Fed.Appx. 991(2007)(Fed.Cir.Unpublished);

Applied Med.Res.Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.,353 F.Supp.2d 1075
(C.D.Cal. 2005);

Hunter Douglas,Inc. v. Harmonic Design,Inc.,962 F.Supp. 1249(C.D.Cal. 1997).

Chief Judge Re’s litigation summary
and writings;

Insur.Co.of Pennsylvania v. Associated Int’l Ins.Co.,922 F.2d 516
(9th Cir. 1990);

Dawkins v. D.C., No.87-02273(U.S.App. D.C. 1989);


“Cases And Materials On Remedies” 310(1987).

Of specific interest the three judge court in the Dawkins matter was heard by none other than:
Circuit Judges David Bryan Sentelle, Ruth B.Ginsburg, and Chief Judge Edward D. Re];

Casey v. Auto Owners Ins.Co.,273 Mich.App. 388,402,729 N.W.2d 277(2006);

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683,709,41 L.Ed.2d 1039,94 S.Ct. 3090(1974);

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,489-90,115 S.Ct. 2293,132 L.Ed.2d 418(1995)(Ginsburg, J., with whom Stevens, J., joins in dissent)
(citing Strange. “Originalism, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution: A Unique Role in Constitutional Interpretation?”, 111 Penn.St.L.Rev. 413, Fall(2006));

Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S.458,
462 n.8,58 S.Ct. 1019,82 L.Ed. 1461(1932);

Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, 207 U.S. 142,148,28 S.Ct. 34,35,52 L.Ed. 143(1907);

“Oeuvres”, Michel Bakounine, 6 vols. 2:38-39(Paris, 1907-13);

Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438,458,48 S.Ct. 564,72 L.Ed. 944(1928)(Brandeis, J., dissenting)

{Thank You For Your Time Considerations & Support}

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s