Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

When I was accused of distributing political literature on federal property, both judges: Margaret Nagle and Stephen Hillman ruled that all my eyewitnesses were irrelevant. Okay, eyewitnesses who saw everything are “irrelevant” in U.S. courts. Okay, so what kind of witness is considered “relevant” in the U.S.A.?

I moved out of the U.S. in 2002. Prior to this time, I had studied many cases and attended many trials such as the Anthony Gutierrez case and Rony Vasquez case. I now wish I could attend the Bradley Manning case, but now I live here in Kiev. It now costs over $1,200 to go to the U.S. After many years of attending trials in the U.S. prior to 2002, I have learned that which witness is relevant or irrelevant depends on the accusation. If you are accused of distributing political literature that the judge doesn’t want you to distribute to the public, then, of course, all your eyewitnesses will be ruled irrelevant. In freedom of speech cases, only those false witnesses that will say that you are dangerous and that you need to be “deterred from further criminal activities” are the only witnesses who will be ruled relevant even if these liars were not there when you were arrested nor at your trial.

U.S. judges also use prisons as a false witness agency. If a U.S. judge wants to frame somebody they don’t like, they offer a deal to a convicted drug dealer or murderer to falsely testify against somebody. Convicted drug dealers gladly lie in court in exchange for their freedom. It’s the easier way for criminals to get out of prison. In the U.S., judges use prison time as currency to pay liars to lie in U.S. courts.