Extortion Cross-dressing as Justice: the American ‘Legal’ System

Extortion Cross-dressing as Justice: the American ‘Legal’ System

by Paul Roasberry

You may have seen the stately, blindfolded woman recently - still clutching the scales of impartiality - naked, shivering, and groping around for her robes. That’s because there’s a thug out there masquerading as Justice herself. He’s wearing her clothes.

His real name is Extortion.

Sit back for a moment and imagine a racket so sweet that the mark actually praises the grifter, the grifter makes the mark think that the extortionist is doing him a favor, and the whole shameful scheme is lauded almost daily in the newspapers, on television, in the schools, in churches, and wherever the victims congregate. What we are describing here is the American legal system.

It goes by the name of “plea bargaining,” but look closely and you will see it for what it really is.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines extortion as

any oppression by color or pretense of right, and particularly and technically the exaction or unlawful taking by an officer of money or thing of value, by color of his office, either when none at all is due, or not so much is due, or when it is not yet due. To constitute ‘extortion,’ the wrongful use of fear must be the operating cause producing consent.

Quite simply, extortion is the crime of taking money or some other thing of value (such as a person’s willingness to admit to things he may not have done) by instilling fear in him of what the consequences might be if he fails to deliver. Extortion is widely recognized in civilized societies everywhere as a crime.

Now, there are distinct elements of any crime, as a lawyer will tell you. First there has to be an intent to do wrong, called mens rea by the courts. Without this intent, a wrongful act does not rise to the level of criminal behavior. Secondly, there may or may not be a motive for the crime. Motive is not a necessary condition for a crime to occur, but it is accepted as a factor pointing to guilt when it can be shown to exist. A motive could vary from personal revenge to profiting from the commission of the crime. And lastly, there is the wrongful act itself. When all three elements are present – intent, motive and the act itself – we have a very strong case against the criminal perpetrator. I will show here, on its own terms, that the American legal system possesses intent, has a clear motive and routinely commits the crime of extortion under pretense of delivering ‘justice.’

First, with regard to criminal intent: the very organized structure of the extortion operation gives us all the evidence we need. In a murder case, premeditation clearly establishes intent. If a defendant has made plans to execute the murder – buying a gun, stalking the victim, waiting for the most propitious time, etc – this strongly points to guilt. In the case of a system dedicated to mass extortion, the very organizational ease with which it carries out its function indicates that considerable forethought and planning went into its creation.

Let’s look, then, at the highly organized structure of the coercive American legal system and see how it neatly enables the crime of extortion. We have several key players. They are:

1. The police who make arrests 2. The prosecuting attorney 3. The judge 4. The defense attorney 5. The victim, commonly known as “defendant”

Now remember, we are discussing an extortion scheme here. To fit the definition of extortion, we need a victim and some other entity or entities who will profit somehow by instilling fear in the victim. The machinery of extortion, known as ‘plea bargaining,’ includes here several co-conspirators – the police, the prosecutors, the judge, and in some cases, even the defense attorney.

Here’s how the operation works. First we have the police who are charged with upholding ‘the law.’ These are usually persons of subnormal intelligence and violent predisposition, suffering from low self-esteem, who are outfitted with licenses to kill and given guns to swagger around with. They are particularly adept at basing their behavior on emotional responses rather than on reason. If they accost a “suspect” and the latter insults them, they will react by beating the suspect severely, sometimes even killing him. I do not think we need to dwell long here – the newspapers are filled with accounts of thuggish police behavior. Criminal intent here is clear – unable to control their hatred, the police look forward to using their positions to browbeat and bully ordinary civilians, whom they fear are their moral and intellectual superiors. They actively look for opportunities where they can harass and torture ‘suspects.’ If caught in the act, they will lie and perjure themselves for one another. If a ‘suspect’ commits some small offense, such as stealing a candy bar from a convenience store, the police will charge him with misdemeanor theft and then heap on a host of other charges, from resisting arrest to assaulting a police officer, in order to raise the matter to felony status. If the suspect raises so much as a whimper of protest, the police write in their reports that he was “uncooperative.” The suspect is handcuffed and taken to the police station where he is booked, charged, and depending on the offense, either jailed or released on bail. If he is a white collar citizen with lots of financial ties to the community and plenty of reason for not fleeing, he may be released on “personal recognizance.”

The next stage in the process is arraignment. The suspect is brought before a judge, very often in the dehumanizing jail garb he is forced to wear, and sometimes in handcuffs to indicate to all present that he is a very bad person. The process of dehumanization and terrorization has begun. At the arraignment, the suspect/victim is read the inflated list of charges against him. He may or may not be guilty of some of the charges, but rarely or almost never is he guilty of all of them. He pleads “guilty” or “not guilty.” If charged only with a misdemeanor, he is allowed to do this without a lawyer representing him.. Interestingly enough, not everyone chooses the “not guilty” route at this point.

I spent some time observing a cattle-call arraignment recently. Prisoners were led into the courtroom in batches and were seated against one wall. One by one they were called forth. It was immediately apparent that some of them were homeless, mentally ill, without any resources or money, and totally familiar with the process. They knew that to plead “not guilty” would result in their being held in jail until trial, often months away. By pleading “guilty” immediately, they could get sentenced to some minor term and avoid a long period of confinement while awaiting trial. And, sure enough, the sentences the judge handed down were invariably light - a light fine and a day in jail with credit for time already served, which meant release by late afternoon or evening for most of them. But don’t take my word for it. Go to any large city’s central jail and find the courtroom where prisoners are commonly arraigned, get a seat and see for yourself.

Clearly, the function of this category of defendant is not to bring revenue or advantage to the system, other than keeping the police busy and in demand and jailers employed and in demand. No, their real function is to demoralize the few defendants present who are charged with really serious offenses. Note that the felony cases are always called last – there’s a psychological reason for that.

The accused felon, then, is the oil that greases the machinery of extortion. Among these, in any given week, are invariably a few who own homes, hold jobs, have bank accounts or property, and stand a lot to lose if they are held in jail awaiting trial, and even more to lose if they are convicted. Perhaps they were bailed out before arraignment – no matter, the very arrest experience and its immediate aftermath were chilling enough. The police arrived, maybe at the defendant’s home, in numbers far greater than what the situation called for. To make certain that the defendant’s neighbors knew what was going on, they kept the lights on top of their cars flashing, which attracted a crowd of spectators. They loitered about unnecessarily long, with their car radios turned up to maximum volume, before finally leading the defendant out in handcuffs, in front of his whole neighborhood. Perhaps the matter that brought them was truly serious. Oftentimes, though, it amounted to nothing more than a minor dispute with a neighbor, or maybe some yelling and shouting.

Perhaps this occurs in the middle of the week. The defendant immediately begins to worry, before he ever gets to the police station, about what he’s going to tell his boss when he fails to show up for work the following morning. Or about how he can possibly afford a lawyer to get him through this mess. The police were probably especially belligerent, and even though they may not have charged him with assaulting an officer or resisting arrest, they have charged him with the most serious crime possible and will probably write in their reports that he was “hostile” or “uncooperative.” These are words defense attorneys do not like to see, because judges and jurors pretend to take them seriously.

Maybe his wife or a close friend bails him out a few hours later. This is not done quickly, though. The friend or relative is also put through a dehumanizing experience, often waiting hours after paying a bail bondsman. Excuses are given; the defendant’s fingerprints must be checked against “NCIC” computer files – a process that ought to take only minutes, but somehow drags out to hours. By now, the defendant is thoroughly depressed and demoralized.

Perhaps he’s naive enough to think that he can get the whole thing dismissed at his arraignment. He sees the petty offenders grilled and sentenced by the dozens, and finally his name is called. He is told of the very grave and serious nature of the case against him. Perhaps he has summoned a lawyer; perhaps not. If not, he will have to return with one at some future date to enter his plea. He dares not plead guilty, for the possible consequences of doing so are read off to him in a loud voice: “. . . class three felony, punishable by up to eight years in prison and a fine not to exceed blah blah blah.”

Now the long, agonizing wait for a hearing begins. There are often several command appearances which the defendant must attend. There is his appearance to enter a plea. There are various pretrial hearings and motions that are scheduled, delayed, rescheduled, and delayed yet again. The prosecution needs time to review the file, and so on. A prosecutor can get caught in traffic, or have the sniffles, and miss a hearing completely, and nothing happens. The process just drags on. But woe to the defendant who misses an appearance for any reason, no matter how extreme. He is arrested yet again, his bail is revoked, and further charges are added to those he already faces. Months elapse and at each appearance before the court, the defendant witnesses the outcomes of other cases. Prisoners are led out in chains to serve long sentences, and their wives or children weep uncontrollably as they are taken away. If he is not thoroughly afraid at this point, he damned well ought to be.

Ultimately, the real test begins. The defendant’s lawyer meets with the D.A. and the D.A. thinks he “just might” be willing to “drop one or two of the charges” if the defendant will plead guilty. After all, we’ve got this horrible docket, you see, and a trial might be months away, and “in fairness to your client,” blah blah blah.

Enter, then, the prosecuting attorney. This attorney works for a District Attorney, a head boss man of all prosecuting attorneys. His is an elected position. What does that mean? It means two things. First of all, the D.A.’s very livelihood depends on his getting re-elected. Even an idiot can tell you that a poor record of “convictions” will not get him re-elected.. His opponent will make a big stink about this, pointing to all the “dangerous criminals” (marijuana smokers, hookers, tax resistors, war protestors, gamblers, etc.) who were released back onto the streets because of this guy’s total incompetence, etc. So he has at least one motive to get convictions, any way he can. Most D.A.’s have a second motive. That is, their position is very often a springboard to higher political office. A really strong record of convictions will buy him the governor’s office, or a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, maybe ultimately the Presidency itself. Convictions are the key. If you do not believe this, read carefully the campaign literature of any current or former district attorney who is running for political office. If he does not brag at least once about his “strong record of convictions,” you are holding a remarkably rare document, probably a collector’s item.

Now: there are two ways of procuring convictions. The first and more difficult way is to try the defendant and actually to have to prove a case against him. This is risky; what if a wily defense attorney gets the defendant acquitted? What if the stupid cops botched the investigation somewhere? What if? What if?

Or, what if you can get this already terrorized, frightened defendant to agree to plea guilty to a lesser charge? It would certainly be easy, wouldn’t it? Let’s premeditate an outright extortion here - I’ll give this guy a big fine or a much reduced period of time in prison, which, given the terrors that must plague him in his dreams right now, would be viewed by him as a tremendous relief. (Here you can probably figure out why little is ever done to prevent gang rapes in prisons, as news of these enhances and heightens fear among the merely accused who face possible prison sentences.) He can make all his anxiety, all the uncertainty dissolve immediately – all he would have to do is say he’s guilty of something else, something pettier that what we’ve charged him with here. I get my conviction; he gets far less punishment than what he’s expecting and fearing. Let’s “plea bargain.”

Now, let’s take this situation from the defendant’s point of view. Perhaps he’s actually innocent – it happens more often that you’d care to admit. There have been an awful lot of stories recently about death row inmates who are suddenly, years after being convicted, totally exonerated by some new evidence. Admit it – you’ve seen not one or two, but several such stories in just the past year alone, haven’t you? If this kind of miscarriage of justice can occur in a capital murder case, just imagine how much more often it has to occur in lesser cases, where the glare of public scrutiny is far lower and where the system has ample opportunity to manipulate the “evidence” against a defendant, give other felons reduced sentences in return for their “testimony” against the defendant, etc. If the defendant is innocent, he looks at the plea bargain offer and he looks at the alternative consequences: going to trial. Here he takes the reverse view of the prosecuting attorney. The trial is risky, not for the prosecutor, but for him, the defendant. What if I’m actually convicted? What if this glib asshole actually manages to persuade a jury that I’m guilty? I’m NOT guilty, dammit. But my lawyer here says there’s no way he’ll let me testify – I’m totally at his mercy. What if someone who doesn’t like me lies about me? What if? What if?

He gives something of value to the prosecutor – i.e., his guilty plea. The prosecutor regards this as valuable because it is one more notch in his gun, one more small incremental step toward higher political office. Its worth, really, is incalculable. The defendant gives the prosecutor this guilty plea out of fear. There is no other, there can be no other reason for his giving it. The possible alternatives are far more terrible. The machinery of “justice” has far more resources than he. What chance does he stand? A trial is not justice, it is a crap shoot. He plea bargains.

Let’s look at that Black’s law dictionary definition again: any oppression by color or pretense of right, and particularly and technically the exaction or unlawful taking by an officer of money or thing of value, by color of his office, either when none at all is due, or not so much is due, or when it is not yet due. To constitute ‘extortion,’ the wrongful use of fear must be the operating cause producing consent.

Note the words “when none at all is due, or not so much is due, or when it is not yet due.” Let’s apply this to the case of the defendant who is guilty of something, but not guilty of all he’s charged with. Remember: the cops routinely charge ‘suspects” with far more than they’ve actually done. Why? For two reasons. First, they, being bullies, get a real thrill seeing the look on the suspect’s face as they read off the menu of what they’re going to accuse him of. Secondly, because they are a part of the machinery, too. They are in on the operation. They know that as long as they can keep the pipeline full of victims for the prosecutors, they will never have to worry about any prosecutor charging them with over-zealousness in the discharge of their duties. They can occasionally beat a prisoner to death, ram a plunger or a broomstick up his rectum, shoot an unarmed teenager in the back, or whatever else their violent natures require, and they will never go to jail. At most, they will receive “paid administrative leave,” which means they get paid for staying home and doing nothing, or for taking a vacation. Where else can you get an automatic paid vacation just for murdering someone? The police have a lot of perks, don’t they? When was the last time you read an article about a cop who shot and killed someone actually having to go to court over it, let alone jail?

So the police charge even the guilty with far more than what they’ve actually done. This they do out of pure maliciousness and out of a sense of duty to the prosecutors, who protect and watch over them and their thuggish misdeeds. So, whereas the totally innocent defendant pays up his guilty plea “when none at all is due,” the partially guilty defendant pays up when “not so much is due,” and “when it is not yet due” – i.e., when it is actually due supposedly being only after a fair trial. So far, the judicial system meets all the tests of extortion.

Judges participate by terrorizing felony defendants. They begin at arraignment and continue through actual trials, which they perceive as an unnecessary nuisance. Far better to collect your judge’s pay without actually having to sit through cases. Show up for a half hour or so in the afternoon putting your stamp of approval on “plea bargains” and spend the rest of the day playing golf – this is much more satisfying. How often is a defendant handed added punishment by a judge upon conviction, simply because he took up the judge’s regular tee-off time by exercising his supposed right to a trial? Or are you one of those who seriously and naively believes that judges are lofty beings who are above such petty concerns? Let’s hope you don’t have to become a defendant yourself to realize the awful truth.

Prosecutors we’ve already discussed in detail. All of the participants in the scheme – cops, judges and prosecutors - have the intent (as evidenced by the very sophisticated structure of their criminal racket), the motives, and the opportunity to commit extortion on a vast, almost industrial scale. In fact, you will hear references of late to “the prison industry” as one of the burgeoning “growth opportunities” for job-starved smaller communities. The racket is not only thriving; it is growing.

The apparatus as a whole benefits by perpetuating the myth of “crime,” and by convincing the general public that it is somehow being protected form literally armies of dangerous murderers, muggers and thieves. Unbelievably high numbers of persons are “convicted” annually – in other words, most of them plea bargained – and it is not mentioned that most of these “convictions” [read: extorted guilty pleas] were for victimless offenses anyway. The appearance is created of a ruthless hunt for malefactors and an unforgiving prosecutorial efficiency in locking them up. The public is happy. Legislators have no qualms increasing the budgets for more police, more prisons, new court buildings, and so on. First of all, the racket is immensely profitable for everyone. Cops, judges and district attorneys all make either big bucks or big reputations, or both. Secondly, the more successful the system is in extorting guilty pleas and levying fines, the more it can grow, expanding its tentacles into every aspect of private life – an activity which fundamentalist Christian legislators are more than willing to abet with more and more “laws”.

We have assumed all along here that this system operates under at least some semblance of legitimacy. There usually has to be some incident or occurrence which triggers an arrest – whether it be a true crime or a victimless offense. Consider the possibilities, now, of a system of extortion already in place, where new laws suspending basic civil liberties are enacted in a moment of national hysteria, where prisoners can be detained in secret, with in camera proceedings against them, where the government is wholly unaccountable for their treatment, their whereabouts, or even for their existence. These combined circumstances make for a very dangerous cocktail. It is now possible for the government to arrest and detain persons in secret, on totally fabricated charges, threatening them with all manner of harsh punishments, merely to extort information from them on friends, family members, co-workers, children, or anyone else they may happen to know. The laws are in place, the precedents are there. All that remains is for someone – a John Ashcroft, for example – to choose to exercise them.

It is interesting to reflect on what would happen if plea bargaining were completely eliminated or outlawed. We’ve long been assured that one of the things that distinguishes our “great judicial system” from lesser, inferior legal systems, is the right of the accused to a fair trial by his peers. But these “fair trials” have been supplanted in all but the rarest of cases with plea bargaining/extortion. We are told that a trial “is not necessary” anymore.

What if prosecutors were required to try every case they chose to prosecute? Would they not immediately dismiss the frivolous and unprovable cases, as they rightfully ought to? Would they not give much more attention to the actual merits of cases before going to trial, instead of simply trying to plea bargain some kind of guilty plea out of the accused? Would there not suddenly be pressure from the courts to decriminalize vast areas of conduct that ought not rightfully be considered as real crimes, in an effort to curb the number of frivolous cases brought before them? Would police not be under more pressure from the courts to arrest only those against whom solid evidence existed, and only for offenses which could be proven in open court? Would legislators not then be under more pressure to withhold the enactment of wrongful laws, so that the system could focus on handling only the most heinous offenses, where there is more assurance that juries will convict, and that prosecutors will still get their “notches on their guns?’ Plea bargaining is the very glue of extortion and injustice. If there were a national referendum to outlaw plea bargaining, it would have cataclysmic consequences for the extortionists,

It will never happen. Take pity on Lady Justice. The thug who stripped and raped her will not give her back her robes. But remember [all bleat in unison here]: it may not be perfect, but it’s the best doggone system we’ve got!