Presumption of innocence in the minds of Americans is something really, really stupid

I have written on this blog repeatedly about the general tendency of the American public not to accept the concept of presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.

I wrote about it, for example,

• in October of 2015 (shortly before New York stripped my law license for making constitutional arguments in motions to recuse a biased and corrupt judge on behalf of a pro bono indigent client) - regarding criminal charges in Mississippi and reaction to pretrial publicity of American public, the jury pool;
•  in August of 2017 regarding pending charges in Chenango County, New York.

It is happening not only in Mississippi or New York - but across the country.

Just get on Facebook and read comments to any announcement of criminal charges, especially about children.

It is usually this type of stuff - this case is out of Leadwood, Missouri:

Note the word - "charged".

As in - presumed innocent.

As in - the police and prosecution SHOULD NOT engage in pretrial publicity that may undermine due process rights of the accused.

As in - the report must say, if at all, that the police ALLEGE that they have found those conditions.

Yet, allegations of the police, and criminal charges brought based on those allegations, are presented to the public as EVIDENCE.

Which is direct police and prosecutorial misconduct - deliberate contaminating of the jury pool.

And that intentional contamination of the jury pool did produce the desired result:

The public, right on cue from the prosecution, 

• presume guilt of those just charged, instead of innocence - no matter what courts are going to tell them;
• announce a desire to "get on that jury" to 
• convict and
• sentence to death - because they need no more "evidence" than a media article about charges brought; and
• express an opinion that these lousy parents do not have a right to "walk the earth" and are "Satan's Spawn".

Now, I have asked a question (the only one who actually asked that particular question) - what about presumption of innocence.

Same as in my discourses in 2015 and 2017 (links above), the reaction was - bashing me for mentioning presumption of innocence of people charged with a crime and actually presumed innocent.

Two people responded.

One - the one who wanted to get on "that jury" in order to convict and sentence to death based on the news article, calling people charged with a crime and presumed innocent "Satan's Spawn" and calling me out for "standing up" for them.

The other simply threw some animated gifs at me, one of a monkey, another saying "this is really, really stupid", and a third one, saying "there seems to be no sign of intelligent life anywhere".

Remember, why.

Because I mentioned the main constitutional right of criminal defendants in a criminal proceeding in the United States - presumption of innocence.

So, police and prosecution, with the help of the media, has turned the right to a jury trial into a joke, inciting emotions from the public long before the trial and causing people to believe unsworn hearsay allegations as evidence, believe to the point that presumption of innocence becomes a very, very stupid idea.

Recently, the Mueller investigation, in order to justify its continued existence costing taxpayers millions of dollars (don't start with the "investigation paying for itself", please, that is yet another constitutional violation), further embedded into the minds of American public, the jury pool, the idea that

charges and indictments are, in fact, evidence of a crime committed - contrary to the concept of presumption of innocence UNTIL FOUND GUILTY BY THE JURY OF YOUR PEERS, and contrary to the standard jury instructions based on that concept.

So, on the one hand, there exists a constitutional right of every criminal defendant in the United States to a presumption of innocence (declared by the U.S. Supreme Court 123 years ago, in Coffin v United States, 156 U.S. 432 [1895]) and to his right to remain silent from the beginning to the end of the proceedings (the 5th Amendment right not to incriminate oneself).

And, based on the 5th Amendment and presumption of innocence, all standard jury instructions in criminal court include an instruction to the jury that an indictment is not evidence.

What IS evidence as per jury instructions, is:

• testimony of witnesses (under oath, at trial, in front of the jury);
• exhibits RECEIVED INTO EVIDENCE at trial, not any other "exhibits", such as "reports" of "experts" provided to the media or to any governmental body other than a court, during a jury trial;
• stipulation by parties - as to the facts only, parties cannot stipulate what constitute or does not constitute the law.

And yet, when recently I mentioned in my comment to an article regarding the Mueller's investigation that he has failed so far to produce any evidence, those answers that at least attempted to address my statement on the merits and not bash me as a "stupid crazy fucking Russian troll", insisted that an indictment is, indeed, evidence of a crime:

And, even though jurors are forbidden to draw negative inferences and consider as evidence of a crime a criminal defendant's (or suspect's) invocation of his 5th Amendment right to remain silent, and remaining silent:

that does not prevent either jurors convicting defendants, despite clear court instructions to the jury, for not testifying at trial (rewind it to 6:35), or members of the American public in comments pointing out (here, in opposition to my comment that Mueller's investigation produced no evidence), this "evidence":

And, remember what is considered evidence in court as per jury instructions?


We now have "evidence" in the trial-by-the-media, like this:

No names ("a witness cooperating with Mueller has told investigators", "according to the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters").

Here goes the 6th Amendment right to confront your accuser - you do not even know the accuser's name, but it is supposedly "evidence".

And let's see this "crown jewel" of an answer as to the "no evidence" statement:


Let's list what Nicholas Perez considers "evidence" in a criminal proceeding - compare with evidence as per jury instructions above:

• 187 criminal charges in active indictments, or
• in indictments "to which individuals pleaded guilty" (so, the case was not presented to the jury and was not proven beyond the reasonable doubt);
• 32 people and 3 businesses named in plea agreements and indictments;
• 6 guilty please from 5 defendants, including Gates, Flynn, Papandopoulos, Pinedo and van der Zwaan;
• 25 counts in charges "facing" (at that time) Manafort;
• Serving four weeks in prison and deportation of van der Zwaan after pleading guilty;
• what kind of charges indictments include;
• that there were 4 guilty pleas for making false statements; that
• 25 Russian nationals have been charged with crimes along with 3 Russian business entities;
• that 13 individuals "believed to be linked to Russian intelligence agencies" have been charged, including Kilimnik, a resident of Ukraine; that
• 4 individuals working directly for or acting as advisors to Trump's 2016 campaign have been indicted, and 3 have pleaded guilty

In other words - NO EVIDENCE, if you compare what was alleged as evidence with what is accepted in court as evidence, as per criminal jury instructions (above).

And, one of the most important points that Nicholas Perez has made, pointing out "evidence" that the Mueller's criminal investigation has supposedly unearthed is this:

Bought evidence - and, thus, impeachable as not reliable.

If you hear the juror in Paul Manafort's trial, her full statement to the press, you will find there that the juror did not believe the main witness against Paul Manafort specifically because he testified in exchange for a plea bargain.  As the juror indicated, she believed that such a witness would do anything to save himself, and is thus not believable.

That is the reason why pleas or agreements for leniency with prosecution are considered "Brady material" that must be disclosed to the defense, in order for the defense to use it in cross-examination and impeachment of such a witness, at trial.

Here is a checklist of North Carolina public defenders as to what needs to be addressed in cross-examination of a "snitch", a person who testifies against a criminal defendant in exchange for a benefit from the prosecution:

It is not by chance that criminal defendants are given confrontation rights by the 6th Amendment, and that bought witnesses - by any benefit or favor at all - are subject to impeachment by the defense.

By the way, one of the legal scholars commenting Mueller's actions in seeking to buy witnesses by "favorable" plea offers or withdrawing ("vacating") their charges commented that, had a criminal defense attorney tried to buy a witness with the help of ANY benefit offered to that witness in exchange for his testimony at all, the defense attorney would have been criminally charged with contempt of court, fraud upon the court and obstruction of justice.

Apparently, when the prosecutor engages in the same criminal conduct - buying a witness, tampering with a witness by offering him benefits for certain testimony in favor of the prosecution - it is glorified by the public and presented as "evidence".

What can I say.

Hatred and political expediency are powerful motives.

But, in this particular situation, the "necessity" for certain individuals, groups, business and groups of media outlets to flare hatred to one person, Donald Trump, further eroded, to the point of destruction, the constitutional right to a fair jury trial for ALL Americans - because, based on media's presentations that 

• Mueller's indictments ARE evidence, that 
• invocation of a right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment IS evidence;
• that a coerced or bought plea agreement IS evidence; that
• bought testimony IS evidence -

contaminate the jury pool of the country BEYOND REPAIR.

When a criminal investigation and prosecution pays for itself - the "Resistance" press glorifies civil forfeiture, timing its attacks with filings against the forfeiture in the U.S. Supreme Court, and taints the jury pool for all Americans

In the God-blessed times of the Spanish Inquisition, there was one major incentive to investigate and prosecute heretics - Muslims and Jews: their property.

Their property was sequestered and given either to the church or (a portion) to the reporters of the heresy.

Thus, such prosecutions "paid for themselves".

Fast-forward, in Stalin's Russia people reported one another for such purposes also - after all, the reward was the opportunity to steal from the apartments of those taken away in the so-called "black ravens" (KGB cars), and to get the apartments for themselves.

In the United States, by the U.S. Constitution, a criminal defendant is entitled to a neutral and impartial investigator and prosecutor.

That is a due process requirement (5th - in federal court and 14th Amendment).

This is what the U.S. Supreme Court has said 83 years ago, in 1935, about the right of a criminal defendant to an impartial prosecutor:

"The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one."

Yet, my yesterday's comment that invited a lot of bashing against me personally on FB highlighted several large problems to the modern-day criminal defendants in America: the so-called Resistance, in attempting to malign anything-Trump or around Trump, has brainwashed the American public (the jury pool in criminal proceedings) to believe that, for a prosecutor, trying to do the same, having the prosecution "pay for itself" is actually proper, laudable and commendable.

Here is the entire discussion of the topic.

And here are comments specifically addressing my comment that Mueller's investigation is a waste of taxpayer money.

12 likes, no opposition, universal approval.

3 likes, the haha is mine.  I am stupid, yes, to believe that a criminal investigation should never "pay for itself", otherwise the prosecutor will be targeting not to prosecute crimes, but to seize people's property.

8 likes, 1 love, no opposition, to the first one. The numbers differ though, but the idea is the same.

So, 4 members of the public, 4 potential jurors, have expressed an opinion so far that Mueller, by seizing 20, 40 or 46 million, or "when the people involved are charged and their asset are seized", note the point when Jennifer Stewart considers it is proper to seize people's assets - at the time they are only charged and presumed innocent (with 3 likes to that from other people) - think that it is absolutely proper for a prosecutor to charge people with crimes with a view of "paying off" for his criminal investigation out of the defendants' property.

Now, apply this to yourself.  Because, once started on one person, this tendency will be applied to everybody else, this is how the law works.

And, because these brainwashed people will sit on everybody else's jury trials.

So, who brainwashed them to think that a criminal investigation MAY "pay for itself"?

Let's look.

September 14, 2018, before the midterm elections - Washington Post.

Right there, in the headline.  And more in the text.

So, when these people called me, just because I am an ethnic Russian (American citizen) a "commie" and directed me to "go back to Russia, comrade", they, through their ignorance and lack of knowledge of world history, failed to realize that communist Russia is actually here, and the "commies" and "comrades" are themselves - those who, same as the Spanish Inquisition, same as the Soviet KGB, grabbed people because they needed to grab their property.

Now, because of "the Resistance" and the media glorifying anything "anti-Trump", no matter how illegal it is, all Americans have a gift - a thoroughly tainted jury pool where potential jurors believe that it is proper for criminal investigations to "pay for themselves" out of criminal defendants' property, and proper to seize criminal defendants' property right at the time they are charged (and presumed innocent by law).


Same date - Inquisitr.  Again, right in the headline - because many people nowadays do not read past the headline, so there.

November 29, 2018 - another one, by MSNBC (they did not put "paid for itself" in the headline, just that Trump's "little tantrum" about the cost of Mueller investigation is not justified - because, guess what, Mueller investigation forced Paul Manafort to forfeit millions of dollars worth of property - after Manafort was convicted because a juror disregarded a clear instruction from the judge about presumption of innocence and convicted because Manafort did not testify (go to about 6 minutes 35 seconds in the tape, it starts there), and because after that juror publicly admitted to that misconduct, Manafort lawyers, instead of making a motion to vacate the conviction, agreed for their client to accept a guilty plea with forfeiture of assets - which was heralded as "Mueller prosecution paid for itself" by Mueller and by "the Resistance" press.

And, on the same November 29, 2018, another one, from Intelligencer:

CNBC went even further than the other "Resistance" press guys, it publicly announced that the Mueller investigation may not only "pay for itself", but may "turn a profit".

The public, absorbing what the "Resistance" press says like it is Gospel, enthusiastically accepted that a criminal investigation is allegedly paying for itself and may even turn a profit for the American taxpayers.

Completely lost upon people glorifying that attitude is that, because of this irresponsible brainwashing - by the Mueller team and by the "Resistance" press, prosecutors' seeking targets for criminal investigation to justify bringing those charges financially, because seizure of property of such criminal defendants will pay for the investigation and "turn a profit", which is gross prosecutorial misconduct, is becoming a norm in the minds of the American public.

So, with the jury pool as thoroughly tainted, do not expect fairness of the criminal justice system when YOU are charged because a local prosecutor (of a caliber lower than Mueller) will covet your property, not a multi-million dollar property, but, say, yours and your family's only home - to justify his performance the way Mueller is justifying his to the American public.

While millions of Americans are fighting unconstitutional forfeitures of their properties,

 while the case is under review of the U.S. Supreme Court RIGHT NOW , 

here is the petition presented to the U.S. Supreme Court on this subject, 

here is the link to the docket of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case seeks the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that civil forfeiture is unconstitutional.

Note the "coincidences" in time with the docket.

Remember that the "paying for itself" articles about the Mueller probe in the "Resistance" press appeared on September 14, 2018 and on November 29, 2018 (see above)?

Compare with the docket of Timbs v Indiana in the U.S. Supreme Court.

From September 5 to September 11, 2018, just before the first "wave" of "forfeitures pay for criminal investigations" in the "Resistance" press, on September 14, 2018, a large number of amicus briefs in support of the petitioner, and against civil forfeitures, was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.

- including a brief by the ACLU, much loved by the "Resistance" press.
Guess when this case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court?

On November 28, 2018, 1 day before the second wave of "Mueller's probe pays for itself through forfeitures" hit the "Resistance" press.

So, the "Resistance" press, pretending that it is "fighting Trump" on behalf of the American people, is subverting constitutional rights of American people, "coincidentally" timing its attacks on constitutional rights of Americans to be free of the government seizing their assets as a motive of criminal proceedings - with filing amicus briefs in support of canceling "civil" forfeitures at all, and with arguments of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The "Resistance" press is doing a great disservice to all the American people by putting the idea into the minds of potential jurors that forfeiture is, instead of unconstitutional (as multiple, multiple legal scholars argued in their amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court), is actually good and proper, because, due to the forfeitures, criminal investigations and prosecutions are "paying for themselves" - which is, what, good?

Despite this?



Just because of the hate of one man, Trump.

Is flaring such hate worth causing to lose constitutional rights in criminal justice proceedings for all Americans?

And, is the "Resistance" press trying to influence the U.S. Supreme Court by telling it that civil forfeiture, notwithstanding what legal scholars say, is actually "good for you" - because it helps pay criminal prosecutions against Trump (and everybody else)?

Korematsu v United States, revisited. How "The Resistance" is inciting hatred to ethnic Russians (including American citizens)

In December 1944, towards the end of World War II, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued one of its most shameful decisions in its entire history:  Korematsu v United States.

This is what it held:

This case is taught in law schools as the only case of the U.S. Supreme Court where the U.S. Supreme Court has found its highest "scrutiny test" for constitutionality applicable and passable in regards to discrimination based on ethnic (not even national) origin - because those detained were American CITIZENS, and the only basis for detention was what they could not control, their ethnicity, they were BORN with it.

Right now we have had a media campaign against President Trump because he attributed criminality to Mexicans and Latinos generally coming to the country illegally.

The U.S. Supreme attributed criminality to American citizens because they were ethnic Japanese - and blessed their detention within concentration camps ("assembly centers") on the territory of the United States, based only on their ethnic origin.

Now a claim is being made that Korematsu is this country's shameful past.

Well, not so much.

First, Korematsu remains on the books and has never been overruled.

Second, the public is now primed by "The Resistance" media and politicians the same way it was in the Korematsu times, but in two different directions:

• to presume good faith in illegal immigrants of Latino (Mexican, Honduran, Guatemalan) origin, and
• to presume bad faith in ethnic Russians.

How does it work?

Here is an illustration - my yesterday's discussion on Facebook.

ALL that I have said was that the Mueller investigation so far produced no evidence of Russian interference into the 2016 election - what he was assigned to investigate and prosecute, specifically.

That's all.

What followed was that the majority of those who answered to that comment (there were 132 comments, a small part of them mine and by my three friends who came to see what is going on and comment on the situation), without answering on the merits of the comment:

• went to my FB profile, and, after putting together my first name Tatiana (Russian name, yes, but Tatiana is a popular name amongst African Americans, and JFK's granddaughter is Tatiana) and that my first two university degrees are from Russian universities, the public started to
• call me a Russian troll;
• a crazy Russian troll;
• a fucking Russian troll;
• a "commie";
• a "comrade";
• address to me expletives in English and in Russian, including "сумасшедшая сука" (a crazy bitch);
• claiming that I am a disservice to my law school because of how stupid and incompetent I am;
• that low IQ runs in my family etc.

ALL because an ethnic Russian (American citizen) expressed an opinion that "The Resistance" public did not like, because "The Resistance" public nowadays expects that nobody should dare pronounce an opinion of their own that may benefit Trump, even if it is an opinion about the law that they have no clue about.

"Thankfully", there were several statements in that discussion which may be considered as being borderline on the merits - people were trying to oppose my statement of "no evidence" and of waste of taxpayer money by the Mueller investigation, among other things, with statements that:

• Mueller's criminal investigation is "turning a profit" with seizures of assets;
• there is plenty of evidence that Mueller investigation has dug up so far, specifically:
• indictments;
• charges, 
• plea bargains and
• testimony bought by plea bargains.

I will address the "merits" comments in separate articles.

In this article I would like to simply publish, raw, the "public discourse" in answer to my single short comment - that the Mueller investigation:

1. produced no evidence in 2 years and
2. is a waste of taxpayer money.

In that discourse, by the way, at the very beginning, there was a suggestion to put a vodka bottle "up my arse" - in retaliation to that short comment of mine regarding, once again,

1. lack of evidence, and;

2. waste of taxpayer money by the Mueller investigation.

I am sure that, had I pronounced this same thing in a physical crowd of "resistance" folks, I would be lynched, physically assaulted and destroyed.

THIS is the result of hysteria about "those Russians" in the "Resistance" media.

The crowd bashing a criminal defense expert and glorifying prosecutorial misconduct - meaning that the jury pools in the entire United States, for all Americans, are thoroughly tainted, I will detail each aspect of the taint in articles that will follow, with examples.  All to direct "the Resistance" against one man.

So, do not ask how the shameful Korematsu case came about - the American public is incited at this time to bless repetition of Korematsu.

If detention of all ethnic Russians is declared tomorrow, there American public will only bless it.

The wagers of the Resistance war should be proud.

Enjoy.