judge

1 Comment Posted on June 27, 2014July 25, 2014 Uncategorized

Plausible Deniability Standard of Morality defined by Don Mashak

Plausible deniability originally was a legal concept. It referred to lack of evidence proving a allegation of a legal nature. Standards of of Proof vary in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases, the standard of proof is “more likely so than not” whereas in a criminal matter, the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” If your opponent/accuser lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, you can “plausibly deny” the allegation even though it may be true. Plausible meaning believable.Because many lawyers are in politics, they brought this higher standard proof with them diminishing the morality, ethics and integrity of government.This has evolved into the current government Standard of Morality. It has evolved to include a denial of blame as well as a denial of guilt.

Most of us in America are taught and instilled with a Moral Standard of Absolute Right and Wrong. That is to say, that as we go through life we have a per-conceived notion as to whether anything we do or say is “right” or “wrong”. (Think fable of George Washington’s “I cannot tell a lie, I chopped down the Cherry Tree”)And, for the most part, the majority of us go through life with an inner compass of knowing right and wrong, and presume that most other persons, especially those we trust, have the same or very similar Moral compass.

However, Elected Officials, Government Officials and Lawyers adopted a different, more flexible, Moral Standard. Almost all of these aforementioned persons approach everything with a “what can I plausibly deny” Moral Standard. That is to say, these folks do a “reward vs likelihood of being caught” calculation/assessment in assessing virtually everything they do. Further, these people then take steps to minimize the likelihood of them being caught before, during the actual act. And the destruction of evidence is an attempt to create plausible deniablity after the act has been discovered or alleged. (e.g. Missing IRS emails 2014)

This is why they rarely put anything controversial in writing. This is why if they are forced to put something in writing, it is usually in the form of a form letter. This is also why they most often have you talk to an underling or an agency bureaucrat so they can plausibly deny knowledge of the conversation or be able to say the underling or bureaucrat mis-stated their position. In the Courts of the State of Minnesota and many other states, members of the audience are prohibited from recording (video or audio) while court is in session. (Yes, you can ask permission but then 1) it is usually denied 2)The Court is put on notice that it must be more vigilant in what it says and does) In this way, only the court reporters transcript evidences the record and such documents can and are often altered to remove evidence that otherwise could not plausibly be denied.

Elected officials and high ranking government bureaucrats also build plausibility right into the hierarchy of their office. Senators and Representatives have a chief of staff (who doews not have to face election) that handles most of the activities that must be “plausibly denied”. Another example is the US Department of Justice Attorney General taking the political heat for decisions not to pursue certain criminals(like banksters and IRS officials who discriminated against conservative groups) Sheriff’s Departments often utilize a Deputy Sheriff for such persons. In this way, the elected official can deny knowledge and/or culpability for their underlings. And, in the worst case scenario, the unelected second in command, can take the fall with the understanding that they will “be taken care of” as understood quid pro quo.

Yet there is an dire consequence to America that results from this Morality of Plausible Deniability. Each of us who have been indoctrinated with a moral standard of absolute right and wrong are handicapped when dealing with a person who practices a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability. Folks that practice a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability do not wear signs disclosing such. Therefore, until our presumption that another person adheres to a same or similar moral standard as our own is proven wrong, we presume that their Moral Standard is the same as our own.

And, as a result of the nature of our interactions with Politicians and Government Officials, awareness of their betrayals may take a long time to realize. Whereas the Moral Standard of a person that cheats you on a car or some other personal interaction is quick and apparent, betrayals of trust by Politicians and Government Officials are more usually not that speedily apparent. In fact, an American Citizen that only interacts with a politician socially or one or two times more personally will likely never ponder, let alone deduce, whether said politician has betrayed their trust or not.

This has been hard to define than I anticipated. I would appreciate any feed back to refine this definition.

Example:

President Bill Clinton practiced a Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability as demonstrated in his responses about Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. For example, before the blue, semen stained dress was found, Bill Clinton believed he could plausibly deny having sex with “that woman” and, therefore, denied the allegations. Bill Clinton also tried to plausibly deny he had sex with Ms. Lewinsky by trying to assert that “oral sex was not sex”, and therefore he did not lie under oath. In another act meant to create plausible deniability, then President Clinton had his “bagman” Al Gore go to the Tibetan “Vow of Poverty” Temple to pick up a brief case containing $100,000.00 in illegal campaign contributions eventually traced to Red China. It is alleged that the $100,000.oo was the pay off for President Clinton orchestrating access to the Red Chinese to our GPS and Rocket Stabilizer Gyro technology. Technology which now allows Red China to successfully target mainland USA with which was previously its wobbly, crash and burn long range rockets.

President Richard Nixon practiced the Moral Standard of Plausible Deniability when he stated “I am not a crook” when confronted with the Watergate Scandal. President Nixon then resigned and by act of his appointed successor President Gerald Ford never had to testify under oath and therefore could continue to plausibly allegations about his role in the Watergate break in.

Judicial Code Red defined by Don Mashak

The Truth About Judicial Code Red

Code Red Refers to any unwritten rule that is generally officially denied.

Code Red is a term from the movie “A Few Good Men”. In the movie, Code Red is a term US Marines stationed at Gitmo (Guantanamo Bay,Cuba) call physical punishment given out for a variety of infractions. As such physical punishment in this manner violates the military rules, officially it does not exist.

Judicial Code Red is/are the various unwritten rules that US Lawyers, Judges and Court personnel abide by.

Among the unwritten Judicial Code Red rules are:

Lawyers don’t run in elections against sitting judges;
Lawyers not asking certain questions or doing certain things because they would be embarrassing to the court system;
Lawyers only allow to be put on the record evidence that will allow the Judge to rule in accordance with the desired results the judge has “telegraphed” to the Lawyers, even if this is against the best interests of their own client;
Lawyers, Judges & Court Personnel do not expose and/or testify as to the acts of judges or other lawyers that the general public might describe as unlawful, corrupt or an Abuse of Power.

There other unwritten Judicial Code Red Rules, but the foregoing 4 for the foundation for most of the other Judicial Code Red Rules.

These Judicial Code Red Rules are enforced through a variety of Carrots and Sticks.

The sticks are a series of plausibly deniable consequences for violating the unwritten Judicial Code Red Rules. These penalties/consequences for violating these various Judicial Code Red Rules vary in accordance to the severity of the perceived violation and the power of offended party. These various consequences may include black listing, social shunning, professional shunning, trumped up complaints, greater than usual punishment if a complaint is made against them, etc. Break the Judicial Code Red Rules and a lawyer will find winning his cases becomes much more difficult and rare. The simplest of mistakes which could easily be forgiven, suddenly always have harsh consequences for the lawyer who has dared to disregard the Judicial Code Red rules.

On the other hand, the carrots for conforming to Judicial Code Red Rules can be as simple as being left alone. Or, to reward compliance, the Carrots can include receiving referrals, government contracts, Professional Commendations, and/or promotions and advancement along with the money that comes with such carrots.

A fraternity of sorts has grown up around this Judicial Code Red. Lawyers and Judges go to the same social functions, golf courses and country clubs. These relationships make plausibly denying the existence of Judicial Code Red and/or the consequences inflicted for perceived violation, that much easier to affect. In fact, the adversarial displays in the Court room is often as choreographed and orchestrated as TV’s Professional Wrestling. They are done more for the benefit and deception of the clients paying their respective lawyers, than they having any actual effect on the outcome of the litigation at hand.

The existence of Judicial Code Red has been a matter of contention in Minnesota Government hearings and judicial election debates. Since 2005(this is now 2014) 100s of Minnesotans each year have contacted the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees demanding a hearing dedicated to them receiving evidence and testimony of systemic corruption in the Minnesota Judiciary. And every year since 2005, the Minnesota House and Senate Judiciary Committees have refused.

There is no relief in going to the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards nor the Minnesota Lawyer’s Professional Responsibility Board. Both are essentially “black boxes” who often complain that the Minnesota Legislature gave power limited to such things like untimely filings, bad personal hygiene, drunkenness and/or stealing of client and/or escrow funds. Most usually both of these Government organizations is to tell the complainer that their sole recourse is to appeal the matter to a higher court. And most person can’t afford such an appeal, are physically and/or emotionally exhausted and/or don’t have the knowledge to file the appeal themselves. Even worse, if there own lawyer has deliberately left evidence off the official court record, it can not be introduced upon appeal except in the rarest circumstance.

In Minnesota, Judicial Code Red is the reason why the vast majority of sitting judges that run for re-election, run unopposed.

And Judicial Code Red is one reason that corruption is rampant in the Minnesota Judiciary.

With no opponents running against sitting judges, there is no accountability via elections.

Example of Judicial Code Red used in a sentence:
The Corrupt judges in Minnesota are protected from having to face reelection challengers via Judicial Code Red Rules, which they deny exist.

Those were my thoughts.

In Closing:

Thank you, my fellow citizens, for taking your valuable time to read and reflect upon what is written here.

Finally, this article is written with the same intentions as Thomas Paine http://ushistory.org/paine. I seek no leadership role. I seek only to help the American People find their own way using their own “Common Sense” http://amzn.to/kbRuar

Keep Fighting the Good Fight!

In Liberty,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot
http://twitter.com/dmashak
http://Facebook/Don.Mashak
Don Mashak Google Plus http://goo.gl/1AUrE

WE THE PEOPLE TAR #WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://WETHEPEOPLETAR.blogspot.com
http://facebook.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR
http://twitter.com/WETHEPEOPLETAR

End the Fed(eral Reserve Bank System) #ETF
National http://bit.ly/ta3Rju Minneapolis http://bit.ly/tjZJKF

Bring Home the Politicians #BHTP
http://BringHomethePoliticians.com

Lawless America #LawlessAmerica
http://LawlessAmerica.com

Term Limits #TermLimit
http://TermLimits.org

Justice in Minnesota #JIM
http://JusticeinMN.com

Critical Thinking Notice – This author advises you as no politician would dare. Exercise Critical Thinking (http://bit.ly/ubI6ve) in determining the truthfulness of anything you read or hear. Do not passively accept nor believe anything anyone tells you, including this author… unless and until you verify it yourself with sources you trust and could actively defend your perspective to anyone who might debate you to the contrary of your perspective.

Don Mashak's Political Dissent Definitions

Don Mashak's Political Dissent Definitions

These are Don Mashak's Definitions of various terms catalyzing, communicating and/or used by voices of American Political Dissent

judge

Plausible Deniability Standard of Morality defined by Don Mashak