On the flip-side of all this, it is urged, and in law it is demanded, that one is "presumed innocent", until that magical point in time when a jury (sometimes a judge) pronounces them "guilty". When the presumption of innocence is absent, all kinds of bad things happen, and not just to the accused person. We all suffer, throughout life, from it. Brother accuses you of taking his candy, and momma doesn't always bother to find out that the dog was the true culprit, the guilty party. The paper you wrote is too good, so the teacher cuts back on your grade, presuming you are guilty of cheating. Life sets us up to presume stuff, and to suffer when other people do the same.

The principles of this business are simple. How presumption plays out in social intercourse is far more complex to consider, showing up in a multitude of awful things we didn't anticipate could happen.

The traffic citation I got, what got me started to talking about these matters, is a fine example of how presumed guilt rushes in, where presumed innocent belongs. I'm not talking about the obvious...the power of one deputy making an accusation to inspire presumed guilt. I've already said this: I even presumed the guy was telling it true...that maybe I did commit some infraction, which is what tipped the scale and induced me to sign that piece of paper. Was sometime later that I came to realize how wrong my presumption was, and how damaging is the fraud perpetrated by the deputy....stuff that has happened, is still happening, in my attempt to set things right with the state of New Mexico. The fraudulent citation, coupled with the unconstitutional law, have instilled in and encourages officials and bureaucrats all over that state to ignore the rationality of "presumed innocent" and their responsibility to heed, to hear, and to respond.

Since getting the ticket, I wrote 5 letters to New Mexico officials and courts. Got one letter back, one reply, and that one came from an official to whom the addressee had shuffled off my letter for treatment. The reply was not responsive, and said, basically, "get a lawyer" or write to somebody else. One lawyer in Santa Fe I e-mailed, and he was in Cozumel...referred me to a second lawyer. Second lawyer I talked to on the phone, but since then all I get is a recording machine. From the one letter I wrote to Texas Department of Public Safety, I got a hearing, which was inconclusive.

A guy presumed guilty can make all the protests he wants, present evidence, request attention or copies of stuff, while presumers of guilt just roll their eyes and brush it off. To get officialdom back on track, back to the proper state of "presumed innocent", something has to come along to kick-start their brain once more. Usually, a lawyer's letterhead on something written will do the trick...or even just a phone call. A private citizen is out of luck...the one who is presumed guilty, I mean. A private citizen, once accused of something, is a just a sleezebag, just wanting to evade responsibility, unless there's a Johnny Cochran or some other lawyer there to save his bacon from the presumers. Actual innocence is not enough, not without the presumption part.

I know of no higher fortitude than stubbornness in the face of overwhelming odds. - Louis Nizer

Whoever wants injustice to prevail can buy all they want. I could send in the "penalty assessment" to New Mexico, and receive $80 worth of injustice. But, Justice is still something you can't buy. You gotta work for it, like Liberty....the price being "eternal vigilance". I intend to probe the sleeping systems of two states, in this matter, until Justice is had, or until ordered by their threats to take the injustice deal.

Way back, probably in the 1950's, before the Miranda Ruling (and not even available on Amazon.com), there was a book, by Louis Nizer, I think, called "Never Plead Guilty". I read it. Made sense. The author's main point was that we are not all lawyers, and we don't know, can't know, whether or not the legal term, "guilty" actually applies to something we did. In New Mexico, if you say that you are "guilty", and sign a paper which says so, from that point on, nobody feels obliged to pay the slightest attention to any change of mind on your part, and not even to facts you offer up to prove that you, in your innocence and nonlawyer ignorance, were always and actually not guilty as the driven snow.

Info contained is as of January 17, 2005