Recently, I wrote two articles: “Is There A Constitutional Crisis In The USA No One Is Recognizing?”; and “Are The U.S. Legal Profession And Case Law Truly Antiquated?”, which prompted my receiving emails from readers asking questions, but also making comments about what they perceive as “justice being denied” in various aspects of the current ‘police state’ many think we live in, including numerous rights flagrantly denied by corporate influences and lobbying, ironically in the Constitutional Republic of the USA .
A state is constitutional if a constitution limits the government‘s power. If the people choose by election the head(s) of state and other officials, then the state is a republic. TheUnited States of America and Republic of Iceland are examples of constitutional republics. 
However, the above definition has been obfuscated to such a degree in the USA that corporate influences embrace a “revolving door policy” between corporations and government agencies as employees, which bequeathed us a bureaucracy legally imposed which no one can seem to rein in, especially Congress. How come?
Is Justice Monetized?
Nevertheless, there seems to be another—but profitable—dynamic regarding justice which, I think, may be the ‘preferred’ logic in dispensing justice since it “monetizes justice,” especially when the seemingly ‘perennial’ corporate offenders such as Big Pharma, the auto and chemical industries are sued repeatedly for similar crimes against consumers, but get off with billion dollar fines that probably finance secret government black ops somewhere. Does that sound farfetched?
Well, think about this: If justice truly were to be meted out, those corporations would not be free to continue to invent, patent, promote and sell future harms to unassuming, but gullible, consumers ad infinitum! Therefore, justice seems to be played like a fiddle to the benefit of corporations and vested interests who routinely fork over billions of dollars in fines—seemingly “as the cost of doing business.” Nevertheless, they will be able to continue their plundering of the consumerism ‘larder’, often times at the directive of federal and state agencies.
A perfect case in point is vaccines!
Congress gifted vaccine makers with no legal or financial liability for vaccine damages and harms , but also placed a tax on each vaccine sold, which is managed by the U.S. Treasury with no reporting of what really happens to all the billions collected but not disbursed to damaged vaccinees. I tried researching that ‘rabbit hole’ but quickly was neutralized from going any further by no one answering my inquiries after the first contact when Treasury found out what I was looking for. Shouldn’t there be transparency in the federal government, especially when it involves financial goings on in the public’s interest, i.e., funds to compensate damaged vaccinees?
Another case on point, I offer, is the implementation of fines or the elimination of financial benefits attached to social or infrastructure issues which uses “monetized justice” as both the scales of justice and the hammer of finality, e.g., the installation of AMI Smart Meters federal grants given to utility companies to meet quotas for compliance. That consumer compliance, by the way, is not mandatory per federal legislation, as that would be unconstitutional.
However, the “monetized justice” meme apparently prompts state public utility commissions and utilities (electric, natural gas, and water) to collude in passing and implementing regulations so consumers have no choice other than to have dramatically-proven unsafe smart meters forced on to their properties placing their homes and appliances in jeopardy of fire and other hazards, plus adverse health effects from electromagnetic frequencies introduced 24/7/365 on to the electric wiring of each house retrofitted with a smart meter.
Still another case on point, I propose, of “monetized justice” is vaccine compliance where states are told they will not receive federal grants if students are not inoculated with neurotoxic chemicals in vaccines, which have not been tested for long-range health effects; for nine-vaccines-at-one-time injection safety or adversity; or for carcinogenicity, teratogenicity or interfering with fertility; or vaccinated versus non-vaccinated health status demographics!
Currently, we hear words about “draining the DC swamp.” However, instead of a decrease in swamp muck, there seems to be an increase in muckiness accumulating, in some respects. The ‘muckiness’, I think, dovetails with some questions one reader claims he has been trying to get legal answers to for years. Didn’t the 2016 election campaign cycle provide numerous legal challenges that never got resolved correctly, I offer, as a most egregious example of “justice denied”?
A Reader’s Questions
Mr. Brent Russ offers some rather insightful questions. I obtained his permission to use them, hopefully, to start a discussion about figuring out what’s happening to U.S. law and the legal system in the United States.
1. Generally, for a court to find a person had constructive possession of an object, the person must have had knowledge of the object as well as the ability to control it. I have the natural ability to disarm the average police officer, break into my neighbor’s house and possess his firearms, and the engineering ability to construct one. Does this mean I am in constructive possession of firearms just because I have the ability to control them?
[Is that a slippery slope we are sliding along on with all the surveillance tactics and technologies employed by the feds and anyone who can hack into a computer or smart device?]
2. What specifically is the legal line in the sand for “ability to control” so I can stay in compliance with the law? I can’t find any definitive answer here, only opinions.
3. If law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys and judges and probation officers, who all work upholding the “rule of law”, cannot articulate to someone precisely what is legal and what is not legal in a set of circumstances; is that truly “rule of law”, or is it rule of whatever those in power say is law?
4. If we have no ability to precisely gauge what is legal or not in a set of circumstances, where does the power and authority of law enforcement actually derive from? It can’t be “the law” because the law is vague and unknown in many cases and it can take years of appeals and decisions to finally clarify and codify. So what is law then, just the opinions of those in power? Where are those opinions published for citizens like me to even know so we can be in compliance? If there are contradictory laws, how can law enforcement claim to uphold and enforce the law when it hasn’t even been determined which law is ‘legal’ yet or how it applies?
5. If the most prominent legal authority in the country (The Supreme Court) can look at identical facts and laws and come to a split decision over a matter; is that truly “rule of law”, or rule by an authority opinion, which the average person has no ability to know until the court is asked to decide the matter?
6. Is a person truly a criminal simply because only four Supreme Court justices agree with them instead of five? Or was the defendant simply mistaken? Or was a Supreme Court justice mistaken?
7. It is legal for anyone to possess a firearm if someone is attacking them with said firearm and they disarm the attacker to protect themselves. How can it ever be illegal for someone to possess a firearm at the same time the law clearly states that it is legal for anyone to possess a firearm in the commission of defending life?
Mr. Russ says, “I don’t understand how people can spend all those years in law school, be approached by questions like those above, and just pass them off as if entertaining them would destroy the delusions they harbor as to the integrity and ethics of the legal system. In science and engineering, like you pointed out, when new information or data is introduced, we work to incorporate it and apply it and get rid of the outdated and inaccurate data.”
Brent goes on to make this weighty statement, which illustrates how the hard facts of reality can be twisted, I think: “I’m an engineer, I deal with laws all the time, but in engineering and science it isn’t about who is correct but rather ‘what is true’. The math is either right, or it is wrong.”
That rudimentary principle, I offer, exemplifies either a million-dollar-question or a conundrum-at-law. At least, “what is true” in principle and practice should be before a court of law and during judges interpreting points of law: the REAL FACTS of how Justice is served, not the vested interest pseudoscience ‘facts’ interpreted and meted out as justice, as often prevail today under the tutelage and watchful eyes of ‘sacrosanct’ industry associations, paid legal experts and overly-zealous attorneys.
Furthermore Brent offers, like I reiterated, “The law leans backward“. Nevertheless, there may be another likelihood, which Brent jokingly offers: “Why are lawyers terrible at math? Because math is logic and reason.”
Are logic and reason missing in the practice and interpretation of law? Are those primary ethical and legal standards downgraded to “monetized justice”?
Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.
Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.
Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.
Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)
Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available