"Big brother" legal bureaucracies must come under very close scrutiny in the lawyer strongholds. These bureaucracies are a definite part of the dominant lawyer culture in American society. In a single word, "deception" best describes the lawyer based American Judicial system. Webster defines deception by giving the synonyms of fraud, double-dealing, subterfuge and trickery. Subterfuge suggests the adoption of a stratagem or the telling of a lie in order to gain an end.

Deception does not stop with the majority of court room lawyers spinning their web of subterfuge. Deception is just as frequently found in the lawyer prosecutorial divisions of the judicial system. These divisions are the office of the district attorneys and attorneys general and their lawyer prosecutorial staffs. From these prosecutorial agencies, deception moves on into other government bureaucracies having administrative authority to prosecute under the statutes. Here you will always find lawyers if not presiding, at least with some authority at the top of the hierarchy.

These agencies are commonly known to most of us as "big brother". They are the real architects of "political persecution under the guise of judicial prosecution". Deception here begins to take on real meaning. In the prosecutorial agencies and other government bureaucracies, you will find the real "hard core" power hungry, political lawyers. It is doubtful that you will find few who move in these circles without strong political motive.

The deception found in this area of the judicial system may be the most dangerous and punitive. Here an individual or entity may be targeted as a political victim under the guise of statutorial prosecution or at least administrative law. Many actions are pursued in this area by lawyers for political purposes. These lawyers bring and prosecute these actions with the absolute confidence that their ulterior motives and willful abuse will be hidden under the authority of the office and the legal sound of "judicial prosecution". Let us define the word political in the sense it is used here. Under this concept the definition of political can mean a philosophy, profession, principle, group, race, association or any number of other politic factors, including demographic. Political means any social situation which does not fit with the politics of the prosecuting lawyer "persecutors".  The recent prosecution of 3 young men in north Carolina by a lawyer prosecutor running for political office comes to mind.  Probably at best this lawyer prosecutor will lose his license when in effect he should be tried for conspiracy and criminal fraud.

This area of the judicial system may well be the most repressive. The prosecutorial area probably leaves it's victims in the most battered state financially under the heavy hand of government power. From the national scene of special prosecutors down to the state scene of Attorneys General down to the district attorneys we see multi-millions go down the drain each year on political, malicious persecution under the guise of judicial prosecution, all at taxpayer expense.

Perhaps one of the most compelling arguments that these agencies engage in political persecution under the guise of judicial prosecution is the high profile media benefit that lawyer politicians receive in cases of notoriety. The record will show most lawyers use the office of the DA and the AG as stepping stones to higher political offices. The name recognition gained at taxpayer expense in these positions can be invaluable to lawyer politicians on the way up the political ladder! The office of the DA is a natural stepping stone for the office of state AG. The office of the state AG is a natural stepping stone for the Governors office. In my home state of New Mexico, the previous Bernalillo county DA became a member of the US House of representatives. The previous State AG is now a U.S. Senator. Another previous AG became governor. The most recent AG ran for U.S. Senate and then settled for the AG's office to keep up the name recognition-then you guessed it he ran again for U.S. Congress and won. In Arkansas a lawyer who started out as the state AG, used that office to vault to the governor's office and then used that office to jump to the White House where he became president of the United States-say hello to Bill Clinton.

We will stray for a moment from the in-place system of state prosecutors to review the Watergate and post Watergate era of a relative new addition to the open door of political persecution under the guise of judicial prosecution. This has been called the "special prosecutor" era. A special prosecutor is a lawyer hired or caused to be hired by the politicians (mostly lawyers), generally over a political issue! How stupid do the politicians believe the American people are? The creation of such a relationship is highly suspect from the beginning. Yet we go right on paying millions for an ultimate political decision.

In Review and Outlook column of the Wall Street Journal in 1989, the Journal writers warned this nation was embarking upon a dangerous political mentality which began with appointment of a special prosecutor in the Watergate era. In a later column the Journal writers took special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh and his political architects to task saying; "All Walsh has to show for his multimillion dollar investigation are the nuisance charges, which add up to nothing more than a vindictive effort to "get" a lieutenant colonel who worked for Ronald Reagan". Years later in 1993 as Walsh wound up his investigation, the American citizens must have wondered what there is to show for this politically created lawyer witch hunt with an estimated taxpayer price tag of $40 million. It seems this is precisely what we got: (1) a special independent counsel lawyer Lawrence Walsh, previous president of the American Bar Association to head up the political witch hunt (2) a payroll of dozens of lawyers operating in several offices in Washington DC (3) seven defendants who pleaded guilty and one conviction (4) 3 other defendants who had their guilty verdicts reversed on appeal and (5) not a day of jail time for any defendant.

Obviously this Journal warning became prophetic. Now Americans have been treated to two of these $40 million dollar taxpayer financed lawyer pony and dog shows in the same decade. On this side a special lawyer prosecuttoor looking into the affairs of two more lawyers, Bill and Hillary Clinton on the other side. This fiasco continued on in 1999 after five years.

The judicial system banks upon the odds that its transgressions committed across the width and breadth of this land will not be laid end to end for public view. With the media focus primarily in metropolitan areas the odds against the numerous judicial transgressions nationwide being spotlighted are pretty good. With modern communication and computer high tech however those odds are diminishing. Following are just a few examples of the actions of the overzealous lawyer prosecutors.

Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh spent millions on the prosecution of Oliver North, for what? History will define this multi-million dollar effort in futility as no more than a disagreement of the congressional democrats with Ronald Reagan on the Sandinista policy in Nicaragua.

This classic could truly have been labeled the mother of all political persecutions in the United States, under the guise of judicial prosecution from start to finish! This fiasco translated into a five year long political pony and dog show controlled by partisan lawyers in the Congressional Iran Contra Hearings and then moved on to the second tier lawyer level in the Judicial system. Cost to the taxpayers on the Oliver North prosecution alone was an estimated $12 million. Much of these millions went to a bastion of lawyers and their staffs hired to carry out this political assassination.

As usual in a political persecution, if there is one central charge there will be at least a half dozen more thrown in for good measure. This is an old lawyer trick, throw as much crap against the wall as possible and hope that something sticks! This serves two purposes. It will make the litigation and trial much more lengthy, confusing and costly-benefiting the lawyers and maybe, just maybe the law of averages will give you a win on at least one charge. When the lawyer-judges don't overburden the American people who sit on juries with lengthy instructions, you can generally count on them to come up with an intelligent decision. The North trial jury despite a dominant lawyer-judge presiding was not to be taken in. North facing 65 years and $3 million in fines with twelve counts, the jury found North not guilty on 9 major counts and guilty on 3 minor counts. After the millions of dollars spent and probably volumes by the special prosecutor that would fill a library, guilty on 3 minor counts. Think of it!

Fourteen months later in July 1990, the three remaining North convictions are thrown out by a federal appeals court. The three judge panel found that U.S. District judge Gerhard Gesell gave erroneous jury instructions at the trial convicting North.

If you think that is ludicrous then consider this! After years of this multi-million dollar political chase, special prosecutor Walsh turns on the Bush administration to subpoena the president, the secretary of state and secretary of defense, examination of miles of classified government material, and finally another jury trial. One must ask; "Where hath logic hidden it's face"?

For those of us who know the facts and this writer wrote the best selling book on the subject, this may well be the all time miscarriage of political and judicial justice. This one will go down in the history books as a prime example of political persecution under the guise of judicial prosecution. Leading the charge on this one was the Arizona attorney generals office (more lawyers) teaming up with the Arizona State legislature (more lawyers) orchestrated by the public media in a conspiracy to change the results at the ballot box in Arizona.

Evan Mecham was elected Governor of Arizona in November 1986, the first Republican governor elected in that state in twelve years. Within minutes after the announcement of Mecham's election, a conspiracy was put into motion to by-pass the ballot box and change the election results in a saga that stretches the imagination. The process to remove Mecham from office included a blend of political, judicial and public media, which is the most dangerous combination of power pockets used in the nation today. This is simply political persecution cooking on all burners. We have seen this process employed frequently since Watergate. We have watched the "special prosecutor" scenario in Watergate, Iran Contra and God knows what else!

In the Mecham case, William French, a lawyer was hired by Speaker of the Arizona House as chief investigator and special prosecutor. French, a democrat, at the time of his appointment had already signed a Mecham recall petition that had been circulated, but lawyers see nothing wrong with these little conflicts they simply move on with the statement that they can still be unbiased in their prosecution! French concluded his investigation and published a critical report-charging Mecham with criminal acts, just as the conspiracy had planned. A first hand witness to the proceedings was Lela Steffey an Arizona State Representative. Steffey made a profound statement about what transpired;

The conspiracy spearheaded three actions to remove Mecham from office. The Attorney Generals office spearheaded a criminal prosecution. The Arizona state legislature spearheaded an impeachment proceeding and the Arizona Republic and Gazette newspapers orchestrated the whole show and spearheaded the recall petition bankrolling an imported gay rights leader and Martin Luther King advocates to give it all a civil rights flavor. This scenario left the Arizona taxpayers picking up the tab in millions of dollars for each action.

French and his cohorts engineered a full blown agenda of charges against Mecham to maneuver the impeachment action into the Senate chambers. Once they got the action into the impeachment arena they decided not to push the most serious charge of criminal acts that fueled the fire and the very vehicle that moved the bill of impeachment into the Senate for actual impeachment proceeding. They decided to leave that to the Attorney Generals office if Mecham by some miracle should escape through the impeachment cracks, they could close in on him in the courts.

In the case of the Mecham impeachment, The public media, The political, The Judicial, the three most dangerous and dominant cultures in our democracy combined their powers to weave a web of conspiracy to short circuit the voters and the ballot box. If Mecham were guilty of just 1% of the many outlandish claims published in over 2500 articles by the Arizona Republic and Gazette newspapers during the attempt to remove him from office, Mecham would be a citizen of the floating universe with no planet wanting to claim him.

And what happened to the criminal charges against Mecham after the impeachment? You guessed it, completely acquitted by a jury of his peers! Today you can ask the man on the street in Arizona and they will not remember anything that moved Mecham to the impeachment process except the criminal charges which were trumped up by the lawyers in the case in an unconstitutional plot to override the ballot box! Unfortunately it is next to impossible to target the political or judicial system in a damage action. A new book has recently been published by Mecham and you can review the book "WRONGFUL IMPEACHMENT" on his website at; http://www.atps.com/shlc/shlc60.htm .

Charles Bella a charter helicopter pilot may be the front runner for the malicious prosecution case of the century. Bella, based in El Paso, Texas took a call at his company for what appeared to be a routine charter call to show some real estate in New Mexico. On July 11, 1988, Bella ferried his "Gazelle" copter to the Santa Fe, New Mexico airport where he met his client. At this point one of the most bizarre cases of skyjacking of record begins to unfold, followed by one of the most bizarre cases of malicious prosecution of the skyjacking victim ever recorded.

Bella landed the Gazelle at the Santa Fe airport. Beverly Shoemaker identifying herself as secretary of real estate group boarded the helicopter. After getting airborne, Shoemaker pulled a gun and skyjacked the copter. She informed Bella they would be flying to the state penitentiary to assist in a prisoner escape. Bella at gunpoint landed the copter in the prison yard where three inmates boarded. The overloaded copter barely lifted above the prison fence in takeoff. Bella, still at gunpoint flew south to the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico. At this point Bella was handcuffed to the helicopter by one of the inmates. At the direction of his captors, Bella flew to Los Lunas, New Mexico about twenty miles south of Albuquerque. There they landed at the Mid-Valley Air Park. Everyone aboard scrambled off the copter except Bella who remained handcuffed to the copter.

At this point the copter was converged upon by special agents. One of the escapees boarded the copter and placed a gun to the head of Bella and ordered him to take off. Bella lifted the copter into the air and was shot at by the special agents with one round hitting the Gazelle. A forty five minute chase ensued with special agents in copter. The chase was joined by New Mexico State police in their copter. Bella stated a mid-air collision was narrowly averted. Bella landed the Gazelle at Albuquerque International airport. Both the escapee and Bella were taken into custody and transported to the customs office in Albuquerque.

The evidence showed Bella was handcuffed and was the victim of a skyjacking at gunpoint. Unbelievably, Bella was charged by the DA's office with three counts of assisting escape from the penitentiary and conspiracy to assist escape, all felonies under the laws of the State of New Mexico.

On July 22, 1988, after a preliminary hearing, Bella was bound over to stand trial on the charges. On August 24, 1989 a nine day jury trial acquitted Bella of all the charges. Bella filed a civil rights lawsuit on August 24, 1992 against the State of New Mexico and all the parties involved including the lawyer prosecutors who charged him and prosecuted him.

In this documented story, a fictitious name is used to protect the citizen. Ralph is a wealthy businessman, a personal acquaintance of mine, living in Albuquerque, New Mexico, with no prior criminal record. Adjacent to his home and business there was an Oriental restaurant. A dispute ensued between Ralph and the owner of the restaurant over a dumpster. According to Ralph the restaurant owner (an Oriental American) continued to push the dumpster in front of his garage. Ralph repaid in kind by pushing the dumpster up to the back door of the restaurant. Ralph then gives the following account which he repeated in a lie detector test in his favor. Ralph and his son were in their garage when the Oriental appeared abruptly in the garage with a metal bar. Pinning Ralph's son to the wall with the bar, Ralph fearing bodily harm grabbed his pistol and fired two shots wounding the Oriental. A lengthy police investigation followed and Ralph was charged with assault and battery with a deadly weapon. Ralph, being somewhat naive about the judicial system maintained his belief that justice would prevail and the DA's office would examine the evidence and that would be the end of it. Operating on this false illusion, Ralph hired a criminal lawyer. Ralph contends what followed was a bizarre nightmare. First Ralph submitted to a polygraph test with a local paleographer and passed the test. The local DA said the test was inconclusive and imported another paleographer from out of state which turned out to be more to the DA's liking. Ralph relates his personal investigation of that paleographer was that he had a reputation of a whore for law enforcement officials wanting a desired result. He claims that paleographer is now in a mental institution. Ralph says he reviewed a 40 page police report by the investigating officer which was changed under testimony in court trial. Ralph claims his own lawyer was ineffective and even dosed during the criminal trial while the DA redefined the alleged crime from self-defense to a racial hate crime. Ralph watched in amazement as a jury returned a verdict of guilty of committing a racial hate crime. Ralph ended up serving some time in prison. With his faith completely destroyed in the judicial system, Ralph said I always knew that lawyers were not trustworthy but I guess I didn't realize a lawyer is a lawyer no matter where you find him, even in the DA's office. Ralph further related that lies, cheating and deception was the entire basis of his conviction.

After the criminal conviction, the Oriental then filed a civil complaint. Much to Ralph's further amazement the lawyer representing the Oriental was none other than the DA's campaign chairman. Even though the criminal conviction was non admissible to the jury in the civil case, the judge admonished the jury to disregard any reference by Ralph to self-defense or phrases like "protecting myself". With these rules Ralph was greatly limited in his testimony. Ralph says this trial was also fashioned as a hate crime before a jury of six anglos and six non-anglos with the same ethnic culture as the plaintiffs lawyer. When the plaintiffs lawyer continued the focus that Ralph was a very wealthy man, not surprisingly Ralph was hit with a large judgement.

Ralph says after settling the civil judgement with the DA's campaign chairman, the pressure on his criminal conviction has eased somewhat and he faces a lengthy future in the appellate system (more lawyers).

It was August 1991 when a black general surgeon came to trial in Albuquerque, New Mexico on a grand jury indictment of 18 criminal counts. Those charges included drug trafficking, drug distribution, aggravated battery, defrauding Medicaid and drugging of three women and raping them during visits to his office over a four year period.

The New Mexico attorney generals office prosecuted the case. The prosecutor dubbed the doctors medical practice "A Little Shop Of Horrors". This became a media trial and the AG's office portrayed the doctor as a sex obsessed man who traded drugs for sex. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, this doctors practice was finished.

Then it happened! The seven woman, five man jury found the Albuquerque doctor innocent of all 18 counts after deliberating for a little more than two days. One juror was quoted as saying: "I did not think the doctor should have been charged in the first place, the state did not have enough evidence."

The haunting question in this case is the same haunting question that comes back hundreds of times in this nations judicial system. Only after some ambitious prosecutors have shredded a reputation and someone's character and left a scar for lifetime do we hear the not guilty verdict. Then after the verdict the victim goes about trying to put his life back together with the little shop of horrors label to follow him for the rest of his life. And the prosecutors-well they just seem to fade away until the next target comes along or move on up the political ladder because of the name recognition they received in a case that became a high profile media case.

Of all the lawsuits filed by federal prosecutors, probably none appeared in the end to be more ludicrous, malicious, useless and expensive than the anti-trust lawsuit filed against IBM. The lawsuit filed in 1969 lasted for 13 years and was finally dropped in 1982. The Wall Street Journal reported that during the pendency of the case 2,500 depositions were taken, 66 million pages of documents were produced, 200 to 300 lawyers were involved and the cost to the taxpayers was hundreds of millions of dollars. In the end assistant attorney general William Baxter said the governments case was flimsy and the suit was without merit. Looking back it was a business opportunity both political and financial for lawyers at taxpayer expense.

There are few things in our society more wasteful, costly and exasperating than the combination of an inept government bureaucracy and a local state government prosecutor who represents that bureaucracy in a state action. Several years ago I held a general contractors license in the state of New Mexico. I assigned that contractors license to a corporation in which I owned 50% or more. Under the statutes this was permissible. I then notified the Construction Industries division of the transfer. The Construction Industries division failed to permanently record the transfer.

The new corporation performed several remodeling jobs of which one was a deadbeat rabble-rouser. Apparently knowing the ropes, he filed a complaint with the Construction Industries Division. Having failed to record the transfer of license, the construction industries division filed a court complaint against the corporation and myself for contracting without a license. The Construction Industries Division knew that a license existed but said it was not registered with the correct contracting entity. In New Mexico if a contractor is found to be contracting without a license, then the job client does not have to pay. The rabble-rouser pushed the issue, found out the names of the other jobs (probably through construction industries) the corporation was working on and contacted these job clients telling them they might not have to pay if they filed complaints against the corporation who according to Construction Industries was contracting without a license. About a half dozen consumers were persuaded to file a complaint.

The attorney generals office represented the construction industries bureaucracy. We went to metropolitan court for a trial. The judge (not in sympathy with bureaucracies) was totally confused when he discovered I was sitting there with a current valid contractors license, which had been valid for years. The judge then begin to question the prosecutor about the basis upon which the charges were brought. At best the prosecutor was able to explain that there was a technical violation of who possessed the license.

In sheer disgust the judge ruled against the state and lectured the construction industries division for bringing the charge. He stated "you people have created a mares nest of technicalities and because of those technicalities, you expect me to uphold a charge of contracting without a license when the man is sitting here in my court with a valid license and you knew all the time that a valid license existed and just wasn't in the right place in your bureaucracy".

That ruling should have ended this little case of malicious prosecution. However a defeated lawyer prosecutor and a lectured bureaucrat is no less than a woman scorned. After the court proceeding, the prosecutor and the bureaucrat met me in the hall with the statement that "we will find a way to get that license of yours".

If you are naive to the system, you would believe you had won this one. This was just round one. For the next year the bureaucracy filed a complaint on every job attempting to get a hearing in different courts. We couldn't seem to stop the prosecution even on the defense of res-judicata (double jeopardy on being tried for the same offense twice). Each time the prosecution would go in and argue that there was something different about the new complaint. We kept on winning and paying through the nose in lawyer fees. High resultant lawyer costs was the strategy of the bureaucracy and why not-as long as the bureaucracy was represented by the tax payer attorney generals office. Finally a lawyer-judge ruled against us in metro court. There appeared to be a close relationship between the lawyer-judge and the state people. In the small state of New Mexico you don't have to look far to find such a political connection. This was the politics the state people had been looking for. At this point we had spent about $10,000 fighting these court battles. I looked back and determined that I could have done better myself pro se (self representation) at least $10,000 better off. I fired the lawyers and appealed the metro court ruling to district court. In the district court I encountered a lawyer-judge who had a real prejudice toward pro se litigants, (He was later appointed to the State Supreme court). That trial was just a formal effort in futility with the lawyer-judge continuing to warn me to cut it short without any warning to the lawyer from the state.

I appealed the case to state appellate court. After a year the appellate court upheld the district court decision that there was a technical violation. One appellate judge wrote a four page dissention accusing the attorney generals office of "looking past the law to get a conviction". The dissenting judges' words were prophetic. Search the state records in New Mexico and a book could be written on "political persecution under the guise of judicial prosecution". One judge refused to hear a case brought by the AG's office against a previous state official saying; "The evidence in this case is tainted by misconduct in the AG's office. More lawyers on the way up the political ladder. Bill Clinton vaulted from the Arkansas AG's office to the Governor's office and on to the White House! The making of a president!

Once a lawyer always a lawyer? The lawyers have not left us at the prosecutor level of the system, they have merely taken on the cloak of government prosecutor. It is much the same as the lawyer who becomes a judge, they are still a lawyer, they just started wearing a robe! Most lawyers do not often change their political and personal habits whether they become a judge, a prosecutor, a governor, a senator or a president.

Perhaps a good example of what we are saying is the indictment of Kansas attorney general Bob Stephan who was indicted on charges of committing perjury. Stephan testified in his own defense on sexual harassment charges in 1986-87-88. Stephan was elected in 1990 to his fourth four-year term as Kansas attorney general. We did not follow this one up so the results is unknown.

The attorney general's problems started in 1982 when one of his clerks was dismissed. Marcia Stingley filed a lawsuit accusing Stephan of making lewd remarks and sexual advances. Stephan while denying the charges settled out of court with Stingley in 1985. The terms of the settlement were supposed to be kept secret. When Stephan considered running for governor that year some of his political enemies accused Stephan of paying the settlement with state money. Stephan denied the accusation and stated that friends raised the $24,000 to pay Stingley. Stingley then charged breach of contract when the attorney general made public the settlement. Stingley was awarded $200,000 by a federal jury. The attorney general declared bankruptcy. During the second lawsuit, Stephan under oath declared that he had nothing to do with the negotiations to settle the sexual harassment charge and therefore did not know about the secrecy clause in the contract. Witnesses testified before the grand jury that the then attorney general did in fact know about the contract and had in fact taken part in the negotiations to settle the sexual harassment case and that the attorney general had lied about his involvement. From this testimony arose the perjury indictment.

It would be hard to find a story of this nature that better exemplifies lawyers attitude that the law does not apply to them.

What makes this so ludicrous is the only lawyers involved in this story are two prosecutorial divisions of the judicial system. They are the watchdog lawyers for the "people". They are the lawyers who bring charges and prosecute individuals and corporations when they fail to dot an I or cross a T embodied in mountains of state laws and statutes.

In September, 1993, the attorney generals office in New Mexico allowed 5 office employees to take home more than 40 items of office furniture after a merger of the Medicaid fraud unit with the AG's office. The Albuquerque media apparently uncovered the give-a-way and blew the whistle. When the act became public, in defense the AG's office said it was "junk furniture" and they had no place to store the items and transporting it elsewhere would be to costly. Since the act happened in Albuquerque, the Bernalillo County district attorney's office was forced into an investigation (for appearance sake). The district attorney's finding was that the attorney general's office had indeed violated state law...however "there was no penalty for not complying with the law", he said. Can you imagine a state law on the books that has no penalty for non-compliance? Can you imagine how much it cost to move this law from the embryo stage to the statutes of state law?

The section of the law that was broken requires all "obsolete" state owned items to be disposed of through the state General Services Department or in a negotiated sale to another public agency.

After the DA's finding that a state law had been broken, the AG's office promptly replied that there was no law broken but rather it was an "appearance problem". The AG's office maintained that because no single piece of furniture was valued at $500 or more the AG's office was not required to carry the furniture on it's inventory and only property being carried on inventory would be subject to the law in question! How about this for quickly changing the colors black and white into a few shades of gray? For appearance sake the AG's office asked the employees to return the 40 pieces of furniture so that it might be disposed of "according to the law". Perhaps it would be appropriate to suggest that the AG's office sign "An Assurance of Discontinuance" admitting no wrongdoing. Shades of lawyer privilege and judicial discretion! Surely this will contribute to a 5 point drop in the next lawyer image poll!

A district attorney in New York, Kenneth Gribetz, in a plea bargin (compromise of crimes) pleaded guilty in 1995 to two federal misdemeanors. The DA was accused of tax violations, using public employees for private purposes, taking kickbacks, steering negligence cases to "friendly attorneys". Gribetz's dual life became unraveled when his former mistress blew the whistle on him. Gribetz, married and the father of three did not deny the affair but insisted that no taxpayer money was used to finance the affair.

U.S. Attorney Kendall Coffee of southern Florida is under investigation for biting a topless dancer on the arm during a private encounter with the dancer. Coffee paid approximately $1000 for champagne and a private dance. During the encounter he struggled with the dancer allegedly biting her on the arm.

Three former Illinois prosecutors at year end 1996 have been indicted for fabricating or concealing evidence which sent two men to death row in the rape and killing of 10-year old Jeanine Nicarico. The men accused and prosecuted by the three prosecutors were later acquitted and released.

Newark, N.J. prosecutor Nicholas Bissell took his own life rather than face prosecution for skimming $146,000 from his business to cover gambling debts and a flamboyant life style. Bissell leaves behind a wife who will stand trial for fraud and faces a prison sentence, three children and a mother who will probably lose her home which she used for security to bond out her son.

A former U.S. Attorney for the state of New Mexico, Herbert A Becker, pleaded guilty on theft of public funds and conflict of interest. He entered a plea agreement to pay $5000 in restitution. Becker maintained a private practice representing individuals and matters relating to tribal membership while at the same time serving in New Mexico as an assistant U.S. Attorney as director of the Office of Tribal Justice.

Ernie Preate Jr., former Pennsylvania Attorney General was sentenced in December 1996 to a 14-month prison term for mailing campaign finance reports to the state that did not list references to $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions from video poker operators.

District Attorney G. Greg Valdez in Las Cruces, New Mexico was indicted on perjury charges for allegedly lying to a personnel board during testimony. The indictment alleges Valdez lied under oath while testifying about his firing of a former district attorney investigator.

Gil Garcetti who was the presiding Los Angeles District Attorney during the failed prosecution of the O.J. Simpson double murder case spent $2.5 million dollars to hold onto his office. This amount is six times more than his challenger spent seeking the office. These fund raising activities has labeled Garcetti as a "good bet" for the office of California Attorney General. Climbing the political ladder?

It happened as the nation watched! Marsha Clark, lead prosecutor for the State of California in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial while being paid by the taxpayers slipped into a $4 million dollar book deal for her experiences in that prosecutorial failure. Co-prosecutor Chris Darden with Marsha Clark also moved into a lucrative book deal over $1 million for his experiences on taxpayer time in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial. From there Darden moved into a professorship and Clark moved to television and the talk circuit. Although Simpson was acquitted in the criminal trial as the lawyers around him were becoming millionaires, Simpson moved on to a "civil murder trial" and a $33 million dollar judgment against him.

A study of the lawyer culture brings only one solid conclusion. Once a lawyer always a lawyer! A robe does not hide the lawyer. The name plate on a prosecutorial office does not hide the lawyer. A legislature does not hide the lawyer. Government bureaucracy does not hide the lawyer. The president's office does not hide the lawyer.

Voter education simply uncovers the lawyer and is the answer. Start by cleaning out the government bureaucracies, vote in and insist upon appointment of legal reform minded non-lawyers. From there clean out the political lawyers from the prosecutorial branches. Lobby the legislatures to pass a law that prohibits lawyers from seeking election or appointment to a political office for five years, after holding one political office such as the DA, AG, County Attorney or City Attorney. Sort of a version of term limits!

________________________________

YOU CAN DO IT YOURSELF WITHOUT A LAWYER
WITH THESE FOUR VOLUMES-SAVE LAWYER FEES!
______________________

Tells you how with Sample court Pleadings! File your own bankruptcy-divorce-name change and more! File your own complaint-claims! File your own motions & answer complaints! File your own appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court! Know what to do next when you lose in any court. It is your Constitutional right in court to represent yourself - save thousands of dollars in legal fees and costs. How to sue your adversary then settle before going to court!

THESE THREE VOLUMES ON CD IS ALL YOU NEED TO REPRESENT YOURSELF IN COURT WITHOUT A LAWYER!
$79.95
SAVE $25.00 NOW ON CD
FREE BONUS LIMITED OFFER
51 GREAT LEGAL SECRET REPORTS $29.95 VALUE

ORDER HERE

VISIT THE SELF HELP LAW PRODUCT & SERVICE CENTER