Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Affiliates
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Feedback
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board

WhosaRat.com
Register  |   |   | Chat
 
 
 


Note: This topic is locked. No new replies will be accepted.


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
onelove

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 09/25/07
Posts: 136
Reply with quote  #1 
THE INFORMANT QUANDARY

You can google "THE INFORMANT QUANDARY" at the top of the page, like most real folks in the know to get the info from a ex-prosecutor.


To those who have never had any dealings with America’s criminal “justice” system, really have no clue they feel if defendants are wrongfully convicted, it is simply because prosecutors “made a mistake.” If criminal defendants are acquitted, however, it is because defense lawyers “got them off.” And an acquittal does not mean innocence in the eyes of the legal system. It simply means that the prosecutor was unable to prove guilt, “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

But if you study law, you will discover a different reality—one that often inspired folks to say, tongue only slightly in cheek, that many prosecutors are nothing more than criminals with immunity.

The legal doctrine known as “absolute immunity” protects prosecutors from being sued by those they prosecute, even if they have been wrongfully accused and/or convicted.

The underlying theory is that prosecutors would be unable to do their jobs if they had to worry about a potential lawsuit every time criminal charges were filed.

The truth, however, is that this doctrine causes many prosecutors to abuse the authority of their office, knowing they face little, if any, repercussions for doing so.

Prosecutor angrily berate a defense attorney for revealing that a police officer’s perjury had resulted in a wrongful conviction, I'm not only speaking about drug cases. Prosecutor try to criminally convict a man simply because he expressed a desire to sue the police department for the excessive force used against him; and I watched in disbelief as another excessive force victim—who had been beaten so severely that he had to be hospitalized—was put on trial for resisting arrest, even though the supervising police officer on the scene informed the prosecutor that the man had done nothing to justify the arrest or the beating.

The reason many prosecutors are little more than criminals with immunity is because they share the same ability as criminals—the ability to rationalize anything.

There are two common rationalizations for prosecutors, particularly after they’ve wrongfully convicted somebody:
“I just presented the case. The jury did the convicting,” and “I was only doing my job.”

Ironically, even though they work to punish wrongdoers, prosecutors are frequently rewarded for their own wrongdoing. Many, if not most, judges started their careers as prosecutors, as did many elected officials.

Even egregious prosecutorial misconduct often goes unpunished. An example previously cited in Pravda.Ru articles was the Cruz/Hernandez trials in Illinois, where police and prosecutors were criminally charged for allegedly using perjured testimony to send two innocent men to death row. The jury not only acquitted the police and prosecutors, they partied with them afterwards. Who would have thought that in America, the alleged bastion of “justice for all,” conspiracy to commit murder, by using the legal system as your weapon, is not only excused, but celebrated?

Ironically prosecutors who are “crusaders,” are the most dangerous of all. Obsessed with punishing certain crimes, like child abuse, domestic violence or sexual assault—all horrific crimes that deserve punishment when actually committed—prosecutorial zealots often lose all sense of objectivity, all sense of justice, and all sense of right and wrong. Suddenly guilt or innocence becomes irrelevant. What becomes paramount is “sending a message.”

Those who doubt this need only listen to the cable-televised rants of many former prosecutors now working as legal “commentators.” During the infamous Duke University “rape” case—where several members of that university’s lacrosse team were accused of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer—many of these commentators clung vehemently to the belief these men were guilty, even though the strength of the alleged evidence against them diminished with each passing day.

In fact, after the charges were finally dropped and the men officially declared innocent, Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s THE DAILY SHOW did a montage of CNN’s Nancy Grace, whose histrionics symbolized the zealotry surrounding the Duke case.

Grace would often announce that new developments would “make or break” the case, yet when these developments invariably pointed towards innocence, she would dismiss them as irrelevant.

Not surprisingly, even the innocence of these men did not quell the histrionics of many of these former prosecutors. They simply changed their mantras of “guilty” into “What kind of message does this send? It will make women less inclined to report such crimes!”

Undoubtedly some will argue that there is a difference between former prosecutors who serve as television personalities and current prosecutors who actually try the cases. But not so long ago prosecutorial zealots were rabidly seizing on the “day care/child molestation” hysteria sweeping across America. Scores of innocent people were sent to prison on the word of corrupt cops crusading to find “satanic” cults that didn’t exist, inept, poorly trained interviewers and therapists who incessantly used leading and suggestive questions, and children whose testimony was frequently coached or coerced.

Unfortunately the potential for abuse is not diminished even when prosecutors are not crusaders. Most prosecutors are elected officials, and have to appease the voting public. Thus there is a strong incentive to win “high profile” cases—crimes that are widely publicized and/or cause fear, panic or outrage in the community—even if it means taking a few unethical, and possibly illegal, “shortcuts” to do it.
------------------------------------------
Due to prosecutorial misconduct and abuses, the courts have made some dents in the immunity armor. Prosecutors acting in “investigative” roles are now only given “qualified immunity”—the same type that is available to police officers. Prosecutors also lose their absolute immunity protection if they knowingly lie in the “charging document,” which accuses a person of committing a crime.

Now the United States Supreme Court is examining another immunity question: Whether prosecutors acting in a “supervisory capacity” can be held liable for the courtroom actions of their subordinates, and/or the policies and practices of their offices.

Police and prosecutors argue that informants are an indispensable part of law enforcement, particularly since the rituals often required to join criminal gangs—being vouched for by a current gang member, being required to submit to a physical beating to demonstrate loyalty and commitment, or being compelled to commit a violent crime—make infiltration by undercover police officers difficult, if not impossible.

Informants are sometimes prone to actually encourage crimes or violence. This way they can get paid for informing on the very crimes and violence they helped to create.

Finally, there is the “snitch” jacket, which is used by law enforcement to falsely label someone an informant.

FBI attempts to recruit people as informants, so the Bureau placed a “snitch jacket” on them by forging an “informant’s report” in that person handwriting. A lot of times you will not know you been labeled an informant.

But, as I stated in a previous Pravda.Ru article entitled Vote For Me [April 8, 2008], many states do not have laws to compensate the wrongfully convicted. In these states the wrongfully convicted, to obtain compensation, have to accomplish the almost impossible task of proving they were prosecuted “in bad faith.”

Everyday, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, Americans walk on eggshells. Their money, their homes, their freedom, their very lives can be lost in an instant because of dishonest informants and corrupt members of a legal “system” who believe “sending messages” or “winning” is more important than truth.

Anybody that was a victim of an informant trying to set them up using the government know why I post. It's rare!

If that's not you than don't read the thread. But, it wasn't the person life who was set-up by a informant & the government.

When the government set-up someone they generally don't leave much room to prove a lawsuit.

Generally, most folks that question folks that make claims about the government have never been a victim of the government dirty tactics. Most times the victim them self before being set-up by the government would find this stuff hard to believe them self.

Anybody that was a victim of an informant trying to set them up using the justice department know why I post. It's rare!

If that's not you, than don't read the thread, but, it wasn't the person life who was set-up by informants & the justice department.

When the government set-up someone they generally don't leave much room to prove a lawsuit.

Generally, most folks that question folks that make claims about the government have never been a victim of the government dirty tactics. Most times the victim them self before being set-up by the government would find this stuff hard to believe them self.

__________________
The how and the who is just scenery for the public. Keeps 'em guessing, prevents 'em from asking the most important question, Who benefited? Who has the power to cover it up? Who?
One may smile and smile and be a villain."
mstrisha696

Registered: 02/26/09
Posts: 4
Reply with quote  #2 

You should see what our fine state produced. A (now ex) prosecuting attorney that was stealing the weapons that were confiscated from the defendants that he was prosecuting and was at it for many many years before the state finally noticed a damn thing. GOT TO LOVE THE EVER VIGILANT STATE, COUNTY AND CITY LAW OFFICIALS!!!!

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
?
Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.