The Latest Word

A Brief, Yet Helpful Guide To Amerika's Eugenic Courts

Class Warfare For Beginners
part 1: Arrest

By Wayne Henderson

"...I view the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case as bottomed on a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."
In Re Winship (1970) 90 SCt 1068
[US Supreme Court]
(opinion of Justice Harlan)

Contrary to the lofty verbiage of some judges, the system of "criminal justice" practiced in this country is in fact a class (or caste) based version of the Nazi Eugenic Courts; the wealthy, if ever they see the inside of a courtroom as defendants, generally leave unscathed (except in extraordinary cases, when they must perform some minimal penance in a soft, cushy 'gentlemen's club' facility), and the Gestapo who serve their caste are almost never held to answer for the tortures and abuses perpetrated upon the slaves - while the poor, regradles of actual innocence, must be sent to the slave labor camps and gladiatorial dungeons for the crime of being noticed by the gestapo. This is not mere hyperbole; John & Patsy Ramsey plainly a bused and killed their daughter, and little Matthew Eappen suffered the same fate at the hands of his parents (far too much evidence has since come to light for any reasonable person to believe that the English slave girl Woodard had any part in his death) - are these wealthy, well-connected sociopaths being held to answer? John DuPont plainly murdered a former national amateur wrestling champion; he is allowed to "rehabilitate" in a comfortable private asylum until he's "cured", or until the national attention is safely diverted, whichever comes first. And yet there are countless cases, like my own, in which innocent people have been imprisoned, and even executed, for the crime of being poor. While I'm sure that what I'm saying is no to surprise to my readers, it is incumbent upon me to do more than spoout Bakuninist propaganda, puctuated by vague accusations, and expect to be taken seriously. Further, if I'm going to win your attention, and your trust, I should endeavor to make what I have to say useful to the reader: thus, in order to properly illustrate the problem, as well as offer erudition, I will walk you through my own case, and intersperse the prose with direct quotes from "the law of the land", the official documents, such as the high-sounding Supreme Court opinion cited above, to illustrate the vast, yawning chasm between what is said and what is done.

The first fact that must be internalized is this: PIGS LIE. The gestapo are trained to lie at gestapo academy; they are taught to cover up for their fellow swine at all costs, no matter how egregious the behavior involved; they are taught that the only unforgivable sin is to not take part in the conspiracy; and, logically, they are taught that any lie they tell to get a conviction will be gleefully supported by the testimony of other gestapo.

"I don't know any police department...that doesn't have a code of silence."

- Joseph McNamara, 29 Yr. veteran, NYC PD

"Your worst nightmare would be turning in another cop."

-Daisy Boreyer (phonetic) ex-NYC PD
[both quoted from 60 Minutes, 3 Oct. 1999 - "The Blue Wall Of Silence']

The gestapo don't merely twist facts, and are generally too stupid to engage in clever subterfuge; they outright lie. Nor does it help to bring this to the attention of the courts - they already know, and frankly don't care. To illustrate, allow me to introduce a bit of my own case: all of the percipient witnesses were interviewed, very near to the actual events, and gave clear accounts of what they knew; their statements, each given from their own perspective, interlocked to give a clear picture of events: after Velma (my wife) and I left San Francisco on 12 January 1982, our alleged "victims" were seen, alive and well (one of them spoke to the landlord on the phone, on 13 January) until the weekend of 16-17 January - at which time we were just outside of Salt Lake City. Two of the witnesses had also clearly seen, and heard, one of the victims' creditors make clear death-threats the stated (he stated his intention to "kill ever yone in the house" over a debt owed him by one of the victims; the threat plainly included Velma & myself)...and this same creditor's name cropped up re-eatedly in police interviews with friends and family members of the victims.

Though it's plain enough from the evidence that we were long gone when the murders occurred, this proved no obstacle to the gestapo in their quest for a conviction. An examination of the affidavit in support of arrest warrants shows that the arresting pig --one Napoleon Hendrix - didn't merely twist facts; he created a scenario out of whole cloth to justify an arrest. If his sworn declaration is to be taken at face value, and the best evidence applied to it, than one must assume that Velma & I killed three people on the 11th, then somehow arranged for the deceased to walk around normally (and talk on the phone) through the following weekend, thus offering us an airtight alibi. Cooperative corpses, those.

I'm not making this up; it' s all right there in the initial police notes and (for amusing contrast) the sworn affidavit for arrest warrant.

At this point, you're probably asking how it is that we could be tried, let alone convicted, for a crime we plainly didn't commit ... how such evidence could possibly have left the jury unswayed? The answer is simple, and its implications frightening: the jury was never allowed to consider the evidence; the gestapo, the prosecution, and the trial judge - acting in full compliannce with Kalifornia law - made certain that the jury would never consider the actual evidence. While the legal mechanisms employed to obscure the truth differ from one to another jurisdiction, Kalifornia has what must be the most Gestapo-friendly law in the country: a little piece of "case law" (based on court decisions, rather than legislation) knoen as "Mendez-Arline" Exclusionary Rule. This rule, in plain English, requires that anyone who wishes to present a "Third Party Culpability" defense - in other words, "I didn't do it, it was someone else" - must present sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction against the third party; further, it's the trial judge who gets to decide if you've produced enough evidence, and the prosecutor gets to have his say in the matter as well. It's not bloody likely that the judge will, in fact, rule in your favor - even if you're able to produce overwhelming evidence - as it is not in the judge's best interests to rule against the gestapo and the prosecutor; any judge who does is labelled "soft on crime" and runs the risk of losing his lucrative job. More on this, however, will have to wait for a later installment.

You can present all the evidence you want, at the preliminary Hearing: it won't do you any good, but it does allow you to get people on record, either confirming or denying their initial statements under oath. The main disadvantage to doing this, though, is that it shows the prosecutor & the gestapo exactly what you have, so they can put efforts into undercutting your defense. By way of example, in my own case, we presented our percipient witnesses and established that we were not very likely suspects - but, following the prelim, and in violation of a court order barring witnesses from discussing the case, the gestapo engaged in repeated, unmonitored "visits" with the witnesses, which resulted in unexplained changes in their testimony when put on the stand at trial (it should be noted that both of the gestapo - Prentice Sanders & Napolean Hendrix, SFPD - freely admitted to these unmonitored visits, numbering more than 20 by their own admission, under oath at trial - and Judge, Laurence Kay, couldn't've cared less'). Had we not acquired copies of the pigs' original, handwritten interview notes, we'd have no proof whatsoever to back our protestations of our innocence.

The judge at our trials - the aforementioned fascist whore, Laurence Kay - went to rather extreme lengths to keep the defense from scoring any points with the jury (far easier at Velma's trial, where tame "defense" attorneys Michael Gaines & Martin Lurie had a private heart-to-heart with the judge - dutifully recorded by the court reporter - to ask the nice judge if they could "dump" Velma's defense so that they could spend quality time on a paying client; I'll include the transcript of that with a future installment on Attorneys) while bending over backwards to allow the gestapo to look good, and the prosecution to win. I'm not just blowing smoke up your butt; compare the evidence of which I speak, side-by-side, for yourself:

WITNESSES, From Initial Interviews; [ HENDRIX from the affidavit]

1. Ray owned large debts; at least some drug-related. (witnesses Kearbey, Ashley, Scott-Ashley, Caquias, Hunt, and Strandoo)[no mention]

2. Ray & Angie had received death-threats from several sources; Angie was afraid for her life. (Ashley, Scott-Ashley, Hunt, and Caquias)[no mention]

3. Ray kept three firearms in the apartment for self-defense, exhibited fear, expected trouble. --firearms: .22 pistol, .22 rifle, shotgun of unknown gauge-- (Hunt, Caquias) [oblique mention of rifle]

4. Ray had already had violent altercations with one creditor, Edward "Hawaiian Jimmy" Ramos. (Ashley, Scott-Ashley, Hunt) [no mention]

5. The Hendersons left the apartment on 12 Jan 1982; Ray & Angie were seen by, and spoke to, several credible witnesses through the weekend of 16-17 Jan. 1982. (Ashley, Scott-Ashley, Williams, Absar, and Coroner's findings.) ["During the course of the investigation I determined that Monday, January 11, 1982, was the last day anyone saw either Raymond or Andrea…alive." AFFIDAVIT, p. 4]

6. Ray phoned Angie at 4:58PM on 12 Jan 1982, and told her to leave the apat., for some unknown reason, which she did, in a taxi with two to four women. --Henderson, Williams, Nelson & telephone records-- "Ray…[said]…that 'they said that Angie received a phone call and fifteen minutes later she ran out of the house with the baby." AFFIDAVIT, p. 4]

7. I did not remember the date we left, and simply said that we'd left around The beginning of the 2nd Week in January. --hard evidence shows it was actually the 12th of Jan.-- (transcript of telephone interview) ["Henderson related [that] he left San Francsico on January 11, 1982." AFFIDAVIT, p. 5]

8. We left a note for Ray & Angie (which was found, and attested tp, by the landlord), with our housekeys, by the phone before leaving the apartment. [odd behavior indeed, if we'd just killed them] (Ashley, Scott-Ashley, Absar) [no mention]

As I've said before, I'm not making this up; it's all in evidence for the world to see. The law is clear, if unenforced, with regard to perjury by the gestapo on arrest & search warrant affidavits; a lie is a lie, and a lie on the affidavit invalidates the subsequent warrant: "There obviously can be no question of showing a reasonable belief in the truth of deliberate misinformation..."
-Theodor v. People (1971) 8 Cal3d 77
[Calif. Supreme Court]

"The 'Good Faith' exception does not apply when [a] warrant is issued on the basis of [a] deliberately false affidavit ... the requirement that a warrant not issue 'but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation' would be reduced to a nullity if a police officer was able to use deliberately falsified allegations to demonstrate probable cause, and having misled the magistrate, then was able to remain confident that the ploy was worthwhile."

-Franks v. Delaware,(1978) 438 US 154. 168
(U.S. Supreme Court)

Without regard to binding law, prosecutors and judges alike encourage such lies by the gestapo. I've presented this, as well as other equally compelling evidence, to the state's courts, as well as to judge Claudia Wilken of the U. S. Distirct Court for the Northern District of California, with no result. Judges sit in court, day in and day out, for years on end hearing the most blatant, transparent, and egregious lies spout from the gestapo under oath - and they do nothing.. indeed, when the gestapo's perjury is questioned by the rare, courageous defense attorney, judges immediately trot out the evidence code and make the law jump through hoops to find some way to maintain the lie. I'll provide you with some shocking, and perhaps disturbingly amusing, examples of this when I turn to the subject of trial procedure, in a future installment.

The lesson to learn here is manifold: 1) if arrested, you MUST demand copies of all interview notes - and transcripts, if were recorded - compiled by the gestapo; the statements of percipient and eyewitnesses, while they're essentially useless at amerika's sham trials, will help uou establish clear grounds for reversal years later on appeal. 2) Do NOT, under ANY circumstances, make any statement to the pigs, even if they tell you you're not under investigation; they can, and will, pressure others to alter their testimony in order to undercut you, but only if they know what you're going to say. 3) The prosecutor is not interested in seeking justice, any more than the gestapo are interested in arresting only the guilty; prosecutors earn points towards promotions and pay raises by winning convictions at any cost, not by exonerating the innocent. Remember, the prosecutor makes the same value assumption as the gestapo: you're guilty, especially if you say you're innocent ... and the overwhelming majority of judges in amerika's eugenic courts are former prosecutors.

We will return to gestapo perjury when we deal with evidence, and with trial procedures. The primary fact to remember is that the gestapo lie, that they are trained to lie, that they are encouraged by prosecutors and judges alike to lie, and that the eugenic courts are set up to protect them, and their lies, from any challenge that might be mounted by the slave castes - no matter how transparent the lies they tell.

"False statements of fact in affidavits... are commonly utilized to deceive magistrates into issuing...warrants."
-Sevilla, The Exclusionary Rule And Police Perjury
(1974) 11 San Diego Law Review 839, 869

"Despite the lack of statistics on deliberate police falsehood, it is clear that the pressures on law enforcement officials cause widespread police impropriety at all stages of criminal proceedings. The swearing out of affidavits is no exception to the problem of police misconduct."

-The Outwardly Sufficient Search Warrant: What If Its False? (1971),
UCLA Law Review 96, 111-112

c.1999 Wayne Henderson

Previous Latest Word Column