----- Original Message -----
INSIDE REPORT FROM OUR NATIONS LAW
By Lawrence Agee, - Lcagee@...
I am now in
my 3rd year of law school. I landed here because I was swindled out of large
sums of money by crooked lawyers on several occasions. Today, I learned more
disturbing facts about our legal system.
After sitting through several
lectures on white collar crime, I asked my instructor what the victim of white
collar crime is supposed to do. I related a case of mail fraud that was
inflicted upon me that resulted in an $8,300 swindle.
I remember going to the
police and getting brushed off. They wouldn't listen to me. I didn't know what
to do. I was forced to hire a lawyer. He charged me $20,000 and lost. Not only
did the con get away with $8,300 (aided and abetted by a lawyer), I had to pay
"my" lawyer $20,000 for the privilege of being robbed.
Then, the judge told me
I had to pay the person who swindled me $2,500 because I "lost." My lawyer, who
dumped me off on another lawyer the day before trial, must have laughed all the
way to the bank. When I told him I wanted to appeal, he brushed me off. I went
to find an appellate lawyer who said he could take my case, but needed a $25,000
I did it myself. I
worked on it for one year. When I got to court, there were 30-40 appeals on the
docket that morning. One minute into my oral argument, I was cut off. The
judgment was "affirmed" and I was out $50,000. (I later saw on the JAIL website
the judge who heard my case was sued for Racketeering for throwing
I asked my instructor why the DA or the US Attorney wouldn't
prosecute this. He said it was "too small of a case." Then I asked what the
"threshold" level was where the US Attorney will begin to listen. He said,
somewhere in the $70,000 and up range. He said this with a straight
I pondered this answer, and I am really quite upset. What he is
saying is that we (i.e. the US government) will prosecute a crime only when the
US Attorney wants to, and will act only if you were defrauded out of $70,000 or
I realized that all of us poor suckers who actually believed in
"equal protection under the law" have been duped. We only get equal protection
when we get cheated out of a large enough sum of money to hit the
In other words, for the experienced con artist, they realize
they have a blank check to rob us, so long as they keep the amounts under
$70,000. They know that the US Attorneys and DAs are simply too lazy to act. In
other words, if you are rich, then the government will protect you. If not, they
won't. I find this double standard offensive.
The lesson learned by Lawrence Agee as stated above is
indeed shocking, but he still has not been given the truth. He was told
that the financial threshold is $70,000. But if his case exceeded the
$70,000 threshold, his outcome would have been no different, for he
has not been given the straight-forward truth, even after three years
of law school.
The threshold is not $70,000 or $70 million, etc. The
correct answer is "Whatever they want it to be." The variables are, "Who is it
that you know?" "How much influence do you have?" "How much is in it
for the grantor?" etc, etc. The bottom line is that there is no bottom line, for
there is no rule of law that governs our country -- just politics.
There will be no rule of law governing this country
until after the passage and enforcement of J.A.I.L.
"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." - Samuel Adams
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who
striking at the
-- Henry David Thoreau