top of page
  • Pasquale Scopelliti

Roger Stone: Commutation vs Pardon Of Innocence

19 August 2020 #PardonFlynnNow Analysis Roger Stone: Commutation vs Pardon Of Innocence What if you took Roger at his word? What if you believed his story, published yesterday? To be frank, I do.

2) "On the advice of my attorneys and after considerable thought, I have reluctantly decided to dismiss the appeal of what I believe to be a wrongful conviction in a trial tainted by judicial bias, egregious and blatant juror bias and misconduct and prosecutorial misconduct."


3) "I have come to the firm conclusion based on their previous actions in my case to date and based on their recent actions in the Flynn case...


4) "..that it would be impossible for me to ever get a fair hearing from this appellate court for

the vitally important, fundamental constitutional issues my case raises." Wow. We will break those pieces down in detail in coming comments. This will be a long thread.


5) Before we dive in a couple of points first. I found that I had to print out, read, reread, and make notes on Stone's article. It is of tremendous historic consequence, and merits full steady. I hope you'll do the same. Here, I'll quote where appropriate and respond.


6) As this will be a long thread, it will likely come in stages. I can't foresee the break points, due to an interruptive schedule. But, I'll get the job done. Then, before turning back to Stone's work, my great friend @TPCLJ offered a critical, original insight I must share.


7) Lisa has been assiduously studying the legal and political history of pardons, and in her typically cogent manner, has found the ultimate, greatest example of a pardon of innocence ever executed. Nothing other than the Declaration of Independence.


8) One can never read our Declaration too many times. If you read it with Lisa's great insight in mind, you'll be able to feel the import of the document in a completely new way. The King of England was OUR King, the English government our government, it's laws were our laws.


9) There is no greater breach of law than to reject and rebel one's own government. The greatest crime in any nation is treason to that nation, to its government. In his extraordinary book, @shestokas lays this out with literally excruciating detail. Can you say deadly torture?


10) The Declaration, Lisa tells me, is in legal fact a pardon of innocence for the entire people of the soon to be born United States of America, in breaking away from a tyrant, in rebelling against the corrupt use of power by government and law. Illegal law. Antilaw.


11) Returning with that in mind to Roger Stone, he is an equally extraordinary case, albeit just a man, and not a fledgling nation. I have not followed Roger's case closely, and wouldn't be commenting now if it were for two factors. His case and comments address the Flynn case.


12) Also, sadly, there is no clearer case demonstrating the wrongness of waiting when the time for a pardon of innocence has revealed itself. My case will be that allowing corrupt courts their evil reign, is no different than quartering Red Coats one more day than you have to.


13) Let's give Stone's opening quotes their bullet points: * I have decided to dismiss the appeal * of a wrongful conviction * in a trial tainted by judicial bias * egregious and blatant juror bias and misconduct and * prosecutorial misconduct.


14) And why? * based on their previous actions in my case and * based on their recent actions in the Flynn case * it would be impossible for me to get a fair hearing from this appellate court * for the vitally important, fundamental constitutional issues my case raises.


15) That Stone's case raises fundamental constitutional issues should be a given, by now. What does it mean to have a fair trial under equal application of law? What could be a more fundamental, constitutional issue? But still let's look at that a bit more.


16) In addition to the 1st amendment rights Stone describes being obliterated, consider the jury. "Let there be no doubt the jury pool was seriously tainted and I sustained serious damage." Again, what if this is true and there was no remedy? His constitutional rights stolen.


17) But appeals? "The Appeals Court after an unreasonable delay, took no action but rather sent the decision back to Judge Berman Jackson, as if there was any possibility that she would vacate her own order."


18) It's important to follow that bouncing ball. The Judge presides over jury selection. The defendant, upon conviction, disputes the integrity of the jury to an Appellate Judge, who kicks his complaint right back to the same judge who's decision he is appealing. See the circle?


19) Consider how all that should have gone down. He should have been presumed innocent, which he never was. He should have had a fair jury, which he did not. The appeals court should have taken his complaint seriously, which it did not. In this, his rights are destroyed.


20) We'll leave the rest of the constitutional matters he explains so well to his article. Let's look at the larger picture, now. Imagine believing all those points to be true, what must it feel like to simply bow out of the legal system? Stone has no hope of justice.


21) I can easily imagine that the President's gracious commutation put all the dance right back in his step. In that moment, relief is relief, and no one would dream to question the blessing given by his reliever. In this, we all celebrate with him.


22) But I must ask, at what point in this long, slow debacle as it played out, step by step, was its unjust, illegal, corrupt, and constitutional rights destroying outcome completely predictable? When could we have known, in advance that corruption was only that, corrupt?


23) Another of @TPCLJ's historic points is that in origin, the power of pardon was created explicitly so that a corrupt court might be correct by a wise crown. There were wise kings, who did employ mercy and justice rightly, at least at times. Never more so than when pardoning.


24) Can a corrupt king use the power of pardon corruptly? But of course. Even then, he can do almost none of the rampant damage that an unchecked corrupt judiciary may, spread out all across the realm. Its original, proper intent, was to correct tyranny.


25) Reading Stone's story, and if we believe him, there can be no doubt but what he faced corruption of justice, miscarriage of prosecution from day one. Who can disagree with this, unless you reject Stone's presentation of his case? If you accept it, you must term it tyranny.


26) The problem with our relationship to the Constitution, is that no one ever stands up and shreds it in front of rolling TV cameras, until long, long after it has been gutted, denuded of power, and breathed its last breath of law.


27) Rather, tyranny encroaches, one case at a time, one decision at a time, one person at a time, tearing away here and there, first in small, slow pieces, then accelerating as the destructive momentum grows and you have police-free zones in Seattle, and defund movements aplenty.


28) Let me be clear, I do not blame POTUS for this. I do not judge his game. I am so grateful he granted commutation. But I grieve the destruction of the Constitution allowed as this travesty and tragedy of injustice occurred. I say it should have been forestalled, cut short.


29) I do not have the timeline, the instances of injustice or the dates in hand. All I can say is that, in one broad sweep, at some time after the case was initiated until the last day prior to the conviction was announced, it should have been shut down. Pardon was the answer.


30) What I've learned following and analyzing the case for Flynn's #PardonOfInnocence is that those who would lose power if such were employed, have protected themselves both procedurally and with greater power, culturally.


31) Who loses power when a sovereign employs his power of pardon to dismiss an innocent man from the heavy hand of tyranny? It is of course the courts, the judges, the prosecuting attorneys who lose, and yes, corrupt defense attorneys who also profit too.


32) The more innocent the man, the more aggrieved the community is on his behalf, the greater the funds available to defense attorneys, and even more so when they're in collusion with both judge and prosecution. The entire system profits by corruption.


33) It is this we see when attempting to persuade Flynn's supporters to let go their beloved "exoneration," a term tied directly to the process of law. They remain, to my eye, in complete denial over judicial corruption. A corrupt court cannot exonerate an innocent man.


34) I will quote here an extensive paragraph where Stone shares the reasons behind his decision to drop his appeal, due to systemic corruption in the very courts his appeal would be heard. We'll hear about Flynn, McGann, and Hillary Clinton in these following comments.


35) "My conclusion about this Court of Appeals is also supported by recent actions taken by the court in other cases that demonstrate that the court has become completely politicized and that the rule of law has become secondary to a political agenda.


36) "In recent days, I have seen this court grant rehearing en banc in two cases involving officials associated with the Trump administration. Judges on the court felt the need to vacate their previous order to Judge Sullivan...


37) "to dismiss the Flynn case and for the whole court to rehear decisions that panels of the court had made concerning the judge’s abuse of his power in General Flynn’s case as well as efforts by Congress to force former White House counsel McGann to testify.


38) "This is truly extraordinary. On the other hand, this same court just reversed a judge’s decision that Hillary Clinton must answer questions at a deposition about her very troubling conduct.


39) "I could not come to any conclusion from these exceptional events other than that this court at present is motivated more by a political agenda than by adherence to the rule of law or concern for fundamental constitutional rights...."


40) Remember those small tears on the protections of the Constitution? McGann was White House Counsel. Yet, they wish for him to testify. Where is the Constitution to be protected, if not there?


41) Many of us have followed the evil case of the Clinton Crime Family's reign of terror over the decades, whether we wanted to or not. Just last night, Bill still enjoys the vaunted position of speaking at the DNC. In Stone's article we're reminded of the most recent corruption.


42) I can't speak for others, but for me, it was only in following General Flynn's case that I came to understand what the existence of such a crime family means. Who remembers New York's Finest Taxi Service? Cops drove and protected criminals for pay. Remember?


43) Who remembers the part of Sollozzo in the Godfather, driven and protected by a police captain, the corrupt McCluskey? The extent of the corruption at law that is required for a Clinton Crime Family boggles my imagination, and I honestly never caught it before.


44) Who believes Epstein killed himself? Who can be that naive? The most famous prisoner on earth, and he kills himself by a keystone cops comedy of errors, where, at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in NYC. How much legal corruption and power does that take?


45) This, my friends, is the very wool they pull over our eyes. We can look at it, but we don't see. Where are our protests in front of that Correctional Center? What is our rallying cry to combat this evil rotting our country out from under us?


46) I had that wool over my eyes. I thought of the Clintons as "bad." I thought they were a very special form of bad, after I stopped supporting them of course. But there was something I did NOT do. I did not ask what this meant about American Justice, itself.


47) I did not go from, Criminals in the White House, to, a completely corrupted DOJ and court system, a corrupted judiciary, uncorrected and uncorrectable, unafraid and 100% secure in their oh-so-happy corruption. I've found another error I made.


48) What I did see as the House of Corruption that the Clintons ran, was the flow from Congress, to K Street Lobbyists,to Government Contractors and Regulators flipping roles from customer to seller and back, etc. Essentially, I saw this as stealing from taxpayers.


49) Maybe I might call it "legal, or legalized corruption." I eventually became very clear on that. What I did NOT see was the role of law itself, the complete corruption of the rule of law that the true extent of their crimes entailed, and the illegal use of law as their weapon.


50) This was the wool that covered my eyes. Not one thing this flows out of corruption is actually legal. It can be gussied up that way, but in the end, the law itself is what suffers. Law keepers are the rubes, and the patsies. Law breakers are the winners and the powerful.


51) So, bringing this all back to Flynn's case, I have now seen how the guilty thrive upon the thrill of the hunt, and the joy of eating the lives, reputations, wealth, and freedoms of their prey. They thrill over their own freedom from fear or consequence.


52) I have not been so bold, until today, as to declare the death of exoneration. Reading Stone's article, I feel something dying in my heart, which I thought was already all done dying where it needed to. I have to share a terrible story by way of illustration.


53) The story is told, from WWII, the Nazi genocide of the Jews, of a man who was pulled out of a group of 50 or so Jews, captured by a group of 2 or 3, maybe 4 SS, carrying machine guns. It was freezing cold, and they tied him under a running hose until he became a block of ice.


54) As I understand it, the MOSAD, in the early years of the Jewish State, analyzed this, and countless other such event. The question is, how could so many be killed by so few, and in such horrific ways?


55) I believe the answer came back something like this. When a man faces death, he'll do almost anything to postpone or evade it, if he has any chance to do so. In order to face death, he must be mentally prepared. Death turns off rational thinking.


56) More interestingly, though, the real failure is organization. An organized but unarmed group of 50 can easily overwhelm and destroy such a small number of armed me, if they organize...but they must accept the reality of casualties in advance yet still move boldly.


57) Imagining that the armed men can kill 10 or even 15 (I believe the numbers can be a great deal fewer), the remain 35 or more can still overcome and execute the formerly armed gunmen. It takes planning, courage, obviously readiness, and yes, training.


58) This is where, I fear, we are over the term exoneration. I is a weapon used by practitioners of the corrupt use of law. Give us your innocent, they say, and we will eat them up, their every joy and freedom will be ours. But, you won't know that, you rubes, you nubes.


59) And we will have a process for that and a ruling yet to be ruled upon. We will 100% control over every step, and every step will come at cost to you, dollar cost and cost of freedom, and you will bend and bow, and scrape and lay low in your wise fear of our power.


60) Most of our power comes in the form of legal sticks with which we can hit you, again and again, and again. But, we do offer a necessary carrot or two along the way. Perhaps a deal here, or a softening, and perhaps a jury of your peers that will empathize with you.


61) Of all these, as I have learned at cost of countless hours, countless arguments, is the carrot of wonderful exoneration. It is a temptation so sweet. And you should believe me when I tell you, these powers know it. They know how they fool us. They know the wool they pull.


62) I see them, and hear them laughing at us as we stumble along blindly scratching our eyes beneath the wool, and they reap the profits of our factories shipped to China, and the profits of their corrupt media. Exoneration, given by a corrupt court to an innocent man. Laughter.


63) Have you followed the case of quartering, that Jefferson makes in the Declaration, and as it made its way into our Bill of Rights? George didn't want to pay for his soldiers housing and food, so he made the Colonists cover it by placing soldiers in their "quarters."


64) I ask you, if you had access to a governor with power to tell George to back down, he couldn't place his soldiers in your home anymore, well, can you imagine that? Now, imagine further that you were told, sure, the soldiers will leave, but we have a process to complete first.


65) Would you not count the days? Would your rage and ire not rise to the boiling point? What tolerance for this condition of crime against your rights would you feel in your heart? Me, I would not have one day's worth. Not a single day.


66) The DOJ has dropped its so-wrongful case against General Flynn. His attorneys obviously agree. There is no case or controversy here. Both the court and the appellate courts are now on illegal turf. Yet we are still told to let the process play out. No one counts the days.


67) Assuming the process does play out what is the ripe fruit we will receive at that point? Finally - and we will be grateful, to be sure - Flynn will be free. And that's it. There will be no means of winning back a single day of lawlessness. Or of his Constitutional rights.


68) Perhaps after long bowing and bending and scraping at law, again, a civil case may be completed, and that would be good. But at what cost and what risk? And what about crimes? Where will the criminal case come from? The DOJ will prosecute...the courts and the DOJ?


69) As you knew I would, no mystery or difficult plot, I return to where I began. Roger Stone should have been pardoned prior to conviction. I'm grateful for his commutation, but here we are, and he is dropping his appeal. How about that?


70) Another day gone, and Red Coats still eating my best food, General Flynn is still not free. I say, each day is a travesty, and a tragedy for our nation, for our Constitution. #PardonFlynnNow by a #PardonOfInnocence It has always been the best solution. It is so now.


Thread ends at #70.

1 view0 comments

Comments


bottom of page