top of page
  • Pasquale Scopelliti

The Lost Logic of Innocence

Updated: Aug 14, 2020

5 August 2020 #PardonFlynnNow Analysis The Lost Logic of Innocence What is the purpose of law? It isn't a difficult question to answer. It is to protect the innocent and to convict the guilty. It is also to weigh in the balance the questions of justice vs mercy. That's it.

2) When fighting every possible fight required to create and ratify our Constitution in 1787 - 1789, our founders left a tiny little hole in the logic of our nation's foundation of law. They made other mistakes too. Let's look at the most important error, first.

3) The most important error in our Constitution was the 3/5s law. In determining representation in the House, every 5 slaves held conferred 3 additional people to the state's population of "voters." Of course, none of the 5 slaves counted could vote. The logic is not easy.

4) Remember, each state gets 2 Senators in the Upper House. This has nothing to do with population. It is, rather, an equalizer so that small states have a meaningful say in the running of our nation, up against larger states who would otherwise completely dominate.

5) The Lower House is counted by population. Large states get more representatives, small states get fewer. This is where Democracy holds its power, whereas in the Upper House it is the Federal Republic that holds sway. Democracy vs Federalism. It's a balancing act.

6) In 1787, the slave states had a lower population than the free states. If it weren't for the 3/5s law, they would never have ratified the Constitution. That was what is called realpolitik. It was just reality. Want a new Constitution? Then do the dirty deal. That's it.

7) The thing is, beginning in 1861, 650,000 Americans were killed by a war that was caused by that very dirty deal. It took the 13th and 14th Amendments to be ratified in order to wipe out the 3/5s law.

8) You can believe me when I tell you, it took me years of reading and study before I was able to finally comprehend what the 3/5s law meant. Funny thing, this one wiki article will help you catapult past me in your understanding. Check it out:….

9) I share all that to remind you that our Constitution was not only not perfect, the realpolitik of the day meant it had to include something that was just about as close to pure evil as may be imagined. Our Constitution served the cause of slavery. You have to take that in.

10) Our founders were 100% aware of the evil of slavery, and in their better selves, detested it. They knew with 100% certainty that our Constitution could not be made flawless. So, they created a process of amending it, in order to serve the evolution of a more perfect union.

11) No, they did not foresee the coming Civil War. However, they did foresee future changes to the Constitution being required and created a process to accomplish just that. They also did something else, the logic of which we seem to have forgotten.

12) The Constitution not only allows for its own ammendation, it sets upon each of three branches of government the right and obligation to counter the wrong actions of the other two branches. This is called the system of checks and balances. It flows from separation of powers.

13) The legislature creates law. Once passed, a new law is law. Yet, such laws are known to often violate the Constitution. So, the judiciary adjudicates, and may tell the legislature that its law is unlawful. The courts check the legislature.

14) The executive executes. He may do so unlawfully. If so, his actions are taken to the courts, and are adjudicated as unlawful. The courts check the executive.

15) Who checks the courts? Guess what. It is the power of pardon that empowers the executive to check the corruption of the courts. He may execute mercy in the face of their decisions of justice. It is the executive who checks the judiciary.

16) Yet, as with the 3/5s law in all its evil, our founders made a grave error when enacting the power of pardon. They wrongly assumed that the executive would use it ONLY for the purpose of mercy, never for the purpose of justice. This ends up being a true mistake.

17) Myself, I don't think it was purposeful. My theory is that our founders simply failed to focus on the threat of a corrupted court, a corrupt judiciary. Who checks a corrupt judge? In America today, no one. Over these centuries, this absolute power has grown ever more corrupt.

18) Yet, ever so wisely, our founders, knowing of their own imperfection, clearly established the following rule. What is not prohibited, is retained. So, if they had wanted to require guilt as the basis of pardon, they could have said, you must never pardon the innocent.

19) Follow the logic closely. To pardon someone for his innocence is to state, emphatically, that the court was GUILTY of an egregious miscarriage of justice. That is to say, the judge was corrupt. He was bent. He was bought. He was, instead of impartial, an interested party.

20) When the judge is an interested party, it means he has an interest in the outcome. He is more rewarded by one outcome, less rewarded by the other. He, himself, personally. So, he applies the law by respect of person. This person has one law, the other, another.

21) The new definition of freedom we created in 1776 by our revolution, was that the law must be applied equally with NO respect of person. We are all, each and all of us persons, equal UNDER the law. None of gets more respect for who we are, than any other does.

22) That is the defining principle of America. And, we invented it. No nation had ever applied law equally to all people, before. In all the eons of the past, respect of person was the very basis of the law. Before us, no one dreamed that equality might be a legal principle.

23) Again, stick tight. Respect of person = non-equality before the law. Equality before the law = NO respect of person. Modern language makes this a difficult idea. It sounds like we're not respecting a person, and that's a bad thing, right? It's not easy logic.

24) But once you struggle through, as I have again and again over years of study, something clicks in your mind and the logic becomes totally clear. Even easily so. That's where I am now. I get the logic. And I therefore see the error in the Constitution over the power of pardon.

25) In my mental time machine, I can easily see myself fighting with Ben, and Tom, and the other powdered whig fellows over this very point, and I absolutely see myself winning the argument. If we're going to have a pardon at all, its most important application is for innocence.

26) A pardon must NOT be ONLY for mercy, it MUST also be for justice. We must see fully empowered judges being corrupted by their great powers. We must find a way to protect the innocent from guilty judges, not for mercy to the innocent but for their justice, their rights at law.

27) Skip forward in time from 1787, to 2020. We now have a corrupted judiciary, exploiting their absolute power with absolute corruption. Why? Because there is simply no check upon their power, period. It is this unchecked power that has created the DC Swamp.

28) Tempting as it is to provide specific example, I must not bow to the temptation. Simply follow the logic. If you can corrupt a judge, you face no risk of his judgment. Now, you can use the power of the government to extract money and power, and use that to protect yourself.

29) Swamp creatures use the tax dollars you pay, to pay off corrupt judges and ensure they never face the force of the law. Rather, the cheap access to the use of law on their own behalf makes them both safe, and rich. It really is that simple, believe it or not.

30) Why is Jim Comey free and, apparently at least, unafraid, while General Flynn is

bankrupted and under wraps, facing corrupt law these so many years now? Comey confessed on live national TV that he committed a heinous act of crime, sending agents to illegally interview Flynn.

31) He even used the criminal term "get away with." His crimes are on the record, more than just confessed, rather, bragged about. He brags about his crimes. Take that in. He faces - so far - NO legal jeopardy for them. And, even if he ends up in risk, he doesn't feel it yet.

32) That feeling, the feeling that I am allowed to break the law with perfect safety, that is the defining hallmark of a swamp creature. Hillary Clinton showed the same. When asked if she feared a coming indictment, she laughingly scorned the idea, dismissing it utterly.

33) Did Loretta Lynch or Bill Clinton have the slightest fear that their illegal negotiation on an airplane might cause either of them the slightest discomfort? Not for a moment. That's the feeling I'm talking about. Perfect safety from the slightest application of law.

34) These souls live ABOVE the law. General Flynn lives BENEATH it. He was their target. They have him. To this day, legally, they own him. He is their slave. They are his masters. He enjoys no Constitutional protections or safeguards. He is buried by unjust application of law.

35) This is the result of our founders error in drawing up the power of pardon. All they needed to do was add the phrase, "Or, for egregious misconduct of justice against the innocent." Just nine words. That's all it would have taken to balance the executive's checking power.

36) If you go there, you will see that the Department of Justice's Office of Pardons has taken this hole and widened it purposefully. Not by law, but merely by policy, they demand a confession of guilt in order to be put through their vile process.

37) This is no accident or mere oversight, as was our founders' mistake in 1787. They knew precisely what they were doing. If they allowed a pardon of innocence, with no confession of guilt, they'd unleash the power of the executive over the judiciary. This could not be.

38) Let's refocus, away from the courts, themselves, to the prosecutors. The DOJ is Prosecutor in Chief over the entire nation. A pardon of innocence would massively weaken their power of prosecution. If you own the judge, and you're a corrupt prosecutor, who can stop you?

39) That is the situation in America today. Not just with General Flynn's case, oh no. Metastasized throughout our nation, at every level, corrupt prosecutors and corrupt judges rule by fiat, not by law. I don't know that I can say law is dead. I can say, it's on its last legs.

40) I am deadly serious in this judgement, deadly earnest. If we allow law in America its continued slide into morbidity, then we have lost America, and worse, we don't deserve Her any longer. Without equal application of law, there is no America.

41) It is for this reason that I boldly petition our President to redress this hellacious grievance. Again, what is not prohibited is retained. He is NOT prohibited from writing, by executive order, a pardon of innocence. He may bypass the Office of Pardons, and do it on his own.

42) Yes, I have been saying this for years now. Literally years. Well, 2 of them. But it has taken me these yeah so many analyses to work all the logic through, myself. I have a good brain, and I have broken it on the rocks of this logic many, many times during the while.

43) But of this logic I have now become 100% certain, 100% confident. Leaving General Flynn at the hands of a corrupt court is simply, wrong in every way. Rather, freeing him rightfully from this corrupted process is, and I mean this, the ONLY right thing to do.

44) That would be true, were it for just this one man, General Flynn. But, the shock wave sent through our entire corrupted judiciary would be like no other. To pardon for innocence is to damn for injustice. Innocent victim. A corrupted court system, a corrupted judge.

45) We modern Americans have become complacent in our thinking. We assume our freedoms as if they were free. We are not ready to pay the blood price, or the logical price our freedoms require. Thus, we are losing them. We, ourselves, are unwittingly being corrupted.

46) Rightly fearing corrupted power, we acquiesce. In so doing, our silence is our own corruption. We do not speak up. We do not stand up. We do not shout. We do not demand justice. We allow the mighty the joy of their unlawful might, and say nothing.

47) Judge Sullivan must be defrocked. He has abandoned his mission of law. Yet, here he is, safe as safe can be. Where is the hue and cry over his malfeasance? Where are the protest marches on behalf of General Flynn? Last I saw, Hannity gave his case 1 minute's time.

48) I'm a pretty strong Tucker Carlson fan. Yet, he dismisses General Flynn's case as a distraction, and apologizes for the time he's spent on it. For this, I say shame on you, Tucker. Shame on you. Flynn's case is the very case of American law, and dislaw, of our day.

49) A pardon of innocence would be Flynn's greatest badge of honor yet, and that's saying something. Many is the time he's told me, "Pat, you can't just do the right thing, you must do the HARDER right thing." Flynn never shirks the hardest right thing to do in front of him.

50) So as I always do, I will conclude today's meditation with my perennial bold request. Please, Mr. #POTUS, Sir, #PardonFlynnNow by a #PardonOfInnocence

Thread ends at #50.

2 views0 comments


bottom of page