When Officer Scott Blackman gave his testimony in court this is what he said:

Love's pupils were also dilated to eight millimetres, nearly double the average size, Blackman said, and her pulse was 126 beats per minute, much faster than normal. Here

This officer showed what he was truly made of and it isn't pretty.

The mind of this man is so completely screwed up that he can't even remember if it was day or night when he arrested Courtney Love. The statement about the diameter of pupils only matters in the day time because at night time everyones eyes are dialated. However, the arrest occurred at night, not during the daylight hours. Hence he just made up at least this part of his testimony. (If I had been the defense attorney at this point in the trial I would have immediately changed the direction of my questioning and attacked the officer. It would have taken me less than three minutes to have destroyed his credibility and hence destroyed the prosecutions case.)

Also, dialation of the eyes occurs only with stimulants and not with sedatives for which she was arrested. Later she was charged with being under the influence of opiates but those drugs also constrict the pupils to four mm or less, day and night. So the officer not only described the wrong time of day but also the wrong type of drug.

He testified that he thought and then arrested Courtney for the illegal use of sedatives because she was exhibiting these symptoms. However those are completely the wrong symptoms for the drugs which she took.

That constitutes defacto evidence of false testimony and that's a felony.

We have to ask what happened after the arrest that made it so that the policeman cannot even think about the person that he arrested? Who has met Courtney Love and then drawn a blank when they try to recall meeting her? Everyone remembers meeting Courtney Love except this one police officer. He can't even bring it into his conscious mind to remember the event. If this hasn't gotten you inflamed then you are dead inside, so go away.

I wonder if this police officer can get the symptoms straight so that he can lie more effectively when I get to see him in court. I'd love to cross examine this man. He's such a fool that he would probably come in and allow me to cross examine him.

[Four men shot themselves in the foot just to avoid having to come to court and be be cross examined by Thomas Jefferson. People misunderstand the statement about 'Shooting yourself in the foot' as to mean harming yourself. It was actually done to protect yourself from the likes of my cross examination.

The object when shooting yourself in the foot was to shoot between the bones of the foot. That only took about three weeks to heal. If the trial was not over by then the person would say they must have hit one of the bones in their foot which could take up to six months or longer to heal. Without the existence of x-rays (which were invented later) they were able to drag out their absence from my interrogation for as long as the trial took.]

To lie during sworn testimony by quoting a page from a book in a felony case is always a felony. 200 years ago no one ever got less than 5 years in prison (and an official easily double that or got hard labor) for false testimony. Quoting the wrong page, and the wrong kind of drug, is virtual proof that he committed a crime.

The symptoms of drug intoxication are so basic and simple to remember that it is hard to understand how he ever lasted a month in the LAPD. 200 years ago any legit law enforcement agency would have dropped him from the ranks like a hot potato within a week of his joining their force. However, these days at the most he would probably just be fired.

Like I said, I'd like to cross examine him. Did I say that there were lots of other kinds of self inflicted injuries used to avoid Thomas Jefferson in court, including one man who died from them?

In the same article Courtney's attorney said this:

Rosenstein argued that the officers didn't have good cause to question Love about the drugs she may have taken because she wasn't driving and her ex-boyfriend didn't want her arrested.

"It's very clear, quite frankly, that this was a witch hunt against my client. She's a very high-profile person," he said.

But Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Patricia Schnegg refused to throw out the evidence, siding with prosecutors who said that officers investigating one crime can pursue their concerns if they suspect a different offence.

An attorney should never argue or ever disagree with a Judge. Remember the judge is always right no matter how much money they may have been bribed with to prevent justice or how drunk they are. Courtney's attorney should have waited and gotten a mistrial and then tried to get that judge dismissed from her judiciary position for not even knowing a simple law like allowing and officer to give false evidence. As Thomas Jefferson I got a lot of justices removed from their positions. Some removals were topped off with felony convictions. Judges are far easier prey for an attorney than most cops are but it is a trade secret of how to do it.

I'd love to get Ms. Love on the stand. Did I mention that two women killed themselves with roach poison to avoid cross examination by Thomas Jefferson? But that can't really be considered to be a self inflicted wound because it was intended to be suicide, or can it be?. There were about 30 women who used arsenic or other sweet tasting poisons to kill themselves to avoid me but those could have possibly been murders. The two confirmed suicides used a Boron lead based Roach poison that was so horrible tasting that there was no way those two women could have been poisoned. Out of desperation they had to have forced it down their throats themselves. So the other 28 women I cannot count as suicides for certain.

Blackman said: "She admitted to taking Hillbilly Heroin, the street name for OxyContin." He then described Love's symptoms of intoxication, citing, "slow, slick, slurred speech and mucous around both nostril."

Blackman added; "She was off-balance. She couldn't stand on her own. She had to lean on the police car."

If she was this messed up then why on earth did the police release her about an hour later? They jail a person to protect them from themselves and those who are in the publc area that she might have harmed while intoxicated.

The intoxication laws are based on the English laws of the very early 1600's concerning the commitment of the insane in London's Bedlam Institute to protect themselves and others until they died or had regained their sanity. All the laws of restriction and restraint are based on the danger the person presents to themselves and others.

These laws were adapted by me and Ben Franklin over 200 years ago. He actually did most of the work conceriing these kind of laws. He had one of the greatest legal minds in the world even though he had studied very little law in school.

The law is based on liberty and the following is the logic that was used in making them.

If taking liberty from a person for a certain amount of time prevented them from taking liberty from another person for that much time or more then it was just and lawful to take away their liberty until they were no longer a threat to others or themselves.

This is pretty much the standard basis for all those types of laws concerning non crimes.* (I hope I have remembered this right. I wish Ben were around to clarify it.)

The police arrested Courtney Love to prevent her from doing any more stupid things like overdosing by taking more drugs while too intoxicated to know better. Then an hour later when she probably could not yet stand up they released her. Then right away she went home and overdosed on the same drug.

There was one thing that I forgot to mention. When the LAPD declared her a dangerous person and arrested her they automatically established a binding contract with the city to 'protect and serve' her and not to release her until she was safe from herself and society, etc. By law and probably it was in the contract with the city she was to remain in custody until she was safely out of harms way.

The only exception to this rule of law is if they had signed her over to another agency such as a halfway house or a hospital for treatment. The signing causes both her and the contract to be transferred, reassigned or a new one established. (The laws differ as to the method for legally transfering a person in custody.)

Think of it as a person transfering a home they lease to another person before the end of the lease and it is pretty similar. One landlord may allow you to transfer the lease but another landlord may want a new lease signed and so on.

The LAPD violated their contract when they released Courtney Love while she was still intoxicated. That placed a huge liability on the city.

The LAPD's responsibility does not diminish when they release a person while drunk. It's the same with any contract. For instance if you don't make your mortgage payments then you break your contract with the mortgage company but it doesn't release you from your responsibility for those payments. You still have to pay those back payments. Then you end up with a bunch of lawyers who take away your house instead of collecting $800 a month.

Two hundred years ago I had to defend a young woman who had managed to empty her fathers bank account and spend all his money during a blackout bender lasting almost two months. The father was bankrupted before he even got on the ship in Germany that was bringing back the barrels of German white wine (that he had bought using a note of credit) to sell in the US. He had ten lawsuits for payments past due waiting for him when he got home. Those were soon joined by threats of some big ones from overseas.

Three months later his daughter surfaced and her father decided she should go to prison.

Women going to prison was almost unheard of at the time and a daughter never. I was called in by the defense to present the final argument after it was thought to be a hopeless case. I decided the best thing to do would be to turn the whole thing into the non criminal act that it really was.

For some reason I never take sides and so somehow I manage to understand everybody's viewpoint and can also see the truth. Then it is just a series of up to 12 explanations (eleven for the jury and sometimes one for the judge) to get everyone to understand what actually went on and why it happened the way it did. It's not that difficult to learn how to do this and women with their better understanding of people's motivations would probably be best at this technique.

The main problem was during the cross examination. Like Courtney Love the daughter always told the truth and because of the blackout she had she couldn't honestly swear that she was innocent of any intent to defraud her father. That left an opening for the prosecution and everyone knows what that means They could simply say that fraud was her intent. They said exactly that even though they did not really want to prosecute her. The jury not hearing anything to the contrary accepted it as the truth. So when I got there she was guilty as far they were concerned and she was ready to go to prison..

Once she started drinking her spending began by buying small gifts for her friends that cost (and the bank drafts showed this) five or ten dollars each. Then she saw how happy it made them so she bought them more gifts but costing a hundred dollars and up

Then the stores made it easy for her and allowed her to charge anything that she wanted.

She gathered lots of new friends who cajoled her into buying them gifts too. In the end she was up to buying buggy's and one genuine imitation European aristocrat carriage for herself and her boyfriends to ride around in splendor in as well as emerald and diamond cravat pins for her three boyfriends of the week. Her father's money was soon gone and soon the boyfriends were gone too taking with them the cravat pins. And they used that genuine imitation European aristocrat carriage to make a clean getaway until they got nabbed in New York because of it's splendor as described on the wanted posters..

The jury consisted mainly of hard working farmers whose daughters were just as staid as the accused had been (until a few months earlier). To say that she was an innocent person was to suggest their own daughters could do the same things that she had. It was a near impossible situation as you can probably see.

I explained that the father got what he preached as a seller of spirits. He promoted drinking and his daughter was obedient to his wishes. I had about twenty examples from the Old Testament and used the best two. One was 'As you sew so shall you reap'. Three jurors understood that reasoning of 'karma'. It also helped to point out that she was being an obedient daughter to follow his advice.

That judge had heard it all before at least thirty times so that left eight members of the jury to convince. The jury could not understand how a person could function like she had but still not be in her right senses. Then I recalled an analogy they knew too well of.

When farmers visit each other for the evening they go on little benders They sit around the fireplace and BS about the bear that got away and pass the whiskey jug. Soon the women join them.

The women take off their shoes and socks off to warm their feet on the fire and when the jug gets passed they have swig too. Those women who won't even allow alcohol in their own home are soon taking swigs from that big jug with 120 proof smooth-as-silk corn whisky like everyone else. My wife was one of these women. She would impress everyone with her immense knowledge and she knew better jokes than I did. Then when it got to be time to go home she would be talking and put on one sock but then stop mid sentence, hold up the other sock and with a pleading look on her face ask me what to do with the sock. It was as if she had pulled the rug out from under half the people there when she transformed from a genius to a blithering idiot in half a second flat.

That story was all I had to tell the jury. Every one of those farmers knew someone like my wife who made perfect sense for a long time until she had to put on her second sock.

The jury only deliberated twenty minutes and found the girl innocent of all the charges.

My first girlfriend (in this life) was a gymnast and she could be so drunk that she had to close one eye just so she did not see two of you but she could still pass any police field sobriety test perfectly and finish it off with a back flip. It's strange how I learned to have unreasonable expectations as far as unusual sexual positions are concerned. Why did I add this statement? I had no reason I guess, it was just fun remembering Charmaine's outrageous antics.


*This group of laws included the quarantine laws where a person is isolated for a certain amount time because if they are not isolated from society then they are very likely to make others sick and cause them to lose their liberty for an even longer amount of time due to illness or death.

The main difference between intoxication and insanity is that the intoxicated person is held accountable for their actions while an insane person isn't. The reason is because the drunk chose to be in a state where they might perform illegal acts whereas the insane person had no choice in the matter. When a bank robbery goes wrong and it ends up with people getting killed then the robber is charged with murder even though that was not the robbers original intent. (I don't know if I have this exactly right. I'd ask Ben about it if he was around.)

For the same reason when an intoxicated person commits a crime they are is held responsible for their crimes even though the crime was not their original intent.

 

Previous Page

2005 John Pinil