Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Baitball Blogger

(46,700 posts)
25. Protecting the opinions and rights of the minority
Thu Jul 18, 2013, 12:14 PM
Jul 2013

was once the brilliance of the Constitution. It ensured that a small segment of the population was not discriminated against and overrun by the prejudices of a majority. The concept worked best during the Civil Rights Era. Think: Individual rights.

In principle our Constitution is based on the fact that everyone has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's a pretty thought, but in actuality, it's not working because it appears that some of us have a greater right to life, liberty and a pursuit of happiness than others. During the era of regulation, government use to be the honest broker, ensuring there was a balance. But, no more.

I can see it mostly from a local level. We have community leaders and elected officials colluding with one another and it has undermined every aspect of our society. They cement their relationships through public-private partnerships which are hatched from pseudo government meetings. (think: illegal) By engaging in this form of conduct, government gives these programs "legitimacy" even when the programs are the product of secret meetings between the main parties. Anyone who tries to expose what they are doing wrong are bullied by the community leaders and ostracized by their supporters. It's government sanctioned racketeering.

When business owners become part of this ruse, the potential for corruption increases because they are the ones who can selectively reward new recruits with jobs offers. As the corrupt circle grows, it makes it easier to ostracize all those who are wondering what happened to "honest" government. Instead, we now have a "I got mine, you get yours" form of society.

Do not expect politicians to help you because they also feed at the trough by accepting donations from these unscrupulous people. In what should be the greatest shocker, many of these ruthless individuals are lawyers who work in public government. They are in the best position to look the other way when elected officials begin to conduct government business outside of legal, acceptable parameters. For example, a city attorney can look the other way as a commissioner breaks the dual office rule and takes on several leadership roles in county positions. In return, the city attorney can approach her at the county level, lobbying on behalf of his private client.

This is what actually happened to me. A city attorney did nothing to stop a city commissioner from accepting several county board positions. He then went before her at the county level to lobby a cause on behalf of his client. In the same year, she was busy using her county position to set up an illegal meeting that would bring together a developer and the rest of the city commissioners in an obvious breach of the Sunshine Laws. From there, things would snowball into an avalanche of fraud, conspiracy and cover-ups.

The law enforcement agencies knew about all this and did nothing. I, as a minority member, spent years trying to expose it and they all turned their backs because it would have exposed a corrupt network in this county. It crosses the line between public and private sector. So don't blame just government, since it's their collusion with the stalwarts in the private sector which is creating the inequities in our society.

The only person who bested them, did it in federal court. I think it cost him nearly half a million dollars in lawyer fees.

Trust me when I tell you that only a combination of federal attention and constant public outrage to spur them on to do their fucking jobs, will anything change.

She's also vague about exactly how the relationship with literary agent ended... NYC_SKP Jul 2013 #1
I suppose she has the right to publish the book. But, she won't razorman Jul 2013 #26
my guess is she's waiting for the dust to settle. ejpoeta Jul 2013 #2
I still can't John2 Jul 2013 #11
I still cant get over the afection in her tone of voice when she said "George" darkangel218 Jul 2013 #3
Sounded like she was talking about her own son, didn't it? Chiyo-chichi Jul 2013 #17
Yes!! darkangel218 Jul 2013 #18
I've said it before. I hope they do write it. Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #4
How would it help the DOJ? n/t Skwmom Jul 2013 #6
If they are looking for flaws in the case, Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #15
The DOJ marions ghost Jul 2013 #9
They will review the case and examine it from a federal, professional level. Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #16
They will review it and then marions ghost Jul 2013 #20
Public outrage and pressure. Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #21
Right--because there's no real ethics at the top marions ghost Jul 2013 #22
Protecting the opinions and rights of the minority Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #25
You and I are definitely on the same page! marions ghost Jul 2013 #28
Thank you marions ghost. Baitball Blogger Jul 2013 #29
No problem marions ghost Jul 2013 #31
She is going to try to HappyMe Jul 2013 #5
I still find it hard to believe Control-Z Jul 2013 #23
The whole thing stinks to high heaven. HappyMe Jul 2013 #24
djathink? n/t librechik Jul 2013 #7
I think any profits should go to Martin's family.... Blue_Tires Jul 2013 #8
Any lawyers here? Might there be a prosecution case here for jury misconduct?. . . DinahMoeHum Jul 2013 #10
she didnt change her mind the publisher pulled the deal leftyohiolib Jul 2013 #12
I hope that they investigate warrior1 Jul 2013 #13
She had family visits on weekends. alsame Jul 2013 #30
Is this equally outrageous? Nye Bevan Jul 2013 #14
I don't tend to read any of that crap. HappyMe Jul 2013 #19
I agree. But it is also in our hands to not buy the book. I know that is what I'll do. southernyankeebelle Jul 2013 #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I don't think Juror B37 a...»Reply #25