legal agenda

legal agenda

5 Tips for Writing Authentic Crime and Legal Fiction

Posted on November 8, 2018 in Uncategorized

Writing about a highly technical topic, like crime or law, can be intimidating. In the world of criminal law, there are innumerable rules, practices and procedures. Criminal lawyers speak their own language. To write a good crime or legal story, a writer needs to have credibility.

Credibility comes from working within the rules of criminal law and speaking the criminal law language. But you don’t have to be a cop or lawyer to write about crime or criminal law with authenticity. Here are some tips to get started:

1. Brainstorm: As in any genre, a good story with interesting characters and plot twists must be the starting point. Physically write out brainstorming ideas without regard to order, quality or completeness. Just start writing, and let the ideas flow.

2. Get Inspired: Inspiration often comes from outside sources, often unexpectedly. Read great books, and watch great movies, especially crime and legal drama. Read about crime in the news. Follow interesting trials. Watch true crime stories on television and read true crime books. You never know when some small tidbit will spark a story in you.

3. Outline: Everyone has their own methods of and opinions about outlining. Whether organized by chapter, act, scene, character or plot point, outlining is a critical tool to organize a story. The more complex the story, the more important an outline can be. Outlining can be especially important in a crime novel or legal drama because your story needs to fit within the rules of the criminal law world.

For example, if you want to have a piece of exculpatory evidence discovered at the end of act two, you will have to know what stage of the legal proceedings the case is in to help determine how the evidence could realistically come to light.

4. Educate Yourself: Read up about real criminal law on the internet and in books. Look for information specifically targeted to the non-lawyer. Watch real trials when they are televised. Watch true crime shows. Although they often cut out a lot of detail, especially the procedural stuff, they usually get things right. Read news stories and true crime books. The same warning goes for these sources: they are usually accurate but often leave out details you might want to know.

Do not rely on talking head lawyer commentators on television. They usually speak off the tops of their heads and often get things wrong. They also often have an agenda that they are pushing and speak of things from that point-of-view. Finally, do not rely on other criminal law fiction. Crime fiction in television, movies and books are often completely, eye-rollingly off the mark.

5. Consult an Expert: When in doubt, ask a question. As you brainstorm, outline and draft, keep notes of questions that come up. Consulting an expert, usually a criminal lawyer, can be costly, so try to know what you want guidance on before you contact someone. Also, be sure to speak to someone who is able to explain things simply and clearly, and who is willing to admit when they do not know something.

Following these tips will give a writer confidence to create within the world of criminal law and to begin writing crime and legal stories with authenticity.

Con Artists’ Legal Trap – Do You Believe Phone Polls?

Posted on November 6, 2018 in Uncategorized

So, you thought the purpose of that poll showing 73% of California restaurants now providing salsa as a standing table-top offering was to provide factual data, right?
Wrong!

The true purpose of the poll scam, commissioned by a salsa processor, was to further an agenda–to get you to accept as bald fact that salsa, placed alongside salt, pepper, and sugar in that high percentage of restaurants proves its mass-market appeal.

Intent is to mislead you into believing it has now replaced ketchup as a table-top standby. If truly informative data were sought by a truly objective pollster, the actual figure would probably be closer to 20%, maybe as high as 35%. How, then, did the pollster in this case, get to the 73% stratosphere?

Easy! Through adapting con artists’ tactics, the run up, or lead-in, questions in this poll scam paved the way.

These preliminary questions, asked of restaurant operators, were (something like): Do you feel salsa is a worthy addition to your customer’s choice of offerings? (Key word, “choice,” connotes big-heartedness, customer satisfaction, willingness to serve, to please. The “yes” response to this question would be substantial.)

Next question, please: Do you feel that having an ample supply readily available is important? (Key words here are “readily” and “important.”) To the restaurateur-respondent, reaction is pre-ordained. ” To himself he would say, “Of course, I just said it was good customer relations, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.”

Now that the recipient has been pre-conditioned to say “yes,” and the setup is complete, comes the big question, “Do you offer salsa as a standing table-top offering? With the way the restaurateur-respondent has been “set up,” this will bring out puffery, exaggeration, hyperbole, and outright lies. It will jump the percentage of those saying yes way up, to the pollster’s desired level of positive response. Viola, the 73% figure.

If you are ever polled, while you’re wondering if this train of thought has a caboose, you might also be thinking: it’s better to be thought of as a fool than to open my mouth wrong and remove all doubt. If you feel on the defensive, bingo.

That’s exactly where the word-games-playing con artist pollster wants you.. Does the name, Pavlov, ring a bell? Bingo again. The pollster is trying to make you feel like Pavlov’s dog, obedient, compliant, follow his leads, and, above all else, be polite and agreeable, so that you will give him the answers he wants.

It’s not only the lead-in questions which are the enabler–to jack the percentage of the main-thrust answers for which the pollster is fishing. Often it’s the choice of questions themselves.

Example from another poll scam:

If the pollster asks, “Do you believe in capitalism?” the yes answer would probably come to somewhere around 50%. (The term, “capitalism,” has a negative connotation to many, bringing forth thoughts of greed, money barons, the exploitative rich, albeit it is still the generally accepted American economic system. That’s why the split in opinion.) Yet, if the pollster con artist were to ask the exact same question, in different words, “Do you believe in the American free enterprise system?” (key words here are “free,” and “enterprise,” which does not carry capitalism’s baggage), this alone would jerk upwards the positive response to at least 90%.

Go figure!

So, remember, when that friendly pollster next phones, you must ask yourself, “Does he actually seek informative data? Or, is he trying to manipulate me–to promote his own hidden agenda?”

If you decide his purpose is the latter, you might never again believe poll results you see, read, or hear.

[Top]

UN Agenda 21 – An Effective Substitute for War

Posted on November 4, 2018 in Uncategorized

According to the 1967 book, The Report from Iron Mountain, lasting peace would be neither desirable nor sustainable nor create the legitimate right for government to rule society. Among its nine specific recommendations, war and militarism topped the list as government’s best overall solutions until and if there was an effective substitute for war, equal in stature and impact to war, capable of creating a similar national rallying point for the masses. Their highest recommendation other than war and militarism was… environmentalism.

“It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution.” The Report from Iron Mountain, Leonard Lewin, 1967

Environmentalism as a “basis for a solution,” and rallying point for the people has indeed arrived. The U.S. Government takes pride as a champion of the environment yet things are not as they appear. To the chagrin of those who stand for everything “green,” environmentalism is the sugar making it easier for the masses to swallow the advancement of global governance.

The story begins in 1968 with the founding of the Club of Rome at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy. As an international non-governmental organization (NGO) think tank and consultant to the United Nations, the Club of Rome claims on its website to be a group of world citizens, sharing a common concern for the future of humanity.” In keeping with their concerns, the organization recommended that the United Nations host the June 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (aka Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” -The First Global Revolution, Alexander King, Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, 1991

More than 100 world leaders, including President George H.W. Bush, gathered in Rio for fourteen days of discussion on climate change and biodiversity. While attending, President Bush Sr., along with 178 other national heads, signed the Rio Declaration, a non-binding, non-partisan statement of broad principles for environmental policy called United Nations Agenda 21. Its global mission is to elevate the status of nature in order to preserve the natural world for future generations.

By executive order, in 1993, President Bill Clinton created and set up the President’s Council on Sustainable Development to translate UN Agenda 21 into public policy administered by the federal government. The Council’s sixteen-point document, “Sustainable America,” affirmed the commitment to develop and implement the Agenda’s environmental policies in the United States. Its three strategies, environment, economy, and social equity are represented by three interconnecting circles.

“Governments… should adopt a national strategy for sustainable development.”

-“Agenda 21,” Section 8.7

ICLEI, also know as Local Governments for Sustainability, is the UN accredited Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) headquartered in Bonn, Germany charged with the local implementation of Agenda 21’s action plan in over 1,220 communities worldwide.

Our campaigns, programs, and projects promote Local Agenda 21 as a participatory, long-term, strategic planning process that addresses local sustainability while protecting global common good.” -ICLEI

Sounds good on the surface, but upon closer scrutiny, Agenda 21 is the implementation plan of global governance from the local level on up. Since that day in Rio in 1992, the Agenda’s more sinister implications have come to light. “Soft” law of the original non-binding document had no legal teeth. However, as ICLEI infiltrates local communities, Agenda 21’s true colors shine through as “hard” regulations with associated penalties.

The phrase “sustainable development” gave Agenda 21 a positive public image but in the end, it only panders to and soothes the people with a marketing sound bite while nefarious new infrastructures are seamlessly put in place. Federalists in 1787 used the same sort of strategy when they distributed Federalist Papers to assure the public that all power of government was in the people; meaning a new constitution would in no way change the hard-won liberties gained by the American Revolution.

“UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, all energy, and all human beings in the world.” Behind the Green Mask, Rosa Koire, 2011

An advisor to President Clinton on his Council on Sustainable Development, Gary Lawrence, realized what the Council was up against with the American people. He discredited those who would disagree with their Agenda 21 plan of implementation and invented new language to fool the “segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away… So we will call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.”

No matter what you call it, sustainable development, comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth; it all boils down to the ideology of “communitarianism.”

communitarianism: Political and social philosophy that emphasizes the importance of community in the functioning of political life, in the analysis and evaluation of political institutions, and in understanding human identity and well-being. It was developed in the 1980s and 1990s in explicit opposition to the theoretical liberalism of thinkers such as John Rawls. According to communitarians, liberalism relies on a conception of the individual that is unrealistically atomistic and abstract; it also places too much importance on individual values such as freedom and autonomy. Its chief representatives include Amitai Etzioni, Michael Sandel, and Charles Taylor. See also collectivism. –Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. © 1995-2008 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. (emphasis added)

Communitarianism promotes the exact opposite philosophy upon which America was founded. Private property was originally equated with wealth and the lawful rights of the individual protected by government. Though property ownership is still equated with wealth, Agenda 21 now turns the founding concept of private property on its head. As early as 1976, the American Planning Association referred to property-owner groups against government taking property without compensation (the legal theft of eminent domain) as “radical property rights organizations.” Farmers, especially, find troublesome the growing number of restrictions on the use of their own farmlands.

“Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.” -“Report of the U. N. Conference on Human Settlements”, Vancouver, Canada, May 31-June 11 1976

The story told in The Report from Iron Mountain is completely validated by Agenda 21. Around the world, a neo-feudalistic communitarian system is gaining strength in both ideological acceptance and practical application. Techno-aristocratic authority of those who would play God to protect nature from unthinking, naughty humans is growing, not diminishing. The Agenda 21 goal of “property fairness” extends a cookie-cutter concept to communities worldwide, consolidating populations into “green-belted” “sustainable” urban developments, uniform grids offering greater ease in the management of people.

Agenda 21 is poised to wipe out whatever might be left of the private property rights of individuals. Do not be deceived by the rhetoric. Sustainable development is underway where you live. An agenda of domination and control bleeds through the seemingly benign cover story in the land of the New Normal of nature’s rights.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government.” Common Sense, Rights of man, and other Essential Writings of Thomas Paine, Thomas Paine, Anti-Federalist, author, 1791

[Top]