If we let Federal Courts snatch right to prove actual innocence, We Can All go to Federal prison for crimes we didn't do

Stanley Bolten,

First they came for the Jews, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I didn't say anything because I wasn't them either. Then they came for the Republicans and I didn't say anything because I am supposed to be a democrat, then they came for me because I didn't stand up for anybody that could have defended me. I kinda changed the wording from the original quote to make a point.

If we let the Federal or State Courts make any rulings or decisions that an innocent person has no right to prove their innocence for a crime that they did not commit, then we are all capable of going to Federal or State prisons for something we didn't do. Now corrupt politicians and prosecutors can shut down or censor any blog, website, posting, tweet, photo share, meme, online video, or anything for that matter because they can leverage the Courts as a pro-censorship and pro-imprisonment mechanism to throw dissent in prisons. Dissidents, activists, anybody who disagrees with anybody in Government, whether local, state, or federal, can now throw anybody they want in prison or on Probation. They can use secret evidence against anybody, and it doesn't have to be false allegations of "Terrorism" like The Patriot Act had talked about. It can be child porn, murder, rape allegations, drugs. Anybody can be thrown in a judicial tribunal that treats you the same as a prisoner from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Well that happened to my friend Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News. People just, well.... rather ignore that he is innocent because of the subject matter of what crime he was charged with. When people hear what crime he was charged with, people shut their minds down, people get angry and want to kill him, and judge him as guilty without even knowing, seeing, reviewing, or even understanding the very evidence that they had used against him originally.

So What if the very evidence that had used against him was fraudulent? Proves the opposite of guilt? contains contradictions? the Government tells different stories? Works to cover up or conceal the very evidence that they had originally used to indict Brian David Hill? Then Brian is to be further punished and treated worse than a criminal.

He keeps fighting to prove his innocence, then the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal appellate court, affirms the decision of corrupt Judge Jackson L. Kiser saying that Brian has no constitutional right to the very criminal case discovery evidence that was used against him, even though such evidence can be used to prove his factual innocence. That is exactly right! Even the American Bar Association passed rules adopted by the State Bar councils and committees, saying that a federal or state prosecutor in criminal cases should be compelled by ethics rules to turn over a copy of any evidence material and records that proves the actual innocence of a criminal defendant in any criminal case. The Federal Courts ignored the rules that all licensed attorneys have to follow or risk of being disbarred and not being licensed to practice law. They rather protect law-breaking attorneys than let a man prove his innocence that talks about committing suicide if he is permanently blocked from proving his innocence. If he kills himself, than the Government is guilty of openly breaking the law and getting away with it and using that to bully an innocent man into killing himself.

How wrong is that? and why is the American people not standing up in his favor? Is it because it hasn't happened to them so they won't stand up for Brian when his constitutionally rights are entirely eviscerated in front of him and he may commit suicide as a result because Federal Judges are pissing on top of him (pardon my french) symbolically?

Will people stand up for him or will he die in shame for a crime that he didn't commit because people emotionally feel it is easier to make him a criminal, to make him a criminal person and say that he is guilty rather than admit that he is innocent?

People think that it hasn't happened to them, so it isn't true. So because not everybody was assassinated like President John F. Kennedy, that makes it not true either? Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated but the average person wasn't assassinated, so does that make it a fable because it hasn't happened to every single one of us? It can happen to any of us but not every single one of us because it is all about keeping the slaves in line, keeping the ants in line because (to quote from a Bugs Life) "if one ant stands up, they will all stand up, ruining out way of life" referring to the slave drivers. Maybe it is time that whether you think emotionally that Brian is guilty of his criminal charge or actually innocent, that we should fight for his right to prove his innocence in a factual evidential manner. Maybe we need to at least let him try to prove his innocence rather than drive him to hang himself like another Aaron Swartz or take a bunch of pills that the Probation Office can force down his throat as part of his terms and conditions. Should Brian end up a martyr or should we stand up for his right to prove that he didn't commit the crime that he was charged with? How many people have to die in a corrupt judicial system before people take action and do something about it? It is up to all of you?