I had been told that i was a legal genius,by a judge who ruled me guilty for shoplifting food, a misdemeanor. I plead guilty for my actions,and at first I ¿thought? that the judge was being sarcastic when he said this. However,very natural, this exchange of words was meant with “utmost sincerity”this particular judge had iterated — to me, directly among the rest of the attendants at the hearing when the complement was made at the very summit of the trial,parting ways the judge bid me farewell,and that he knew I would practice better obedience in the future, to make better decisions and hopefully i would find the security that I needed- in order to not have to rely on theft for food,water or any basic need of those both struggling or not.This judge asked me why I had plead guilty exactly,before the the trial was over. So I responded with this. “ I was almost charged with a felony for breaking and entering on private property once upon a time — it was a church in north east Washington state,your honor, and we were homeless all the way from Arizona and had made many stops along the way,well we had been in jail for at least three weeks until we were subsequently let out and both that breaking and entering charge and one additional bracket of several other possible charges that they would have had all the power in the world to press against me.” I rushed into a very steep summation in which “I will assure is unequivocally valid”, thus i proceeded as to state in the hearing what remains verified presently, from me to anyone;who would question my leg for this claim to — it’s unequivocal validity “in truth… and said,” the charges were dropped because we knew we were guilty of absolutely none of the false charges because the natural reality of the wholesome and invariable truth held plainly that the events or claims made by the prosecutor never occurred so the charges were for crimes that we had not committed ,not a single crime other than needing a place to sleep other than outside -in the blatant blizzard,mind you,however, homelessness was illegal,something that — unbeknownst to us at that very time still rendered useless in our defence because homeless wasn’t the reason for the arrests that took place which had been verified by the judge officially near the remaining moments that the charges had dropped consecutively closer to the exact time the trial would end. Being told we could turn to the church, was the catalyst which sparked or ignited the full sequence which led to our arrests So, we decided that we should go knock on the door of the steeple up the way from where we were though we assumed as we were informed prior to the approach to the sanctuary

At least “they shelter people during the cold season” we thought.

I almost had my rights stripped from me that day before we won that case,a thought with such — resounding depth that engulfs my mind on a very intense, dimensionally different level or way of thinking- the impact on my reflection of it as a whole is astounding in its depth. The ratio of the likelihood of a victory in this case was small compared to the opposite likelihood of a conv-iction. The victory, after three weeks in a Washington state jail was out of sheer luck and nothing more. Because we fought for our free lives in court, we won a case against the persecution of homelessness. Further more,relaxed with a sound mind, I was left to present myself to speak on behalf of how well my character could be accredited for and what my reason was for admitting guilt when I was still innocent until proven guilty,also the nature of my intentions when the crime was committed ,I was called to answer this too, which I had clearly implied that since I was hungry,or without shelter in very harsh conditions. i asked the judge to examine for himself and see this was the only other trial i have ever awaited and undergone through jail and arrest ,and then stated in conclusion “No one who wants a fair judicial system and a fair trial as much as I do would have lied to get their way when the reality of my decision to plead guilty was because I actually committed the crime,i had actually stolen the food,thus, this charge my second time getting arrested i felt I knew that I must own up to,because my first and only other time getting arrested was the breaking and entering charge ,two years prior to the shoplifting charge,and it was a wrongful arrest. So, why pray for justice in one trial, and obstruct the duty of justice when another case presents itself?”

In other words why ask for trust in one hand and with the other destroy the sanction of trust by being anything but honest — yet, only when it is in one’s own favor..mm..?

Lastly,I resign to such a rant to state that this is the ultimate question, to define the simple integrity the Judicial system lacks most often. The thing I have grown to understand is that the Treasonous Question is the only question left to ask by one whom is truly unequivocally... innocent,it was the only question I had left to ask and the question pertains to the judge’s integrity in the first trial,where all false charges were dropped- and provides the judge, unwittingly, with the overall sense that you are completely or even absurdly, wrong when merely going head to head -against the power invested in their honor - this (is the Treasonous Question; is that question which must be proposed,especially when one faces an unfair judge who , in malfeasance, single handedly rigs your trial) — skewing the jury’s perception of unequivocally existing facts ) the question goes as follows,”Would You stand openly- or admittedly corrupt,biased, or unjust, to know that you unlawfully overlooked a case in the Judicial court of justice ,your honor,that you have allowed in effortlessly-poor taste and a very much so - biased,lackadaisically presented care for, the details of an ongoing case, a case in which has definitely neither neglected the corrupt or unjust party,or persons ,And has rather chosen directly, to come to aid with one side only,and that is the side who has incorrectly obeyed the law(in this case the law itself abusing its own power). In these particular cases,the first trial would have been the prosecutors unjust actions,and the second trial ,was I,myself who was at fault and willing to plead that way for the first time in my life in an actual hearing.