According to a September 27, 2020 Forbes.com article by Nick Sibilla, there are over 70 million Americans with a criminal record. That is one in three adults.
It is a shocking statistic and an injury upon the American people that never heals.
Mass societal criminalization is America’s dirty little secret.
“[With] 5,000 criminal statutes on the books and over 300,000 federal regulations that impose criminal penalties,” says a June 22, 2018 press release by then Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA).1 It is no wonder America is “eating its future.”
What this means is that almost any law-abiding citizen could be indicted and convicted of anything. Once indicted, a conviction is a statistical certainty. Americans are awakening to the very real possibility that it is no longer “if” you will be charged with a crime…it is a matter of “when.”
Dr. James N. Fry, a law abiding citizen with no criminal history, was naive. He trusted the justice system. He believed that truth would prevail in a court of law.
“There is nothing new about the high conviction rate in federal courts, although it has been consistently rising since 1973. The conviction rate has been above 99% since 2003, above 98% since 1995, above 97% since 1985, above 96% since 1982, above 95% since 1975, and above 94% every years since 1955.” (Source: JusticeDenied.org.)
The elephant in the room is that the outcome at trial is statistically the same no matter what. Once the prosecution indicts, it imprisons. Period. The prosecution runs the show from start to finish, and most judges, understanding the inevitable, complicitly and subtly support the prosecution with gentle nudges towards the end objective. After all, many judges were once prosecutors themselves and carry that mindset onto the bench.
“This explains clearly why the criminal ‘justice’ system is an entire sham,” says, a former professor who wishes to remain anonymous out of fear. “The system lacks any meaningful justice, and to most prosecutors, it is the playing field for recreational prosecutions.” he continued.
Who are “America’s Destroyers?”
To prosecutors, who are unelected civil servants, permanently destroying lives is rationalized in the name of “justice.”
An indictment alone will ruin reputations, relationships, and freeze assets needed to defend one who is “innocent” until proven guilty. Most prosecutors will stop at nothing to wreck the lives of its targets.
Prosecutors have been known to go so far as to obtain court orders to seize retirement assets, life insurance cash values, and children’s education funds.
That is precisely what happened to Dr. Fry.
Americans are at risk of attack by those individuals imbued with the highest power conferred upon a fellow citizen. A prosecutor can destroy lives without responsibility or personal accountability. Prosecutors operate with immunity.
Notwithstanding the careless glut of criminal law resulting from past Congressional acts, the practical result being Criminalization of ordinary American life, commerce, and entrepreneurialism, Congress does not stir up mischievous investigations against America’s citizens for things that just happen during the normal course of human life.
Congress does not manufacture crimes out of whole cloth just to see if it can dupe a jury into believing its story.
No, Congress is not the problem. Malicious prosecutors are the problem.
In recent years, the public has become aware of the flood of rampant prosecutorial misconduct, increasing DNA exonerations revealing false prosecutions, and reversals of witness testimony revealing suborned perjury (coerced false statements). Such incidents expose some of the unethical courtroom tactics prosecutors use. But there is more to the story.
Kings of the Courtroom2
In 2014, The Economist, published an article titled, “Kings of the Courtroom.”
Former attorney-general, Robert Jackson, is quoted in the article as saying (in 1940):
“The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America.”
Prosecutors who abuse their power practice a form of “unjust justice” that today permeates America’s court rooms.
Once upon a time, to be a judge or a prosecutor was viewed as the pinnacle of success, the punctilios of honor and integrity.
Now, to those 70 million convicted Americans, and to those who love them, judges and prosecutors are viewed with scorn and distrust.
The “unjust justice,” which has overtaken America, is not the doing of Congress. After all, Congress is just a microcosm of us – We the People. Citizens are capable of resolving most problems between individuals if the government would leave Americans alone.
Honorable men and women of reputation and stature do not want to lose that reputation or stature. To act in such a way would be against their own personal interests. The truth is, such individuals are well-off, or even wealthy, and have no need, desire, or intent to defraud anyone. Also, it is perfectly understood that committing fraud would destroy everything that he or she worked his or her entire life to build.
Prosecutors say, “So and so engaged in a sophisticated scheme to support a lavish lifestyle,” or something to that effect. Those inflammatory words are also untrue most of the time because the accused is already successful, and has been, long before the alleged fraudulent act.
Such a staggering statistic of 70 million Americans with a criminal record makes reasonable citizens wonder whether such a number is even possible without overzealous prosecutors engaging in prosecutorial mischief and misconduct.
A “Middleman”
In Dr. Fry’s case, the government claimed there was a lynchpin “middleman” material to his investors.
To indict and convict Fry of securities fraud, the government had to manufacture a greater role for the “middleman” than was truthful.
The government’s alleged “middleman” had a criminal record dating back to 1987, according to court documents. The “middleman” was in reality Petters’ delivery man. He played no role in Dr. Fry’s business. His involvement was ministerial, meaning he had no influence whatsoever over Fry’s decisions and transactions to invest in any given venture.
If the prosecution could not make the “middleman” appear to play a more prominent role in Dr. Fry’s operation, its house of cards would collapse and it would be unsuccessful in obtaining a conviction against Dr. Fry.
Yet, the “middleman’s” role was no different from that of a bicycle delivery boy in a large city. He may have a criminal past, but is trusted enough to deliver documents to the principal parties. The “middleman” had no material effect or influence over any transaction. But, it is not what the prosecutors led the jury to believe.
It all hinged on the dramatic, “Fry received paperwork from a middleman and known felon!” prosecutors told the jury, as though that fact, in and of itself, somehow reveals some dark criminal intent. In truth, it was meaningless, equal to a judge accepting a pizza from a delivery boy who spent six months in jail as a kid for possession of pot.
There was no “middleman.”
Dr. James N. Fry is an innocent man who was demonized for merely accepting a “pizza” from a “delivery kid.”
Nothing more.
Prosecutor Spin
In the tragic case of Dr. James N. Fry, following the indictment of fraudster, Thomas J. Petters, the United States Department of Justice’s wayward Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force went on attack, accusing many innocent and vulnerable parties who ever did business with Petters. There were many, and the overwhelming majority of them did so in good faith. How could they have detected the fraud when some of the largest financial institutions in the world likewise failed to do so. Other powerful and influential people, were likewise duped.
Dr. Fry knew nothing about the Petters fraud. Court records state, “Fry did not participate in or even know about the Petters fraud.”
The Anatomy of a Malicious Prosecution
In order to convince a jury, prosecutors manufacture plausible stories that sound true, and drama that seems organic. All too often, it is nothing more than hyperbole and misteprentations.
Clever words. Besmirching and impugning tones. Inflammatory statements, such as those linking Fry to Petters, coupled with condemning body gestures, stick to a juror like Loctite Super Glue.
For example, the prosecution, through such tactics, was able to convince a weary and confused jury to convict Dr. Fry for “participating” in a “fraud conceived by Petters” even though court records explicitly state, “Fry did not participate in or even know about,” the Petters Fraud.
This head-scratching contradiction did not even make the jury pause.
One may rightly exclaim, “What on earth is going on in America’s court rooms?!”
There are legal tools a prosecutor can use to correct a miscarriage of justice, but prosecutors rarely use them even when moral virtue requires it. By doing so, prosecutors admit wrong doing themselves, damaging their reputations and jeopardizing the possibility of a future plush corner office at a prestigious law firm. True “justice” is all too frequently sacrificed on the altar of a prosecutor’s personal ambitions and self interest.
Dr. James N. Fry was targeted by malicious prosecutors empowered by the wayward Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, or “FFETF,” even though court records state that he had no knowledge of the Thomas Petters ponzi scheme.
Between the FFETF and the prosecutorial misconduct by an overly aggressive team of prosecutors who distorted facts and events with impunity, the truth did not stand a chance; Fry did not stand a chance.
Fry is one of 15,000 similarly situated innocent Americans the court and “justice” systems are trying to cover up, so the public does not become aware, but nobody will listen.
How to Reduce the Prison Population
“The United States of America has 5% of the world’s population, yet it imprisons 25% of the world’s prisoners,” said now United States Attorney General, Merrick Garland. The American government has become a “Conviction Machine.”
America does not have a criminal problem.
It has a prosecutor problem.
In another October 2015 article in The Economist, the problem and solution are summed up as follows:
“The best way to reduce the prison population is to reduce the prosecutor population.”
****
Read The Dr. James N. Fry Story Part 3 Here
1 Hatch, Grassley, introduce Bill to Strengthen and Clarify Intent Requirements in Federal Criminal Law,” Press Release, June 22, 2018. www.Judiciary-Senate.gov/press/rep/releases/hatch-grassley-introduce-bill-to-strengthen-and-clarify-intent-requirements-in-federal-criminal-law/
2 https://www.economist.com/united-states/2014/10/04/the-kings-of-the-courtroom