NSA SURVEILLANCE ABUSE COVER-UP: GOVERNMENT-SANCTIONED IGNORING OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE?

 

After the recent release of classified documents by EDWARD SNOWDEN (go to: http://www.theguardian.com/world/edward-snowden) it is obvious now that federal authorities in the United States have been withholding and/or covering-up literally TERABYTES of important intercepted intelligence information that could exonerate countless American individuals. 

Therefore; any and/or all intelligence information gathered by the NSA which may exonerate (illegally) monitored individuals; should be IMMEDIATELY released to those said individuals; and especially in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA; where ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE. (Note: The State of California is a SOVEREIGN ENTITY -- see also: States Rights (excerpts seen below)

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates represented state governments that had become autonomous centers of power. The Constitution avoided a precise definition of the locus of sovereignty, leaving people to infer that the new charter created a divided structure in which powers were allocated between the central government and the states in such a way that each would be supreme in certain areas.

Nevertheless, defenders of states' rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated national government would run roughshod over the states. With ratification of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protection for the states. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of RIghts. The amendment stipulates that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government.

The 1980s saw a major shift in government policy. President Ronald Reagan agreed with the public that the federal government was becoming too involved in state government affairs. As a result, a major focus of his administration was to reduce the size and power of the federal government. States were given more authority to experiment with policy initiatives, especially social programs, which had previously been directed from Washington. Subsequent administrations followed suit. In the early 2000s, however, political analysts commented that a new trend was afoot: both Republicans and Democrats were pushing for federal laws that would preempt state laws, especially state laws that attempted to regulate financial corporations and other types of business. go to: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/States%27+rights+doctrine)

 EVIDENCE CODE SECTION 100-260

115.  "Burden of Proof" means the obligation of a party to establish by evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court. The burden of proof may require a party to raise a reasonable doubt concerning the existence or nonexistence of a fact or that he establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact by a preponderance of the evidence, by clear and convincing proof, or by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Except as otherwise provided by law, the burden of proof requires proof by a preponderance of the evidence.

140.  "Evidence" means testimony, writings, material objects, or other things presented to the senses that are offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.

190.  "Proof" is the establishment by evidence of a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court.

210.  "Relevant evidence" means evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action.

220.  "State" means the State of California, unless applied to the different parts of the United States. In the latter case, it includes any state, district, commonwealth, territory, or insular possession of the United States.

250.  "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.

260.  A "duplicate" is a counterpart produced by the same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography, including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic rerecording, or by chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent technique which accurately reproduces the original. 

GO TO: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=100-260

PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE: 

A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action 

In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases. 

The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof. > GO TO: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Preponderance+of+Evidence

QUESTIONS: 1) It is common knowledge that judges and prosecutors etc can and do frequently ignore exculpatory evidence in order to guide cases; so is the NSA somehow attempting to making this illegal trend acceptable? 2) What other NSA-garnered evidence exists (than what has already been submitted by John) that may exonerate John and/or prove a criminal conspiracy exists and/or existed between Jake Paolinetti and friends; and/or whether Officer Don Paolinetti was in any way knowingly involved in this conspiracy? (other than supplying vehicles used for some of the targeted stalking and harassment) > go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exculpatory_evidence