Mirroring Case Study #4: Criminal Justice in the Braggadocious Style

Table of Contents:

I.  Introduction: Resurrecting Enemy Messiahs and Beating Dead Horses

II.  Criminal Justice Elements of Braggadocious Theory

III.  The Braggadocious Style and Criminal Inevitability

IV.  Identity Safety in Space (ISiS) and Connecting Emotionally to Political Indictments

V.   Giving Americans A Rest:  "Accountability" by Distracting Braggadocios with The Accountability Equation.  

VI. Sources

I.     Introduction: Resurrecting Enemy Messiahs and Beating Dead Horses

Spring is here!  It’s the time of year for resurrection and renewal!  No, Jesus isn’t the only one who can be brought back to life.  In other ways, hope is there for persons with an aching, near-religious fixation—that divinely-inspired urge to open their Antichrist’s plush Florida tomb and expel society’s sins once and for all.  They need only to roll the stone door aside and find not a fresh corpse two days old, but the desiccated remains in not so desperate need of rehydration and desecration.   Thus in 2023, the seventh year after their great Election Apocalypse Era (E.A.E) began and many years after the expired statutes of limitation of either 2 or 5 years, another zombie has been awakened and dragged from its slumber to be beaten as would yet another dead horse.  And this one certainly ain’t Jesus. 

You see, faithful readers, a holy spirit found one Alvin Bragg, a radical progressive prosecutor elected in one of the most liberal districts in the country.  His mission set forth in his 2021 E.A.E election campaign for the New York City District Attorney post was to hold one man accountable while in the midst of a raging crime crisis.  Though he downgraded serious felonies to misdemeanors more than half the time, did not the penitent thief become the only person directly promised a place in paradise by Jesus while they shared the crucifixion experience? 

Thus, many a common criminal were saved by District Attorney (D.A.) Bragg downgrading their crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, or by being acquitted in the hapless NY courts, or by not being prosecuted in his district at all.  You must realize of course that career criminals need to start somewhere if they’re going to be forgiven after burdening society with years of violence and lost resources.  On the other hand, the would-be martyr, Orange Man Bad, our would-be hero Bragg’s Antichrist, was worthy of damnation even if his partisan persecution could set fire to the country outside of this metropolis. 

Alas, when in Rome, this upgraded indictment to avoid an expired state statute of limitations is based on a questionable legal theory, but Bragg needn’t concern himself with such provincial frivolities that fail to display the necessary faith in his Empire’s aspirations.  Nor should he be forced to consider “normal” American values and practices like judicial ethics, legal restraint, historical precedent, and national harmony. 

Like approaching the vengeful Pharisees, speak not of the biased venue, nor the seizing of the case from the indifferent Federal Elections Commission (F.E.C.) that judges federal election law and passed on the case in question in a way that would make King Herod Antipas proud.  Nor would the paper-thin indictment stolen from its rightful federal jurisdiction be of concern to the New York jury pool crowd vehemently shouting for handcuffs and a Crown-of-Thorns mugshot before even the indictment declaration was illegally leaked either by them or the NY D.A.’s office, the only two privy possibilities.  What’s it to them if a felony leak of grand jury decisions or the sudden haste to indict contributes mightily to pushing the whole country closer to the brink of greater religious, I mean ideological schism.  Think ye naught and haveth the faith!   

Be aware, reader, that Alvin is an ideological “lawman,” something not so bad if you’re politically aligned with him, which is probably 90% likely if you’re voting in his election district and you’re not the 10% of early Christian-like cult members, the minority known to the extra supermajority of the city as Super MAGA insurrectionists, the insidious modern equivalent of those thrown to the lions in the Great Colosseum of Rome.  By popular mandate, Bragg is used to weakening the enforcement of the law when confronting an actual criminal menace, subway pushers or stall robbers for a fine example, for bread and Broadway circuses long have swayed the mob there.

Contrary to this would-be Caesar’s decrees about his past patrols of Wall Street, his so-called “bread and butter,” he rarely prosecutes felony white-toga crime as a serious offense or with such fervor as he’s trying to do with this current Station of the Cross.  As Bragg builds up his enemy’s messiah and their grievances flow from his scored wounds, would Representative Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) and his House Judiciary Committee be sweet Saint Veronica wiping the blood and sweat from the Orange Man’s face on his largely self-imposed crucifixion trek to Golgotha Mount?  We shall see at the Rapture!

Yet for this unprecedented prosecution, D.A. Bragg won’t be Pontius Pilate washing the blood from his hands in disgust.  No, he’ll be wading right into the partisan gore to hold that man to account.  He’s finally ready to step up and confront the real menace to NYC and America other than trying convenience store clerks for murder who shot back at their attackers in self-defense.  No, the real menace to the USA isn’t China, Russia, World War III, inflation, economic collapse, or fading American influence across the world.  Why, it's local selective accountability, an article of faith as everlasting and sacred as the words in the modern foreword printed in a recently updated version of the Bible itself.  Thus, it’s a perfectly legitimate, ad-hoc, textual justification for his crusade to get that man.   

What then led to DA Bragg’s pentacostal moment so long after this Great Unaccountability Sin was to have happened in his fair city, and so soon before the 2024 E.A.E presidential election with his great demonic opponent already acting as the front runner of his party?  No, it certainly wouldn’t be election interference by starting the case now and having it conclude in January 2024 E.A.E during peak primary season because no leaked phone call transcript asking about corruption in Ukraine was made that we know of yet.  No way could this prosecution be timed to interfere with the upcoming election, I simply just don’t want to hear it!  Shut up!  (plugs ears and closes eyes)

One must know by now that the answer is not so apparent to someone with common sense because it would be a tale too tall to tell even to the most gullible of our wee, undereducated, post-COVID children.  One would be shocked to know that the inspiration to prosecute now came not from real corruption or starting an actual armed rebellion, but from a 7+ year old non-disclosure agreement arranged by a convicted felon and serial liar, personal attorney Michael Cohen, with a porn star, “Stormy” Daniels.  But one might protest that hush money payments and nondisclosure agreements are perfectly legal especially when considering that regardless of some nebulous, hypothetical political gain or loss from arranging them, nearly every adulterer wants to hide their alleged infidelity from their spouse, their family, or the public by using a gag order on the accuser, which if arranged by lawyers is also a voluntarily signed legal document.  No Roman spears are pointed at either voluntary signatory! 

One might also be curious to know how covering up such a sexual non-crime with a perfectly legal, formal or informal agreement to keep silent could be seen only as a purely political act in some cases but not others, like “informally” snuffing out so-called fake news then "true but suppressed" stories about Hunter Biden’s drug use, sexual escapades with prostitutes, questionable business dealings, and his infamous laptop during his Vice-Presidential father’s 2020 E.A.E. Basement Campaign?  Might multiple factors be important to politicians concerning the release of sensitive information and not solely political gain by defrauding voters of some vital electoral knowledge as Bragg pathetically tries to claim now?  (shoulder shrug) 

A final burning question is this: isn’t it agreeable to most people that when provided with the full context of a case of paperwork errors from a convicted lying lawyer, that the whole thing seems a trifling issue when paired up against further enflaming our political civil war?  Wrong.  As Jesus was asked by Pilate if he was a king so as to feel out if he was a threat to Rome, would this modern version have responded that “I am only king (or president) as you say I am because the paperwork errors from the January 2017 E.A.E. nondisclosure agreement payments (incomprehensively) influenced the NYC election that was already over with a year prior and where only about 9% of New York County voters chose me as king (or president), but I am king that way as you say I am?”  

That’s exactly the guilty response that the Manhattan grand jury wanted to hear so that Bragg could bring forth the indictment.  It’s also what grants martyr powers to the so-called defrauder of the Manhattan voter from seven years ago.  After-all, the pro-indictment crew probably believed that the 9% of Manhattan voters in 2016 E.A.E. were fraudulently mis-lead into their election selection of the Orange Man Bad seven ignorant years ago!  It should have been 0%, but due to them being kept in such darkness because of the missing information and choosing the wrong guy in Bragg's faction's opinion, the election was feloniously stolen from the city’s extra supermajority that didn't come close to choosing that man anyways!  If Bragg had his way, not even 1% of Manhattan voters should have suffered to let the Orange Witch to live!  

 So unlike Pilate finding no cause to try Jesus as some insurrectionary king, Bragg found the cause and has gleefully decided to hammer the corpse to the cross himself, and any other elected official coming at him with oversight questions might expect the same outraged handwringing should anyone question his crucifying mania.  D.A. Bragg now stands tall over some abstract line of justice he hastily drew in the sands of the pliable and once-vice happy Big Apple with the help of a lapdog jury pool.  And he has taken a page from the (Bill) Clinton-era Republican morality playbook, whereby the best way to convince the rest of the country of the wickedness of ones’ enemy is to focus on sexual infidelity instead of policy.    It seemed to have worked out for Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky Scandal and not for the puritanical yet hypocritical Republicans of the time, right?  Why not go down that Clintonian road to Calvary again, only on the opposite side of the former lawyer who became a popular President after his affair?     

To close out this thoughtful introduction, let’s stow away the religious imagery in the back of our minds, being very aware of the emotional and charismatic impact that such near-religious faith has on our Mirroring subjects’ minds as we seek careful and rational inquiry into their actions.  However, let’s not put the right honorable Mr. Bragg back on the same ice his sleepy case was stored in until the election time of year was right for thawing and interference.  We’ll need to refer to him throughout this work even if his blatant actions have broken the seals to the entrance of a new level of political hell, something his bloodthirsty acolytes can’t or won't seem to comprehend.  So, chill for now, yee zealots! 

As Mirroring practitioners, we have much work to do in our study of the building martyr complex and at least the second new form of Criminal Justice hastily hatched by Manhattan clerics since 2018 E.A.E: Braggadocious Criminal Justice while the first was Mueller Exonerative Justice.  So, prepare your soul, and the souls of all your haters, for national salvation and ruin.  Like it or not, the reckoning hath begun!  

II. Criminal Justice Elements of Braggadocious Theory

The original criminal justice elements of a Crime:

“Mens Rea (Intent) + Actus Reus (Illegal Act) + Concurrence + Causation = Specific Crime” 

The Criminal Justice Elements of Braggadocious Crime:

“Ham-sandwich” Intent + Minor Illegal Act boosted by a Secret but Supposedly Serious Illegal Act + Warped Concurrence + Causation-likeness = Braggadocious Crime

       Now for the main event: the Braggadocious Style of Criminal Justice!  As you may or may not realize from the name, his working theory is all about timing: 

• whether it's the alleged criminal act (paperwork errors) having taken place long after the underlying event(s) (alleged affair, nondisclosure, and presidential election).
• what the specific causation is between those scattered events over time.
• whether a prosecutor needs to disclose the more serious underlying crime at the same time as they disclose the minor crimes to the public as they rush to announce.  Is it public information to know the whole truth of what a government official is doing in a criminal trial of a VIP in an unprecedented, historic trial?  (transparency, but in due time?). 
• the idea that a prosecutor can shop around for a nonexpired statute of limitations, meaning the time during which a prosecution must take place, from either local, state, or federal law when the ends (indicting) justify the means.
• whether the indictment is brought at a time to maximize political damage to the accused, which is ironic because Bragg's underlying accusation involves defrauding voters of supposedly publicly required information (the alleged affair) in order to minimize political damage to the Orange Man.  

        Perhaps the most important guiding principle of this time-based style is to be first in order to have the right to boast about the achievement of indicting.  Conviction doesn't matter as much as pursuing the ideological high of indicting and reaping the benefits of doing it before other courts determine Orange Man Bad's January 6th involvement or whether phone calls illegally sought out votes in Election 2020 E.A.E.  What matters is the prestige resulting from using this style and putting out the information to the media without the specifics as constitutionally required for the accused, much as Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's Exonerative Justice (Mirroring Volume III) required that an accused is not exonerated when a prosecutor declines to charge them as one might expect in a system where it's innocent until proven guilty (Note that it's not in Nancy Pelosi's system, however).  The not-formally accused must also prove themselves "not, not guilty" in the press since no charges were filed, but the evidence was released to the public and to a hostile Congress anyways instead of a fair system of justice in a court.  Braggadocious justice takes Mueller Justice a step further by pulling the trigger on the not, not guilty person, as Bragg openly stated his target was always lawless and unaccountable, therefore warranting any sort of charges against him that can maximize this abstract notion of accountability.  

        Unlike Mueller, Pelosi, or Bragg, one should also recall that in a perfect world each case is separate in the criminal justice system and must be tried only on the specific merits at hand and within the confines and timing proscribed by law.  Later, we'll deal with the logical fallacy of considering the "criminal look" of certain not, not guilty persons, the presumption of guilt instead of innocence, and using an abstraction like "above" or "below the law" to determine real world consequences for people regardless of facts, logic, and the evidence at hand.  

        So, now let's have at each element specifically.  Ham-sandwich Intent refers to the lowest of low standard a prosecutor needs in order to convince a friendly grand jury to indict a political opponent they already have a bias towards as evidenced by political voting patterns in that jurisdiction.  Normally, intent would refer to the guilty mindset or mens rea of the accused person.  However, we have a special circumstance here where that man's mindset in engaging in criminal activity actually doesn't matter much at all at least when charging using a friendly grand jury.  It is given that a grand jury is only presented with incriminating evidence by the prosecution, overseen by an appointed or elected judge, and comprised of a structure and practice based on NY state law.  A prosecutor need only present exculpatory evidence for the potential defendant based on their commitment to legal ethics or in a way that can't escape the judge monitoring the case, who like any judge may exhibit bias or may be shopped for as Judge Juan Manuel Merchan, ruling over this indictment, was a proven friendly venue for other prosecutions involving the Orange Man's business associates, some of whom were convicted.  

        Regardless of the fairness or political inclinations of the judge, a defense is not presented because a grand jury is a helpful charging mechanism for a prosecutor, not a balanced, confrontation between offense and defense. It's used to give a popular voice to charge or not, even if the person in question is deeply unpopular to the jury pool that will be selected. Therefore, that a grand jury only considers that which is presented to it by the prosecution creates a structurally low bar. So, not only would a grand jury almost always indict "a ham sandwich" because of the structure of the grand jury system if presented with a solid case by a skilled prosecutor, making the intent of the accused less important than the criminal acts, but even a fairly non-aggressive prosecutor like Bragg would have an easy time if the jury pool is already disposed against the most famous defendant in US history, a person with 91:9 opposition in the last presidential election in the district where the jury pool is drawn from.  

        It's also given that Bragg clearly has the political motivation based on his 2021 campaign accountability pledge, which is quoted in the next section.  Though he didn't vow to "get" that man, he did vow to hold that man to account.  He defeated a fellow Democrat opponent who was thought by many to not be tough enough to wage the cases against the Orange Man, and once in office, Bragg was pressured by his deputies to push harder, with prosecutor Mark Pomerantz who voluntarily joined to prosecute the case even resigning in disgust because of a lack aggressiveness.  Going further than even Bragg, the former underling, Pomerantz, threw out all prosecutorial objectivity and potentially damaged the case by publishing a book that was supposed to act as a blueprint to get that Man (regardless of justice).  So, with even more radical pressure on his mind, Bragg also eyes his own future re-election in Orange Man-hostile Manhattan, and the prestige coming from being the first to indict him could have a significant impact on his re-election bid.   Therefore, there are clear political motivations at work within the D.A.'s office driving him forward and the political benefits were simply too obvious to fair-minded observers and apparently too tempting for someone like Bragg to resist despite the damage he could bring to the country and its already damaged institutions.  

        Ensuring an indictment by a grand jury where defense representation is not present is low bar stuff. Seeing as how his jury audience is almost certainly very receptive and only he has the stage, Bragg had little interest in presenting exculpatory evidence like the last minute, voluntary testimony from Robert Costello, who blew apart perjurer and ex-felon Michael Cohen’s statements about the Orange Man, which were critical to the election fraud case and which Bragg clearly did not want before his jury. Yet, even the hundreds of pages of probably exculpatory documents denied to the jury before Costello's testimony were not powerful enough for them to more carefully consider their actions.  Thus, the lowest possible bar was met, intent was made irrelevant, and the ham-sandwich was prepared for consumption in the trial phase by the next hostile jury pool.  

        What then is the crime?  The alleged criminal acts are 34 paperwork errors with an underlying serious crime that’s not disclosed, though he used the more serious, unknown crime to boost the misdemeanors to felonies so he could also avoid any interreference from the statutes of limitations.   According to §175.10 of the NYS Penal Law, the criminal act is "falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."  In his press conference on April 5th, 2023 E.A.E., Bragg made the statement that the Orange Man "agreed in 2015 to a catch and kill scheme, that is a scheme to buy and suppress negative information to help [his] chance of winning the election."  This very series accusation of a criminal act, choosing words like "catch and kill scheme" is actually nothing more than alleging that a politican, gasp, would seek to limit harmful stories during a campaign by using his personal attorney to limit that damaging information as result of lawsuits, which another gasp, is the precise occupation that personal lawyers are paid to handle.  More later on why it is absurd to assume only political intent for such a charge, but for now, the reader should know that Bragg is alleging the paperwork errors are evidence of this information suppression and conspiracy because they are not listed as campaign expenditures, but personal ones for which liar Michael Cohen was seeking reimbursement. 

        Therefore, to be the more serious felony charge, and to prevent the 2-year statute of limitations from stopping the case for good, the indictment was cobbled together anyways by requiring both intent as just discussed and the willful acts to commit another crime or concealing the initial fraud.  At the same press conference, Bragg dodged about the full nature of the indictment and hidden felony by saying "So let me say, as an initial matter, the indictment doesn’t specify it because the law does not so require. In my remarks, I mentioned a couple of laws."  He also stole enforcement from the F.E.C. as the tax violations when he "noted the federal election law cap on contribution limits," yet even that seems more like an afterthought rather than a solid legal basis to move forward with the upcharge.  

        Because the prosecutor does not feel the need to disclose the second requirement (the felony) to charge for the public, only that it was "criminal conduct that was concealed. One of the concealed crimes we allege is New York State election law."  So, just one concealed crime, but for the others, we'll all have to wait until he decides to follow the 6th amendment to the US Constitution and be specific to the defendant AND THE PUBLIC about what he's prosecuting.  In a fairer world, obviously the hill for him to climb is steep, and he should probably see his case thrown out simply for its incomprehension as a legal theory.  After-all, he must prove the link between the paperwork errors and the remaining silent charges we might speculate as being either a campaign finance violation or by not properly listing the paperwork error, then that it was an attempt at a coverup.  These are all difficult and necessary hurdles he shouldn't be allowed to overcome.   

        Stepping back, we need to dissect the criminal acts more carefully and explore how Bragg argues the alleged guilty mindset of covering up hush money payments shares a connection or concurrence with the paperwork errors.  I'd argue that Bragg has serious issues with each element of crime, especially his assumptions behind the Orange Man's criminal intent being only oriented towards politics, and not the potential to damage his family and business reputation.  Bragg also makes a minimal attempt at showing that man caused intentional paperwork errors in order to lie to Manhattan voters.  

        In a more objective setting, the bar would be high to prove that the paperwork errors and hush money payments were purely political in intent and for the sole purpose of concealing that information from NY voters.  The re-imbursement documents from Michael Cohen in question occurred after the 2016 E.A.E. campaign and the election were over with, so Bragg would have to prove that a liar like personal attorney Cohen was accurate and truthful in changing his view that he was instructed by the Orange Man to illegally pay the porn star only to create a specific paper-trail with campaign funds, but not listing them as campaign expenditures, something that would somehow only show campaign finance fraud instead of protecting his spouse and family, paying out the settlement with his personal funds as the evidence shows, while displaying the payments in personal financial records.  Basically, Bragg would have the Orange Man's campaign report the nondisclosure payments and reimbursement as campaign contributions to the public, which is completely opposite of the purpose of having a secrecy agreement in the first place.  It also labels the payments as  in-kind campaign contributions that are in no way personal, despite the fact that extramarital affairs involve spouses as familial factors and not solely political ones.   Such agreements occur all the time to legally pay for secrecy without admitting guilt in the underlying issue that led to it.

        Let's further incorporate Warped Concurrence into the criminal act discussion.  Concurrence is the nexus of the criminal act and the intent to commit it, basically the two elements of crime flowing in the same direction towards the accused's involvement as currents in a river.  So, the Orange Man could be perfectly guilty of whatever Stormy Daniels alleged in 2006 B.E.A.E., but she signed away her ability to force him to admit in court that he did as alleged when she accepted the undisclosed amount of money for silence and he accepted no fault in regard to any of her claims.  

        One doesn't simply sign secret agreements and get paid $130,000 for them only to disclose them unless you think you can get something better.  When she went public, she broke the agreement and he didn't, she lost in court over her defamation suit against him, and most importantly, none of the underlying guilt of the Orange Man was proven in court about the sexual allegations.  If anyone has the intent to gain money off the scandal, it would be the porn star who lost her cases in court and not the person who paid for silence, didn't get it, and is accused of illegally paying for it during an election where his family and business reputation could be harmed by furthering the story.  

        Therefore, to prove the criminal charges about the paperwork errors, Bragg would be forcing the Orange Man to engage in a topic he didn't want disclosed, that he maintained his innocence about, that he won in court against her trying to defend, and afterwards, the lawyer, subject to attorney client privilege, was obligated to keep silent especially when the client maintained their innocence.  Cohen for his part denied that the payments were anything but personal payments up until being released from his prison sentence and after allegedly saying they were personal expenditures to Mr. Costello when Cohen was suicidal, threatened to do whatever was necessary to avoid prison, and when he had everything to gain from throwing the Orange Man to the wolves, but he didn't.  

        If the money indeed was paid from personal accounts, their legality is almost certain and the paperwork errors flutters away, which is why it was perilous for Bragg to rest his case on Cohen's side-changing word.   It's that lying and flipping after being contradicted with evidence that led Cohen to be found guilty to campaign finance charges and lying to Congress.  If proven, such personal expenditures are not subject to campaign finance law, thus removing the upgraded charges arrow from Bragg's quiver and which likely collapses the whole case.    

        Finally, the foremost example of how concurrence and causation have been terribly distorted rests with the illogical formulation of the campaign violations.  The indictment alleges the criminal paperwork acts took place on or about February of 2017 E.A.E., in New York state in violation of NY election law to defraud voters even though a presidential election is a national election and campaign finance violations are governed by the F.E.C., and even though the defrauding took places years after the alleged affair took place (around 2006 B.E.A.E.), a year after the Republican primary, and months after the general election.  Though many legal minds of both ideological persuasions have found serious flaws in the alleged criminal acts and have argued the case should be thrown out before going to trail, we can't assume such an easy resolution just because logic should prevail. 

        Though he potentially successful in the end with the biased court venue looming in the future, Bragg's convoluted and incomprehensible justice theory is a serious concern for those seeking practical justice reform.  As mirrors, we need to understand how this case is explained and how it might be used in warping a system to another prosecutor's benefit.  We need to explore a few more underlying issues related to the earthquake of changes occurring to our political and criminal justice system. So, let's get on with the inevitable.  

III. The Braggadocious Style and Criminal Inevitability

Assumed but unknown past crime + Permanant Guilty mindset + Punishment Predetermined + Denying the Existence of Any Exculpatory Evidence Ever= Braggadocious Inevitable Accountability    

Some Important Proponents of the Criminal Inevitability Sub-Doctrine:

•      "And I think it’d be hard to argue with the fact that that’d be the most important, most high-profile case, and I’ve seen him up front and seen the lawlessness that he could do.......I believe we have to hold him accountable."  Alvin Bragg’s 1/15/21 E.A.E. radio response during his D.A. campaign as “fact-checked” by PolitiFact where he pre-judges every future Trump case because of Trump's potential “lawlessness and lacking accountability.” 

•      “No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.” Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi on the rights of the accused to prove their innocence, which assumes they start from a place of guilt, as tweeted on 3/30/23.

•      “This is somebody who has spent more than four decades trying to avoid being arrested or being indicted so this is a really scary moment for him despite what he says." CNN's "Legal Commentator" on the inevitability of contact with the criminal justice system and scared people living their lives just to escape prosecution and indictment for a crime that's not yet known, spoken on cable TV on 3/30/23.

•        "Please your Majesty," said the Knave, "I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end." "If you didn't sign it," said the King, "that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man"......"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.  "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first--verdict afterwards."  "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"” from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Caroll, the King expounds on the dishonesty of the Knave not signing a confession of guilt thus being guilty by saying he's not guilty, while the Queen demands the punishment before the verdict.   

What is criminal inevitability?  It's best summed up as "show me the person, I'll show you the crime" or the "not, not guilty" style of the Mueller Commision as it searched for indictable Russian collusion, yet it could only release its findings and hope some other entity could find the guilt.  This Braggadocious philosophical approach is part of the ability of those invested with government powers to search endlessly in order to balance the justice equation of being neither "above or below the law" and to bring about the abstract concept of accountability.  Key lawmakers and talking personalities have taken up the torch and brought back this old concept whereby the accused isn't presumed innocent.  Because of who they are and their guilty disposition, one only need to look under every rock and those pursuing accountability will eventually find the desired evidence.  When it's inevitably found, the public can be made aware of the struggles the investigators went through for justice and thankful for the confirmation of the crime after its finally located in the piles of evidence.  

According to one CNN legal expert and psychoanalyst’s explanation on March 30^th, 2023 E.A.E. of the underlying theory behind this new justice, a certain accused person has “.. spent more than four decades trying to avoid being arrested or being indicted so this is a really scary moment for him despite what he says.”  Not only is Braggadocious justice about being the first to hold an accused accountable as per their election promises to a near uni-party election district, but it’s part of a natural and inevitable process that’s written into the very DNA of the accused themselves.  Bragg is merely the one to fulfill this destiny and locate the evidence for the obvious.  

Accordingly, the accused was always going to be arrested and it’s unfortunate and costly that all those years have been spent by them being chased by phantom law-enforcement figures.  They could have just turned themselves in, after experiencing the shame and remorse they must be feeling from all of those unidentified crimes.  If he, the accused, was his authentic self, which is a born criminal, they could shed the terror as the pre-judgement of their future crime is overwhelmingly evident to CNN's amateur psychoanalyst.  The sooner the comeuppance the more humane it is for the scared future criminal.  

If the accused simply understood their own innate guilt, they could’ve spent 40 comfortable years in prison instead of living their lives.  Reminiscent of pre-crime from the movie “Minority Report” (2002), if they had just listened to her compassionate advice 40 years ago and followed the crime predetermination of pre-cogs like her, maybe the accused wouldn’t be afraid anymore.   I'm just speculating about the presumed benefits of this prophesizing, but if the reckoning had happened way back when, then maybe certain movies like "Home Alone 2" wouldn’t have to retroactively be scrubbed to rid of the accused’s cameo, who wasn't known yet as a Republican let alone as a likely criminal.  With Hollywood saving money, everyone would have won.  

And you might be wondering why this talking head is relevant to a district attorney’s case?  It all rests with the inevitability argument put forth in Bragg's 2021 E.A.E. election campaign.  You don’t promise a partisan voting base to hold someone accountable if you aren’t going to inevitably find the crime to do that.  Afterall, though Bragg is very much a partisan elected official, he also holds judicial power.  So, to find the inevitable crime of his target, and to be the first to boot, he dug through the stacks and twisted and contorted.  And then to him and the CNN analyst, the accused's past becomes the future as the crime was always there, they just needed to the spend time and effort to root it out.  Therefore, DNA guilt is coded into this new justice.   

A final underlying theory is the Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi standard that “no one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence.”  Therefore, a crafty prosecutor need only find the person that has both the faulty criminal DNA waiting to be expressed, be the first to indict them even if that means leaving behind ethics, precedent, and national harmony, and then give the presumed guilty accused person their chance to prove their innocence in court.  This presumably would involve multiple DNA tests.  

Pelosi therefore brings the whole theory full circle.  As the Queen of Hearts, she has pronounced the sentence before the verdict in both of the impeachment cases she stewarded through her biased process in the House of Representatives and also by ensuring only acceptable members served on the January 6th Television Show Commission.  Those handpicked members were there to guarantee criminal charges were the sentence recommended to the Justice Department before the guilty verdict of incitement to armed insurrection was even announced (it still hasn't been charged for anyone in any court).  Seeing the Orange Man as an existential threat to democracy, she believes that his end-game is being barred from running for office, disenfranchising any voters who choose him in the Republican primary or the next presidential election, and making him do a perp walk to jail in front of his crying cult-members, who as threats themselves should join the 1,000 air breathers in detention awaiting a semblance of a fair trial even if they were merely in the same city as her on January 6th, 2021 E.A.E.  This sentence is inevitable to her, so why bother with a fair process and not just skip ahead to the punishment, a much-desired victory that was thrice denied to her during the impeachment processes and her Democrats-only January 6th commission (her handpicked 2 tokens were not authorized by their erstwhile caucus).  

Therefore, Nancy needs not to hear the words "guilty" as she already has the proper, just sentence in mind.  Using Bragg as a means to an end, she's almost certainly comforted by Bragg's fulfilment of her preconceived notions, not that she'd ever believe in a different verdict anyways.  So, these three views are complementary.  The CNN commentator roots through the past of the accused to find supposed highlights of criminal inevitability.  Nancy knows the future verdict already and believes the sentence should just be carried out to get it over with and to stop the threats to her America.  And Bragg is the instrument for both ladies as he's the one to pick out the lawlessness and start the punishing before the next presidential election so we can find out the verdict afterwards, the country be damned! 

 

VI.  Identity Safety in a Space (ISiS) and Connecting Emotionally to Political Indictments

Here are two examples in picture form of how the typical partisan views the indictment.  Without rehashing all of the monumental Mirroring Volume VI, Identity Safety in a Space (ISiS) refers to the protective layers one constructs with their environment (Safespace Parlor, the outer circle), the group of people allowed in is often based on physical characteristics or perceptions of them like race or gender, and finally the core beliefs that the person has towards an issue that can't be opposed without calling into question the fundamentals of their ideological identity.  Identity Safety is about preserving or gaining power in the interpersonal setting and preventing outsiders from gaining access to the core beliefs of an ideologue.  

Note that ISiS is irrational.  It is solely about emotion and preventing others from affecting one's inner identity and the conception of self.  As true partisans construct safe-spaces for their irrational beliefs, or what I call a "Parlor," they eliminate hostile elements and threats to their identity as they move towards the purity of their innermost circle.  To question the beliefs of the inner circle is to disempower them and call into question their entire identity, which puts them in angst, crisis, and anomie.  Nearly all people willingly avoid the demolition of their worldview.  So, one must understand that ISiS circles are ways to wall off one's self from the stress of being wrong or the emotions that while being authentic, don't provide valuable truths for the rest of society.  

Why does this analysis of ISiS and parlors matter?  Diametrically-opposed partisans clearly can't exist in the same debate space very productively.  Check out the reports of protesters and counter-protesters at the arraignment of the Orange Man.  Lots of shouting, yelling and pushing went on, but not much in the way of rational debate or action.  Each partisan protest gaggle was a parlor and a parlay, enabling those who agree (the parlay or the irrational message) to harmoniously chant, hold signs with similar messages, and act in concert with each other over a message in the same environment (the parlor on a cordoned off sidewalk outside a court house, which is the structure of the irrational debate).  Some people say this shouting past each other is exercising democracy, but in terms of an actual debate or something that provides a rational output, it's just emotional expression, comradery with fellow travelers, and confirmation of existing ideologies in order bring about harmony with allies instead of using grand persuasion to convert enemies (the goal).  

 

VI.  Giving Americans A Rest:  "Accountability" by Distracting Braggadocios with The Accountability Equation.

After years of the worst partisan bickering in decades, something that inspired the Mirroring Philosophy itself, I get a sense from existing in this society that many are sick and tired of politics in general.  The polls show a lack of confidence in leaders from both parties and for the direction of the country in general.  That is unfortunate as politics is simply power and who has it.  In our democratic-Republic, power requires constant, rational monitoring and using the aim of Mirroring itself, more rational decision-making so the outputs from those in power are more beneficial to more of American society.  Many of us have reached exhaustion from both the ravaging of the law to pursue the Orange Man Bad and from the reflexive grievance mentality resulting from this endless confrontation.

So, if you're tired over the issues happening to rich and powerful people you'll never meet, hang in there a little longer.  Though not directly impacted by the Orange Man or his head-hunters, millions of people hang on the word and actions of these two enemy factions.  However, I won't bore you with the importance of civics as we still have yet to discuss how identity safety can be achieved using an abstract equation that allows a zealous partisan to calculate their wishes for "accountability" and whether a person has finally been brought back down the law or raised up to not be below it. Though math often gives people anxiety, this exercise is one that is meant to be soothing, a kind of dirge where an accountability-seeker lists all of the complaints about your ignorant enemies on paper, confirming for yourself what you already know and won't being to change.  By saying these evils out loud to the air, maybe your abstract wishes will come true!

This indictment is the perfect opportunity to bring back the Accountability Equation from the last Mirroring Case Study (#3).    Like meditation, the premise behind this equation is to allow partisans to put in all of the grievances and to fantasize about accountability.  In this case, accountability refers to meeting the criteria for either not being "above or below the law" with specific reference to Bragg's indictment about paper-work, denying voters information about a nondisclosure agreement, and his theoretical justification.  Drawing the line of justice to ensure the intended outcome of either dragging an enemy to it or to act as a savoir of them when persecuted is the epitome of Mirror Justice. 

        Accountability is an abstraction whose real-world implications shift based on the ideology of the partisan.  Previously, accountability was divided up in Political, Social, and Criminal factors and made all factors dependent on the victim's wishes.  There are certainly political and social factors related to accountability, like if you believe a mysterious, socialist Hungarian financier is responsible for Bragg's election as D.A. and subsequent prosecution, or that allegations of infidelity have no social impact on the spouse, the family, and friends of the alleged cheater as they must be only social ones.  

        Yet, it is criminal offenses that are the main input to this equation.  With this indictment, starting the process of criminal justice by accusing a person of paperwork and election information crimes may be considered as guilt or innocence of the crime because of ideology instead of the factors and punishable or exonerating. None of these factors are totally just or fair, but it's the easiest way to describe striving for justice, which I've long defined on the most basic level as righting a wrong.

(P x C)+(S x C)= R= Retribution Points based on the computation of infractions or crimes that show a person or persons are either "above" or "below" the law.  

(R/100) x 100%= A = Accountability to the law based on the computation of Retribution Points divided 100, then multiplied by 100%. 

Directions from Case Study #3:

        First, check the explanation section of the variables. Plug in the appropriate numbers for the letters. Then perform the adding, multiplying, and dividing functions as instructed by the equation. After calculating your Accountability Percentage, check the Accountability Scale to see how serious the infractions are. Then using that Accountability Percentage, check your Retributive Scale for the amount of punishment required in order to rectify the injustices.

Explanation of Variables:

R= Retribution factor for the accused; how great their punishment should be in order to achieve “Accountability.” The greater the R-factor the greater and more brutal the punishment should be.
C=Criminal accusation=each C equals 10 points. Add up all criminal law criminal violations allegedly made by an accused, including but not limited to a person or persons that share any similar characteristic, like race or gender, to the desired targets of accountability. Each criminal C remains the same number when multiplied by P or S.
P=sum of all possible political crimes of the perps, each political crime is 100 points because it is both public, the desire to expose something private into public, and/or involves persons in or seeking power.
S=sum of all possible social crimes of the perps, each social crime is 75 points because individuals still have some freedom of association and speech and social crimes are harder to police.

A= Accountability Percentage for the desired perpetrator (insert name or names, real or abstract characters or groups). The criminal law violation, social, and political crimes can simply be allegations and need not be proven or adjudicated by any level of process because the Accountability Percentage is simply what level of retribution would ease an accuser’s sense of injustice.

Accountability Scale:
 
“Absolute Justice Required”= an A-score of 100% or greater
 
Outraged and Angry Justice= 75-99%
 
Very Concerned and Upset Justice=1-74%
 
<1-0%=Unity, the point of balance and harmony, no retribution required.

 Here are a few sample issues for you to try:

• Let's start off easy: Political, Social, and Criminal: This is the first president or ex-president indicted for a crime.  That crime is paperwork errors and withholding information from Manhattan voters.  The historical implications of acting on this case instead of other, better ones is not as important as being first and finally doing it.  The line was crossed, but the impact is up to the partisan whether it's a positive or negative. 

• Political crime: Bragg passed on trying this case when he came into his role, causing some in his office to resign in protest because he wasn't going far enough.  Based on partisanship, one can dismiss the early turmoil as either a sign that Bragg is a prudent judge of cases and wanted to wait until this paperwork case came about to pull the trigger, or the office was biased from the start and the defendants can't ever expect fairness or impartiality. 

• Social and political crime: The Orange Man posted a meme with him holding a baseball bat and suggesting it be used on Bragg.  He should have been muzzled in all public forums as should any supporters as a defendant shouldn't have the right to defend their reputation using freedom of speech.  Because of his threatening actions, only the government should be able to speak about his case because of its eternal, unbiased fairness.  

• Social and political crime:  Bragg claims that congressional oversight of his office, that receives federal funds, is interfering and even obstructing the process in order to protect their cult leader.  Prosecutors should not receive oversight from Congress, even if they accept federal funds, and as they be forced might do in other cases because this case is special.  Prosecutors should be able to put vague indictments out to the public on their schedule and not the defendant's.  They should be able to silence the accused because of their past threats as to the extent they deem necessary to ensure a conviction at least in public opinion, and they should not have to answer probing questions from any partisan cult-members from the opposing party of the prosecutor.  

• Political crime: Manhattan Republican voters are an extreme minority.  It's either a sign of bravery to vote that way in the district or a sign of cultish fanaticism.  If the voters were misled by the hidden sexual news, the voter percentage might have decreased because they would know the full extent of the allegations.  Contrarily, if 90% of the voters didn't choose the Orange Man in the first place, they didn't know about the allegations, yet they still didn't vote for him.  A vote for someone else is a not a vote for the Orange Man so they couldn't have been they defrauded.  Should they have been allowed to know the information to be doubly confident about not voting him?  Or, would they have been persuaded to vote for him because they approved of his sexual misconduct?  

• Social crime:  To some legal circles, Manhattan is a prudish land where sexual morals are strictly enforced.  Adultery or financial crimes are not only looked down upon, but the perps are ostracized for good.  The Gaia-fearing souls in this town almost never experience crime and would never suffer it.  Anyone seeking to garner above 8% of the vote here in the land of Broadway and WallStreet must have an impeccable reputation for abstinence, plain-spoken honesty and not theatricality, financial thrift, and a modest lifestyle.  Lying to these voters about sex or money is a greater crime in many cases than grand theft auto, armed robbery, or assault. 

        Those are just a few samples of potential crimes and how to formulate them for the equation.  It's not even close to being comprehensive and they're totally adaptable to a specific ideology with just the examples given.    Now that you have the basics of the equation down, scour your partisan news sources for possible crimes and enter them into the equation to maximize accountability.  When you feel as if your list has brought the universe into balance, only then will the irrational approach cause the changes you desire and your enemies be expelled from your site.  Thanks for coming along with this part of the journey as the next two years promise to be terrifying and eventful! 

VI: Sources

Allen, Hugh. “Da Alvin Bragg Press Conference Transcript.” Rev, Rev, 5 Apr. 2023, https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/da-alvin-bragg-press-conference-transcript.

Celona, Larry, et al. “Manhattan Da to Stop Seeking Prison Sentences in Slew of Criminal Cases.” New York Post, New York Post, 8 Jan. 2022, https://nypost.com/2022/01/04/manhattan-da-alvin-bragg-to-stop-seeking-prison-in-some-cases/.

Farley, Robert. “The Facts on Manhattan Crime.” FactCheck.org, 14 Apr. 2023, https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/the-facts-on-manhattan-crime/.

Joaquin Castro stated on April 28, et al. “Politifact - Here's What Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg Said about Donald Trump during His Da Campaign.” @Politifact, https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/apr/12/heres-what-manhattan-district-attorney-alvin-bragg/.

Legal Information Institute. Rule 7. the indictment and the information. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 4, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_7

“Legislation.” NY State Senate, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10.

Leip, David. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, https://uselectionatlas.org/.

Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York the People of .. https://manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf.