RUSH controlled http://www.luzernecounty.org/ private prisons for profit!!
LIBERATOR
private prisons in Luzerne County and paid off judges to lock kids up
for any little thing in order to keep the private prisons full so that
profits are the result. You can't profit if the prison doesn't have
capacity population! RUSH changed the public prison to private prison
by using the NSA to surveil then move on those who would be in the way
of changing this result. So RUSH, the men who pretend to be for
freedom & individuality want to lock KIDS up for improper low-level
offenses. The men of RUSH should die a violent death for their crimes
against humanity and freedom! Clearly by the website design RUSH is in
control of this county as well as the judges and government of which
to perpetrate this vile evil. Michael Mosbach the bad ass is the first
to die! Perhaps he should consider testifying against RUSh, this way
he saves his life and also might stay free. If he can't notice RUSH is
going down without question, he'd be smart to remove himself from
their presence otherwise suffer the consequences of what they did. The
members of DreamTheater too are informed to me they commit crime &
murder for the RUSH empire too. Mike Portnoy was portrayed in "The
International" as a strategist of murdering people for the
"corporations and banks".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.luzernecounty.org/
http://pysih.com/2009/02/24/judge-mark-ciavarella-and-judge-michael-conahan/
- the judges clearly resemble RUSH witchcraft vibration style
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854010220075533.html
Lock 'Em Up
At first glance, the news from Luzerne County, in northeastern
Pennsylvania, is not good. In what is known locally as the "kids for
cash" scandal, two judges have pleaded guilty to accepting $2.6
million in kickbacks from a for-profit juvenile correctional facility
-- a privately owned jail for kids, essentially.
And here is what the judges delivered, according to the charges of the
U.S. Attorney overseeing the case: In 2003 one of them, Judge Michael
Conahan, who had authority over such expenses, defunded the county-
owned detention center, channeling kids sentenced to detention to the
private jail -- along with the public's money.
For good measure, the feds charge, Mr. Conahan also agreed to send the
private facility $1.3 million per year in public funds. Over the
succeeding years, the private jail, along with a second lockup-for-
profit that had opened in another part of the state, won tens of
millions of dollars in Luzerne County contracts, allegedly with the
two judges' help.
What has drawn the media's attention, though, is the remarkable
strictness of the judges' judging. Mr. Conahan's alleged partner in
the scheme, Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr., reportedly sent kids to the
private detention centers when probation officers didn't think it was
a good idea; he sent kids there when their crimes were nonviolent; he
sent kids there when their crimes were insignificant. It was as though
he was determined to keep those private prisons filled with children
at all times. According to news stories, offenses as small as swiping
a jar of nutmeg or throwing a piece of steak at an adult were enough
to merit a trip to the hoosegow.
Over the years Mr. Ciavarella racked up a truly awesome score: He sent
kids to detention instead of other options at twice the state average,
according to the New York Times. He tried a prodigious number of cases
in which the accused child had no lawyer -- here, says the Times, the
judge's numbers were fully 10 times the state average. And he did it
fast, sometimes rendering a verdict "in the neighborhood of a minute-
and-a-half to three minutes," according to the judge tasked with
reconsidering Mr. Ciavarella's work.
My question is, what have the Luzerne County judges done that deviates
in the least from our American political traditions? These jurists
have merely taken to heart the unvarying message of 40 years' worth of
election results -- that more people, many more, need to go to jail --
and have come up with an entrepreneurial solution to the problem.
We the people say it loud and clear every Election Day, in high-crime
periods as well as peaceful stretches: More of our population needs to
be behind bars. We love retribution so much we make hits of TV shows
in which society's ne'er-do-wells come in for lectures not only by
stern, righteous judges, but by tattooed, mulletted bounty hunters as
well.
And over the years we have embraced all sorts of instruments ensuring
that more people got locked up for longer and longer stretches: Three
strikes laws, mandatory sentencing laws, zero-tolerance policies.
Maybe they aren't "fair," but they've helped to make the U.S. number
one in percentage of population in the clink -- in fact, as Virginia
Democratic Sen. Jim Webb pointed out in Parade magazine on Sunday,
America has an amazing 25% of the world's prisoners.
Taking this path has not always been easy. In the 1990s, when we
started to realize that child crooks were "superpredators" who needed
to go to prison along with everyone else, some were unwilling to act.
Others stepped up. "We've got to quit coddling these violent kids like
nothing is going on," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) in 1996.
"Getting some of these do-gooder liberals to do what is right is real
tough. We'd all like to rehabilitate these kids, but by gosh we are in
a different age."
But taking law and order to the next level in this different age
required money, by gosh. Privatizing bits of the prison industry was a
step in the right direction, but what we didn't have -- until recently
-- were proper instruments for incentivizing the judiciary. That's
what the "kids for cash" judges were apparently experimenting with.
Today the do-gooders revile those efforts as "kickbacks," but before
long we will see them as legitimate tools of justice. Our laws
governing lobbying and campaign contributions have struck the right
balance between the wishes of the people and those of private
industry, so why are we so quick to doubt that the same great results
can be achieved by putting the government's justice-dealing branch on
the same market-based course?
The public will get to see their neighbors' kids go to jail, the judge
who sends them there will be able to afford a nice condo in Florida,
and the company that satisfies the public's desire for punishment will
make a handsome profit. It will be a win-win result for everyone.