Appendix Pages 18, 19, 20 and 21


State of Florida


Robert F. Allston

Case No. 94-803CF


I am now representing myself in this action and should therefore I presume put something together in the way of a brief.

As I understand, I have some rights to obtain law but I don't know just what they are and as a practical matter how I might obtain it being incarcerated in the Stockade (see my Motion to Proceed Pro Se and for Continuance). At the same time I have no knowledge or background in the subject.

Comment: The above mentioned motion is not included in the Web pages.

With these things in mind I beg the court's indulgence to allow me to argue the value of equity in relation to law herein as a general proposition to the best I understand them in aid of my cause since my argument may necessarily rely more heavily on equity and I will address the specific issues of my case later.

I want to touch on the ancient roots of these subjects which could be discussed to the same result from either religion or science; being before a court I will choose science. Man's evolutionary development as a complex social being was almost entirely completed prior to the advent of writing. Thus he reached his peak genetic ability to relate, one to another, through what one might think of as basic moral law and what I will call basic equity.

With the advent of writing he greatly broadened his capacity for social organization, including government, through the codification of equity. If we add to codified equity (statutes, case law) the capacity for it to be selectively applied or modified (intentional or not) I will call it law; being the actual application of codified equity as it "comes through" in a court as perceived by citizens. It seems to me that popular usage of the term "law" could mean either one.

Thus from a contemporary perspective equity is all of the collective wisdom and folly of mankind dealing with human relations that relates in any way to us but is not codified equity or law as I have defined them. Equity is also a consensus rather than individual judgment in the way I am using it.

It follows that the source of all law is equity and the closer law is to equity the more just and reasonable the law.

By its nature and history, law has always been associated with government; defining it, centered upon it, and much of it enforced by government. By its nature and history equity has always remained with its roots in the people; their culture, birthright and biological heritage.

It follows that a good gauge of the quality of government is how close together law and equity are. Examples are Haiti and the old Soviet Union at one end and well run governments such as Norway and Switzerland on the other. When the disparity gets too great, revolution may result destroying law.

I trust the foregoing has not been too tedious but having no background in law I wanted to define and explain my terms.

With the exception of our revolution, they have a very poor record as instruments of social change. In both the case of the Bolshevik and 1930s Germany, an unrepresentative minority took over causing their own people and the rest of the world no end of trouble. The French revolution also had mixed results resulting in wars throughout much of Europe. Thus the results in three out of the last four major revolutions were anything but ideal and we are not talking about the revolutions themselves but what followed.

Through their ability to convert equity into law thus narrowing the gap between the two, courts can play a major role in diffusing revolution. I would argue that if the king had thrown the American courts open to equity 10 years prior to 1776 it would have provided a much more orderly transfer of power to the colonies and very possibly at the end of 10 years independence might not have been much more than a formality. One might say he same for the other revolutions. In essence it would have moved from a disorderly street process to an orderly judicial process where equity is converted into law and which might very well have avoided both extremes of Nazi Germany and communist Russia.

Of course the continental European courts of the era were much more statute oriented but I am thinking in terms of our courts. As well, kings can't be expected to just give the store away through the courts but I am talking about a democratic government and its courts which the people already own.

Revolution is being discussed in this country (Exhibit A). The question of revolution has many faces but has two major causes; the continued growth in public, private and foreign debt and the growth in crime which right now is the greater problem. Exhibit B demonstrates the sad and critical nature of the problem and gives little cause for optimism that the growth will not continue.

Some of our closest sister democracies are England, France and Germany. All of these countries have ethnic, cultural and racial problems as we do. What is remarkable from exhibit B is how close together they are in numbers of prisoners considering differences in language and culture suggesting we should be in the same range; yet they all have less than 100 prison beds per 100,000 population while we have over 500, and rapidly growing, an incredible difference.

The basic problem in the U.S. is that higher level social engineering should be directing at risk individuals into the lower middle class (or better) but instead is directing them into the drug culture or dumping them onto criminal justice.

Criminal justice by its very nature as society's final safety net has very limited ability to redirect at risk people into the middle class and it has many bad side effects higher levels don't have.

Higher levels of social engineering don't primarily employ criminal statutes whereas criminal justice does. Thus massively overloading the criminal justice system has generated quantities of criminal statutes and case law increasingly restricting the scope of acceptable behavior thus increasingly criminalizing the behavior citizens at the margin (Exhibit C). Criminalizing behavior particularly through a poorly designed and overloaded criminal justice system results in serious anti-government and antisocial sentiment further fragmenting an already highly fragmented society and sending some if not many into more crime and/or the drug culture.

In my opinion our massively excessive use of criminal statutes in an attempt to substitute for the proper higher levels of social engineering (welfare, etc.) is a gross failure and creating many serious problems of its own in (a) the frustration and bitterness engendered in those citizens led to believe they are a viable instrument (b) the frustration and bitterness engendered in the main stream citizens against whom the statutes are employed (c) the constant antagonism of the drug culture with little benefit and (d) the wasted resources that could be going into more productive areas.

The drug culture's lack of education and main stream values has created a separate culture with its own dialect, life style and organization. For the most part they have no interest whatsoever in main stream democratic institutions or any form of main stream authority; but view criminal justice as aggression from a foreign culture for which crime against that culture is a legitimate response.

Thus whether I view crime from the published exhibits or my own personal view I find little hope for optimism that its growth will not continue. I read in the press that Florida tourism is down to about a 20 year low due largely to crime. As crime deepens tourism will fall further leaving even less public and private funds to fight crime. At some point world opinion may suddenly proclaim the U.S. a basket case of crime and insolvency forcing the dollar, which recently has already had to be propped up by central banks around the world, into a tailspin causing depression. Within 6 months the middle class will be destroyed (no jobs, no money) and the drug culture will be on a crime and murder spree. The now destitute crime ridden middle class will seek to destroy government and its debt. Any resort to military power will result in mass defections with weapons. We will enter a world of no utilities, little food, government by armed bands in the streets, gang controlled barter, death and disease everywhere, very little communications and endless rumors about attempts to establish government and what its nature might be.

I don't pretend to have the final word on the nature of any revolution. However I have no reservation in saying that as time goes on we are gong to make radical changes the easy way of the hard way and if we wait until the Nation gets a "no confidence" vote from the world community or the stock market the easy way will be foreclosed.

This completes my argument. In review the main points are:

a, There is a growing gap in the application of codified equity (statutes, case law) which I have defined as law and the will of the people which I have called equity.

b, This gap is reaching critical mass toward revolution.

c, We tend to think of revolution in terms of our own successful revolution but the fact is out of the four major revolutions in the West starting with our own, it was the only successful one and 2 out of the 4, going to the political extremes of left and right, were unmitigated disasters for both their own people and the rest of the world.

d, In 1776, there was relative consensus on a limited number of issues focused against a foreign government leading to a successful revolution.

e, In 1994, our Nation is highly fractured with innumerable contentious issues focused against ourselves and our own government.

f, Part of the fractured society that didn't exist in 1776 is the drug culture; a separate culture antagonistic to main stream culture. Revolution would release it to function as a free agent for the duration and beyond; and being antagonistic to any outside authority it would not send representatives or otherwise bargain its interests to cooperate in forming a new government.

g, Since our present Nation is so fractured in many other ways as well the process of forming a consensus for a new government could prove very protracted and there is the added possibility of foreign intervention.

h, Thus a reign of terror could easily last for years and at the end the possibility by historical standards, of a small unrepresentative minority taking power is substantial.

i, It is reasonable to argue that had the courts in the past four major western revolutions had structures similar to our courts and maintained their integrity and been allowed to admit equity in sufficient degree, revolution could have been both averted and the result of necessary change more representative; which I argue for our Nation's present situation and my cause.

Respectfully submitted, September 21, 1994.


Comment: To reach the exhibits to the brief, take the first link below. Exhibit A is the first two links, Exhibit B the second two links and Exhibit C the fifth link.

This is a page in the Web site entitled Legal Reform Through Transforming the Discipline of Law into a Science.