LAPD has attempted to negate the concept of inherent rights for the individual and instead become fatalistic. This places the citizenry as dependent.

Such are gradually marginalized or killed of at the discretion of the security force or military, police, and agents.

I seek only to remedy my situation through civil or criminal proceeding through laws and the courts not by defection to de facto members.

Will the two prisoners cooperate to minimize total loss of liberty or will one of them, trusting the other to cooperate, betray him so as to go free?

In game theory, the prisoner's dilemma is a type of non-zero-sum game in which two players can "cooperate" with or "defect" (i.e. betray) the other player. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of each individual player ("prisoner") is maximizing his/her own payoff, without any concern for the other player's payoff. In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly dominated by defecting, so that the only possible equilibrium for the game is for all players to defect. In simpler terms, no matter what the other player does, one player will always gain a greater payoff by playing defect. Since in any situation playing defect is more beneficial than cooperating, all rational players will play defect.

The unique equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution—that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the dilemma.

In the iterated prisoner's dilemma the game is played repeatedly. Thus each player has an opportunity to "punish" the other player for previous non-cooperative play. Cooperation may then arise as an equilibrium outcome. The incentive to defect is overcome by the threat of punishment, leading to the possibility of a cooperative outcome. If the game result is infinitely repeated, cooperation may be a Nash equilibrium although both players defecting always remains an equilibrium.

The Prisoner's dilemma was originally framed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950. Albert W. Tucker formalized the game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the "Prisoner's Dilemma" name (Poundstone, 1992).

The classical prisoner's dilemma (PD) is as follows:

The dilemma can be summarized thus:

The dilemma arises when one assumes that both prisoners only care about minimizing their own jail terms. Each prisoner has two options: to cooperate with his accomplice and stay quiet, or to defect from their implied pact and betray his accomplice in return for a lighter sentence. The outcome of each choice depends on the choice of the accomplice, but each prisoner must choose without knowing what his accomplice has chosen to do.

Let's assume the protagonist prisoner is working out his best move. If his partner stays quiet, his best move is to betray as he then walks free instead of receiving the minor sentence. If his partner betrays, his best move is still to betray, as by doing it he receives a relatively lesser sentence than staying silent. At the same time, the other prisoner's thinking would also have arrived at the same conclusion and would therefore also betray.

If reasoned from the perspective of the optimal outcome for the group (of two prisoners), the correct choice would be for both prisoners to cooperate with each other (both staying silent), as this would reduce the total jail time served by the group to one year total. Any other decision would be worse for the two prisoners considered together. When the prisoners both betray each other, each prisoner achieves a worse outcome than if they had cooperated.

This demonstrates very elegantly that in a non-zero sum game a Pareto optimum and the Nash Equilibrium can be opposite. In other words, that a non-zero sum game may not have a solution that is both optimal and stable; a Pareto optimum can be unstable and the Nash equilibrium can be sub-optimal.

Alternately, the "Stay Silent" and "Betray" strategies may be known as "don't confess" and "confess", or the more standard "cooperate" and "defect", respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

Marijuana Profiling: Ad Hominem Profiling

In abusing a culture of impunity LAPD and agents use a corrupt system of profiling that is a failed and incompetent method to develop scientific determinism in the administration of criminal justice.

In this instance the a combination of ad hominem and ad misericordium profiling is constructed from past history and a geographic location and imposed over the individual. This profile is slavishly adhered to harass and violate one’s civil rights and also wrecks other law enforcements standing under the colours of law.

Here in my particular case profiles from actual drug dealers from the state of Delaware are imposed over me. I have not lived in Delaware for over a year since 1987. I have not used drugs in degree since before this time. I also do no drink alcohol or do steroids.

LAPD attempts to develop an image of a malingering individual who has not developed from say 20 years of age. This includes a dysfunctional hero worship of drug dealers. IN actuality these drug personas are actual targets of prosecution themselves. Any serious person who has been involved in any racketeering activity for over 20 years is in jeopardy of habitual offender and/or three strike laws which will incur a life sentence.

The myth of California sinsemeillia growing also is invoked. This is centered out of Humboldt County which is the heart of California’s Golden Triangle. The mythical image of a marijuana grower and their social status is a target. The situation throughout this state and Northern California is one of increasing violence and penetration by organized crime.

I do not smoke any marijuana products period. My toleration to abuse by this corrupt system of police, growers, and users has grown thin.

The Baltimore Studio are closet growers of B grade Columbian sinsemeilla. To argue that I emulate these persons from the begin of this systematic human rights abuse in 1986 is an ad absurdum. To postulate that I emulate such because of marijuana production and other drug racketeering is absurd.

In the latter category would be the cracking open of Vick’s Inhalers to extract the pseudo ephedrine resulting in a bathtub batch of peanut butter crank.

This material will nearly make one blind if they inject such and should be avoided. I have already written to Senator Dianne Feinstein about this nonsense as she has sponsored legislation that has regulated over the counter ephedrine.

This type of position paper refuting any intent to support the increasing narco fascist culture is do to an impugn level of law enforcement using profiling and handing of bogus straw man lies to other agencies out of jurisdiction as mutual aid. I cannot even walk in to a town or particularly a store without a contingent of corrupt locals, tourists, and employees laying in wait to harass. The other tactic with such is to set of shoplifting. As stated calling such a racketeering complex is accurate.