 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
- Write something that someone can actually understand
- You are wrong
- Write freely
- Resolve contradiction
Somewhere there is a document that orders me to appear before the court. I am to appear on a specific date at a specific time and from that place at that time I know, with near certainty, that I will receive further orders.
I know this because I’ve already traveled down this road.
The judge, his honor, tells his subjects, the jury, to obey his honor’s instructions.
That is a crime.
That is a crime in so many ways that I fail to see any reason to honor his honor with anything more than either empathy for his state of duplicity or contempt.
Note: Contempt of court is another crime.
I’m not sure what the punishment is for telling the judge to fuck off and I really don’t want to find out. My ability to empathize is acute I know what it is like to be all twisted up inside; not knowing right from wrong.
Here is an example of duplicity in action:
http://www.topia.net/kevinbenderman.html
One thing that was, and is, known to be right is the decision made at the Nuremburg trials where Nazi war criminals were tried and convicted. The ‘just following orders’ defense, then and now, is not right.
It is a crime to follow an order that is morally wrong; like killing another human being ‘just’ because.
Apparently, then, and now, an individual can be held accountable for their own actions.
That brings me back to the future crime spree I am about to embark upon.
I have no choice in the matter; I will commit a crime as my efforts to do the right thing are now impossible. I can keep looking for a way out but so far the evidence suggests: Mission Impossible.
The odd thing is:
I plan on exercising civil responsibility and participate in applying the principle of law. In other words I intend to ‘go to jury duty’.
Note the difference:
Civil responsibility
Jury duty
The difference is: one can be the other depending on how an individual perceives, or judges, the concepts being communicated. One can be diametrically opposed to the other too.
My last attempt to apply the principle of law, jury duty, occurred awhile ago when my brain was all froze up with irreconcilable contradiction. I was then even more stupid than I am now.
The judge ordered me to do two things that were not possible to do at once. I had to pick one or the other thing to do; as it turned out.
Two things:
Follow orders
Make a decision
I really tried to follow orders. That worked for awhile. Then it became quite clear that the other 11 people were making decisions; all on their own.
The matter at hand was relatively trivial; certainly nothing that required such grand expense. My resolve to follow orders was tested some. The test, again, was relatively trivial. I failed to follow orders. I made a decision all on my own.
The order that I failed to follow went something like this:
Do not judge the law, instead, judge only the crime.
The judge, apparently, wanted to make sure that he remained the judge and that I remained not the judge; of the law.
The judge did allow me to judge the case.
I broke that law. I judged the law and the case. I really tried to follow the order. The problem, the contradiction, concerns my inability to understand any law that is not known. If I do not know the specific written law, and that specific law was not explained fully, then, how could I possibly follow that which I do not know?
Back to my critics:
A. Write something that someone can actually understand
B. You are wrong
This is the message that I now understand to be true:
I am right and you are wrong
Repeat that over and over and over and over and over and over and over…
I could make a rubber stamp and do as much.