 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
______________________________________
Attitude
Attitude is very important. Common law strategy will not work if you have a negative attitude. Many people who are defending their rights are also very angry. Not that they are not justified. However, anger is a luxury of the poor. As the saying goes, "Don't get mad. Get even."
The whole court process is about getting even. The reason the IRS does not tax court judgments is because the judgment is perceived as a compensation for what you lost. For example, if you were falsely incarcerated, that time in jail has a monetary value. The monetary judgment you receive is a monetary replacement for your injury, namely for the right you lost.
You need to psychologically detach yourself from your problem. If you don't, if you are too close to your problem, you will be blind to your options. Your mind will be channeled and you won't see other opportunities to win.
Have you ever bought a car? (Always a good emotional experience.)
Did you notice, after you bought your car, how many other cars on the highway were just like yours?
Those other cars were there all the time. But, until your mind was focused by your purchase, you were not sensitive to their presence.
So it is with law and strong emotions. If you are full of anger (or always extremely happy) your mind will be focused upon the stimulus, and you will not be sensitive to other factors. The angrier you are, the more opportunities you will miss.
You must pretend that your problem is someone else's problem. You must have a neutral mindset as you work on your case. As your brain gets filled with legal research you will find it easier to cross-connect different factors, if your emotions are low-keyed.
Remember this: Regardless of your emotional status, the facts are the same. Anger destroys your capacity to think objectively. Anger is a habit that can be retrained [It takes about 5 years to completely change the anger habit; I did it, and you can, too]. ANGER IS A NO-NO, GET IT OUT OF YOUR SYSTEM! View your case neutrally as if you were an attorney representing someone else. Then, and only then, will your papers start looking more professionally written. See this example of a paper written with that neutral attitude.
When you're not working on your case, your general attitude toward life should either be neutral or happy.
Brain research at University of California in Irvine proved that when a person is unhappy or angry the body produces biochemicals that stimulate your ability to fight. But a side effect is that those same biochemicals also destroy your health. It's not good for your health if you are angry all the time. My own (unproven) observation has been that people who are angry all the time seem to eventually develop cancer.
On the other hand, the university research proved that when a person is happy the body produces biochemicals that make you feel good. A side effect is that those same biochemicals also improve your health. Laughter truly is the best medicine.
By the way, I should mention that your general problems have nothing to do with your happiness. True, in a given situation one may feel anger or happiness, but, that is just a passing moment. Your general emotional status should be either neutral or happy, for your own health's sake if nothing else. And, that's also how you should be as you write your papers.
When I'm negotiating with the enemy, I always watch his emotional status. If he is angry I know he is insensitive to his opportunities. In subtle ways I can take advantage of his diminished brain functioning.
Don't let your emotions entangle your logic!
____________________________________
In the actual (voluntary mutual defense association) common law - not in the counterfeit version - the people as a whole are represented in a randomly selected jury to decide if someone has become Malevolent, Savage, "at war with society," a felon, an outlaw, and if the whole country through their jury decide unanimously that someone is a threat to the whole country, they are tasked with the goal of equitable remedy.
In the Spooner study (Trial by Jury) the records show leniency, but if the whole country unanimously (through their representatives in a jury) decided that the offender was an outlaw, then someone taking "revenge" or someone taking "an eye for an eye" on a convicted "outlaw" would not be guilty of a crime, no more than someone killing a mad dog running amok in the children's playground would be guilty of a crime.
It was not common practice for juries - real not counterfeit - to sentence someone to death for "crimes against humanity," or felony. The idea here - as far as I know - is to judge if the individual is factually redeemable or irredeemable. If the felon is irredeemable then to let that Mad Dog loose into the playgrounds would be itself a capital crime; accessory to whatever the irredeemable Mad Dog does after being let loose after accurate accountability of the facts that matter in the case: The Law.