Alabama Municipal Judge Carlton Teel is packing more than legal principles under his robe. When a defendant Brian (Bryant) Keith Ford reacted badly to a sentence and started swinging his crutches at the judge, Teel whipped out a gun and then a deputy shot Ford in the side.
Accounts differ on how much danger the man posed — with some witnesses saying that he was not attacking the judge when he was shot. Others say he tried to grab the gun.
Ford was in the courtroom on a harassment charge from a neighbor who said Ford had cursed at her in December after accusing her of talking about him to police.
Teel reportedly fined him $800 — a rather modest sum when one considers he now faces serious criminal charges and remains in critical condition.
The most disturbing account was:
Sara Williams said she was sitting in the front row when the man, whom she knew, got agitated after the judge fined him $800. He waved one of his crutches in the air.
“The police were hollering for him to get down” when an officer opened fire, she said.
Williams said she yelled “Don’t shoot him no more!” right before the officer fired again.
If that is true, it is hard to see why potentially lethal force was used. However, others describe Ford as attacking the judge.
Do you believe judges should be allowed to pack heat in a courtroom?
Source: ABA Journal
Tony C.,
That’s an acceptable definition of “anti-legalist”.
@Brian: You are not my brother, you propose serious harm to me and my family and to others in general. If you are in real life as you appear in writing, you need to be institutionalized. If you are not as you appear, I thik you are probably mentally ill. Seriously.
@Kay: Not to speak for Buddha, but I interpret an “anti-legalist” as an anarchist; somebody that believes formal police, courts, and public government should be abolished. Kind of like having tribes or temporary coalitions where anything goes.
We have that now (in the Amazon, Australian outback and elsewhere); and we have good documentation from the past. As a rule, under the anarchic approach life is short and oppressive. Such is the nature of humans.
Robert Wright, in “NonZero: The Logic of Human Destiny” documents the rise of government and explains how it benefits people. It is very interesting.
No, Brian.
There is objective truth in the world.
Like the objective truth your argument is based on circular logic and lies.
“The Adversarial Principle”? You’re not qualified to discuss that cogently as demonstrated by the fact that you insist on mischaraterization of adversarial process, lie about the underpinnings of law that require adversarial process and change definitions to suit your faulty premises when backed into a corner. You refuse to acknowledge that adversarial process is as much a tool for seeking truth – so that judgments can be made based on reality – as the scientific method is a tool for seeking truth about the physical world. Just because you don’t like a tool doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. It just means you are either unwilling to use it, too stupid to use it, or have a vested interest in the job it accomplishes not being done.
Again . . .
Why are you for tyranny of the strong upon the weak? Why are you against the vision of our Founding Fathers of a just nation where equity and justice are maintained by the rule of law? Why do you lie about the meanings of words and the historical and legal foundations of Constitutional democracy? These are rhetorical questions as posed to you. I don’t care about your answer as it will no doubt be another long winded spew of voluminous nonsense about law being a religion or some other such ridiculous crap.
The questions are for others to ponder should they peruse your drivel.
Buddha is Laughing,
Truth as connotation is to the beholder.
I find you have every right to such connotation of truth as you have.
I find you have no right to impose your connotation of truth upon anyone other than only yourself.
I experience sadness as my response ability to what you write, tragic sadness.
You seem as though to write as though you abhor tyranny, except you seem as though unable to grasp or fathom that your beliefs as espoused are of utterly absolute tyranny with you the sole tyrant whose tyranny denies itself only in your imagination, and your imagination is your only accessible notion of reality when it comes to allowing other people any right as you claim for yourself.
However, in apparent contrast with your belief structure, I welcome affectively intelligible alternate views to those I now hold.
That which is circular in the world of the Adversarial Principle is not circular in the world of the Affirmational Principle. and this scientific fact is as though totally eluding your awareness, save for one hint otherwise, to wit, you keep spinning epithets and their ilk.
Every actual truth is inextricably a lie in the world made of the Adversarial Principle. That is the very core essence of the Adversarial Principle itself.
For the Adversarial Principle is the adversary of truth merely by being adversarial.
Nothing can shake the faith of a true believer in the Adversarial Principle, except allowing truth to not be an adversary. Which truth the Adversarial Principle denies.
Is the prison inside the asylum or is the prison outside the asylum?
what is an “anti-legalist agenda”?
Except I have proven what you say is antisocial nonsense, Brian.
Multiple times.
I’ll not repeat myself simply for your amusement.
Your “work” is built upon circular logic, made up definitions and a complete misuse, abuse and misapplication of the Constitution and law in general.
Your refusals to recognize that reality notwithstanding.
I don’t give a rat’s ass if you acknowledge that reality at all. I don’t expect you to as I’ve already said I think you’re a troll with an anti-legalist agenda. Acknowledge that you’re a lying sack of propagandistic crap and/or admit that you are delusional? Why that would be contrary to your agenda, Brian.
I don’t care what you do or think, Brian, as long as it is pointed out that what you say is ridiculous when it’s not outright lies and distortion.
To be clear, I’m claiming your claims are false because they are rooted in circular logic and lies which makes them fail ab initio.
And that’s the truth.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 14, 2011 at 4:01 pm
In the manner of the Compassion of the Real Buddha, I affirm the universal brotherhood-sisterhood of all of humanity, and do so without exception and without rejection.
You have no power to not be my brother in the agape sense of love. No one has that power, for I give to no one, not even to myself such terrible, horrible, tragically destructive power.
Someone may eventually happen to notice that, within the limits of my being autistic, I only return intended kindness and respect regardless of how someone treats me.
Of course, what I write can be interpreted as hostile, cynical, sarcastic and/or ingenuous. Such realm of interpretation is inherent to the realm of connotations.
What no one can ever do is to actually demonstrate that I describe myself with deceptive purpose, knowledge, or understanding.
I ask such a simple thing, one you are apparently categorically incapable of doing, yet something I observed, during my twenty-some years of working at Cook County Children’s Hospital, that very nearly every normal-range-intelligence eighteen month child can readily do, which is to know and understand the pragmatic nature of the contrast between denotation (fact) and connotation (opinion).
So:
I observe that the adversarial principle, and thus the adversarial system based upon the adversarial principle purports that a violation of law (i.e. a form of mistake?) which happened should have been avoided and and failure to have avoided it is actionable in law.
Therefore:
1. Truthfully describe a mistake which actually happened.
2. Truthfully describe how it actually could have been avoided, such that it did not actually happen.
3. Demonstrate, reproducibly 1. and 2.
Do that, and shall affirm that my work is wrong, is of fraud, or whatever other form of dishonest deception may be assigned to my work.
Cannot do that?
Why?
Claiming to have done something not done is simply not honest.
Claiming that a false claim is not false makes not a false claim true.
Brian,
You are demonstrably a lying propagandist simply full of antisocial drivel. I use words to illuminate whereas you use them to (attempt to) obfuscate. In no way have your bad logic and faulty premises been validated – except maybe in your own mind, but rather your nonsense is simply destroyed by pointing out your perpetual circularity of thought and willingness to make up the meanings of words and history in an effort to undermine the value of the rule of law to civilization. This simply calls your motive into question, for it has been proven you are for tyranny and not against it no matter your feeble long winded instances to the contrary. Why are you for tyranny of the strong upon the weak? Why are you against the vision of our Founding Fathers of a just nation where equity and justice are maintained by the rule of law? Why do you lie about the meanings of words and the historical and legal foundations of Constitutional democracy? These are rhetorical questions as posed to you. I don’t care about your answer as it will no doubt be another long winded spew of voluminous nonsense about law being a religion or some other such ridiculous crap.
The questions are for others to ponder should they peruse your drivel.
However, as long as you are insistent upon trying to tear up the Constitutional furniture in your beastly pursuit of your own tale, er, tail? I’ll be glad to keep whacking you on the nose with the rolled up newspaper of truth in law, history and logic. Just like a bad dog deserves. Really, I don’t mind. I live to destroy the arguments of enemies of the Constitution, the rule of law, and civilization in general.
For the record, liars and antisocial/anti-legal propagandists are not my brothers. You are most certainly not my brother. You wouldn’t know objective truth if it bit you on the ass nor are you any more interested in the objective truth than you are in preventing tyranny. Your very words show you are both for tyranny and against any kind of truth, let alone the objective empirical truth.
And that’s a fact.
What you are is a bad dog. My brother? Don’t flatter yourself.
Bad dogs get no treats.
RE: Tony C., February 14, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Oops: A freudian slip, perhaps, I was thinking Brian was brain-damaged and accidentally wrote his name “Brain”. Please, take it in the most insulting form possible.
###########################
Tony,
Thanks again, really, you are beautifully helpful.
The more you tell me of the most insulting forms of derision you believe possible, the more you tell me of the hidden trauma of your childhood experiences.
Swedish physician, Dr. Karl-Henrik Robèrt, in the 1980s, began to develop and share what has become an international organization, The Natural Step, www(dot)naturalstep(dot)org in an effort to contribute to the possibility of human society developing ways of sustainable relationships between human activities and the rest of the natural environment.
One of the ways of The Natural Step is the idea of “picking the low hanging fruit” as a way to make process toward a sustainable human society.
Having studied The Natural Step and its work with considerable effort so directed, it came to me that, in terms of human society, it is the highest hanging fruit which is the fruit which is preventing attainable sustainability.
Thus, I have set out to learn whether it is actually necessary to pick the most out of reach fruit first, because the highest hanging fruit is blocking the light from reaching the lower hanging fruit, and the lower-hanging fruit is being starved of what it needs by the unwitting greed of the fruit above.
So, against all odds, I have set out to learn how to first pick the very highest hanging fruit. On this blawg, such fruit now appears to be you, TonyC. and Buddha is Laughing.
Guided by conscience and unbreakable faith in the process of existence (some people name that process “God,”) I worship the God I am given to know and understand in accord with the Wisconsin Constitution, as aforementioned, in accord with the dictates of my conscience.
That hateful words will be flung at me for my so doing as I do is a story long foretold…
Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore as wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”
Matthew 10:22, “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.”
Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfil.
Matthew 5:25, “Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast in prison.”
Matthew 4:48, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
Matthew 6:21-23, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: therefore thine be clear, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, they whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
Matthew 7:1-2, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
Luke 11:9-10, “And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
As aforementioned, my parents took me to church starting the first Sunday after I was out of St. James Hospital, Butte, Montana, having been born in St. James Hospital and having been given my Hebrew name in memory of St. James and in honor if his life on earth.
Having been exposed to bible teachings from almost immediately after being born, bible teachings taught by a profoundly skeptical scientist who chose to minister to the world as a scientist in the manner of his parents before him, I learned to question everything that comes into my sphere of awareness, keeping only that which I am unable to reject because of finding it internally inconsistent within the Affirmational Principle which is the basis principle of my whole life.
What you, TonyC. and you, Buddha is Laughing, have accomplished is something, as a scientist, I do not reject with prejudice and yet remain very skeptical about, yet within which I can find no internal inconsistency.
Understood as pre-scientific writing about human brain neurology as a property of socialization, and interpreted only within the realm of established biophysics using the methods of bioengineering, I find the bible to contain astonishingly refutable and irrebutable biological truth, truth in the sense of so-called “hard science.”
And I am amazed at your skills, Buddha is Laughing and TonyC. in guiding me to challenge, question and attempt to refute the truth that is encoded in the bible, and the strength to continue to skeptically challenge every notion sent my way for its having internal inconsistency that may wisely lead me to recognize a false notion and for the lack of internal inconsistency which portends of possibly useful truth.
The adversarial principle, being adversarial, is inextricably adversarial to itself, No greater internal inconsistency can I yet imagine ever being possible.
TonyC, I love you unconditionally as a brother in the search for objective truth.
Buddha is Laughing, I love you unconditionally as a brother in the search for objective truth.
When you are ready, you will each, individually and together, be able to truly know and understand our genuine brotherhood.
It is as though the truth is such that denying the truth only affirms the truth. What else can actually happen in the way of existence creating itself?
Oops: A freudian slip, perhaps, I was thinking Brian was brain-damaged and accidentally wrote his name “Brain”. Please, take it in the most insulting form possible.
@Brain: It is unfortunate for us that you are not excluded, because you are constantly reaffirming, in the irritational sense, your complete misunderstanding of physics, psychology, law, logic, and meaning, and this becomes our cross to bear, because in order to access the comments of others we are forced to wade through knee-high bullshit, in the utter-crap sense, even if just for the moment it takes to identify the post as yours — You tax our time, without our permission, far more than your share.
And therefore, in the fuck-you sense, you add to your repertoire of lying and self-serving circular logic, thievery, in the you-are-an-asshole sense.
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, February 14, 2011 at 8:59 am
It appears to me that what is wisely and properly named “bad news” in the world of the Adversarial Principle is only of the “good news” in the world of the Affirmational Principle.
It further appears to me that the world of the Adversarial Principle is totally contained within the world of the Affirmational Prinicple, and that, save for being included only as itself, as a proper subset, which subset being of that which is incorrigibly and absolutely evil, the world of the Adversarial Principle is excluded from the world of the Affirmational Principle.
Neveretheless, whoever you may be such that you need to hide your countenance from me through anonymity, I have neither need nor way to similarly hide from you. Thus I love you as Brother in Christ, according to the teachings of Jesus, for, were I to an actual enemy, I would love my enemy with the unbounded love or authentic affirmation as I affirm loving all of existence, whether or not I am aware of it. Such is the nature of conditionaly unconditional love, the conditional being merely the recognition of what is destructive (or adversarial) and what is constructive (or affirming).
Thanks for the excerpts of the The Constitution of the United States. I have been comparing the text in your message with what I find printed in my Black’s Ninth, pages 1881 through 1893 to check for errors in Black’s Law Dictionary. I have yet barely started, and have not noticed any discrepancies yet, and allow that I may have missed one or more by mistake.
It is becoming clearer and clearer to me, thanks to your continuing help, that the world of the Adversarial Principle and the world of the Affirmational Principle are as though of a duality. Whenever the world of the Adversarial Principle and the world of the Adversarial Principle differ, whatever differs that is false in the world of the Adversarial Principle is true in the world of the Affirmational Principle.
In like manner, whatever differs of the world of the Adversarial Principle and the world of the Affirmational Principle that is true from within the world of the Adversarial Principle that is true is false in the world of the Affirmational Principle.
It is because, to the extent that the world of the Adversarial Principle and the world of the Affirmational Principle differ, the difference is that the language of the world of the Adversarial Principle totally excludes the language of the world of the Affirmational Principle, whereas the language of the world of the Affirmational Principal completely includes the language of the world of the Adversarial Principle, yet only as the language of that which is so evil as to otherwise be indescribable in the world of the Affirmational Principle.
Thus, the world of the Adversarial Principle and the world of the Affirmational Prinicple exist as, and only as, an asymmetric duality.
Because the world of the Adversarial Principle is adversarial, it excludes that which is not adversarial and therefore excludes all truth not adversarial and all that is untrue is adversarial to what is true in the world of the Adversarial Principle.
Thus, that which is of a straight and true path of life, found only in the world of the Affirmational Principle is excluded from the world of the Adversarial Principle by the mere presence of adversariality itself and, as the Adversarial Principle is its own and its only adversary.
The horror of the Adversarial Principle is its perfect denial of the Affirmational Principle and the beauty of perfect affirmation of all of existence, its inherent affirming of all of existence, including the Adversarial Principle.
This dance of asymmetric duality has been beautifully illustrated in some of the Adversarial Principle based writings of Buddha is Laughing apparently posted in response to my Affirmational Principle based writings in which Buddha is Laughing, as a person, is at parity with me, whereas his writings are of a very different path as in the parable of the sower and seed as is the path of my life.
Thus, Buddha is Laughing may be taunting me, and I respect him and his life neither more not less than I respect my own life, and thereby seek such gentle words I as I guess he may be able to hear as my turn away wroth words.
Of course, I do not know if Buddha is Laughing is properly associated with the pronoun, “he.” Such is of being anonymous.
Anonymous I am not, for I know and understand who I am.
Buddha is Laughing, you have not the power to deny to me that, in the agape sense, I love you beyond power of words to tell. Neither have you any adversarial say thereof. You live in a world from which, as you verify every time, I am excluded even as I live in a world in which you are fully included.
Happy Valentine’s Day!.
Well, sport, I’ve got some bad news for you:
“I further find that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence is become an unconstitutional religious establishment, absolutely prohibited in the First Amendment of the United States Constsitution; in that said Adversarial System is become inextricably religious and inextricably a religious establishment which has been established by laws made by Congress.”
That’s simply insane. You are quite free to believe it if you wish. That doesn’t change that it is ridiculous on its face.
Laws do not create religion simply by their existence. The ability of the government to create and enforce laws is part and parcel of the Constitution. Without it, the 1st Amendment you are trying to hide behind is meaningless.
U.S. Constitution, Art. I, Section 8 – Powers of Congress
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Art. V “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Without the power to create laws? You wouldn’t have the 1st Amendment to attempt to hide your anti-legalist distortions behind. Your circular logic strikes once again.
And laws without enforcement and adjudication are meaningless as well.
“Article III – The Judicial Branch Note
Section 1 – Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 – Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. [This section in italics is modified by the 11th Amendment.]
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”
This country was founded with a secular government.
That is part and parcel of the rationale for the 1st Amendment. It serves a dual purpose. It prevents government from establishing or favoring a religion. It allows you to worship as you wish (with some reasonable limitations via jurisprudence like those against human sacrifice).
What the 1st Amendment does not do, however, is invalidate the ability of Congress to legislate and create laws that have secular purpose as guaranteed by Art. I – including laws that define non-criminal adjudicative processes – nor does it divest the power of the judiciary and the adversarial process inherent in their operation as guaranteed by Art. III.
Seriously. Circular logic and cherry picking both law and definitions? That a sure fire way to continue your losing streak. Adversarial process is the underpinning of the judiciary as set forth in the Constitution. The same Constitution you would seek to invalidate by invoking part of itself (the 1st Amendment – wrongfully applied by using petitio principii to falsely equate laws to religion) to attack the rest of the document.
You are a dog chasing your own tail.
You are still wrong, still a liar by your continued abuse of terms and logic, and apparently completely insane.
Worship deception? One need not worship anything to practice deception. You are a liar in form and in fact. Your logic is faulty and your understanding of the law is non-existent except to your self-serving ends in trying to discredit law and legalism in general. That’s a direct observation of your behavior, Circular Logic Boy.
RE: J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E., February 12, 2011 at 8:02 pm
–.- / .-. / – // –… …– // .-.-. 🙂
AND
RE: michellefrommadison 1, February 13, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Thanks Brian, same to you. 🙂
##############################
My above-repeated comment is also the longest reply ever to anything. I wrote in Morse Code, knowing that WordPress would mess up my typed Morse by deleting double spaces and by combining two consecutive en-dashes into one em-dash.
in the ham dah dit jargon, I typed in effect:
dahdahditah didahdit dah (word space) dahdahdididit didididahdah (word space) didahdidahdit
Written out in alpbetic characters, that shortest/longest message is, as I entered into the WordPress comment text box:
QRT 75 (AR)
Or, in English, to BiL:
(STOP SENDING) (BEST REGARDS) (END OF MESSAGE)
And I so wrote to illustrate the communication theory error which is the “footing-bedrock-interface” error of the prehistoric blunder of the relationship between human language connotation and denotation. It is that unwitting, then-unrecognizable blunder which is the adversarial principle in its neurological essence.
A few folks have been asking me to make what I am writing clear(er). At accomplishing this, I make the limit of effort available to me.
The difficulty I have, and this is not sarcastic or cynical, is simply that the only language I have available that I can use well enough to attempt a decently accurate and clear reply is as though developed through the historical path humanity has been taking is as though made to prevent writing my actual intended meaning.
I simply never quit. Unbreakable faith in what I experience as “God” rules out my ever willfully quitting. That unbreakable faith rules out my accepting the adversarial principle as anything other than “The Evil One,” as found in the following text, from “The New American Bible” [copyright (c) 1970, 1986, 1991 by the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine]. The text which follows has the NIHIL OBSTAT and the IMPRIMATUR dated August 27, 1986. The text is from Matthew 6:9-13, “The Lord’s Prayer,” which does not include the common-in-church-services appended
doxology.
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread;
and forgive us our debts,
as we forgive our debtors;
and do not subject us to the final test,
but deliver us from the evil one.
I here state, unequivocally and without imposition of any limit, that I find, in accord with the dictates of my conscience, that the Adversarial Principle is “the evil one” as in the above-written Lord’s Prayer. I further state, in accord with my license as a Wisconsin Registered Professional Engineer, that I so find, not only accord with the dictates of my conscience: I find The Adversarial Principle to be pure evil from the hard science perspective of the brain-scan-observable physical damage (trauma) which it causes in human brains; said evidence being shown thus far irrefutable and irrebutable.
From the downloadable .pdf version of the Wisconsin Constitution, Article L, Section 18 is:
Freedom of worship; liberty of conscience; state
religion; public funds. SECTION 18. [As amended Nov. 1982]
The right of every person to worship Almighty God according
to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall
any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of
worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall
any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be
permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious
establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be
drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries. [1979 J.R. 36, 1981 J.R. 29, vote Nov. 1982]
Now comes the Constitutional Question, to wit:
I find, according to the Wisconsin Constitution, Article I, Section 18, that my right to worship Almghty God according to the dictates of my conscience shall never be infringed, the dictates of my conscience inform me that the Adversarial Principle is the Evil One, and I find that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence is an establishment religion which, even at times under penalty of death, demands that its victims pay homage to the Evil One at the exclusion of worshiping Almighty God.
I further find that the Anglo-American Adversarial System of Jurisprudence is become an unconstitutional religious establishment, absolutely prohibited in the First Amendment of the United States Constsitution; in that said Adversarial System is become inextricably religious and inextricably a religious establishment which has been established by laws made by Congress.
Facts have an inescapable property which opinions totally lack.
That property is: Res ipsa loquitur (“The thing itself speaks”).
“the Adversarial Process,” aka. “the Evil One,” aka. “Injustice,” aka. The Fundamental Error of Social Reality,” is merely the perfectly evil belief, eternally false, that one or more mistakes/choices/decisions/actions/events which actually happened could or should have been avoided.
As opinion the above paragraph is whimsical opinion, incapable of being tested in any way. As fact, the meaning within the above paragraph is of near triviality to test.
Demonstrating that the fundamental error of social reality is itself of error is, as a scientific theory, trivial to test. It takes only one of anything within the realm of “mistakes/choices/decisions/actions/events” of which it can truthfully be demonstrated that it actually happened and that it actually could have been avoided through an actual demonstration of the event observably happening and then, the event having happened, it demonstrably can be shown to have observably not happened.
The dastardly evil trap of the adversarial process is its representing that something which already happened, could, after the fact, have happened other than as it happened.
Before something happens, it is iffy. As it is happening, it changes from being iffy to being certain.
I have repeatedly asked for someone to truthfully demonstrate a mistake actually made and to truthfully demonstrate an achievable process through which the mistake actually and demonstrably made could actually and demonstrably have been avoided through an actually demonstrable process.
What I seem, to me, anyway, have received in return are a plethora of pejorative words. All that BiL has been able to achieve is resolute validation of the model of reality I came here to test.
I do not, in the religious sense, worship deception. No coercive, tyrannizing, terrifying threat of any sort will ever, in the religious sense, teach me to worship deception.
The deception of the adversarial principle deceives its strongest proponents the most.
What is the proper, truthful structure of human society?
Bedrock: The laws of physics.
Footing: The Laws of biophysics
Foundation: The laws of society.
The house built on solid bedrock, with sound footings and a sound foundation? The actual world, here and now, as of the ending of Armageddon as human violent destructiveness and the beginning of the Second Coming of The Way of Truthfulness as the practical basis of every day life in the lives of ordinary people.
Instead of crushing humanity to smithereens in near total darkness, the laws of society need to raise humanity up into the light of truthfulness.
The biggest of all possible untruths? No one is above the law.
The biggest of all possible truths? Everyone is above the law.
The laws of nature (physics and biophysics) are what gives life to itself. If life be its own adversary, what becomes of life save death?
By what authority do I write as I write? As an ordinary person, I simply live it for real.
By the dictates of my conscience, in accord with the Wisconsin Constitution, no person or combination of persons has an iota of a jot of a nullity of the power to actually be my adversary.
By what authority do I so state> As an ordinary person, I simply live it.
As I am not any one “special,” and am only ordinary, anyone ordinary is able to learn and understand and do as I do.
Direct observation is the way to go.
Whatever happens,
As it happens,
Is both
Necessary and Sufficient
AND
Whatever does not happen,
As it does not happen,
Is both
Unnecessary and Impossible.
ALL ELSE IS EVIL ERROR!
Truthfully, actually demonstrated refutation and/or rebuttal are most welcome!
La Kayim! Dayenu! Selah!
Peace be upon you!
So be it!
@Kay (and anybody else considering hiring any kind of contractor): A word of advice from an employer: Do not hire a “Research Assistant” that makes two spelling errors in their job application, they are not careful enough to work as a research assistant.
@Research Assistant: The phrase is “X$ an hour,” not “and hour,” and “$35 an hour per bill,” not “$35 an hour a bill.”
@Kay (and anybody else): This person is asking $160/hr. You can hire a lawyer for that. If you go here, you will find the Bureau of Labor Statistics information on salaries for legal professions. The mean hourly wage of a lawyer is $62, what you need is a paralegal or legal assistant that earns $24/hr.
Now for a contract position (as opposed to an employee) you should expect to pay somewhere between 150% and 250% of the mean hourly wage, as a rule of thumb. For a lawyer, that works out to somewhere between $95/hr and $155/hr, for a legal assistant or paralegal on contract, somewhere between $36/hr and $60/hr.
The only “expenses” you should pay should be discussed with you before the expense is incurred and approved by you before the expense is incurred, and you should retain veto power over any such expense. Do not ever employ a contractor with carte blanche to incur “expenses” in your “interests” and be guaranteed reimbursement, whether a private investigator, lawyer, or builder. This is a legal route to unscrupulous behavior by contractors.
@Kay: A bad economy is a good time to hire contractors; many people out of work will work for even less per hour than their previous wage, in order to make ends meet. A contract position is perfect for them because it is temporary, and does not involve a permanent drop in income.
The only catch is that as an employer you do usually need a pretty clear idea of what you expect the contractor to be doing. Discuss a firm reporting schedule and level of itemization up front. Figure out what you can measure to mark progress. And above all, you must have the heart (and the right) to summarily dismiss a contractor you suspect is stringing you along, inflating their hours, inventing expenses, or just keeps making excuses for their lack of progress.
You two make a cute couple.
Thanks Brian, same to you. 🙂
RE: michellefrommadison, February 13, 2011 at 10:34 am
Wow Buddha is Laughing, that was a slam-dunk, punched-out knock-out you just wrote. Outstanding. It resulted in recognition of you being correct as stipulated by JBH’s shortest reply of the century. Congratulations for demonstrating the facts always win over speculations.
###########################
Michelle,
You have a great, sarcastic sense of humor, I just love it!
Kay,
I will accept your offer of employment if Michelle does not. I charge 125.00 and hour plus expenses. This generally will add about 35.00 per hour a bill. When would you like to commence this humble research assistants employ.
I await your response.
Research Assistant
I bet I could answer for MFM. She would say NO.