Sweet Lies And Bitter Truth!
Sweet Lies and Bitter Truth!
Arnie, your questions and comments below take a number of twists and turns, but if I am understanding you correctly, you are right on point. The People are too dumb to know the lie from the truth. So as not to complicate matters, just accept the lies being fed to them. The is a book, the title of which correctly states the situation, "Sweet Lies and Bitter Truth."
We appeal to natural logic, that which we see and know to be true from our own experiences, i.e., birds fly, the sun shines, water is wet, gravity pulls down, etc. It is inconceivable in our simple minds that things could be otherwise. But, I have the unpleasant calling of teaching People the converse as described in Proverbs 14:25, "There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
Arnie, we all think we understand the difference between light and darkness, and no one can be confused between the two. This is simple logic. Why should we then even have to engage in a discussion between the differences? But we do. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20, 21. Are we here talking about demented dumbbells? Not at all. We are talking about the wisest of men, men held in highest of esteem, men who are the cream of the crop, men who are in the highest of offices, men whom we elect and we call "Master, Teacher."
Are you telling me, Ron, that the men whom we trust the most are these ones you are describing? Yes Sir! That is what I am telling your, Arnie. These are the ones I am describing. But how can this be? "Where is the wise? [Professors?], where is the scribe? [Lawyers?], where is the disputer of this world? [Scientist?], hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." I Corinthians 1:20, 21. So now we must engage in a dispute with the so-called intellectuals whom we set over us on the benches to dispute with them as to the distinction between light and darkness.
We chose the vilest of all evil men to decide matters of utmost importance involving the future of our country, our children, our homes, and our businesses, men who are incapable of discerning between good and evil, light and darkness, and between bitter and sweet!
Indeed, I think we might have a better run country if we placed young children in charge rather than Members of the Bar. I think they would do a better job of discerning the difference between good and evil, light and darkness, and bitter and sweet. At least we might have a chance that half of the time they would make a right decision, if even only by accident.
It is George Washington who is credited with the quote, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Most everyone I dispute with makes the basic mistake of assuming that government is reason, and then basing their conclusion upon this erroneous foundation. Yes, Arnie, we are taught that 2 + 2 = 4, but not to the highest of government officials, men of whom we elect to run our country, and to those whom we permit to ascend unto the bench, men whom we call "honorable," men whom we "pray to for relief." Yea, to those who have a conflict of interest, 2 + 2 = Whatever they wish it to be!
Arnie Rosner wrote:
Thank you for your kindness and your patience in enduring my stupidity. I just don't get some of this legal stuff.
I was always of the impression that all law was to be presented at a level where any common person could understand it. It seems like when the, "Rules of Procedure," were enacted in 1946, members of the judiciary took that opportunity to begin to deliberately construct a fraud against the people. Is this my imagination?
As to the following issue, I still don't get it...sorry to be so persistent....Please bear with me....paraphrasing the statute listed below:
All public (Federal/State/County/Local) agencies only exist to conduct the people's business.
Have I interpreted this definition correctly? If so...
By what authority would our fiduciaries/agents in the courts refuse to execute their fiduciary responsibility to manage the people's affairs with respect to the manor in which of our elected officials conduct the people's business? Especially those who were empowered by the people by being elected for that specific purpose?
Would not such a refusal to act on behalf of the people (your previous response to my question listed below):Arnie, accepted clarification.2 + 2 = 4 only if accepted. - Ronbreach the fiduciary responsibilities of the offending public servant? In this case a judge?
My further understanding is that a judge is acting in the proper role as a referee when they supervise the legal proceeding. They have also have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the people . It is their job to ensure the judicial process was conducted properly but not to engage in the actual legal decision-making process; that is reserved for the people who are the ultimate arbiters of justice. Am I correct on this point?
If I understand the process, failure of the courts, our agents with specific fiduciary responsibilities to the people by whom they were elected, would be depriving the people of "Due Process."
I am further led to understand, that under the law, depriving the people such a basic requirement would in itself place those members of the courts in conflict with their own fiduciary responsibilities and subject them to exposure to prosecution. That would be because committing as such an act would place their conduct out of their lawful scope of judicial performance and strip away any such self-conceived type of immunity on the grounds of judicial misconduct.
Of course to clarify the point of immunity....I find it ludicrous to even consider an argument that those within the judiciary would even begin to suggest the people would be so stupid as to accept the notion the judicial system can confer immunity upon themselves. That is a ridiculous and obvious conflict of interest. As members of the judiciary they of all people would know this. Merely suggesting such blatant malfeasance stagers one's sensibilities.
In my opinion here Ron, It goes without saying that any member of the judiciary making such a suggestion should be immediately removed from any responsibility within the judicial system. such legal reasoning should be considered an unlawful act of treason and a criminal offense.
Do I understand this correctly?