We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us
We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us
I wish to commend John Wolfgram on his below Treatise on understanding the problem, to wit, "...injustice causes him, and others to become angry with government, and rightly so...to the extent that they address the anger to the cause of the injustice that they have experienced. For many, the only direction the anger can take is to strike out blindly against the persons of the system who have wronged them; because they cannot identify the real enemy."
Many express their frustration in the words, "I'm mad as hell, and I am not going to take it any more." But they really know not at whom to strike out at, just strike out at something, peradventure they may hit something! I have humorously responded publically to such frustration, "Drop your pants and bend over, here it comes again!" But really, I understand this frustration. But is there not a sane, calm, and reasonable response to the situation? Yes, I believe there is. It is JAIL4Judges! But there is not in every man that knowledge, and so their answer is to swing out into a greater circumference in hopes they may hit something. It is like shooting in the dark on a battlefield when you can't see a thing. Unfortunately, the person immediately in front of them may be their greatest friend and ally.
I believe the best approach is for everyone to stop everything and logically diagnose the question, "What is wrong with JAIL4Judges?" What is its shortcoming? If it is not the answer, why not? Can it somehow be made the answer? I was just within another email charged with the assertion that JAIL4Judges and organizations like situated, are responsible for judges, who are not really judges, opposing the Constitution and who are selling us down the river. I understand the frustration, but not the logic. Are we going to win this battle by frustration, and not logic?
How true are the words of Scripture, "My People are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I also will reject thee." Hosea 4:6. America is being destroyed as a nation not for lack of a remedy, but for the lack of the acceptance of the remedy! So, if the question be, what makes me think that JAIL4Judges is the remedy, I shall be glad to engage in a calm, sound reasoning upon that issue. If anyone finds fault with the J.A.I..L. proposition, let us get down to particulars of; who, what, when, where, how and why, not just refute the words, "J.A.I.L. is the only answer," words of which I have been saying for years.
I have seen every kind of frustration exhibited over the years of which J.A.I.L. has existed, and have likewise seen every kind of suggestion as to an alternative to J.A.I.L. But during that same time since April of 1995, J.A.I.L. has stood unchanged like a granite mountain in a windstorm, unmoved and undaunted! I seen frustration growing, and the number of anti-judicial organizations expanding. But since the people have rejected J.A.I.L. for no sound reason, the Scripture best depicting today's scene is Isaiah 26:20, "Come, my people, enter thou into thy chambers, and shut thy doors about thee: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation be overpast."
John Wolfgram wrote:Yes, Paul, it was a very perverse reply; but plausibly appropriate.
Julian, and many others, me included, have suffered much at the hands of a government that is systematically unaccountable for the wrongs that it does. That injustice causes him, and others to become angry with government, and rightly so...to the extent that they address the anger to the cause of the injustice that they have experienced. For many, the only direction the anger can take is to strike out blindly against the persons of the system who have wronged them; because they cannot identify the real enemy. The natural result of such striking out is to consolidate fear with the powers of oppression; to justify it and create barriers further separating the government form the governed and generating new causes for oppression. That will occur naturally enough with each increase in government's abilities to oppress without accountability.
Neither Julian or you, Paul, need worry that those events will not occur of their own force ... the slow burning but no less mounting forces of rebellion, gradually mounting to violence. When he talks of killing the persons of the forces that have wronged him he contributes to that mounting force for violence. But that is not the point, for his contribution to that force is ever so slight.
The point is in what you and Julian and I lose by such talk, coming from us, as if we intellectuals are too stupid to identify the real causes of injustices that he suffers and identifies. What the patriot movement needs is intellectual leaders that can and do vocally link unjust cause to unjust effect in ways that are understandable to those who likewise suffer injustice but don't know and on their own can't figure out the root causes and who would, without us, strike out blindly. Unlike them, you and Julian and I are not blind and can see and explain unjust cause to unjust effect. Think of the wrong we do to those who have likewise suffered injustice, if instead of explaining the causal visions that we see and understand so that their justified anger can be constructively directed, we simply join them in striking out blindly. When we who can identify the real evil in the system, simply vent our anger without direction to that evil, we make war inevitable.
We, you and I and Julian, are the intellectuals that can identify the systemic enemy and direct the intellectual and political forces that we can muster, influence and organize against the critical weaknesses of that enemy. But without that understanding of unjust cause to unjust effect that only intellectuals who have suffered the injustice and fought against it can grasp, the immense potential of revolution for justice is lost and anger and mindless striking out only multiplies the injustice in the world for all of us.
I would like to, on the one hand, apologize to Julian for striking out against his expressions of frustration, with what is after all, my own expression of like frustration no less soundly based in the systematic suffering of injustice. But on the other hand, having experienced and borne the burden of not just the same kind of injustice that he has, but in addition having experience the insanity of war ... the mindless striking out to kill which only generates the same mindless striking out from the opponent resulting in an insane feeding frenzy on the corpses of each other, I hope to gain a shock value: Julian's focused and reasoned release of his anger against the real enemy is just too important to lose to a mindless striking out against persons, and only tends to defeat the very instrument of justice that he hungers and thirsts for.
The question for intellectual patriots is not "Who is the enemy", but "What is the enemy".
If it is true that "Power tends to corrupt," and "absolute power corrupts absolutely", then the enemy is that which tends to render limited powers absolute. What does that Paul? What changes any limited power, like judicial, administrative or legislative powers limited in both scope and intensity by laws such as a constitution of enumerated powers and a restricting bill of rights, into the absolute power that corrupts absolutely?
Identify that Paul, and you will know the face of the real enemy; the one that we must expose and explain and teach about.
Dear Jon Roland, I would like to reason with you on your comments about J.A.I.L. being too complicated and too confrontational. We are at war with an out-of-control government. It was President George Washington who stated, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.” Can we mutually accept this premises as spoken by George Washington that Government is not reason? If so, I wish to offer this quote of Washington in response to your statement that the J.A.I.L. proposal is too confrontational. Shall we seek to go half way with these judges in order to minimize conflict with them? I was once told by an attorney who served as the top leader in an organization we all know, who shall remain here nameless, "You, Ron, are making the judges mad. We want to be their friends!" It was for that reason that his organization did not want even the endorsement of J.A.I.L., because he was afraid that the judges would interpret that his organization was in league with Ron Branson.
In that respect, I agree that J.A.I.L. is confrontational with judges. We are seeking righteousness, truth, and justice, not friendship with the judges to get them on our side. We know that such an effort otherwise would ultimately mean that in order to be their friends, we must adopt judicial independence instead of seeking judicial accountability. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" Amos 3:3. We all know the answer to this question. Absolutely not! "[W]hat fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" II Corinthians 6:14. It is not wise to play in the same sandbox with underhanded tyrants who would sooner slit your throat than to play within the rules.
As you your other issue that the J.A.I.L. proposal is too complicated. Let's get down to particulars; who, what, when, were, how, and why! Shall we throw the baby out because raising a baby is complicated, and presents many hardships. Shall we supply feather pillows to all our case hardened patriot soldiers, lest they find that winning on truth is too complicated. What section or phrase do you find too complicated that needs be extracted from the J.A.I.L proposal to make it palatable?
As for the Special Grand Jury, you offer the following, "The traditional grand jury from colonial times was designed to do what is proposed. We need to return the grand jury to that standard." This is well said, Jon. But details? How do we go about doing that? I have conversed with those who have made statements as yours. I have asked them this same question as I am asking you. Give me the details on how we accomplish this. There answer was, "I don't know." So I said to them, "I like my proposal on how to accomplish this within J.A.I.L. than your proposal of no idea!"
Jon, as you know, Ron Branson is not your enemy. We are on the same side and part of the same team. I am just reasoning with you that we must not just hunker down in the foxhole and fantasize victory. We draw up a definite plan and seek to carry it out. I have drawn up my particular plans for victory. Now we patriots need to see your particular alternative to J.A.I.L. We are in a serious war here, we are not children playing doctor and nurse. Particulars, particulars, particulars, Jon. He who criticizes another's plan bears the burden of showing a better alternative!
Jon Roland wrote:
That is the kind of exaggerated claim that feeds patriot mythmongering. There is nothing that will "win every time", and no one should promise otherwise. At best we might slightly improve the odds, but it is more important to reform the law than to win cases, and it may be necessary to sacrifice some rather than allow the other side to get another bad precedent. It is very difficult to just hold the line. Most cases will either make things better or make them worse, and before proceeding one needs to be very sure the odds are favorable. That mostly comes down to getting the right judge, and that is not always easy to call, especially as they are so rare.
The old saying is that "a good lawyer knows the law, but a great lawyer knows the judge". That is not just about having the judge as a crony. It is more about being able to manipulate the judge psychologically. Just as emotion sways juries more than evidence or argument, so it also sways judges, and the outcome of cases is often more about that than otherwise. Watch the ways successful lawyers stroke the egos of judges.
As for the J.A.I.L. proposal, it has been too complicated and confrontational. The traditional grand jury from colonial times was designed to do what is proposed. We need to return the grand jury to that standard. Select it at random. Open it to citizen complaints. Let it remove immunity by issuing an indictment. And let it appoint private prosecutors by delivering the indictment to them. It would also help to instruct them to keep the professional prosecutors out of the room, and to appoint enough of them so they aren't overloaded with too many cases to have time to deal with deliberately.
On 01/19/2012 01:43 PM, Hoyt Law Office wrote:But, we can still win on procedure. Want to know how to construct a winning argument every time?
-- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society http://constitution.org 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@... ----------------------------------------------------------