Basically a law is someone telling someone else how to behave. I could make up a "law" where on Thursdays everyone will jump up and down for fifteen minutes or else they would be punished. If I were to attempt to enforce this everyone would laugh, if Genghis Khan did, it would be enforced. Throughout history we have had "laws" that targeted groups of people, slavery was one example, the Nazis formulated a set of laws to address their issues with the Jews and we have laws that target the lower economic classes.
The lower economic classes are not targeted directly, we dont discriminate <right> but through obfuscation and implementation the results are the same. The targeting of the lower economic classes may not be intentional, but an adherence to the present "business" paradigm, whose focus is profit vs. service produces the same results - to actually represent a poor person or someone not likely to return is not cost effective, a solution loses repeat business. A poor person caught by circumstance according to current law is guilty, with information being what it is, the individual now has a record, further limiting their opportunities and forcing them to take risks. Their taking risks exposes them to another need for the theoretical service - in this way a crop is planted, waiting for harvest. To cut the roots would destroy the yield, so the source of the problem is not addressed, a supplier is let go but the consumer is not.
We have been told that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", yet I have identified that the "laws" are basic whimsy. Did the "law" say that because Suzie#0 was arrested, she was guilty and had to be punished ? If this is not the case then why did the judge apparently identify that Suzie#0 had a medical issue, yet still sentence her - with the comment that he had to sentence her ? How about my police incident, the judge did not "hear" my side, arguing with the prosecutor for a harsher punishment - why was this ? Based upon these experiences then the actual premise in court is that one is "guilty till proven innocent". The judges demonstrated that the laws are implemented to enforce this guilt initiative, item by item is dismissed as irrelevant to the case until it appears that the victim is guilty. Is this removal of items that would give context to the case the correct implementation ? To prove that I was innocent I needed the witnesses and video - the witnesses were never noted and the video dismissed so I was tried based on a report that I know was inaccurate. To prove that Suzie#0 was innocent of a criminal act, she needed the doctors and therapists, the videos could have helped but her representation did not bother to research this - or - this did not matter and the judge would have sentenced her regardless of intent, punishing someone that was experienceing severe anxiety attacks and was later diagnosed as having a "bipolar disorder".
I do not understand this whimsy called the "law", I realize that it is unsubstantial in that it is based on "because I said so", someone put something in a book and I am supposed to know about it and be a good little lemming and go off the cliff in adherance to this "word". I do understand war and I do know that when resources are not brought to the field, the field usually loses - I do know that if my soldier does not bring his gun he may not live long. However if my hired member of the State Bar does not come prepared to argue my position, the chances are that he will have harvested my money and then sacrificed me as he goes on to harvest another victim. Since the representation showed up and went through a couple of motions, stand up, sit down they did their job.
When I accepted the "deal" I expected to be able to file assault charges against Officer#133 and the City of Manassas, after all assault is assault and I expected to be able to use the CVS 's video to prove that Officer#133 staged his attack on me, lied about the id and my trying to escape. After all the laws for assault should be the same for everyone, Officer#133 represented the City of Manassas so by association I was assaulted by the City of Manassas and I believed that I had proof. This is not the case, according to the attorneys the law does not apply to some people, one cannot file charges against the government, I could not press assault charges - yet I can be beat on for asking questions and telling the truth.
Then there is the ability to "face ones accuser". Suzie#0 and her CitiBank 's attorney Mr. Jonathan S. Gelber situation, may have been a fraud issue between Suzie#0 and Multiver Division Groupe Bocenor inc.. However CitiBank abstracted the whole thing so that according to these laws Suzie#0 owed Mr. Jonathan S. Gelber money, supposedly for attorneys fees that just happened to equal the amount that Suzie#0 had kept from the scammers. CitiBank protected this foreign company, Multiver Division Groupe Bocenor inc., from having to address how and why Suzie#0 got the check. In this case the law is written such that the reciever is responsible for the check that they deposit. This is really cool for a group of people can use "plausible deniability", any transaction can be claimed as a fraud by this definition, a paycheck, a purchase - anything. To get the money back just claim fraud, the bank pays you back, your victim is charged and attacked by their own bank. Who keeps a paycheck, then your organization can claim that someone acted without authorization, using this shell game one can theoretically double the money using the banks, the trick is to get dupes to take the fall. This is a cool law intended to stop conspiracies but the profile can be applied to facilitate a scam, remember the reciever of the check is responsible for it - of course the reciever is usually a poor person trying to make ends meet and the deal seems like an profitable opportunity. Who is protected by this initiative ? Did they ever catch Ricky or Dr. Ogiesuyi Osaretin, no one bothered to collect informtion on these people from Suzie#0, so did they even care about them ? Just what was the outcome of this whole thing ?
In Suzie#0's divorce case we have an anomoly, rather than an attorney representing a large corporation or a zealous prosecutor we have ATTORNEY#06 a crusader out to punish escaping chattel. This is a classic case where one client was represented zealously and the client of the other attorney was not. Mr. A. Strode Brent Jr., Suzie#0's attorney made a few motions, I had told Suzie#0 that he was playing ATTORNEY#06, collecting his resources till it mattered as most of the "hearings" were over incidentals, that he had the information to justify the reasons for her wanting the divorce, this was not the case, Mr. A. Strode Brent Jr. just served Suzie#0 up on a platter. The law said that there was a six month wait for a divorce, it took Suzie#0 three years, then ATTORNEY#06 tried to sue Suzie#0 and myself.
This failed representation is not the exception it is the rule, the only hope is to get two failures together in court and then one is playing the odds. They say that the market will weed out the bad, but this is not the case as the volume of customers allows for the losers to harvest other clients at a thousand a pop for possibly a days work. When we needed an attorney, Suzie#0 called around asked for references and got Mr. Thomas E. Burks the deserter and the duo of Mr. Donald R. Daugherty, P.C. and Mr. Raymond D. Kline. If any of these attorneys had contacted Suzie#0's doctors, reviewed all the material that was available and then told us what we had done wrong this would have been acceptable, they would not be mentioned, but to tell me that the reason that I / we are guilty is because "they lie all the time" and we "would not be believed" is not acceptable.
Officer#133's behaviour is reinforced, his buddies learned how to "get away" with framing someone, the courts punish everyone with sub-competent representation which provides the results that appear to be based on a "guilty till proven innocent" premise - is this with intent or just the ineptitude of the institution. This implementation increases chaos, especially since failing representation, lies to the court by law enforcement, seem to be standard procedure. The CVS incident reinforces my distrust of authorities, continue with this practice and drop by drop, victim by victim a counter momentum will build.
Self enforcing laws - laws that enforce themselves through a "best interest" policy. An example of a self enforcing law would be "do not torture your enemy else they may torture you in return", you can go ahead and torture your victim but it would not be in your best interests to risk the reprocussions. Another one is "not to attack someone else unless they attack you", yes, you can turn and attack someone next to you, letting the culprit go. Like a bully who gets hit and instead of being a "man" and addressing their attacker, instead they attack someone weaker - the others on the playground will not respect the "bully" and any compassion gained through the first attack is lost. The bully has shown weakness and can become prey, just watch the animal shows on pack and herd animals - the rule is self enforcing.
A disregard for the structure will result in accelerating social entropy. Following the path that we are on "fear" will rule supreme, it will be used to justify destroying our civil rights as we all have to be "protected" from the "bad guy" - whoever that is this week. The resulting laws will apply only to the lower classes, the ruling classes will have rules that apply only to them - or - is this the current paradigm.
Next - Curiosities Contact/Donations