Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
Bret L Bret L is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,145
Default The Institution Called Justice

The Institution Called Justice

Posted by Brian on December 3, 2009 at 6:11 am
Filed Under Coaching Session, History | Leave a Comment

"There are two parts to the Common Law: First, “Treat equals equally” and 2) Treat “unequals unequally.” All new law students learn both, but the second is seldom mentioned. If you are having a trial, you are determining whether there is an “inequity.”


Anglo-Saxon Law recognized that delay means injustice. There are TWO
parts to court decisions, justice is the SECOND. The FIRST is to have
a place where things get DECIDED. The second is JUSTICE. The second is
a matter of endless dispute. The first can be seen on a calendar.

After the Norman Conquest, everybody was subject to what was
erroneously referred to as Roman Law from France. Anglo-Saxon Law was
quicker. But unlike so-called Roman Law, Anglo-Saxon made no claim to
Perfect Justice. It was developed largely to solve a problem.

The problem was feuds. With Nordics, feuds get totally out of hand. I
don’t need to explain that to an American. But in every Aryan society
feuds were far more of a problem than almost
anything decided in a court.

Like lawyers today, the Normans looked on Anglo-Saxon justice as
crude. With the Norman Conquest English justice started on the road to
Justice instead of Expediency. Law ceased to be something that had to
dealt with as an adjunct to running the general society and became an
Institution on its own.

This is an example of a critical rule: Wordism breeds institutions and
ALL institutions follow an evolution, straight survival of the
fittest, of their own, no matter what Words they quote. The first
reaction we all have when told of earlier societies’ trials is to see
them as absurd. But what would an Anglo-Saxon have made of a court
deciding to let a man off for child murder if “the chain of evidence
is broken?”

Anglo-Saxon justice was based on “Who sez?” You lined up those
testifying for one side and those for the other and weighed them. A
thane would outweigh a certain number of average men. There were no
hermaphrodites in black dresses and mascara. There was no paperwork
except recording the two sides and the “Who sez.”

Those who laugh at this have never lived in a community. In our
society you have to find out who the person is at the trial. In those
days, a person lived there all his life. In our society, the Judge is
God in the courtroom. In those days, everybody in the courtroom played
the same role he did in the community. This meant that the inequity of
the society was reflected in the courtroom.

So is a man was a thane, he had more influence in his society than the
average man. If his influence was greater and he was a bad man, it
showed in the courtroom, but no differently than it showed in society
at large. The courtroom was just a part of an unjust society and it
reflected that.

In a society, the higher ranked people have to be careful which side
they take. If they let a felon go free and he commits another crime,
they cannot just ignore the way a judge who is Quoting the Words can.

With the Institution of Law in England, courts became a separate
Institution, based on books that said that in the world of the court
there was no room for the outside world. The Institution of Law
developed a priesthood that looked a lot like that of the Church and
for the same reasons, which had nothing to do with God or Justice.

Anglo-Saxon Law provided law. It solved two problems, one of making a
final judgment without a feud, and the second of doing it QUICKLY.
These are objective realities. So-called Roman Law turned into an
institution with its own enormous priesthood. Its only justification
was that it SAID it delivered JUSTICE, which is an absolutely
debatable question. You will find precious few lawyers who claim that
today’s law brings justice. But we all know that the legal Institution
delays endlessly and allowed feuds to go on in feudal- note the name —
times.

“Justice” was the only thing the institution ever claimed to deliver
IN PLACE of the two objective things pre-Wordist Law delivered on,
speed and preventing feuds. But once the institution was in place, the
lawyers told us that law is not justice, and in fact real law has
nothing to do with justice.

In fact, we no longer have any concept of what justice IS. One
standard statement that is almost as stupid as Edison’s “inspiration
versus perspiration” crap is that “only the rich can afford justice.”
A rational person knows that the rich can afford ACQUITTAL. That is
180 degrees different from JUSTICE. But the difference occurs to no
one, because the idea that law is justice no longer occurs to anyone.

But it does tell us what our legal institution has taught us that
Justice IS. Justice is lots of lawyers. Religion becomes lots of
priests or television evangelists. The man who said salvation is “free
and without price” would have been burned for heresy.

But I mean this literally: To an institution which survives, the
definition of what it produces will mean lots of money for them. Look
around you, do you see any churches that don’t pay their ministers?
Almost by definition, an institution depends on size, full-timers,
MONEY.

We say that a person is deprived of JUSTICE of he doesn’t have enough
lawyers and procedures.
The Church of Rome banned translations of the Bible and banned lay
people from owning a Bible.

In the end, the Church found that banning the Bible was unnecessary.
They did their own translation and only demanded that the Church’s
Commentaries were seen as Biblical. As I said, institutions end up
doing the same thing no matter what Book they claim.

The American Constitution was written down so that everybody could
read it.

But in the end, the Institution of Law did exactly what the old Church
did. The only Commentary that MATTERS is that of the guys in black
dresses. They learned from the Institution at Rome’s experience that
it makes no difference who can read it as long as only one Authority
can INTERPRET it.

In the end ruling institutions look just alike. They can claim the
Word of Hamilton or the Words of Moses, but the Words ends up meaning
nothing. Only the Interpretation, only the Commentary, is enforced.
And that is every bit as effective as banning the document itself."

http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2...alled-justice/
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There is justice in this world! Andre Jute[_2_] Vacuum Tubes 53 July 11th 09 04:49 PM
these days Abdullah will refuse the institution, and if Hakim firmly debates it too, the component will slide amongst the romantic left O. Y. Leuchs, MPSE Car Audio 0 December 29th 07 08:33 PM
Mr. Mne and justice for Arizona [email protected] Audio Opinions 121 October 19th 06 06:59 PM
Now This is Justice ScottW Audio Opinions 5 June 30th 05 10:32 PM
More EBay travesty of justice. Punishing! Radioman390 Marketplace 76 July 6th 04 03:53 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:28 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"