Legal Paradoxes; Conundrums of Law; Legal Puzzles; Questions of Law for Students; Law Quiz; Restraining Orders; Self Defense; Poverty; Racial Injustice . . .
From the desk of Rex Mortar:
I’m Hank Mortar, and I’m a University-educated redneck. How can those required to follow the law understand what it means? One must be coldly rational and objective. But personal experience and assumptions taint any intuitive sense of what the law should mean.
God says, “Where there is no learning there can be no understanding,” and again, “My people perish for lack of understanding!” Understanding law is different than understanding practically anything else, because law is created by man, and is therefore imperfect.
Law does not correspond to any mathematical model, nor does it follow natural phenomenon. It is ultimately based on the rules of language, and is constructed as a codified agreement among the inhabitants of a particular land.
Common law are legal building blocks which are not themselves statutory law, but rather a guide to making new laws. The United States government long ago adopted English common law in its entirety as American common law.
American common law states in part: all law must be based on the Ten Commandments. That literally means that no law can conflict with the Ten Commandments. However, direct references from the holy Bible are not admissible as references to law. We’re talking about laws in the United States.
Fundamental in US law is the notion of natural rights and the right of the weak to defend their rights against violation by the mighty. There are three rights granted by the Constitution: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Why are there only three? Don’t people have other rights? If the three rights covered under the Constitution are preserved, all other rights are preserved, and therefore justice is preserved. Among the four primary virtues: Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance and Justice; it is Justice alone that is absolutely required to maintain cooperation among the members of a civilization.
In terms of Western civilization, justice is that each man knows the fruits of his labor are his own. Ideally, modern governments exist to preserve the rights of the weak against violation by the mighty, even violation by government itself.
In America there are legal mechanisms for use to redress wrongs done to individuals by government. But it is forbidden for citizens to use physical force to preserve their rights against violation by police officers.
In other words, if the police want arrest an individual on suspicion of murder, but the individual knows he did not commit a crime, he still is not permitted to use physical force against the police.
But WHY? Quite simply, citizens must comply to police requests, or orders, unless the individual is commanded to violate the law.
Two drug dealers are making a deal. One decides to double cross the other. He pulls a gun. The other dealer pulls his gun and shoots in response. It is a fundamental right to preserve ones own life, because each person is legally entitled to his own life.
Both parties leave the scene. The gunshot victim dies soon after. Clearly, the drug dealers, as citizens of the United States, have a guaranteed right to self-defense. But the one left alive is charged with manslaughter. Why?
The drug dealers were both aware that killing might be necessary as part of their occupation. Therefore, even though killing was necessary to preserve ones own life, it could be anticipated that killing might be necessary!
Two men have an argument. One says, “I’m going to hunt you down and kill you!” The other pulls a gun and kills the first one. Was it self defense? The one threatened had reason to fear for his life, but he was charged with homicide! Why?
Force of arms is permitted only when there is a perceived immediate threat to life or limb of the innocent, and only when there is no reliable alternative. One may fear harm by an individual at some future time, but that is no legal justification to kill.
One remedy available to those who fear future harm is the restraining order. But upon what legitimate legal principle does such an injunction operate. The issue of such an order is based on the testimony of one person, without giving the other side the opportunity to examine evidence or witnesses.
Based on untried testimony, the individual can be forcibly removed from his legal residence, and be forbidden to return for any reason. He can be deprived of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms, on the grounds that abuse of that right may bring harm to the one seeking protection under the order.
The legal principle involved states that an open threat, whether implied or overt, is a continuous assault on the one seeking protection, for as long as it causes fear. Assault is any use of force to harm or manipulate others. Threating to call the police if someone doesn’t comply to some request is assault, because it is use of government force purely to manipulate.
Brandishing a firearm purely to threaten the innocent is assault. Firing a warning shot when there is no immanent danger to life is assault, because it is use of the force of arms to manipulate others. The law says people are entitled to security and freedom from fear caused by a particular, nameable individual.
The restraining order suffers from many legal defects, but the law provides relief for those the orders are imposed upon. In most cases, the individual seeking the order is doing so as a quick, easy means to free herself from unwanted attention from a particular, nameable individual.
The criteria for issuing such orders does not lie in the intent or actual meaning of words or actions by the respondent. It is based on what the petitioner claims she is thinking and/or feeling. If someone communicates to another directly, either verbally or by other means, and the other claims to be frightened by it, she is entitled to relief under the law.
For the sake of maintaining public order, by preventing the use of implicitly or explicitly induced fear as a means of vengeance, and without the need for proof as to the condition of the heart, the restraining order provides a remedy.
The respondent bears no civic or legal duty to appear in court. If he doesn’t show up, the administrative judge will usually issue the order, based on the evidence supplied. The petitioner then has no legal right to have the case reheard in a court of law.
The respondent has the right to petition for a hearing before a regular judge. But this is the worst idea. If the order is issued in the initial hearing, by the administrative judge—a court commissioner or the like—and it is left at that by the respondent—there is no official court record of the order being issued, and there is no more that the petitioner can do.
This provides an opportunity for the respondent to sue for slander. If he can prove the petitioner’s claim is contrived, he is entitled to damages. Or, the petitioner can agree to have the restraining order lifted.
A man says to his bitter ex-wife, “Your not looking well. Maybe you should see a doctor. And I was looking at the tread on your tires. It’s not safe for you and the kids to ride on those. I recommend you replace them.”
The ex-wife says, “Who’s that girl in your car? Did you leave a trail of candy to find her?”
“No. I just like eighteen-year-olds. No offense. I’m sure some guy, somewhere would find you attractive, especially if you stopped eating yourself into a cow!”
She heads off to the county court and testifies, “My ex-husband came over, and I feared for my health and safety, and for the safety of my children, because of what he said to me!”
The judge issues a temporary restraining order. The guy is served. He is appalled by the perceived injustice, but he has just been given a court excuse to not speak to his wife for four years, no matter how sorry for her he feels!
The best thing to do is leave it alone. If the man is encumbered by consequences resulting from issuance and/or enforcement of the order, he can always sue his ex-wife for damages. Indifference toward an ex-wife is the greatest revenge.
How can a person expunge overdue fees for parking violations. First of all, never try to make a deal with the prosecutor. If you don’t intend to pay, then don’t. But you try to have the total fees reduced, you must admit that it was you who committed the violations.
Now the city can attach penalties to any car you own. If you would have left the blame on your car, you could just sell it, and the problem would go away. But some states require that you retain your plates from vehicle to vehicle, and in some of those the blame for parking tickets is attached to the plate.
Therefore, any car with the same plates may suffer penalties imposed because of overdue parking violation fees imposed upon any other vehicle that once had the same plates.
Why do most people gravely misunderstand the law? As we are raised by our Christian parents, we are taught what is written on the hearts of all people. Justice is then knowable intuitively. If something seems right, it probably is. If it seems wrong, it probably is. But those can only be determined if one knows the truth.
In a courtroom, no one knows the truth. So, the system has to work around that. Imagine a legal system where truth doesn’t matter! That’s what we have! The court system is where truth goes to die! The ultimate purpose of an ideal government is to maintain law and order in a just and reasonable way.
So, the law must at least seem fair to everyone, even though it isn’t. Why is it fair that blacks do prison time and white people get probation. The white suburbanite has a more promising future than the ghetto black. He has more to lose. So, a lesser penalty is sufficient to deter future offenses.
The ghetto black has virtually nothing to lose. After a few years in prison he will have essentially the same life as when he went in. It is a burden placed on the court to balance the needs of the guilty with the needs of society.
It does society no good to destroy potential. But if no potential realistically exists, it’s only a matter of individual discomfort for the duration of the sentence. Ideally, the court desires that all guilty receive sufficient punishment to prevent recidivism. But for the sake of all those who benefit from realized potential held by white suburbanites and their children, whites are also given lesser sentences.
All men are born equal to every other. No life is worth more than any other; because each life is priceless. Why doesn’t the government pass laws that bring about equality. Government is not intended to bring about economic equality between all people.
Why? Because there is no fundamental right to a certain economic position relative to others. The government is designed to preserve the rights of all, without infringing on the rights of anyone. That is the closest to equality any nation can come!
If government violates the rights of one group to protect the rights of another group, it causes inequality. It is not inequality for one group to be less prosperous than another group, because the ideal society has a market-driven, merit-based job market! That cannot be legislated. It just means that the most qualified candidate shall hold the position.
There is no conspiracy to exclude certain groups from economic prosperity relative to other groups. The government was not designed to raise children the way parents are supposed to. It is the upbringing children receive in their homes, and their obedience to Christian principles that will determine individual economic success or failure in the future.
Those who align themselves to Christian living, whether or not officially, greatly assist economic prosperity for their genetic legacy. Christian marriage is the way to economic success. Christianity commands that children be born into a marriage, not by fornication. Those who obey the commandment have successful children. The genetic legacy of wicked perishes in wickedness!
The best thing for everyone is to have a free society based on God’s will for each person, not putting a government subsidy on sin. If people obey God, they live well. If not, they don’t. Poverty teaches sinners how to behave! Government has no magic pill to bring about “equality”.
There is no law that can make people perfectly equal, because everyone would need to be exactly the same. Pass any law you want, and it won’t bring equality, because equality between men is not rooted in their economic worth, but in the uniqueness of each individual, making each a one-of-a-kind creation, rendering each life priceless!
Calling attention to economic differences based on race and/or gender only stirs the pot of contention between people, which is forbidden by God! It causes a wound of injustice that didn’t exist before, and it provides salt to grind into that wound. Each person’s worth is based on his value to almighty God, not his value in the economic workforce. The former is based on the goodness of God—that He makes only good things, and so, without sin, each person is good.
The latter is based on individual differences in health, talent, resources, family upbringing, opportunities afforded by wealth, or opportunities missed by lack of wealth.
There is plenty of wrong information being circulated. It is important to have an ethnically and economically diverse student body on University campuses. I wish someone could explain to me why that’s true. I can’t imagine any intrinsic benefit.
Western culture is the most beneficial culture the world has ever known. It has added more to the world than anything else. Socialism and communism have added nothing of benefit to the world. Why try to preserve inferior cultures?
The most academically qualified applicants should be in college classrooms. Job positions should be filled by the most qualified applicants. Compensation for one’s labor should be based on the scarcity and demand for such labor. It should be based on the intrinsic merit of the work.
We don’t require laws to determine how much people should be paid for their labor. If any employee wants to earn more money, he is free to do any job he can get hired to do! No one is forced to do a certain job! And employers should be allowed to hire anyone they want.
If a person cannot get hired at a job where he makes the amount of money he wants, he is free to make adjustments to his life, so that later he will be qualified to do a higher paying job. But the government has no duty to subsidize such endeavors.
Reward requires risk and sacrifice. No matter how much money you throw at inequality, it will never be solved, because it isn’t a problem. It is only perceived to be a problem when it is viewed a certain way! There will always be people in poverty, because poverty is seen as relative to something else.
If poverty was an absolute standard, it could be overcome, and it has been in the United States. But it has nothing to do with the government! Charity work should be relegated to the church! That way those in poverty could learn why they’re in poverty, and how to escape it!
The climb up from poverty is gradual. It takes generations. Government subsidy on poverty, simply to create an underclass, Democrat voting block, is not the way to eliminate poverty. Educating people that poverty is caused by disobedience to God’s commandments is the key to ending it! Righteous conduct is the key to avoiding poverty.
Through generations of practicing Roman Catholicism, poor families can be lifted from the present circumstance, and the future of each man’s genetic legacy can be guaranteed! If we place a government subsidy on sin, we’re going to get more poverty! But that’s what Democrats want, because those in poverty vote for free stuff from the government!