When we cheat on behalf of others we don’t have the same guilt issues, which is what limits our cheating.

This is also disippated in a group. Look at SS soldiers in the holocaust, what were at the beginning ordinary young men could find it in themselves to commit acts of the worst barbarity. Being part of the group was an essential part of this. We have a great need to be accepted by the group and initiation, like fiddling a clients report, or some act of cruelty, is very much a part of spreading the guilt amongst us all in corrupt organisations.

I would ask each to take these concepts and apply them to two systems that affect each and every one of us every day. These are our political and legal systems.

With each election the percentage of those in or “out of” our legal system occupy a greater percentage of our elective offices. Is it any surprise that actions and inactions of such elected officials tend, over time. to favor the interests of the legal profession over those of “we, the [other] people” when such interests conflict?

It never ceases to amaze me that NO ONE has ever effectively challenged the fact that “our” Supreme Court Justices have unilaterally thrown off the yoke of public accountability. Only in the last century have our judiciary at the federal, state and local levels made public decisions which render the very oaths of office mandatory by statute before assuming the robes of office (and exercising associated power) meaningless.

They have proclaimed themselves immune from prosecution for incompetence AND corruption. They may misinterpret the law and/or misuse the law, whether inadvertent or through conscious intent and impunity. NO ONE to date has challenged their right to do this. NO ONE has complained of the obvious conflict between the interest(s) of the judiciary and the public interest they are sworn to uphold and protect. It is the effective “law of the land” today that so long as any action by any judge can be in the slightest construed as having been done “in the course of their official duties”, they are wholly and entirely unaccountable to anyone anywhere for any moral or financial damage they do.

The most fundamental basis of our legal system is that each of us must have a remedy for injustice done. What is that remedy when there is but a single jurisdiction in which a given probate must be filed, when the judge in charge consciously refuses to do his/her duty under the various laws clearly applicable, and when he/she cannot be held legally or financially responsible for such damages as result?

As this article explains so well, judges are much more likely to act to protect other judges than to act to apply the law uniformly and clearly. Everyone is familiar with the judicial presumption that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, and yet if a law is genuinely unclear does not “justice” demand that each decision each time it is examined in court make it MORE clear and not LESS clear?

When the words so carefully chosen and enacted by our elected representatives mean ONLY “what a judge says they mean”, such meaning is no longer sufficiently clear as to have a predictable “outcome” when brought before a court of competent jurisdiction. A law that is not predictable is useless as guidance, but it is fertile ground for the ever-increasing number of lawyers that infest and weaken our our society like termites and personally and collectively profit from such professional malfeasance. They even argue as to whether such is “malfeasance” or “misfeasance”, as if the result is different.

I live where the “word” was out (impossible to prove, of course) not to come into court with an attorney from “outside” if you wanted any hope of a favorable decision. This means, of course, that “justice” is no longer what adopted law requires. No attorney dare argue the meaning of any law on the books if such would result in an outcome the judge in charge does not want. Wherever and whenever the “rule of law” is replaced by a “rule of men”, such unrestrained power will corrupt both inevitably and absolutely.

Increasingly the judiciary of our society no longer concerns itself with truth and justice, such as who did what FIRST. These things lurk deep in the details that take time to present and consider. The easy way, all too common, is to look for and make decisions based on procedural error such as arbitrary statutes of limitation or the words of description in a complaint such that obvious and wrongful acts are ultimately unpunished or even rewarded. What kind of a “message” does THAT send to our children? Is THAT to be our legacy to them?

For approaching ten years as an estate executor and heir I have yet to have access to a jury of my peers. I have yet to gain access to a judge untainted by the influence of a local bank that has repeatedly and consistently violated their fiduciary duties as a Guardian?

For me, “the law(s)”, “remedy”, an “impartial court”, and “jury of one’s peers” have proven but illusions without substance, goals to date unachievable with far more dedication and financial assets than the average citizen can or will bring to bear.

Such malignancy as the author has so well speculated about may well already be terminal to the society our forefathers sought to create. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, I can only conclude that America has proven to be asleep at the wheel.

indeed, I can think of no reason for the employees in question to be appraised as a group (if that is indeed the case; it’s not something I saw during my time in business), other than to facilitate manipulation. It’s less gory than the old Roman punishment of decimation, but done with the same purpose and the same effect. If you want to regulate anything, regulate that.