We trade our natural freedoms “IN RETURN” for access to the protection of the law. When that access is denied, then the contract is broken and all bets are off. There is no obligation for one side to fulfil their part when the other refuses to.
Above, I’ve condensed the point of my previous post and this one to it’s essence. There is NO rational argument against it, it would be illogical to try, and to try would mean you were trying it on and not acting rationally.
Buuuutttttt … if you think you have a good one I’d like to hear it.
In my previous post I explained the reason for confirming a judges intention with regard to your having equal access to the Law.
Just to be clear, none of this is my opinion or theory, all is easily verifiable.
This post is a continuation from the last and will explain why it’s important that, for a society to function as it should, judges must act in the prescribed way. One of the results of their failure to act accordingly has been labelled Lawful Rebellion.
The quoted text will refresh your memory as to what the Law is about. I’ll continue where that text leaves off.
The reason for asking a judge for confirmation that he considers himself still bound by his oath of office is to ascertain beforehand, the honesty, fairness and integrity that that stranger “intends” to display during the course of the hearing. Remember, this stranger that holds enough power over you with the potential to disrupt your life and your remove your liberties.
That’s it, plain and simple.
“Am I going to be treated in the prescribed manner by you and, am I getting access to the Law that I’m entitled to by my having given up some natural freedoms?”
To understand why this important you must first understand what you probably haven’t been taught about society and laws and agreements.
In our natural state there are no laws and no rights and as such each and every one of us has the ability to do and act in absolutely any way that we wish. This is all well and good until (taking it to the extreme) some big hairy arse comes along with his mates and does as he wishes and enslaves you or kills you.
So in the past, agreements were made, set in Law and enforced that curb our natural right to do SOME THINGS as we wish. This leaves us to enjoy our individual lives while exercising our remaining unaltered absolute right to live it by doing as we naturally see fit.
I quote William Blackstone … again.
The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the Law of nature: being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. – William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Once these Laws are made it’s the job of the judge listen to and make judgements when there are disputes and allegations of wrong doings. This position as you would expect requires the holder to be of impeccable character and hold the highest moral standards and unshakeable integrity. There can be no lesser qualifications for a position in society of such importance.