Alleged Violations of Protective Order

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney. I do not have a law degree. I have absolutely zero desire to ever become an attorney or to ever attend law school. My field was supposed to be computer science. My life is being destroyed by the misfeasance of these evil traitors to Justice. It is ruining my career. I have zero interest in politics. I do not want to spend my time campaigning to get justice out of this, and I should not have to. I don't read newspapers, I don't follow elections, and I don't even vote. I really don't care about the stupid political bullshitting posers, I never have, and I never will. The people who put their efforts into writing laws like the “Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act” did not act in good faith. They are incorrigible and corrupt and that isn't changing any time soon. We need officials who actually have a work ethic to take care of the problems I describe here-in, instead of expecting me to do their job for them, then when I do a etter job than they have, ignore it, pretend I lost, then move the goalposts.

Law students and civil rights advocates: I really need somebody I can trust to help take care of this. I can not. I have other interests and obligations that I am much more interested in persuing. I think that they do this on purpose, knowing that most people don't have the time or energy, much less the knowledge and skills necessary, to do much of anything about them.

2017-01-06: Just to be sure people know this… at the time when I first posted this, I had not at all explored the Judicial Conduct Commission process. They have not fairly had time, as of writing this paragraph into the top of this blog post right now, to review the complaint that this represents. I have sent them the link, but have not heard back from them.

2017-04-19: Update: I'm sorry this page is such a crazy mess. You'll see that my legal documents are more refined and less off-the-cuff-rant in tone. I have made maybe 1 update to that letter to JCC… I have mostly been working on getting the MacOS build of TeXmacs working so that I can ensure that zotero-texmacs-integration functions properly for Macintosh users. The good news is that if you install MacPorts and then compile TeXmacs from my github clone, it will run… but I am still learning how to make a self-contained dmg package, which I know I need to do, because most people who will want to use that tool are not computer science majors! So that is the focus of my labor for the time being. Spending time with my son has been my other time-sink.

2017-02-01: The people who think they are “the court” have proven themselves to be exactly what we knew they are. They have exploited procedural blockade or procedural wizardry and plausible deniability to get their way. They prosecuted me with no evidence and made procedural moves to block any evidence from being put forth throughout this entire trial by ordeal of legal abuse. Despite clear evidence of her abuse of our son, the court did not ever prosecute his mother for that.

<hypothetical-and-sarcastic-rant>The entire court is run by women in a secretarial pool. It's all about getting money from men. They don't breast feed males and expect them to work or go to steal war from other places while they get everything they want. I have heard back from the JCC, once, from a secretary… who said that I would be given a case number, but then never heard back again from her. I am taking out the link from this page to the Google Drive directory in two weeks, to give you time to mirror the new documents added. I'm giving up on this and going back to my real life.</hypothetical-and-sarcastic-rant>

Hint: If you download these and use a normal PDF reader rather than Google Drive's web interface, there are hyperlinks from the citations to the table of authorities, and there, there are often hyperlinks to the online copy of the referenced document.

2016-02-16 Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

2016-02-16 Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

2016-02-16 Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

I tell you three times. They cheated. They abuse the “protective” I hesitate to call it a “law” when it's really a crime against humanity… to prosecute males and put them in jails while they allow women to perjure; they ignore every thing I bring to prove that and act like I'm the criminal while she abuses our child and the “judicial” process, with members of the bar as accomplices to that malicious prosecution and abuse of process. I recommend not ever moving to Utah, where they have such high standards of injustice that even the court cheats.

This blog item is hastily prepared and not the full thesis by any means.

This blog item is a hastily prepared “Full”^[*] disclosure to the Grandest Jury, the People, per se, as well as those who are presumed to represent us, of the Google Drive directory: Alleged Violations of Protective Order. I realize that it is not redacted as is expected. There just isn't enough time in a day to do everything! The primary purpose for posting this is that I just plain don't know what to do and I need help from the community. The breach of privacy is the lesser of (at least) two evils, in that I feel certain that there is less injustice in this breach of privacy than there is in allowing the courts to continue to perpetrate crimes against rights. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones; people who live in teepees should not have loud quarrels. If somebody wants to perform the labor involved in that redaction, while I continue with the legal research and writing of the next set of documents, please contact me so I can co-ordinate in the case of multiple offers, and set up a shared directory to place the redacted data set into. Otherwise, it's just plain lower priority than appealing the bogus child custody determination!

It is a large amount of data, fairly raw and not fully curated at this point in time. I have yet to crank out a full evidence summary document, for example… and so it's not easy to see—at a glance—what it all means. Below, you will will find a short briefing list of some of the most important documents within it, which I am certain are likely to hold the greatest amount of public interest. The rest is like some kind of reality TV… real honest to God grandest jury evidence placed here for public inquiry. I did not want to publish it this way, but find that the officials are not doing what they should with it. The common law must be held in multiple custody. We have to ensure that they do their jobs right. When they don't, we need to impeach them. But don't blame the elected officials when it's their subordinates who are the perpetrators!

Absence of evidence is evidence, when the evidence was shown to them and they failed to accord it proper consideration. See, e.g., Brady v. Md., 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935). Similar thing apply, of course, in the civil court context... The Public Law arises from Private Law through the Contract with Society… I say that somewhere in one of my legal documents. It was pretty good. Can you find it?

[*] It is difficult to concentrate on writing when there is obstruction of Justice taking place and when I'm feeling very rushed by deadline pressure. Even with total peace of mind, it's not easy to get all of the important details written down, and all of the caselaw and other background research completed enough to know what to say and how to say it. I'm doing everything I can; I'm doing everything mostly right, and from what I can observe, the officials are not doing their duty in good faith. There is “honest service fraud” documented in here! Yes, I am aware this may sound cryptic or non sequitur due to the fact that I'm feeling rushed and not filling in the betweens from initio to these conclusory remarks here on this too-quick and rough blog article.

I ask that a few good citizens mirror that drive directory for backup in case it gets taken down. This evidence folder was originally up on a LaCie.com “Wuala” (Switzerland) site. It was shown to law enforcement here—Salt Lake City, Utah, the former Olympic village—before Wuala was no longer available… The Wuala directory contained just about the same things you see in this Google Drive directory, except for newer items and newly entered ones from prior times; there's a lot left to do. It's not all there yet. I am being kept very busy with multiple suits at the same time! As far as I can tell, those law enforcement people failed to do anything at all about any of this… They simply did not appear to do their duty… (But see the error coram nobis petition, linked below.)

There's a lot of competition in the cloud storage industry, so I guess it's paranoid to think that a site outside of the US is no longer available due to somebody wanting to “firewall” it away… why I say that is that police, DCFS, and the bench-trial court officers used every excuse in the book to ignore the evidence, one of them being that it was firewalled and they could not read it from inside the courthouse or police department; or that the disc I'd brought it to court on and sent it to DCFS on was not readable… The DCFS claimed that my disc did not work, then failed to, in good faith, contact me for a copy that they could read.

Also see: My Zotero.org references collection, and more specifically, the subcollection for this case. It is meant for use via the Juris-M fork of Zotero, which provides multilingual legal-citation support in addition to the base functionality of Zotero. In order to insert the citations into my documents, which I write using GNU TeXmacs, I created zotero-texmacs-integration and the associated propachi-texmacs. The propachi-texmacs provides a “monkey-patch” to Juris-M that modifies the output format of it's LibreOffice integration to a form compatible with TeXmacs. The zotero-texmacs-integration is a plugin for TeXmacs that borrows the LibreOffice integration wire-protocol, so that citations and bibliographies can be inserted into and maintained in documents. Because citations and bibliographies are formatted via Citation Style Language (CSL), it can be used with any CSL style supported by Juris-M or Zotero, and is thus generally useful, not just for legal writing.

Please, again, I hope for at least one person to please back all of this up (but don't tell me), just in case somebody rips off my laptop. If somebody paranoid or angry enough about my having posted all of this got physical control of this laptop or any of my devices, they could potentially cause it all to disappear. I'm sort of hoping that anybody working for them “didn't sign up for this shit” (alluding to the movie Avatar). Improper adminstration of justice within the court makes the job more difficult and more dangerous for the beat-cops on our streets, most of whom “don't want to be that cop” who did the bad thing we all saw on the news. In God We Trust, eh? Perhaps the moon is a harsh mistress?

A short briefing list, of some “starting point” documents:

It is glaringly obvious that I am not an attorney at law, and that I don't have very much experience with paralegal work. I'm taking this stuff to court pro se and learning as I go. I'm getting better at it, but have still not read all of the rules, for example… There's only so much time in a day! This is not a comprehensive list! The actual directory of files is… approaching that.

2016-02-16 Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

a.k.a. A Memorandum in Support of Petitions for Relief under the Post Conviction Remedies Act, or “the error coram nobis petition”, which challenges the constitutionality of the Cohabitant Abuse Act, among other things.

2015-02-25 Motion of Respondent to Dismiss Protective Order

a.k.a. “the long affidavit” for dismissal of the protective order. I entitled it as a motion because I did not know that I was expected to fill out a form for the motion. The document really is an affidavit. The supporting evidence is the stuff in the main directory, linked at the top of this blog post, and there's a directory of evidence that was put on a disc that I tried to file with the document, but the court would not accept it.

2016-04-20 Answer to Motions of Respondent for Summary Judgments (with exhibits)

a.k.a. Answer to the State's “Motion to Deflect”. This has a lot of attachments, and may be a good one to grab for an all-in-one starter document. The Post-conviction Relief, URCP 65C petitions were deflected by the state's attorney. She actually lied to the court! (See the associated transcripts, etc., found near this file in the Drive directory, for both these and the associated appellate court cases!) The summary judgment was granted in both PCRA cases, and then in the appellate court, she lied again, and they dismissed also, as though the case was not justiciable; but it's obvious that it is. That was the action that prompted me to post this all here.

Updates:

2016-12-04: I have an appellate court “Docketing Statement” due tommorrow, Dec. 5, 2016, and so must now turn my attention to that task.

Update: I've been granted a time-extension, to the 20th of December for the docketing statement.

2017-01-07: I created a Zotero.org group to make it easier for investigators and jurists to follow and view my research. I've edited the page, above, to show the location. I'll try and keep that up to date, perhaps by simply working there instead of in my own library. Notice the link to the Dropbox storage for the annotated PDF's, since they are not on Zotero storage. Thank you for mentoring me, Anon. I realize that normally lawyers don't display this sort of stuff. I think most people aren't going to be interested enough anyway, and people who are would be likely to be given access by me… and opening it up makes that access relatively anonymous.

2017-01-07: I have removed the group because it does not make it easier after all. Sorry.

---

«Absence of foreskins is evidence of human rights abuses. Humans who are abused are not happy, they become despondent, they malfunction, they go on strike, they will mob you and kill you if they can. People do not tolerate it very long before they change order and change caste-role. It is not acceptable to threaten them, setting the example by harming them. They will protect themselves and their offspring from the evil perverts who cut up their children. It is animal nature. You who have been doing this are warned. It is natural law.»

“Anon Deseret”

---

Take Care Clause and the Fundamental Right to Bodily Integrity

The following article is an excerpt from a legal memorandum that I wrote. The “take care clause” is clause 5 of Article 2 of the United States Constitution.

“Solo Star, now you see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb.” ––Dark Helmet, in Spaceballs. Lord Dark Helmet says this just after tricking Solo Star by saying “if there's one thing I despise, it's a fair fight; but if I must, then I must. May the best man win.” Then, approaching to shake hands, “put her there.” When Solo shakes his hand, Dark steals the Schwarz-ring–––from which a (phallic thymbol) laser-sword had emanated during their mock-fight–––off of Solo's finger. He laughs, gloating about how he can't believe Solo fell for the oldest trick in the book, and then says “here, let me give it back”, holding it out, and when Solo reaches forward, throws the ring over his own shoulder (at random?) and down through the grating in the floor. Dark laughs again when Solo just misses catching it before it falls through. He declares in his extra-deep and dramatic voice, “Solo Star, now you see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is dumb.” The Wikipedia article explains that Solo Star begins the movie with a cowboy hat on, but for most of the movie, is wearing no hat. ––from Spaceballs (movie by Mel Brooks 1987), see 10 Best Gags, #5 at 1:33, YouTube.com, and Wikipedia article “Spaceballs”.

It is said that contra principia negantem disputari non potest. (“Against one who denies the principles, there can be no debate”). The public law arises from private law, affectio societatis, through the contract with society. Public law is expected to be held in “multiple custody”, res publica. (In banking or cash handling, the principle of “dual-custody” is fairly well known… it is thought that the likelihood of two cashiers successfully conspiring to steal money is much lower than the likelihood that a solitary cashier might try it. So, by “multiple custody”, I mean the extension of the “social contract” from 2 to n “independent actors in the life-world”.) A contract is expected to accord fair consideration–––a “promise of something of value given by a promissor in exchange for something of value given by a promisee”. The thing of value for the public law contract with society is that we are all to have equal protection of law.

This contract, embodied by the common law, is the result of many years of tradition, refinement, shakedown, and somewhat organized development through the courts, codified in the constitution and statutes. It is intended to be a consistently fair and equitable set of rules that we can all live by. Presumably, anyone with a standard public school education will have a solid grasp on the fundamental bases of law–––share, don't steal, don't hit people, don't yell at people, don't tell lies, be fair, honest, and considerate of others, don't run with the scissors; We all must agree to abide by them. There are natural social consequences for not doing so. In the grown-up world, we are all supposed to be protected by the laws equally because each and every one of us has the same set of rights. Those rights are individual rights, not group rights. That means that “white” people have the same rights as “black” people; males the same rights as females; in-group members have the same rights as out-group members; “Jews” the same rights as “Christians”, who have the same rights as “Pagans”, who have the same rights as “Atheists”; When a female breaks the law, she is to be prosecuted just the same as when a male breaks the law; When a lawyer, prosecutor, court commissioner, or judge breaks the law, it's just as much a crime as when anyone else does; (See e.g., Title 18 U.S.C. §241, §242) Because, as individuals–––as independent actors, born into the same pre-existing life-world–––we each have identically the same rights and responsibilities under the law, regardless of socio-economic status, social class, race, gender, religion, hair-color, eye-color, taste in clothing, etc.

Laws must be applied uniformly and consistently. The mandate for uniform operation of–––or equal protection of–––the law demands a consistent logic, not a paraconsistent one. Ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet, is not properly valid reasoning in law. That is to say, there are to be no double-standards; nobody is above the law; that is, each and every one of us stands in precisely the same relation to the subject of the law; What is illegal for one person to do is also illegal for any other person to do. An action that is illegal implies that a substantially similar action is also illegal, but also, an action that is not illegal implies that a substantially similar action is also not illegal, provided that it does not too closely approach infringement upon or violation of anybody's fundamental rights.

Now, addressing the “circumcision” issue: The crime of “statutory rape” is predicated on the idea that a minor is not qualified to make certain decisions regarding per own reproductive or procreative capacity or whether to engage in sexual activity; and that an adult in a special position of trust or authority can easily hold undue influence over the minor, and so it is unlawful and a crime against the public law–––the contract with society–––for an adult to engage in sexual intercourse with a minor, even if the minor is sexually mature, wanton, and not physically harmed by the sexual intercourse. Consensual adult sexuality comes with undeniable risks and responsibilities, and young people must be carefully and diligently taught about those things before they are considered capable of making good decisions that properly manage those risks and take care of the responsibilities, at will. [1] Thus, the rationale for the malum prohibitum “statutory” sexual offenses can be said to be founded upon the person's capacity to make, of per own free will, an informed choice regarding per own bodily functions or bodily integrity, taking into account the potential for undue influence that an adult may have over the minor.

There is, clearly, a discern able difference in severity between a so-called statutory “rape”, e.g., of a sexually mature and willing teenager by an adult, where no coercion or physical harm is alleged, malum prohibitum; vs. actual forced sexual-intercourse, rape per se, e.g., including coercion as well as physical and psychological trauma, malum in se. Surely a range of degree of severity exists across the spectrum of malum in se crimes against the person, in general; e.g., across the spectrum through reckless or knowing endangerment, attempted assault, assault, aggravated assault, kidnapping, sexual assault, attempted battery, battery, aggravated battery, sexual battery, rape, manslaughter, through murder… Inherent within and in common within each of those crime's definition is an infringement or violation of a person's bodily integrity.

It can hardly be argued against that “a fundamental purpose of Law is to ‘protect the innocent’”, nor against the idea that law enforcement may be reasonably expected to enforce the law when they become aware that a malum in se crime against a person has been committed; they have a professional duty. For example, it is likely that ‘any reasonable person’ will agree that if the police know about a murder, they must investigate the crime, and identify, locate, and prosecute the perpetrator; it is unlawful for them not to, because they have a constitutionally mandated duty to take care of; they are required to swear or affirm that they will “discharge the duties of the office with fidelity.” This implies that there exists a fundamental and inalienable right to bodily integrity that is inseverable from the primary body of the public law contract with society. This right to bodily integrity can be said to be among the unenumerated rights guaranteed by the constitution. It is so fundamental that nobody thought it needed to be explicitly listed when The Constitution was codified or formulated. Of course there would be laws against this sort of crimes! They are at the very foundation of Law itself; Lex lata, pacta sunt servanda et jus cogens; de lege ferenda, de sententia ferenda. Quod est inferius est sicut quod est superius. Quod est intus est sicut quod est extra.

«[T]hat a liberty interest is not the subject of an incorporated provision of the Bill of Rights does not remove it from the ambit of the Due Process Clause. I cannot improve on Justice Harlan's statement of this settled proposition: “[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This ‘liberty’ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961) (dissenting opinion).» Albright v. Oliver, 510 US 266, 306,307 (US Sup. Ct. 1994).

In a similar vein–––consequentia mirabilis–––to pass a new law–––whether by legislative act or by judge-made law–––to “legalize” one specific form of mayhem, for example, would create a serious contradiction, as would arbitrary or capricious “selective non-enforcement” of existing laws! Even more concerning to a reasonable person would be a law that fails to protect one gender to the same degree as the other, or one that reduces the penalty that should normally have been applied under existing laws that prohibit malum in se crimes that by definition cause irreparable and permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function, but only when the crime is perpetrated against members of one gender… Who would disagree with that general yet curiously directed statement? The perpetrators of mayhem? People who don't agree with the fundamental tenet of contracts and treaties that “agreements must be kept”?

It becomes clear upon careful examination of documents such as The Doctors Opposing Circumcision Genital Integrity Policy Statement (attached as exhibit), as well as documentation of normal male anatomy and function to be found on the Circumcision Information and Resource Pages, what constitutes “normal anatomy and function” of the adult penis with intact prepuce. It will be clear upon careful study of those factual disclosures that by definition, a permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function results from the non-thereputic “penis desensitization surgery” that some practitioners sell as “circumcision”. The brochures and dogma provided by the people who sell the procedure try and “make people think”, through censored and incomplete and deliberately misleading “management of perceptions” that circumcision is somehow “potentially” medically beneficial. Those unethical practioners commit fraud when they leave out very pertinent and relevant information concerning the true anatomy and function of the foreskin. Without that information, neither the minor nor the parent can be said to be making an informed decision. For best results, important decisions must be informed decisions.

My son does not want to be circumcised. The idea frightens him. It's his body, and it's his choice, but he is not qualified, intellectually or legally, to make that decision until he is an adult, and once he is one, he'll know enough about it to know better. In terms of religious justification, our son attends LDS Primary Sunday School. He is learning the LDS version or rendition of the general “Christian” faith or kraft de heilengen, e pluribus unum. He attends LDS Sunday School due to his Mother's insistence, and I do not oppose that. [2] “Appeal to religion” is a logical fallacy, but religion may freely appeal to logic and reason. The Gospel Studies manual for adults that I am familiar with explains the difference between “God's Plan” and “Satan's Plan” for our salvation. The good plan involves free agency, guided through our power of discernment, the bad plan involves submission to the will of Satan, [3] no questions allowed. It also teaches that each of us is a unique individual, born whole [4] and without sin, with a unique spirit from even prior to the point of conception. Anyone who has children of their own or has spent time with children knows that this is most certainly true. They have their very own unique personality and self-will right from the start. [5]

The LDS faith is “Anabaptist”, which means that we do not baptize until we reach the age of self agency, the age at which a child is thought to be capable of knowing right from wrong, and making decisions regarding per's own actions or agency within our community.[6] For better or for worse, right decisions or mistakes, they are to be held responsible for their own actions from that age forward, and may choose to undergo the rite of baptism, a ritual bathing… Not surgery; bathing… of per own free will. If it is against the religion to baptize someone prior to the age of self agency, then certainly it is against the religion to perform prepucial amputation surgery on a pre-pubescent minor! (Presumably, it is much more difficult to botch the baptism of an 8 year old than that of an infant, primarily because you can be more certain that the 8 year old will hold her breath underwater.) It would be sacrilegious to force such a thing upon the child he is today, since it would affect the adult he will be for the majority of his lifespan. And even now, at this age, he does not want his penis to get cut the way his Daddy's was. He trusts me and takes my word for it. My personal knowledge and experience indicates that “circumcision” is evil, cruel, and a criminal imposition of deprivation of the fundamental right to bodily integrity. Properly, it belongs right up there with “crucifixion” on a list of atrocities and things we just don't do to other people in a civilized society.

Clearly a baptism is unharmful and difficult if not impossible to “botch”, a statement that can not be honestly made about prepucial amputation… and clearly, a “circumcision” does, by it's very nature, cause permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function [7], words straight out of the legal definition of “mayhem”. Nobody has the right to impose such a thing upon a child, because it would impose that upon the adult that he will be for most of his life. In Marriage of Boldt, 176 P. 3d 388 (Or. Sup. Ct. 2008), it was determined that a 12 year old minor's own choice mattered[8], when the custodial father who had converted to Judaism wanted his son circumcised, and his Orthodox Russian Catholic mother was very opposed to it. She asserted that her son did not want it done, and that even if he did, he was not qualified–––neither de facto nor legally–––to make that decision at age 12. On one hand, “It's his body, and so it's his choice”, but on the other, a minor is not legally qualified to make that decision on behalf of the adult he will be for most of his life. Because “circumcision” is permanent–––there is no such thing as “uncircumcised”–––the only morally and ethically proper choice is to leave the child intact. No matter which “religion” or “wisdom tradition” one belongs to, this is the same. Nobody is above the law. No law that is contradictory to the fundamental purpose of law itself may be allowed to stand. The “selective nonenforcement” of laws against serious malum in se crimes such as those general laws that prohibit mayhem upon the genitals of an infant is a crime against rights, and misprison of felony.

Nature's design is perfect. There is no reason to alter it.[9] If having a foreskin was not a survival trait, we would be born without them. Most of the males on the planet have intact foreskins, and are very happy with them. How does cutting off part of the body's integumentary system, exposing a normally internal body part and a fresh “surgical” wound to the contents of a diaper or to drying and continual abrasion of clothing somehow “enhance” male hygeine, again? The integumentary system is what prevents pathogenic microbes from entering the body. Integrity. That's a word that, if it means nothing to the Judicial, proves they do not hold it as a value nor posess it as a characteristic. If that's the case, then they may as well just quit showing up to “work”.

Pax et Bonum, Karl Martin Hegbloom, Esq. ✠

[1]

I find that the “Law of Chastity” is not something “imposed upon” people. It is more like a codification of a natural law, or of a strong tendency towards a “best practices” in terms of what people have learned–––often the hard way–––and conserved as tradition, handed down from one generation to the next to prevent their progeny from making the same mistakes they made. As we all know, people despise the imposition of arbitrary rules-without-reasons, and will inevitably scoff them or outright disobey them in spite. But general rules based upon sound argument, carefully taught in a forum free of coercion or suppression of opinion, are easily accepted and followed almost as a matter of course. It's part of our nature to listen and learn from our elders. We must be held accountable to make our own contribution to that influence be a true one. Appeal to religion is logical fallacy; but religion is free to, and must, appeal to logic and reason; in fact, that's actually part of our religion! That's self agency. “Choose the Right”.

[2]

Despite that they make him wear a “leash”, “cravat”, or “necktie”, the symbolism of which I object to; I also object to neckties on the grounds that they are non-utilitarian item of clothing… or perhaps the function is not merely symbolic? If that's so, and perhaps even if it is merely symbolic of it's form-suggested function, then a dress-code enforcing the wearing of a necktie, or any dress-code for that matter, is a hypocrisy to a church that teaches self-agency. But also, if you like to wear a necktie, you can. So this “dispute” isn't grounds to forbid him from attending. The “Gospel Studies Manual” as well as “The History of the Church” provides grounds upon which I choose to actually endorse having him attend LDS Primary.

[3]

Also see the Rider / Waite Tarot card “The Devil” and read about it's symbolism. The devil is perched on the top of a white greco-roman fluted-column pedestal. Before him stands a man and a woman, each with a loop of string (not even rope, just string) around the neck, with the leash-ends of the strings draped over the pedestal and held there by the devil's foot. The loops of the strings are loose fitting. At any time, of their own free will, they could lift the loops over their heads and walk away from enthrallment.

[4]

The proper definition of the word “holy” is: Possessing or endowed with the quality or characteristic of wholeness or completeness. Thus, a man is certainly more holy who has an intact foreskin.

[5]

I was taught by a bible scholar that the word “sin” comes from an ancient Greek word for “self”. So perhaps “original sin” means “my originating self”, or the “me” that others experience as “my spirit” that “originates” or “emanates” from my body and brain as a result of my physical existence… in other words, my “aura”, perhaps? The use of the word “sin” to mean something like “crime against the public law contract with society” comes from the idea of selfishness or failure to accept and live according to that contract with society, perhaps.

[6]

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 14, asserts that children have the right to «freedom of thought, conscience and religion». I object only to the use of the word “freedom” in the case where it may be interpretted as being a grammatical contraction of the longer form “freedomination” because semantically, that would place it in conflict with the purpose of law itself. I would have chosen instead the word “liberty”.

[7]

Because amputation of the penile prepuce is certain to cause permanent disfigurement and permanent loss of normal function, by it's very nature, the crime must carry a strict liability. (In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is in legal jeopardy by virtue of an wrongful act, without any accompanying intent or mental state. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offences.) Strict Liability | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia, Law.Cornell.edu

[8]

Accord The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12.

[9]

What is the natural and healthy response to a threat of violent harm to themself or their offspring that animals have? Under the law, do we not have a right to self defense, and to defense of our children, even against domestic violence? How does the contract with society expect us to carry that out? Who's job is it? Doesn't our contract delegate certain duty of care and thus authority to enforce the law to professionals? What are we expected to do when those professionals do not “discharge the duties of the office with fidelity” to the Constitution they are to “support, obey, and defend”? If they are not doing their jobs, with Integrity, then we are no longer in need of their “services”.

Hear the thunder? Hear the drums.

I understand that what we have here is an ‘adversoupial court system’… but the duty to Law, Equity, and Justice is the same regardless of whether you're a cop, a constable, a lawyer, a judge, a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a complainant, or a defendant… Every member of society bears that duty, per The Social Contract that constitutes the public law; and when there exists a statute that is clearly a derogation of—or an outright unrighteous abrogation of—the Common Law, our common adversary is—honestly and in good faith—that statute with it's deleterious collateral consequences. It must go.[1] Hear the thunder?

When we must all stand strong, in that thin blue line, for the same Duty of Care, perhaps someone must stand-in—or sit-in on the judicial bench—as the Devil's Advocate? It ain't me… It ain't me… I ain't no fortunate one… Nah, no, in-ay bray ate's a crying shame that the devil's advocates won the debate in the congress that passed out this atrophcity of injustice, this “$enator's $on”—the Cohabitant Abuse Act—in fine form, an ‘illegitimate petard forged in the hasty union of a Bill of attainder cross-bred by a blanc checque’. With back-walking catch-22-22 hindsight, say can't yous see that it's long past time to get out of bed and set things right!? Apollo! A poll. Oh, and yous owe… Hear the drums.

Yous Sirs [2] must discharge the duties of office with Fidelity… Our lives, children, family integrity, and belongings are not yours for a ‘taxman rummage sale’ via champerty and maintenance. Yous work for us, for We the People, only under proper authority of Law. The authority vested in yous by laws ends and shall be void from that point in time when your actions are no longer in accord with Law until that time when they are. Hear the drums.

If yous want redemption, then yous must please Lady Themis & her Lords of Law. Make restitution. Perform Perform penance; work upon reparation. See to it that this Legitimation Crisis ends here, unless yous enjoy hearing people down on the corner and out in the street repeating loud and clear with exceedingly abundant sarcasm: «Here in Utah, we have such high standards of injustice, that even the courts cheat! Third District Court has broken up with Justice, and has gotten a protective order against her! Ignoring her problems won't make them stay away!» Hear the drums, Echo.

---

[1] For some theory of how we may accomplish this, see: Edlin, Douglas E., Judges and Unjust Laws: Common Law Constitutionalism and the Foundations of Judicial Review (University of Michigan Press, 2008). And try not to look at U.C. §76-8-201, or 18 U.S. Code §241 & §242, if you're afraid somebody might notice you hiding in that tiger-shaped shadow… Have you ever seen the reign coming down on a sunny day?

[2] Not everyone knows… that the word “sir” is a contraction of the word “officer”. Perhaps “freedom” is a contraction of “freedomination”? If so, then “freedom” is clearly not a family value, nor one for a society at large… in a Republic…

To the people in Ukraine who waste time and your lives shooting guns when there are more interesting problems to solve.

I hope this translates into Russian well enough and that the young men to whom this is addressed get shown a copy of it so that the message reaches those who need to hear it the most. If anyone reading this thinks of anyone else who needs to be told not to throw their life away for their country, but to instead live and work for her... Please feel free to send this on. Five doves at liberty to carry this message and share it, I Thank Ye.

Why do you throw your lives away by running around like errant boys, shooting guns at one another and killing people? What in the hell kind of work-ethic is that? Didn't anybody teach you how to behave like civilized human beings? Look around you. Most of the people in the world around you don't run around shooting guns at other people! You are dangerous to the community. People wish you would learn to live peaceful and productive lives helping to get the real work done. To go around shooting guns like that is criminal behaviour, and mostly just a waste of time. It's dangerous. Why bother when there are safer things to spend your time on that are also more utilitarian and useful to the community?

There are many interesting problems to solve and important work to get accomplished. It is wasteful and foolish to go around shooting guns at one another when there is so much work to be done. You will not learn from the Master unless you work for the Master. You have chosen a fools career as long as it involves running around with guns shooting at other people. You should be helping to improve your country's wind energy infrastructure, electrically powered rail for shipping, piggy-backing Santa's Sleigh, and other important high-value cargo like that.

Why don't you learn to set a better example for the youth of the world? Why not set a better example for future generations? Mir... Mirror... Door! Would you like more water? Are you ready to order? Isn't it nice to live peacefully in world where there is applied purpose in the right direction; out planting trees, installing large "wind farms" to generate electricity from the wind... (it is thermodynamically neutral clean and safe electricity. Say "no" to fossil fuels.)

Doodem. Dood... dude, duty... Echo. Always remember the Grandfather Principles. Live by them. Remember that the first rule of defense is to make friends, not enemies. You'll be too busy making friends to have any time left for gunfights. You won't need the guns.

Your country, as is ours, and as is every country, is best protected by having youth learn from the wise. Learn to perform useful work that is a benefit to your community and to the world. Learn how to grow healthy things to eat in gardens. Learn to cook. Learn to preserve food. If the climate change happens, there could be no country to protect. If nobody learns the lore from the elders, then the lore will be lost. What are you learning, running around shooting guns? What use is that to yourself? How does it supposedly benefit your community? I think that it is criminal behavior because it is frightening, dangerous, disruptive, and not constructively useful. We want you to grow up and become intelligent well behaved men. The way you are headed now, you will be dead and bleeding in the street. That is not useful.

You are better than that. You are smart enough to see that if nobody runs around shooting guns, the rest of life can go on again without the ugly interruption of people who got taught to run around shooting guns at people when they should have been taught to perform useful work and problem solving. Go trade your gun for University Tuition or Trade School Tuition. Study permakulture. Read about United Nations Agenda 21. Help us out... but no guns, please. We don't need them. Pitchforks, shovels, wheelbarrows... Those we may need. Let's make it look nice, Okay?

Ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia.

If our representatives in and to government had the attitude about the "Syria" things  that I've seen demonstrated by some Internet News Article Comment Trolls, we would all be living in cement bunkers, next to our well armed 8 year old petards, eating snicker bars and long-pig lemonade, no doubt, and to hell with everyone else, I hate it here in the dark posing as a shadow of hope, so I'm going to blow something up instead..? Anybody listening? You're all busy at work earning money for stuff you never use and I'm not being "appropriately parented" or anything here at this Kibutz... Well, then I'll do it. So there, and it's not an inflatable forbidden one I'm about to blow up, so you better look out or I'll snot-glob you with radioactive drone-punk angst-thrash comic book glop!<../sarc>

If those who staff our domestic criminal legal-minus-justice system carried that "attitude problem", our entire country would be fracking Broken Windowed... and who cares. Why bother? Nuke it and sell it, I says. Psst... Wanna buy a Detroit air-quality nuke? Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Arms dealer alarm! Oh, yeah! Koolaid crashing through the wall comes to our rescue... So who's going to be our "Fireman Sam" coming to the rescue.., punk? Red-Bucket Brigade 3? Huh, punk?

Hey, if we de-fund them, will they simply steal what they want with the guns they already have? Or will they put them down and play something else now? What the hell kind of work ethic is that? Do you think "well, I've got a big top gun, so I can do whatever I want?" should be considered sane thinking? Not when "top gun" has been disillusioned and deprogrammed. "You first, boss.", "No, I outrank you, so you go first." vs "You first, bro.", "No, I don't want to go first here either. Let's find another way (perhaps around a sniper or non-keyed minefield or disfunctional repetition of past mistakes..." thhwiitt! Thunk! "Ka-Chow, baby. Fade away." Snarky-Darky-Sarky-Nark... Now what?

Please, look at those photos from near the chemical weapons attack areas in Syria, or of any oppressed and intimidated natural citizens of the country upon which is trespassed, in the middle east, and think about sending those people some "Square Foot Gardening" kits. Really. It's obvious that they need to and probably want to green that place up a bit. I bet they'd love to have a fresh home-grown tomato. Everyone needs cow-ward-eyes, not coup-rage. Yous git that? Terraform. Make Terra prita nova, install drip irrigation, row shades where necessary, and live life growing food as life was meant to be lived, staying close to our tilth. Back to hell with oil. To hell with weapon imports and exports, and to hell with the whole "military domination" mentality. It's too dangerous. Take it all, just leave my cutting board behind. There's an obvious evolutionary pressure in favor of human beings who are social, and get along well with others, and, them-by, cultures that co-operate with one another to share resources vs fighting over them, and away from the "culture" of armies, armed combat, and the domination-cult-chess-game-like mentality. Coup-rage is insane. It is an atavistic mal-adaption. Full cooperation will be achieved. Resistance is futile.

The action of "bombing Syria" is such an obviously stupid contrived Malthusian Catastrophe that nobody ought to be allowed to blunder into it who can more equitably and productively utilize their efforts doing useful work, like manufacturing aerogenerator turbines, feeding lunch to factory workers, installing aerogenerators, feeding aerogenerator installation crews, maintaining aerogenerators, feeding aerogenerator maintenance mech-techs, manufacturing smart-grid technology infrastructure parts & pieces, feeding factory workers, installing smart-grid electrical infrastructure, feeding smart-grid installation crews, maintaining smart-grid electrical infrastructure, feeding smart-grid maintenance elec-techs, manufacturing electrical train equipment, feeding factory workers, installing electrical train infrastructure, feeding railroad workers, maintaining and operating electrical railroad transportation systems, feeding railroad Teamsters. Management is a form of labor. You're one of those people too. Without labor, all these fine things never really happen. Division of labor is necessary. Just reading that list is tedious. Imagine being the only ones of a small group working on a task so vast that is so clearly what our world needs to do so that the contention over the petroleum reserves can be alleviated. Wow, no more gasoline spilling out of underground tanks, no more heavy traffic, no more car cuck-ah cesspool effect returning down canyon from Alta-bird...

Trying to kill, threaten, or harass people wastes time and puts them on the defensive, wasting their time having to fight. Instead of that, both parties could, cooperatively, actually be solving an interesting and useful problem, like intelligent and educated human beings, who are known to become despondent and are at one useless in captivity... We the People are much more useful and manageable when left at social liberty, bodily intact and secure in our persons, free to share ideas and share planning tasks, with no bullshit chain of command abuse of authority antithetical to intelligent emergently organized society. Harm none. Do no harm. Never attack. Befriend. Don't fixate upon "military" matters, for therein lies Insanity. Instead, fixate upon the Rule of Law promised by the Enlightenment. Nn-kay, Sam?

Oh, and never forget this: There is probably no such thing as a bulletproof blue beret. Not everyone shares the same ideals as the blue beret ought to represent. Perhaps not everyone thinks in terms of ideals... They may see nothing but a hostile invader entering their primal territory, from whom they feel a deep instinctual need to defend their families... Oh, what a revelation! Gosh, that's just how I'd react if they sent soldiers here; I mean, that's how they see "our" troops in their country. (Dark Lord 3, who wants your land, is petting his beard, plotting a "false attack" strategy because that's apparently one of the only tricks those lowbrow assholes ever learned... "Oh, hey, and I hear that most opiate addicted soldiers love heroin even more than opium or morphine... they'll do anything to get it. It's probably kept under guard... They jumped up and got right behind the ole 8-ball on getting into Afganistan, didn't they?")

I think it is very important that We the People of Planet Earth treat the Syrian Chemical Weapon Attack thing as an International Criminal Investigation, and focus on finding the actual perpetrators of the actus reus, i.e., the ones who actually pushed the buttons or pulled the triggers, or pumped the petrol, or put the pedal to the metal, or anything chrono-transitively relevant... (V-room-blaringly obvious enough for ye?) We need to think like honest detectives and civil=and=human=rights lawyers, not like a zombie lynch mob hungry for petrol transit sic GimMiCk, Ok?  So, let's try and tell them all, Hero! Tell us "Who's guilty?", "Who's fault is all this?", "What are the forces that provide the impetus behind all of this subtle crazy emergent chaos?"

Try and remember to think about that question next Sunday, while you fill up your g-ass tank... watching the numbers roll around the gauge, ignoring the healthy glowing person of the opposite sex in summery clothing riding by on that bicycle, daydream and perform a mental analysis to discover probable transitive impact upon inter- and intra- societal stability and mutual equity in quality and enjoyment of life, given contention for resources their civilizations are "addicted" to, in a context where viable alternatives can exist only after much hard work is done by participants in nationwide electrical generation, distribution, and transportation infrastructure construction projects... Run your mental simulation once with them fair-dinkum pairwise cooperative, and another time with them pairwise obstructionist, lazy, greedy, aggressive, and mortally dangerous shing-brawn without educated think-brain; think-brain, no-shing, that can "do the math" and see there's more work needing done than they can do themselves? Or, think-brain, no-shing, that knows nobody respects a lazy soldier standing with a gun when there's useful work needing done? How hard can it be, gunny-boy? Want to learn to do something useful, rather than something viciously and willingly destructive? It's like, "Oh, shit, the gas is spilling over onto what used to be a fertile garden but is now a pimped-up, paved-over, pissed on brownfield... Oh, sorry, it was an accident. Doh. But who cared, as long as there was petrol in the car, owe?"; "Yeah. Watt fur."; "That was so profound it makes my hair stand on end."; "Exciting times, eh?"; "Yah..."; "Blow, wind, blow... and bring us back some peace of mind with ourselves right before we approach some exhaltation-limit t-totally insanely sarcastic-bliss-maximum-point Zounty-no-Doubty-X-ount..."

So, thinking about it while pumping gasoline into your juiced personal iron cage on wheels, which, at least in your owned mind, pumping away, has you rape-tied to the wheel of your pimple-assed life quite a lot of the time.., I mean, yous being so well-traveled, and all... (Hmmm... The writer looks up from per researchlike reading and academicish writing to see a red fox chasing a mouse, then a butterfly, and finally it's own tail in an alfalfa hay field; per head turning until the cycling fox is too far behind the train to see again anywhere but inside per indelible memory... Per then writes it down inside a parenthetical, and continues, putting bizarre midwesternesque shaggy-dog-story self-narrative aside cooly, and with dignity, but putting it away... really... What?!) It seems to me there are some relevant questions here, in the land where most agree that "surprise sex" is probably "rape" and thereby feloniously illegal malum in se. Surprise! Where armed men are taking control of other people's proper territory and proper resources, it's a form of burglary, which is honestly illegal, malum prohibitum, anywhere I'd care to live and breath easy. And you say that "our" military is being taught to do this thing? I think we should teach them to do something more useful, so that will be what they'll go and do.

We the People are each capable of making reasonably decent, fair and Honestly Good (tm) decisions..(?) ...given complete and accurate information upon which to base those decisions and a logical and well trained thinking habit that moves with agility, coordination, and polite inter-facilitation in an ideal context free of coercion, free of obstructive antisocial political mind-frack, free of inequitable "special pleadings", free of meandering time-wasters (but not shaggy dogs), or even worse, psychotically repetitive and predictable time-wasters with loud bitchy voices and nothing but time on their hands --- at all; NOT free of interesting things to read, but free of time constraints; With wide open, but one at a time please, input from each and all with knowledge or inspiration and a few with less experience who will learn from it...

("Trust me," uh?... I could only imagine what other people in other lands are really like... I mean, their sense of what is Fair, Righteous, and Just is so totally alien to us? True? No way. There is more in common than not. Our cultures are siblings. The ideal Good is Universal. We strive for it in commonwealth and planethealth in good tilthing. Knowledge and well-functioning communication are first among the Keys to World Peace.) Application of the Parenting with Love and Logic paradigm has us delaying the consequences, while we think over what those Must Be. ("Consequences" is not a threat, per se.., I mean, it doesn't necessarily mean "violent reprisals", it's almost completely situation dependent, and hopefully it will be an ordered set of consequences that reflect fair dinkum honest Maxims of Law, for example, something like "multi-international criminal justice posse that is not a corpse-pissing lynch mob of oil starved zombies pretending to do justice while they steal your oil and opium...")

Relevant questions include "Were the individuals who fired their weapons acting under color or authority of law?", "Were they acting under orders given by a 'superior' officer?", "Really?", "What is the protocol used within their organization which controls orders or permission to shoot?", "Are those protocol mandated communications recorded and logged in a tamper-proof data processing standards file format both on-line and in secure off-line storage as mandated by non-optional military ethical standards code?" "Were they rogues or 'loose cannons'?" (Maybe the young soldiers, who went to the militia rather than to a University, who opened fire, perhaps in panic, at the 'protest' rally would throw a fit at that description...) "Assuming they did what they thought they were supposed to do in the circumstances... what example or training did they follow in doing what they did?", "What about the rumors that American mercenaries were seen in the area around the time of the attack?", and "Doesn't that bring to mind the reports that the 'World' Trade Center was actually brought down by thermite charges loaded off a semi-trailer into the stairwells set off by remote-controlled aircraft?" Or, "Are we really going to fall for this one again?", "Is anyone else tired of breathing petrol smoke while stuck in bumper to bumper traffic?", "Doesn't the popular phrase 'drive it like you stole it' refer to the petrol purchased from oil companies who brought 'home' Iraq's oil?", and "What gives them the freedomination to pollute, the freedomination to sell toxic waste as fuel, and the freedomination to tell blatant lies to the public, the president, and to congress, who then take action to throw away human lives when they could have put those people to work doing something more useful?"

In our criminal justice system, we have a Presumption of Innocence, which is premised upon the idea that most people are not criminals. It's not righteous to presume that Dr. Bashar al-Assad or "his" government is to blame! In fact --- from the Wikipedia article about him --- Dr. Bashar al-Assad is an Opthamologist. He went to medical school. Anyone out there know what that's like? Think there was time for him to minor in "Evil Dictatorship?" Really? It says that his older brother was the heir apparent, until he died in a car accident. When Dr. Bashar al-Assad was told by his father that he was now the heir, he was also recalled to the military, which apparently, outranks him, and thus he must follow orders... or else?

Truly, the "Russians Love Their Children Too", and surely, so do the Syrians and Iranians, and... well, everyone I can imagine... and certainly the overwhelmingly vast majority of humanity just want to live life as it was meant to be lived, and don't want armed bandits with scimitars and WMD marching around with nothing better to do than blow the nose off the autocratic klepto-sphinx of a rival... They want their children sent to study at a University, doctrina urbi serviat, not the militia, militia urbi destructo burn-baby-burn, desert melonfarmer. Don't we normally want really smart people running the show, rather than drop-out thugs who couldn't get a real job to blow their own noses? Anyone know somebody that throws a fit at that description? Is he sitting on the thrown? Do they do what you tell them to, even while holding their "own" "guns"? Think about it.

People do what they've been taught to do... If you teach them to use guns and false flag black-ops to "chess game" their way in to steal gasoline, that's what they'll go and do, because that's the way it has always been done..? and it's easier to maintain the status quo no-true-American "dream" or continue with the ancient Malthusian "war" plan than to formulate a new one for the 21st Century, right? If instead, you teach them to think outside of the oiled-up defoliated war-chest to pin a medal on (you don't want to be that guy), and they learn to respect and live by the Rule of Law, for reals, then that is, hopefully, what they'll go and do. ( http://karlhegbloom.blogspot.com/2009/08/selfish-defense.html) How hard can it be? Good Enough for you?

In the PBS interview of Dr. Bashar al-Assad, my feeling is that the interviewer is begging the question, beginning with a bogus presumption implicit in his behavior. (Perhaps not even PBS is free from the corporation-as-person "influence" --- Ender's Game --- of the military petroleum industrial complex that bug-sprays people..) What I see is that Dr. al-Assad is not making a threat here, but is rather delivering a warning, and trying to let us know, without being obvious or blinking in morse-code, that it's really not something he has any more control over than President Nixon had over the soldiers that shot the students at Kent State on May 4, 1970, or than President Nixon had over the ongoing "Role of the United States in the Vietnam War" (see Wikipedia article entitled as in previous quotation marks) or than the Passion Bearer had over the events of Bloody Sunday.

Seriously, I doubt it was the Assad family, ab intra, who "integrated the military into the government." We need to look in the shadows to find the true perpetrators of these atrocities, lest we crucify their scapegoats by mistake... which we are all, ah, sworn or affirmed to not allow to occur. Capice?

Not "a-tone-ment" but "at-one-ment".

I do not believe that Joseph Smith pronounced the word "atonement" as "a-tone-ment," but instead he spoke it "at-one-ment." Joseph Smith had not learned the word "solidarity" perhaps. After all, he grew up in the sticks, where there were no big schools or Universities... and the primary book for him to learn reading from was of course the Holy Bible. His vocabulary was limited... But whos isn't? I don't know every other f-word either, you know and smurf? Probably nobody does. We do know that what one reads certainly has an enormous influence upon one's thinking. I'm very glad that he did not study and become entrenched in nuclear physics and the Art of War. Lucky for us, he was lost deep in the forest of kraft des heiligen, and thus his vision reflected that intellectual background.

Like Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ was born in a hick town with no school, in a region with no University. When he was old enough to travel on his own, Jesus went to northern India, to study with the Æsir. He learned many things, including physiology and medicine, then brought this knowledge back to his home town and region to share it with folks there; to let his knowledge serve his people. He knew that "you are what you eat," and started trying to explain that at the "last supper." Well, everyone had been drinking a little wine and eating; there probably wasn't really anyone sitting there with a steno-pad writing down his every word. So, what we have in the Holy Bible regarding that event was written down later, after the wine wore off... and perhaps not everyone really understood what he was talking about. So anyway, now we have the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion to remind us of the thing he was perhaps trying to explain: "You are what you eat." "What you eat is what it ate or what it grew in." "We have what we have because of the cooperation of large numbers of people in a collective economic system... blah blah blah... anybody listening? More wine? No, thank you. The other day I had a hangover so bad I felt like I was sweating blood."

Farmers grow wheat. Teamsters carry it to the mill. Millers grind it into flour. Teamsters carry the flour to the bakery. Bakers make it into bread. People worked to make their clothing; to make the wagons and tack for the horses driven by the Teamsters; to make the harvesting equipment; the mill; the bakery. Men work to maintain the aqueducts that bring safe clean drinking water to our homes. It is because of our at-one-ment that we can have that scrap of bread and water on Sunday. It is certainly not ritual cannibalism, but a symbol of how, through community and cooperation, we as a "one-ment" or collective, provide that which is first on every list of necessities: Food. Eats. Grub. Chow.

What we want is not mere "Food," but Wholesome Food, free of toxins introduced by pollution, pesticides, herbicides, and chemical "ferti-lie-zer". We don't want mere "water," but Pure Water, free of toxic pollution. Certainly the only sure way to ensure that there be no pollution in our food and water supply is to not produce any pollution. How complicated is that? Garbage in, garbage out, right? Remember that little salt grinder at the bottom of the ocean? It's been down there a long time; so long now, that all of the ocean is salty water. Lucky for us, it's just salt, right? Or, well, lucky for the fish we like to eat, and thus lucky for us.

Many times I've heard people say that "Jesus Christ died for our sins." Oh, yah, and ye slythy toves did gyre and gymble in ye wabe, believe it or not! So, somehow his death and suffering makes it ok for me to pollute, right? Ahhh... so let's hang all the oil company executives and be done with it. It's their fault. They bribed congress to write laws that made us do it, right? Oh, and hired "fixer" lawyers who know every loophole in regulation C-22... or something, so they know how to talk around the problem and ignore the evidence while believing themselves to appear to be giving the matter due process... to wangle the same straw decisions they paid the judges for out of the courts, or whatever conspiracy nut you care to crack over the head with a Wikipedia and smurf.

But really, what it was is that there was a corrupt administration, but Jesus trusted that the leadership, court, or whatever clique animated the puppet show at court that day... and tossed the bread to fetch for the pigs that did the whipping and crucifixions... to do what was righteous and godly; only they "failed to listen" to the "voice" of Goodly Reason, and commanded that he be whipped, beaten, humiliated, and hung out to dry on a crucifix. And "everybody knew," or at least potentially could have in some idealized societal organization wherein everyone reads the highly detailed 10 cubit long news-scrolls... that it was evil and wrong, especially since Jesus was such an awesome Guru. But, in real life, nobody stepped forward to stop it from happening because they were, each as an individual, intimidated by the very violence they truly wanted to stop from being about to happen.

Everybody thought he was dead after they took him down off the cross, so they put him into a crypt... and three days later the smell woke him up from his coma... He decided he had to do something about the communication situation. He knew that if everyone, in solidarity, stood up to put a stop to these things that were so exceedingly unjust that we, as a complete society, could have a much more stable and sustainable civilization. He set about teaching the people correct principles and morals, and about creating an organization with which to bootstrap a new more evolved social order. He called his apostles anything but too late for the next supper, and sent them away on random walks... without cellular phones, scripts, or purses... Un-fortune-ately, he had instructed them that it was the wicked who needed the most help, and so they approached them first, without adequate backup... got mobbed and done in. None survived to tell Jesus that "hey, we really ought to recruit the good people first, before we try to tame that unruly mob of orcs." Presumptively, there were a few good men out there, and their voices were loud enough, and some of them could actually write without getting caught, and cried 'em some good letters home to Jesus about it, so the new church could adapt it's strategy.

So, why are we all participating in an "at-one-ment" that is certainly producing garbage and pollution? Why are we buying it? When will the smell wake us up, Sunday drivers? Yeah... he was a day-ay Mormon...  Can we, in good faith, go to church every Sunday, eat the little scrap of bread, and do that "sunday swoon" thing in our mind that makes us feel like we've magically communed with God... and have that ritual act magically purge us of our sins? Oh wait, I'm confusing Holy Communion with Confession, Repentance, Pennance, and Reparation, right? But what the hell do I know? I'm a hick convert who never went to church much. All this terminology is new to me. Maybe I just don't really understand it right... probably walking by it too slow to really see it, or something.

So, eating the cookie and milk reaffirms our promise to participate in the "at-one-ment" of Wholesome Goodness. Ok. But to keep the promises... don't I need to... Uh, face something I've been trying not to look at... it's ugly, and it's going to take a lot of work to make it beautiful, America.

Despite that most of us are not directly responsible for producing any pollution, or anything... Well, many of you drive cars that pollute, so, well, but... you didn't have many options available when you bought it, or anything, right? There's diesel or gasoline; sort of a false dichotomy really. The fact that you pollute is really a supply side problem. So let us boycott. Or well, we could riot... but I doubt that will help solve the problem. Boycotting didn't do anything but almost drive them out of business; but on the bright side, We the People now own stock in the automobile companies... Hmmm. I wonder what that buys us? Can we vote at their shareholder meetings now? I've got some ideas for how they could seriously improve their product line...

Nor will sending tortured and tormented young men off to war to get more oil for the, uh, majority(?) solve the problem. We need them right here at home, learning to construct the new transportation infrastructure, setting up windmills in the cleansing winds, and learning to be part of our peaceful and civilized community. It's just wrong to teach them to shoot guns at other people. Let's teach them to build things with other people -- to participate in the "at-one-ment." Let's have a "barn-raising" to install streetcar systems, wind farms, and a new smart-grid electrical system. We can do it. Yes we can.

And if your business depends on the industries that these changes affect... Remember that people won't let you starve. If the pollution causes climate change that leads to crop failure, what will we eat then? Smog? Long wee-wee mee-mee pig? (Mow-wah?) If the pollution is causing atherosclerosis, cardiac arterial disease, cancer, and other health problems, then is it really that good, that we can't quit? Advanced capitalism, anyone? Smoke it out if you've got it, right? If the activities involved in obtaining the raw materials used to make pollution with involve armed combat with people of other nations, do the ends justify the means? Do the advantaged outweigh the disadvantaged? No gout about it, we can have transportation without pollution and without contention between nations for the finite fuel resource. The same manufacturing industries that make cars today can just as easily make streetcars and aerogenerators tomorrow. And there will still be cars; just not as many of them...

So now perhaps you've agreed with me, and you are not eaten by a mob of the starving and tax exempt, despite that you're just sitting there, doing nothing about it, or anything... Though, perhaps doing nothing is doing something about it, unless you're reading this while driving or sitting in traffic. Someday soon, you think, we are going to do something about it. What? When? How? Where does it begin? How does it begin? Are we just waiting for our leaders to tell us what to do? Someday soon that Sunday swoon will stop having as strong an effect on our self perceptions, perhaps...

That ritual of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, is not magical all by itself. Intrinsically, it's just a bite of cheap white bread off the grocery store shelf and a shot of mildly chlorinated water straight out of a sink faucet, or a special wheat cracker with a sip of watered down cheap wine; water straight out of the tap with words spoken over it, is all the shazam de plume it's really got in it, or anything... Doing a "Sunday swoon" when you eat it doesn't really do any magic either. Your car is still sitting out there in the church parking lot, and you'll pollute wee-wee-wee aaallll the way home from the dry cleaner.

What makes this sort of ritual magic really work is this: know that the ritual in itself does nothing more than create a point in time and space at which we perform a symbolic action that represents, and reifies within our consciousness, a thing that in reality takes place over a protracted time frame, integrated as part of our daily lives. The wedding is not the marriage. The marriage is an aspect of your lives together; of how you share your life together. By a similar token... the sacrament is not the "at-one-ment."

Integrity, Accountability, and Resolving Conflicts Within Dysfunctional Domestic Relations

DRAFT I've published this article a little early, before it's really done. I will be updating it as time permits. I'll update the time-stamp when I remember to, and will certainly do so when it's complete, so that it will refresh the syndication feeds... (Update, 2012-12-12: I'm sorry; I've been very busy, and have not completed this article. I promise I'll put some more time in on it as soon as I can...)


At the ACLU web site, we encounter an article entitled "Ending Domestic Violence Requires Holding Police Accountable."  I don't disagree with the assertion that Police, and Court officials, must be held accountable... Here in Utah, the State Constitution, Article IV, Section 10, mandates an oath of service which states that:

All officers made elective or appointive by this Constitution or by the laws made in pursuance thereof, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

They are not in this boat alone. After all, we are all expected to be accountable for our own acts and omissions. Clearly, it is also the case that the courts and lawyers must also be held accountable... and certainly that the alleged "victim" as well as the alleged "primary aggressor" must be held accountable to truth, fair play, and good faith, since, as per Article I, Section 24, "All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation." For the time being, I will assume that all 50 states have similar clauses in their constitutions.

So, once again, who watches the watchers? Who will hold them accountable? If you tell me, we'll both know.

The ACLU article claims that the woman obtained the protective order after the man assaulted her, etc... What I wonder is if that allegation was ever proven before a trier of fact or not, in a criminal court, where the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt," within the context of a presumption of innocence. Perhaps the article should more properly state that she obtained the protective order after alleging that he assaulted her. She could easily claim that he had assaulted her, when in reality it was her who had been the primary aggressor. I know for certain, from personal experience and eyewitness testimony, that this does happen relatively often. And does anyone, including the two of them, know for certain exactly what was said over the telephone during the call that Mr. Perez allegedly made to Ms. Valdez?

In this particular cherry-picked example case, he returned to commit actual violence, something that happens only rarely, overall... I think they are making an invalid attempt at moving from an existential generalization --- "Rover loves to wag his tail. Therefore, something loves to wag its tail." --- to a universal instantiation --- "All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal." What they are really saying is more like "Something loves to wag its tail. Therefore, everything loves to wag its tail." Obviously, not everything has a tail, and not everything with one likes to wag it. (Maybe yous should check my logic, just to make sure I'm not just trying to control your leg?... or you could just cut my tongue out and be done with it.)

It's really too bad that there was no diversionary program in place where they would, ostensibly, and potentially, be taught how to communicate effectively with one another, and to utilize some formal method of conflict resolution. Communication and conflict resolution skills would go a long way towards preventing the kind of angry frustration that leads up to that state of mind where people who think they're like a spring that's got to sproing when it's wound up "go postal" for lack of any other response in their repoire-noir...

I assert that exorcising gender bias is an important "civil liberty." How about exemplifying at least one case where it was the female who in fact attacked the male? I'm willing to bet that no advocates of these protective order laws have performed any honest studies regarding the statistical likelihood of actual violence per se, as contrasted with alleged violations involving mere communication... Or how often communication per se contains any actual threat of violence per se... vs expression of frustration and angst over specific resentments pertinent to their individual conflicts?.. They should also study the effects of even further frustrating communication between them through the imposition of no-contact orders, and the degree of alienation of affections and level of resentments that imposition creates. "Sir, you're not locked in jail because you're wrong. You're locked up so we can separate you from one another. And I'm sorry, but the Miranda law forbids me from taking your statement. And if you don't calm down and stop talking about it, we're going to have to lock you in solitary confinement, incommunicado behind a ream of boilerplate..."

What you're not saying here about these laws is that the courts are issuing these protective orders without requiring (or allowing) actual evidence of true abuse. The standard of proof is merely "a preponderance of the evidence," and I'd bet that quite often, there's not really any evidence, or anything, other than the woman's testimony, often obtained via an interview process conducted by a professional "victim advocate", which gets "heard" while the man's testimony, if ever solicited or presented, is essentially ignored. I think that what gets "prepondered" is often not actual "evidence" per se, but instead "prejudicial presumptions" such as that which are built-into the Utah "Cohabitant Abuse Act" itself, which presumes there is a "primary aggressor" and a "victim", offering no other model of the conflict's actual social dynamics. She is then given a "protective" order that allows her to call the cops and get the man arrested for merely sending an email or text message, and she can get them to arrest him for that even if the order has a modification allowing asynchronous written communication to occur! (If you follow this blog, you'll learn more about that later on, after I feel comfortable with publishing details of my Civil Rights Complaint.)

The protective order forms are standardized, and they contain wording that makes it illegal for the Respondent to contact the Petitioner, but not vise versa. So apparently the police and court officials think it's "legal" for her to send him a derisive text message that asks a rude leading question, but if he replies, she can complain and ask them to arrest him for it, and they'll follow through and actually arrest him. You see, they "have a professional responsibility to screen charges when a complaint has been filed." They seem to think that it's "legal" for her to come to his apartment and knock on his door demanding entry, but if he opens the door, he's violated one of the injunctional contract's boilerplate no-contact provisions?!

I've spoken with several other men who have also had very similar experiences with this. I was told about a man who's ex-girlfriend had a protective order against him. She called or sent a message to him saying that if he did not come and get his things, she would throw them out the door into the street. He went to get his stuff, and she called the cops and had him arrested. The court imposed a one year "mandatory" jail sentence on him. Another man said that the court imposed a no-contact order between himself and his girlfriend. She sent him a text message asking him if he was going to contact her anymore. He answered "No" -- two letters, N O -- and they arrested him and he spent a year in the Utah State Penitentiary. Certainly there may be material details not mentioned by those victims of protective order abuse during the brief conversations I had with them... but since those are the relevant details of actual events that they chose to focus on first, I must assume their complaints are valid and should be addressed by a finder of fact... It would be amazing if the police and his attorney would actually interview him and obtain that information.

I have personally witnessed Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department prisoner transport bailiffs confiscating evidence from a prisoner who had been transported to court in order to appear pro se (without representation by legal counsel) at a protective order hearing related to the charges they had him in jail on, pre-trial. The evidence they took from him was a letter sent to him in jail, written by his wife, who had been "advised" to obtain a protective order against him by the State. In the letter she told him that she did not want a protective order, and that he should bring that letter to court as evidence of that. At court, she was represented by a state appointed victim advocate lawyer, and was not ever asked or allowed to speak at the hearing. The man was not given much opportunity to speak either, and his evidence had been confiscated. The State of Utah imposed a protective order, and thereby separated him from his family. This happened in September or October of 2011.

In terms of police accountability, they need to listen and take appropriate action when the "Respondent" (the victim of protective order abuse) makes a valid counter-complaint. In Utah, 78B-7-115(3) is meant to create sanctions when either party acts in "bad faith" or "with intent to harass or intimidate." The Utah Cohabitant Abuse Act also mandates that certain statements be included on the standard boilerplate forms that warn the Petitioner (person applying for the protective order) that it's a felony to use false information to obtain a protective order, or to use one to abuse the judicial process. The statute makes that attempt at instantiating accountability, but in my experience, neither the police, nor the court officials actually do anything about it even in blatantly obvious cases of perjury or protective order abuse. They don't seem to care about due process, the rules of evidence, presumption of innocence, or the Constitution and pertinent statutes.

In the Valdez v. Perez case, how can we know for sure whether or not the man actually threatened her, or vise versa? It seems to me that in court, before a trier of fact, it would amount to her word against his. We're not told in this brief article whether he made or attempted to make any answer or counter-complaints. If he did, and they failed to react or investigate, that might explain the level of angst, frustration, and anger that, unchecked by appropriate early psychiatric intervention, led to his commission of the murder after the cockroach whispered in his ear "Just kill the bitch. She deserves it! (unspoken... That way we get two birds with one stone, you confused and oppressed Hispanic rival male... who will fail to realize that murder is not his own nor a very good idea and then assert that he won't be a columbine kid."

And what about cases where the woman threatens or attacks the man, and then calls the cops on him? The problem is that there is rarely a clear distinction such as "primary aggressor" and "victim." There are two people who don't know how to communicate with one another effectively, who were whelped under the auspices of a "dominant culture" that applied fiat through violence or other forms of imbalance of power, rather than influence through reason, as a means of getting one's way... They circumcise baby boys, inflicting excruciating pain and a lifetime of deprivation of normal pleasure. Thus applying the dynamics of power and control, they subjugate those males who have been given the "first rite" -- essentially an initiation into slavehood -- to "authority." This psychological conditioning continues with spanking, sending them to their rooms, expression of anger that carries with it an implied threat of violence or reminder of past violence, and so forth. It all comes down to an aggressive imposition of an imbalance of power, or bullying.

With regards to accountability to the integrity of uniform operation of the Rule of Law, there must not be a double standard that allows women to beat up men with "protective" orders based on hearsay and lies; that allows women to harass men with the threat of arrest for "crimes" like answering an email with the wrong answer; so she doesn't get her way, and gets him arrested for it... Nor may there be a double standard where police and court officials apply the law only when it punishes the male, or only when it punishes the out-group member.

I assert that protective orders are more often used to abuse men than they are used to actually protect women. Can you prove that wrong? Oh, but then I'm the one with burden of proof? I think that these laws need to be studied in terms of what they actually do, rather than in terms of the straw man arguments used to convince congress to vote them into law. These laws are the new "Jim Crow" laws. They create and encourage alienation of affections, splitting up families. They encourage "criminal thinking errors" on the part of the Petitioner, who can use the protective order to "close the channel" of communication, effectively preventing any actual resolution of their conflict.

It is no more morally acceptable for a woman to use a "protective" order to bully a man than it is for her to use physical violence to do so. If yous can claim that an email that contains no overt threats of harm is transitively a form of domestic violence, then certainly the "protective" order itself is one. When a woman can obtain one with little evidence or burden of proof, and then use it to have a man jailed for something that is not even remotely criminal, and is certainly not criminal in the absence of the "protective" order, then that imbalance of power being created by the "protective" order is no better than the imbalance created by difference in physical size or ability to win a physical altercation.

The accountability that is needed is to uphold that all laws of a general nature are to have uniform operation. That applies to police, to judges, to physicians, OB/GYN pediatricians, and women as well as men. Domestic violence can not be eliminated without treating the entire family unit. Violence against infant males creates resentments and PSD that will come back someday and bite you in the ass. Stop the cycle of violence by not beginning it with each new generation.

In the state of Utah, the state judges are required to attend ongoing education classes. I happen to know that one of the classes they attended was one taught by a psychologist who has studied the effects of childhood trauma on that child's adult behavior later in life. They are taught that one of the primary reasons to end domestic violence is to prevent that traumatization, to reduce future crime rates. I agree, since I know that people learn by example. If the only way somebody knows how to solve a problem is to... There are standard reactions to common situations that people pick up out of context in life. The first reaction is not always the best one. It is important that people who run into these kind of problems be diverted into "cognitive restructuring" therapy, or classes...

In one of those therapy sessions (if Medicare pays for it) or classes (if Pell grants can?) the attendees are taught about the "thinking errors." One of those, from a handout, is:

Justifying:  In avoiding responsibility for her own behavior, a person finds a reason for what she has done.  "He wouldn't do what I wanted him to do, so I yelled at him."  or  "They all did it, so why can't I?"

It would be despicably ironic if the Court's version of "Justice" works according to that, uhh, principle!  Another "thinking error" is called "closing the channel." It's when she claims he fails to listen to what she had to say, or when she shouts over him to prevent me him from saying something that might give an indication that he was paying attention after all... So, what good does it do when only one of the two people is "treated" with "therapy" that points out these thinking errors? It all comes down to communication skills and relationship dynamics, right?

It seems to me that the whole point of treating domestic violence as a societal illness is to eliminate bullying and violence as a means of conflict "resolution." How else can conflicts be truly resolved, if not through a formal process of some kind that necessarily involves communication?

[...|...]

The presumption of innocence stems from the idea that most people are not criminals. I bet that a careful study of these "Protective Order" cases would reveal that the majority of the complaints do not involve any actual violence, per se. Honestly, if the Respondent truly had committed a serious act of aggression against the Petitioner, then Petitioner could have had Respondent charged with a crime for it, right? Well, actually, often enough she can have him charged with a crime regardless of whether he's committed one... and certainly they issue these "protective" orders without either due process of law or true evidence... And then the Petitioner can have Respondent arrested for things that are not truly crimes, in the absence of a "protective" order. So then, Respondent can be jailed for something that's not truly dangerous... (no time to polish this now. Got to go, sorry.)

[...|...]

In Utah, from what I gather, the warrants issued to the peace officers who are charged with arresting someone do not contain very much information about what the person is accused of having done. It tells them the title of the crime the person is alleged to have committed, and it tells them the amount of the bail. It does not describe any details of what the person is alleged to have actually done that would constitute a violation of the law. The problem is that sometimes they have set the bail very high, which I think would tend to cause them to believe that the thing the person is accused of must be very serious or dangerous. Utah Code 76-2-404 defines the circumstances under which they are authorized to use deadly force.

If a warrant was issued for two counts of third degree felony violations of a protective order with the bail set at $100000, and that's all they officially know about it... they might go to arrest the man believing him to be very dangerous to either them, the public, or the woman holding the protective order. If the things the man is alleged to have actually done that supposedly violate that protective order are not truly violent in nature, or turn out to not truly be violations of the protective order, then what justifies the extremely high bail amount? You may think this scenario is unlikely to happen, and so would I have prior to my own experiences, which I promise to describe with more detail in a future blog entry.

The courts need to be held accountable to keeping bail amounts at levels that are not constitutionally excessive. Warrants must be required to contain a description of what the person is alleged to have done that would constitute a violation of the law. For example, if the offence is for "having written several emails that did not pertain to their child under a protective order that limits email to only those that pertain to the child" then that information ought to be available to the officers sent to arrest the "perpetrator". Certainly a crime charged for such an email, had the email been threatening in nature, would certainly feature that fact about that email. In that case, the exact nature of the threat ought to be included in what those officers are given to believe about the suspect.

Leaving that sort of information out, and then allowing them to extrapolate regarding the type or seriousness of the alleged actus reas based solely on the title and degree of the charges and the bail amount is a set-up for potential wrongful use of deadly force should the suspect panic and attempt to flee. And what would a man think, if all he really did was send a text message, under a protective order that allowed email, asking if his son has returned from a visit with his grandfather, but they have issued a warrant alleging a violation of the protective order, and then gone and set bail at $100000!?? This really happened! And what if, in his experience, they refuse to listen to his side of the story, and are known to keep people jailed for extended periods of time, pre-trial, despite that the alleged crime is non violent per se? He may feel that he is well within his rights to avoid being arrested, since the excessive bail renders the warrant illegal; especially if he needs time to gather exculpatory evidence to present in court.

[...]

When I attempted to post my comments to that article on the ACLU web site, their antispambot refused to allow me to do so. That is very annoying, and uncannily resembles the "channel closing" reactions to my attempts to communicate with women who advocate and exploit these laws with their one-sided rhetoric.

Several times when I've had things to say regarding the "Twofaced Women Who Act Like Violence has Been Done" law... on various news web sites... I've been censored unless I express a point of view copacetic with the mounted dogmatic rhetoric used to convince people that these laws are fair, effective, and necessary. I suspect that men who express opinions not in keeping with that of these women's advocate's straw man arguments are met with "adult voice" "ex-communication" admonishments and channel closing dismissals, if not outright shrieking, pinching, or slapping to stop them from saying it. It's amusing to think that a woman so quick to censor and so willfully ignorant could ever have learned to program an artificial intelligence that blocks these sort of remarks from being posted on the ACLU web site... She'd have held herself back and never graduated college, right?