Nothing Has Meaning

Working through a public agency I ran into a County Counsel who seemed on the face of it to be ethical and genuinely concerned about serving and protecting the public as pursuant to their duty.

This is an ongoing case with a few twists and turns but is really very simple.

A public road that was built in 1879 and used from then on by the public was disputed by a property lying along this road. Yes, there is ample evidence and documentation supporting the road, including its express exclusion from this property, but evidence is only useful in a court of law when faced with corrupt individuals.

The local County affirmed the road for a while and then did a complete reversal and began a process of negotiation and accommodation serving the interests of the disputing property, and the personal interests of the County Counsel. Why? The County was sued by this property, and as I have learned, lawsuits aren’t about justice, principal, law or truth, but about negotiating an agreement between the parties, whether or not it conforms with law, whether or not it protects the public, whether or not it complies with codes, whether or not it is just.

Between private individuals this process may be good, may resolve issues, may save the courts time and money, but with public agencies, this process is corrupt. The publics’ rights are non-negotiable and are rapidly being given away throughout our great nation, given away being a relative term meaning lost, dissipated like the inexorable rot of a bloated corpse having overeaten to the point of death.

A public agency secretly reaching a private agreement attempting to affect and terminate public rights and safety is an egregious affront to everything this Country was built upon.

At one time, the man mentioned above appeared to be teetering on the brink of morality, only to step back into the realm of servicing special interests with its inherent disdain for law and order and justice, or maybe he simply appeared to be almost ethical and moral followed by a display of his true nature.

Thomas Jefferson once said that all humans have a duty to oppose and rise up against tyranny, not the luxury, the duty. He said this in a famous incendiary document meant to incite the people to rise up and fight for justice, righteously and correctly. He said this with the intent that all future generations would adhere to this principle guaranteeing a process of renewal and cleansing.

This very document today is nominally revered and all but ignored. What was it?

The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.

Read It, every word.

A buddy of mine once made a comment about a specific case with “how much justice can we buy”.

I was thinking that this was a pretty shrewd summation of our legal system here in the States. Yes, the underpinnings are historically noble and good but have slipped into the abyss of ridiculous over arduous, costly, processes.

So I’m in the mood for reality and can’t seem to find any.

Justice is a concept, probably based on our favorite culture and values as a whole. Really doesn’t have anything to do with law in the USA anymore. Justice is rare and precious here.

Ask any American Indian about justice and they will likely know the truth.

Ask any white boy with cash about justice and he will likely know that its a question of money.

99 out of 100 questions have one answer.

Money.

Its money, man, money.

Have you ever heard “its the principle” before?

You won’t hear that in matters of law.

Law is based on cultural values, principles, agreed upon standards of behavior and then incredibly enforced by negotiated agreement due to logistical constraints.

A very strange situation this is, because everything we are taught regarding “do the right thing” and “be honest” and “stand up for what is right” and “call a spade a spade” and “protect your rights” and “do unto others” goes out the window when you enter this strange world of adrenalin junky legal types who have no real grasp of any of that any more and the highest bidder wins.

Its the principle of the matter that gets me.

Ach nein

So is there justice irrespective of perspective?

Is the ruthless killing of prey to eat just? This is more a question of integrity, another article for another day.

What is the meaning of justice?

As you can see the meaning runs the gamut roughly based on righteousness and being just but can also mean upholding the law.

There’s the rub.

Laws aren’t necessarily just, and upholding them isn’t necessarily justice therefore. Semantics too I know but there is an overall principle here, truth.

Really what this article has to say is that there is rarely justice in a legal system based on laws so arcane and prolific deciphering righteousness is all but impossible. This legal system is a high bidder system that delivers outcomes based on who can afford to take the ball to the hoop. Dealmaking and posturing. (The law says, bust a deal and face the wheel. Beyond Thunderdome, Made Max. Simple and elegant.)

Justice comes not from law, or successful prosecution or defense, but from an internal commitment to a quality of being guided by truth. Motivation to fight for justice is commensurate with this commitment.

Amazingly enough deciphering these meanings comes back to my favorite tree, the truth.

One finds that within this legal system haggling over a result leaves the concept, the principle of truth out of the process. The truth becomes irrelevant.

The Truth Will Set You Free

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Category: Law, Nothing But A Human Institution

Well, well, well, oh well. John Lennon.

This topic is probably way too intense, volatile, provocative and controversial to sum up in a classic four paragraph derivative.

No, actually.

I can do it in one.

Law is like values, an expression of values in fact, like culture, law is the glue that binds. In the US, the glue is rotting and thus the framework is failing soon to disintegrate.

There are a couple of films that really impact this topic in an enlightening way, The Last Wave by Peter Weir and Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? by the Cohen Brothers.

In the former there is a culture that believes laws are more important than man. In the latter we see the devil mocking and scoffing at the suggestion the law matters by dismissing it as “a human institution”.

Both these are valid truthful displays of the subjective, of the fact that humans create their culture and sometimes enforce their culture.

Law is only as powerful as its enforcement.

Unless you enforce the law, the law is meaningless.

Does this mean the law is the same as nothing?

Of course not.

The typical civil lawsuit, and to a large extent criminal, simply is a court sanctioned therapy session designed to cut deals where the highest bidder wins.

Not a good setup.

There is no relevance placed on right and wrong, truth or justice, or any semblance of reality.

No wonder attorneys are out of touch with the real world.

They live in a fantasy world ruled by attorneys “enforcing” and arguing law created by attorneys for attorneys designed for maximum profit.

Peasants with pitchforks time.