Are Contracts Supreme in Law?
Here is an explanation of contract law coming from my good friend, Karl Heintz: Eisbrenner.
This lawyer was butting heads with the state and the “state” murdered him 3 years ago.
Some thought he was crazy…others thought he was a genius.
I let the reader decide.
Are contracts supreme in law?
people separate walnuts from walnut shells
like brains from skulls
talking about “the brain” in a vacuum…
disconnected, unconnected, analyzed to the nth degree…
people separate “lawyers” from “the public at large giving them power, privilege and immunity this “separated out crowd”, functions the same way as the word pharisaioi [literally "the separated out ones"] from the Greek whence we get the designation pharisee recently, in a case involving Mr Starson, The State sought his incarceration in a state mental facility… How? By hiring mouthpieces, lawyers… to present The State’s position in Court… these hired mercenaries can be described as “for-profit-prophets”… hired, paid for, retained, contracted with… to re-present parties in Court… The State authorities, and State paid-for-psychiatrists, wanted Mr Starson incarcerated as an inpatient, i.e. committed into a psychiatric facility, involuntarily… The State, through its hired lobbyists, told the Supreme Court of Canada’s 9 Justices… Mr Starson’s refusal to voluntarily ingest what the State wanted him to ingest… showed he did not understand, could not appreciate the benefit of taking anti-psychotic psychotropic synthetic pharmaceutical medication… The State, through its counselors and its advocates, said Mr Starson could not decide for himself whether or what to ingest… Contract. Contracts for hire. The essence of law = contract. Lots of adages floating around. Contract. Breaks apart like the walnut from its shell, into con and tract. Conscience. Breaks apart into con and science.
Far as I know, the 9 Justices of the Canadian Supreme Court, a.k.a. The Supreme Court of Canada, a.k.a. Canada’s Highest Court… divided into two groups… 6 voted to allow Mr Starson the choice, the entitlement, about what to ingest and whether to ingest The State’s medication. 3 voted to incarcerate Mr Starson, including Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin… who wrote the dissenting decision… basically ignoring evidence and arguing Mr Starson was “crazy” for not recognizing the benefits of The State licensed pharmaceutical industry’s medication…
Contract. Lawyers hired by The State… argued, stated their “client’s” position, made submissions… did everything they could to make sure The Court did what The State wanted… Lawyers contracted to The State. Mercenaries. Mouthpieces. Without a mind of their own. For “lawyers” are trained “to follow their client’s instructions”… to do what their clients want them to do… to go where their clients want them to go… like in the story of Ruth and Naomi… whither thou goest, I will go… whither thou lodgest, I will lodge… thy people shall be my people… and thy God, my God…
What a wonderful illustration of “the blind leading the blind”… contracted to each other, shackled to each other, bound to each other, hand-cuffed to each other… saddled with mutual dutiful freedoms to act in certain ways, according to certain principles… following certain rules and procedures and regulations and legislation and statutes and codes…
The State pays for knowledge of law. The State does not know “the law”… It needs “legal advice”. Makes me think about that cartoon, a lawyer sitting at a desk says to his client… “do you want my legal opinion, or do you want the truth”.
Truth. Does not conveniently break apart into two parts, like con and tract. It does not carry the semantic reaction that the word “con” brings to the word “tract”… a contract… sounds like something fishy… like a con science… something that passes for science… something that masks itself as something it is not…
Robert Jackson, the Nuremberg prosecutor, describes the most odious oppression as “that which masks as justice”…
Truth.
Contract.
Truth stems from the Teutonic treu ["true"... as used in engineering and structure and functional craftsmanship, or tekne [Greek], whence we get technology]. The word treue signifies what Latin describes as virtu and Norse as vril, whence “virility”.
One’s aim is said to be “true”. A column can stand “true” to 90 degrees, perpendicular to the world.
The debate as to whether “contract” forms the basis, essence, foundation, fons et origo [fount and origin of law]… begins and ends with the two words : contract + truth.
The concept of “trust”… includes the functional structure of the “truss”… a weight bearing structure… Trust + Truth + treue mean and signify a straight path a “true” compass direction, whether geographical or psychological… whether in the realm of atoms and fractals and particles and waves and particular waves… or in the realm of “language”, our “talk-about-talk”.
Professor Donovan Waters, Q.C., a renowned scholar in the area of Trust Law… clearly identifies the demise, the erosion, the falling away of the legal profession from “a calling” to just another business.
Business = busy-ness. Business = commercial agreements, contracts, charters… stemming from the 6000 B.C. culture at a place called Shinar or Sumer. There, the beginnings of “contract” as the essence of “law” begins to take shape and form, by The State beginning to create for itself its own “management” agency… made up of
“separated out ones”, identified by some “oath” binding them to loyal obedience or adherence to The State… a self-fulfilling accretive device… ever seeking to create and to produce and to pass more and more laws, rules, regulations… creating more and more and more of a separation between “the private sector”… those who do not occupy official office, or take “oaths” of office, or swear allegiance to some entity… under the terms of contract that provide for the equivalent of “the confessional”…
Secrecy. Contractual secrecy. An inherent aspect of the “hiring” by The State… of people… to speak The State’s version of “the truth”… yet hiding behind “solicitor/client privilege”… the omerta of our “adversarial” system… the same “adversarial” system prevelant in belief systems, or webs of belief named : zoroastrianism… where perpetually the nut and the shell are at war… good v. bad… right v. wrong… black v. white…
The “suzerain” treaty, contract, agreement = a “superior” contracts with an “inferior”, designed as an “unequal” bargaining situtation, one party exercises power, immunity and privilege the other party does not have…
The “parity” treaty = an agreement among equals… similar to the design of the British North America Act, 1867, where the Provinces [all "Sovereign" enter into a Charter Agreement, similar to a Corporate Charter...
The Doukhabours who married each other in the story below, who made mutual promises to each other, who received assurances from each other... did not follow any prescribed "procedure" or "rule" or "regulation"... The couple engaged in a mutual agreement based on trust without paperwork, without "by the powers invested in me by the Province of British Columbia"... they effectively acted within the bounds of their dutiful freedoms... without The State as a 3rd party to their "marriage"... their engaging in Holy Matrimony...
A Doukhabour couple go to a lawyer, asking for a divorce. Where were you married? Down by the river. Who married you? She married me. I married her. Who presided at the ceremony? What ceremony? I asked her to marry me. She asked me to marry her. So we got married. Was there no priest or minister or justice of the peace [licenced by or vested with the power of The State? No. Nobody but she and me were there, down by the river.
Good news, says the lawyer, You don't need a divorce. In fact, you cannot get a divorce! You were never "married"! Never married?
What happened down at the river?, they asked... shaking their heads on the way out.
The Web of Belief = a title of a book by Willard van Orman Quine... outlines how we tend to adhere to believing a set of statements to be true... creating a "world-view"... what the German language calls a Weltanshauung - a way of seeing the world.
Since 6000 B.C. Sumer, the apartheid created by words and titles and labels and names, saw developed in a culture a 2-tiered caste system... the one occupied by "public servants", or "priests", or "paid-for-State-prophets [lawyers]“… ruling over the ‘lower’ class, known as “the herd”, or “the masses”, or “Joe SixPack”… what the Greeks called hoi polloi – those who do not share power, privilege and immunity as ‘officers’ or ‘employees’ or ‘servants’ of The State.
This overbearing “superior” body, made of entities created by words… use words to control and to extort and to oppress and to lay taxing burdens on the ‘serfs’, also known as ‘slaves’ or ‘employees’…
The Roman political scene 2000 years ago illustrates the same 4-tiered taxing structure we see in place in Canada today… local, regional, provincial and federal… with Rome exercising imperial federal control over “puppet” States [provinces], and The Priesthood and the “separated out ones” [public servants]… participating in creating differing taxing systems… to ensure their survival as legal entities… created out of words…
When Jesus spoke about the elite forgetting the weightier matters of the law… justice and mercy… and proclaimed destruction to those participating in making rules and regulations so unbearable… taxing the people to death… his words offended the ‘powers that be’.
One need not look far to recognize Jesus’ teachings fall into the pattern and the spirit of the prophets of social ethic… his “testimony” serves to distil the hypocrisy – laden system, where promises need not be kept… excusing lack of trust-worthiness as “… well that is just politics”.
Some pundits depict the Emerson and Stronach defections from one Party to another, as not a matter of ethics, but a matter of politics. Notice the adept way the principle “divide and conquer” comes into word-play.
Some pundits argue actions by The State can be labeled “legal” and “unethical” and still valid.
The word “valid” needs unpacking. Arguments can be valid without being “sound”.
Inferences can be “valid”… without being “true”.
Ironically, how the word hypocrisy and its counterpart hypocrite find an echo in the words expressed by the hippocratic oath.
Are contracts “supreme” in law?
What principles underly contract if not principles of trust, truth and trustworthiness?
Originally posted by Jackie Grant Vel’oice: Harper on October 24, 2009 on Tír na Saor @: http://freemanireland.ning.com/forum/topics/are-contracts-supreme-in-law
