Justice For Sale in the Beautiful Free World

Justice For Sale in the Beautiful Free World: Once We Chopped the Shepherd's Head Off, the Wolves Finally Became Free to Prey on the Sheeps to Their Bellies' Desires.

Alia's lawyer used the opportunity of the order of protection to file the petition for the marriage dissolution. Since I was going to have some surgeries during 2019, I filed a motion requesting a continuance. However, on New Year's Eve of 2019, Alia's lawyer had Judge Jason Marks schedule - against my opposition - the dissolution's final hearing for February 28th, 2020 at 9am MST: exactly 10 years after that pivotal day, where my bicycle accident stopped me from exiting Missoula and Alia's life for good.

     I worked until the last minute on a motion for mediation. The whole matter was literally insane: Alia and I had not talked since she left in 2016, and it was obvious that we needed to talk. It really tormented my mind thinking, that our love story could end with us tearing us each other to pieces in a court room. Our love story really did not deserve such an end.

During the last months of 2019, my cornea started deteriorating again, and my ophthalmologist finally decided I should have one more surgery in early 2020. If that was not bad enough, the hearing date caught me in New York City right at the outbreak of COVID and, eventually, it became impossible to travel all the way to Montana to attend it. I therefore had to find some place from where I could reliably connect to the hearing, because I had not set up Wi-Fi at my apartment yet. It was all for no avail, though. To make a long story short, I was not even allowed to appear at the hearing. My motion reached the court around 9:05am - 9:10am. I was requesting a postponement, in order to be able to have mediation, and, should that be denied, I was hoping to appear telephonically, as I had already done previously on New Year's Eve. At the beginning of the hearing, as I did not show up in the court room, Judge Jason Marks explained to Alia's lawyer, that he usually gives 15mins. grace period to those people, who may be having problems finding parking near the courthouse. Yet, when he received my motion 5 - 10 minutes later, he first straight out dismissed my request for mediation, and, subsequently, determined not to allow me to appear at the hearing, since my motion had arrived after the beginning of the hearing.

Well, I traditionally give people a 15-minute grace period in case there's difficulties with parking downtown. MR. PAUL: That seems reasonable”.
"motion to appear by phone is not timely as it came in after the time set for the hearing to start and it was just a stroke of luck that the clerk happened to see it here in court."   

Since then I have repeatedly complained, that I had been discriminated, as I had been denied the 15mins. grace period, which everybody else is otherwise granted, even though my accessibility problems were far worse than some difficulty finding parking. Needless to say, my complaints have always been straight out dismissed.

Once he got me out of the hearing, Attorney -in-law William J. Paul, Alia's lawyer, proceeded to steamroll over me. He first moved the court for a permanent order of protection against me. Despite the fact that I was not present to be able to speak in my defense, nor had I ever received any notice that any such matter was going to be heard, Judge Marks unquestioningly granted the request. The court likewise accepted, word-by-word, Paul's Proposed Marital Property Division Settlement. Particularly afflicting to me was the determination on the Land Rover. I lost the remainder of my vision in my desperate efforts to save it; yet I could not. Now I was being required to pay Alia $2,500 for it; significantly more than its purchase price. Unbelievably, I was not even ever given a chance to say if I wanted to keep ownership of the car in exchange for the indemnification. The Land Rover had been abandoned broken-down in South Africa, and I could not even return there, since I was barred by South African Immigration, after I overstayed my tourist visa in 2017. Moreover, given that I was now blind, even if I could somehow find a way to retrieve it, I was not going to be able to do anything with it. Therefore, beyond the emotional attachment I might have to the vehicle, it stood to reason that it would not be worth keeping ownership over it, if that meant paying whatever indemnification Alia could fancy. Still, in all honesty, what really drives me mad is the salt in the wound. I remained one whole hellish year in Cape Town, even though I knew I was killing my cornea. I had come to hate my life so much, that I stubbornly and insanely kept trying to save the Land Rover. However, by the end of the year I had to wake up and come to terms with the reality that I just could not do it anymore. I had to give it all up; I had become blind. In contrast, Alia had altogether abandoned the car broken-down when she fell in love with Gary.
 Now, I was ordered to pay her an amount higher than the purchase price; but I could still console myself thinking, that I maintained the car's title and, consequently, remained fully responsible for all the financial obligations still attached to it. If that is "equitable and not unconscionable", then I am from Mars. In fact, it speaks to the sheer insanity of the whole matter, that Alia has never asked me to pay her the indemnification for the Land Rover.

As the transcript shows blatantly, the entire hearing was a grotesque charade, where Alia's lawyer went one-by-one through all the items in his wishlist and Judge Jason Marks went on nodding and granting each of them. The icing on the cake then came at the end of the hearing, when the court asked Alia's lawyer to draft the decree of dissolution, so that his honor could sign underneath without the slightest review for errors. That is right, Alia's lawyer wrote down from top to bottom to his heart's disires the court's decree. What could possibly go wrong if the court asks the fox to guard the hen house? Alia's lawyer went as far as misrepresenting Alia's testimony, fabricate evidence and even misrepresent the sheer court recorts. Alia testified that her mother had witness one of the episodes of abuse, and Paul wrote instead in the decree, that Alia's mother had testified as witness at Judge Townsend's hearing. Worst of all, he misrepresented that Judge Townsend had made findings of fact of acts of domestic violence committed by me against Alia. It had only taken Judge Marks to review Judge Townsend's single-page order of protection to see that it was all false: Alia's mother never appeared as witness, nor did Judge Townsend ever make any finding of any sort of abuse. Yet, it all made it into the decree of dissolution, and now the judicial truth is that I committed acts of domestic violence against Alia. If that is just, equitable and not unconscionable, then I am from Mars.    
  
Western fake-democracies' legal systems are probably the best evidence of how terribly brainwashed we have become. We are most absolutely convinced that we are much more free than ever before in History; yet, never before have we been so profoundly brainwashed as today; after all, throughout time knowledge has nothing but advanced and, if there is a question that has attracted the Adults' interest, that is how to control the Children's minds. Now, no cell will ever get a clue that it has been attacked and re-programmed by a virus, no computer will ever detect that it has been infected and hijacked by a trojan horse, and no human being will ever realize that he has been brainwashed. Evidently, the whole point of re-programming a human brain is that the victim's mind will never know what happened and what went wrong, since it was disabled in the first place. We all have seen how leaders of religious sects reprogrammed into slavery their follower's minds. Yet, for some really foolish reason, we always deny any chance anybody may ever be able to accomplish anything of that sort with us: It takes an ignorant dummy to be fooled with grotesque propaganda, or so we think. Yet, throughout History, everybody, even the most learned men, genuinely believed in their state's ideology. Indeed, the day that we start perceiving white in black and black in white, and make sense of the most illogical, that is the time that we really need to ask ourselves what happened and what is that went wrong with us.

Prior to civilization it was only the law of the jungle. If we were going to live together, we definitely needed some mechanism to keep the strong from abusing the weak. We called it justice: from here on, we all, big and small, would get our own fair share of the cake. If your neighbor was stronger than you, there was no reason to worry, because the Alpha Male would have the final say. The Alpha Male was the strongest, so nobody would ever want to mess with him. The Alpha Male was the most powerful, hence he was uncorruptible. If some other woman ever tried to take your baby away; regardless of how much money she could afford paying in attorney fees, no lawyer would ever be able to parley the matter through with King Solomon. As a matter of fact, since the strong had always been far more of a threat to the king's supremacy, he had always been more inclined to sympathize with the weak.

Indeed, at the beginning of the second millennium bC, 4,000 years ago, King Hamurabi of Babylon elaborated one of the first legal codes in human history, in order to protect the people, especially the weakest among them, from the strongest, who constantly prey on them: "to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak". However, it had only been foolish to think that the strong would ever stop plotting and scheming against the tyrant king's court; after all, it is our human instinct to abuse those who we perceive weaker than us, and nobody will simply accept some tyrant king keeping us from owning our own share of slaves. Consequently, with the invention of the Hamelin pipe, the strong soon had us all run to chop the king's head off and scream out loud: "The king is dead; long live the Bill of Privileges!" Given the precedent, now dare any vulgar politician mess up with the privileges of the wealthy. From here on we all have the right to say whatever we want, but who has the money to pay for a Media outlet to air our speech? We all have a right for education, but who has the money to get the letters of reference to be admitted? We all have a right for health care, but who has the money to pay the exorbitant hospital bills? We all have a right of leagal representation, but who has the money to pay the prohibitive attorney fees? Indeed, in today's world, we all enjoy the privilege to purchase the size we fancy of our own share of the cake, as long as we have the money to pay for the privilege's bill. Moreover, if you are not satisfied with the share of the cake you got, you can always hire an attorney to have the courts hand you the neighbor's share over. So, who said, what is all that conspiratory non-sense denying that we are more free today than anytime in the last 4,000 years? In fact, we are now as free as we were back in the jungle, where the strong is free to abuse the weak as much as they see fit.  Indeed, when we start referring as justice what is nothing but the law of the jungle, that is the time that we really need to ask ourselves what happened and what is that went wrong with us?
   
Fact of the matter is the justice system is the most terrifying charade: no evidence is reviewed and no consideration is ever given to the merits of the parties' legal arguments.

Let us face it, as soon as towns began to grow larger and we became estranged one from the other, the society lost any genuine interest in the common folks' petty disputes. Back in the old days, there was not even any reliable fashion to ascertain what exactly had happened; so the whole matter was dispensed by 'trial by ordeal': the accused was subject to a painful, dangerous experience (like for example holding a red-hot iron). Then, if the wounds healed, the accused was deemed innocentt; otherwise, he was declared guilty. Ancient Greeks and Romans tried to give their societies some veneer of legality and justice; but it was just too much trouble. Let us be honest, are you really willing to spend the money for the state to rigorously address, study and analyze all little petty disputes among the common people? If you were Judge Townsend or Judge Marks, why would you ever bother spending endless hours reading endless crazy emails, when you can have the big shot attorney write down for you from top to bottom all what happened and everything that ought to be done? Who cares for the loser? If he does not even have enough money to hire a competent lawyer, we can definitely do without the poor fool; we certainly have millions of other losers like him. Now, shall the case ever become public domain, we will be sure to produce the most glamorous - albeit still solemn - show, have the Media cover it, for all the Children to see, to keep the fiction of a just and fair justice system alive.    

I was shocked when I read the hearing transcript and found out that Paul had written down, from top to bottom, the decree of dissolution, and could not believe that the judge himself had blatantly instructed the other side's attorney to do so. I was so naive that I thought it gave me a strong argument to point out how biased the decree was. Yet, it turned out that is the regular procedure. While preparing my appeal, I asked a lawyer how come the court had instructed the other side's attorney to write down the decree. His reply left me speechless: "that is the usual procedure. No judge will ever sit down to write a parenting plan; that is what an attorney is for". In other words, what happened to me was not a mistake or an isolated case of corruption; But, pure and simple, just how the System works: nobody is going to bother to analyze the evidence and the parties' testimonies can obviously not be trusted. Instead, the courts just go by what the lawyers say. If both parties are represented, then the highest ranking lawyer (the one charging the highest attorney fees) has the final say. . As disturbin as it is, we really need to get to terms with the reality that the justice system is meant and designed to serve the wealthy abusing the poor.
 
One of the first and most fundamental principles our mothers instill on us when we are little is that we should never take the law into one's own hands. Clearly, a society where everybody feels free to respond however one sees fit to any offense has absolutely no chance to survive. If there is a reason why we need a system,   
it is precisely because we need something that will take care of our offender, so that one does not have to take the matter in one's own hands. Witnessing breaking apart the principle which one holds holiest is an extremely disturbing and traumatic experience. I was most certainly not going to be able to wrap my head around the idea, that the justice system would not protect nor care for me, unless I hire an attorney. I refused to accept, it just could not be, that what had happened to me was the regular procedure. Consequently, so far my case did not require any kind of complex legal argument, I did not feel really uncomfortable representing myself. I was in for the most traumatizing experience of my life. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Accomplishments

Chapter 3: Mother and Daughter: Together Forever

Breaking Free: The Birth of Monkey and Bunny