When Will We Ever Be Able to Get Free From Our Masters, the Alpha Humans?

When Will We Ever Be Able to Get Free From Our Masters, the Alpha Humans? 

  

I wonder if judges ever care about all the pain and sorrow they cause to innocent people. The question is obviously rhetoric, because I know the answer really well: No.

I can understand how medical doctors may eventually get used to see so many patients die, so that it not only becomes unavoidable, but also almost necessary to develop some degree of insensitivity. I can guess judges may also think it is their job, they have been put under the big responsibility, they just have to take a difficult decision, and they do it the best they can with the information, time and resources available. But that is not even true. I know the guardians of power will be quick to come here and start saying I am too harsh on our judges, because they do their best; but it is a very difficult job and, unavoidably, one side will always be left really unhappy. But that is total bullshit. I know the guardians of power will repeat their mantra thousands of times, over and over again, until we will all end up accepting and believing it; but the truth is that the judges job is not really to find out what happend and make justice. I know this should sound like a bold overstatement, which responds more to the pain produced by a bleeding wound, than to reason. However, if we consider History, it could only come out as the most natural reflection. Throughout history, the purpose of the legal system has never been to find out what happened and serve justice to resolve the disputes constantly arising between citizens. Rather, it has always been to support the powerful and allow them to exert control over the people. For example, 'trial by ordeal' was the most common judicial practice in Carolingian Frankia (the origin of European medieval feudalism and the seed of Christian Western 'civilizatio'n)). In a '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. It is horrifying to consider that the evil assholes who conducted these trials are the kind of people that we all have been brainwashed to view as the most honorable men and address as "Your Honor". Fact of the matter is that neither -nobles' were ever noble people nor judges have ever been honorable people. Rather, they all have always been nothing but the most disgusting kind of human beings ever. Indeed, the concept established by the Carolingians was that the King had been chosen by the hand of God to render justice. As the King, however, could not be everywhere, he would in turn delegate on the large landowners and grant them the right to hold courts of law and collect fines from their subjects; this allowing them to consolidate their power. If a peasant ever wished to have justice, he had to pay a court fee, and those court fees were normally expensive. If the peasant could not afford to pay the fee; that was just too bad... he would simply not get his cow back. At least, today, if you have low income, you may get exempt of paying the court's filing fee. So, at least, in that sense, we can say that there has been some improvement since medieval times. It is true, however, that today, in order to have a reasonable chance to prevail in court and therefore get justice, you need to hire a powerful lawyer, and those are expensive. If you cannot afford to pay a lawyer, it is just too bad, ...I guess you simply do not get your car back! Indeed, today, if you do not have a lawyer, the likelihood that you prevail in court and get justice is as high, as your chance of winning the lottery. The guardians of power will tell you that everyday there is people who does win the lottery; but you better wait seated for your turn. So, perhaps, on a second thought, we are today not that much better off. In fact, we may want to consider if, perhaps, today it is actually worse than before. Indeed, it may not be quite obvious, but it is preferable a legal system exclusively for the powerful, than a fake legal system; for the same reason that it is preferable if your lawyer is ridiculously incompetent, than if he secretly works for the other side. In the former, at least, the problem is obvious and, therefore, it is possible to do something about it. Clearly, an illness that goes unnoticed is far more dangerous than one that produces obvious symptoms.        

    

Nevertheless, if I had ever wondered about the actual purpose of the legal system, Judge Townsen was certain to state it blatantly at the hearing. Alia's latest boyfriend (Cecilio Escatell Jr.) had testified that I, being blind, had tried to slide between the police officers and run into the house. So, I explained that was completely false and asked the judge to confirm with the officers the falsedy of Mr. Escatell's testimony. But Judge Townsend answered that was not her job:

MR. BAUTISTA:  Your Honor, with your respect, but 

I did ask Mr. Escatell before if it was the police that had to 

keep me from getting into the property and he said yes. 

THE COURT:  So you think they're supposed to have 

a police guard outside their -- 

MR. BAUTISTA:  No, no, no, no, I'm saying that 

they said that I was trying to get into the property.  And my 

point is I never made an attempt to get into the property.  Mr. 

Escatell was saying that I told the officers, that he could 

overhear me talking to the officer, saying that that was my 

house and I live there, that the house belongs to me.  That is 

all false.  And the thing, I will like The Court to confirm 

that with the officers -- 

THE COURT:  So you could have brought the 

officers.  I'm not -- it's not my job to do this investigation.

Judge Townsend was certainly very clever to use the word 'investigation', instead of 'find out', and, so, with the little twist of a single word she managed to be technically correct. Yes, we can use as many tricks as we want to fool ourselves, but the truth remains that the purpose of the judicial system is not to find out what happened and make justice or, at least, simply apply the law. The legal system is purposely designed with endless traps (also referred as rules of legal procedures), so that, sooner or later, the simple citizen falls through the cracks and the court can rule the way it is meant to. Depending on where you stand, they make it impossible for you to either prove your charge or prove your innocence. Either they keep you from presenting the facts or they allow the other party to smear them. If a witness has some important information that the court is somehow not quite interested to hear, the court will be sure to deny a subpoena (a writ ordering a person to attend a court) request for that witness if it is submitted 5 minutes late. Yes, I know, the rule is the rule and, if the rule says that subpoena requests need to be sent by 17.00pm and you email it at 17:05pm, pursuant to the rule, the request should be declined. The question, however, is then why do we have such rules? Similarly, the judge may declare a key document 'inadmissible' and, therefore, not admit it into evidence, because, supposedly, it is not possible to prove the document's authenticity. However, on the other hand, a witness can blatantly commit perjury by testifying one thing and the opposite (because either he lied on his first assertion or he lied when he later stated the opposite), and the judge would not do anything about it, but may still consider the witness credible. If Alia's witness had testified that I tried to get into the house, and I argued instead that I had only gone to the property to request a civil standby and collect my belongings; then, it was as easy as reading the police report to find out which party was saying the truth. However, Your Honor, Judge Townsend was not interested. I wonder how come it is possible that well into the XXI century, in a world where we are told that we are at last all free and equal, we are still indoctrinated to address judges by "Your Honor", as if they were deities that we need to worship. There is no way out: if the Judge refuses to go to the mountain, but then you think you may still want to attempt to bring the mountain to the Judge; it will still not work. Pursuant to the rule, the evidenciary phase of the legal procedure finishes at the end of the hearing. This means that the record is closed at the end of the hearing, so that if you ever attempt to bring the police report to the Judge, given that the record has already been closed, it will be too late to be accepted. Needless to say, nobody will lift a finger to investigate any perjury the police report may expose.    

It is definitely a crying shame that the legal system is the kind of farce it is. It is really regretful that we are all willing to meekly buy the mantra recited by the guardians of power and look away from injustice, as long as we do not fall victims of the sad truth. Undeniably, it is an esential part of our very human nature to possess such a remarkable ability to adapt our perception of the reality around us, depending on how it plays for oneself: unavoidably, if it plays in our favor, we sharpen our reasoning skills to find some more amicable perspective to the truth. Now, if it plays against oneself then... Yet, I think it is pointless to mortify ourselves for being selfish. Arguably, selfishness is a characteristic common to all species, and we would probably be all long extinct without it in the first place. 

Now, selfishness does not fit that well into social animals; since what is good for the individual is not always good for the community. However, it is social animal's capacity to strive and even sacrifice themselves for the community, that makes these species so highly evolved, strong and particularly fit. Interestingly, here is where consciousness comes into play. That is, here is where consciousness proves to be an evolutionary advantage. In other words, this is one of those times where it may come useful to go by what our consciousness reasons. While our unconsciousness is more concerned with immediate reward and penalty, our consciousness is better suited to ponder long-term consequences. We are then often willing to sacrifice ourselves for the others, because we have learned from experience, that that is what in the long run makes us feel happiest.                 

Unfortunately, that is quite a learning process, and actually not really an easy one. Even worse, many people never find themselves exposed to such an experience and, consequently, never have the time to learn it. Indeed, remarkably, it is generally humble people, those who have the least, the ones proving to be the most generous and willing to give a hand. Sadly, today's very-competetive societies reward the most selfish. While it may be argued that that has always been the case throughout History; I am not sure it was to such high extend. Moreover, I really do not think that would be true for all throughout Prehistory. As a matter of fact, the advent of civilization and hierarchy are two sides of the same coin. Now, once an individual has been allowed or granted a privileged position in the society (either by birthright or from his very own achievement), he will be the least likely to turn against the system that has worked so well and has proven so very generous to him or her. Indeed, those individuals are not likely to become critical and start pointing out the deficiencies and injustices of the system. Rather, those will become the guardians of power, always ready to serve their master, praising the lord and reciting over an over again the mantra of the endless virtues of the system. We then found ourselves in the really unfortunate situation, where the few who have power to make of this a more just world, are also those with no interest for such a beautiful endeavor; whereas the rest of us who are more motivated to make improvements , find ourselves with no power to make our dream come true. That is, as it has long been recognized, the higher up in the social pyramid you are, the more power you have to bring about social justice, but the less motivated you are to do so. Conversely, the lower down you are in the social pyramid, the more motivated you are for change, but the less of a chance you have to make it happen. Of course, we all know that; but I find that these days everything is far more obscure and subtle. In fact, today nobody would be foolish enough to claim that he has been touched by the hand of God to rule. Instead, they have come to learn that discretion is the better part of valor and therefore it is preferable to remain safe behind a long sheet of paper: the system's holly scriptures. Now the vassals do not need to fight for the King anymore; they just have to go, propagate the holly word and make disciples. This new scheme is so much more powerful, because the vassals do not need to swear loyalty to an asshole King, but they serve God directly; and who would want to go against God anyway? Of course it does not take much to see that the system is not quite God, and those who guard it actually lie more than those corrupt bishops of the old Church. However, we are constantly reminded of our selfish and imperfect nature, and who is to argue that he is better than God? Somehow we have again been brainwashed in the belief that the system works; but, if our life is not as good as we thought it should be, it is because we are not worth it or have not put enough effort: we got just what we deserve. The new scheme is so effective, that now, even if you are at the bottom of the hierarchy, you still do not feel any need for change; now we are all believers and look with distrust at those few who are not. The worst dictatorship is the one that fakes to be a democracy.

Judge Townsen's ruling was certainly devastating. It is not that I have ever had much faith in the legal system. Rather, I was ready to assume that the judge was going to see me as a worm and, therefore, would not have any interest and would not put any time nor attention on our case. I knew perfectly well that, if a woman makes any allegation of abuse against a man, the burden of proof would automatically shift and I would need to prove my innocence. Yet, I still thought that would be OK in my case, because I had conclusive evidence in my favor. I had the endless number of messages, letters and documents Alia had written refuting all those allegations of abuse. For example, for my green card application Alia had made several sworn statements declaring that I was a good man, who had never harmed anybody. In March 2011 she was told that Immigration was not going to acknowledge our marriage, because there were doubts it was bona fide, and Alia responded furiously swearing she loved me and I loved her. As a matter of fact, the question here is not wether Alia committed perjury before Judge Townsend. Rather, the question is in which of the two occasions did Alia commit perjury: either when she alleged abuse to Judge Townsend or when she swore under oath to Immigration that I was a good man, who had never harmed anybody.

Unfortunately, Judge Townsend could not care less. To begin with I was not allowed to file any of the documents I had brought to prove my innocence, because, given my severe visual impairment, I was not able to fill out by myself the required 'Notice of Filing' form, and nobody at the courthouse would want to assist me, as they are required by law. Instead, I was told I could still ask the Court to accept my exhibits into the record. However, Judge Townsend was definitely not going to be of any help to me. From the word 'Go', she was determined to grant the order of protection and she was going to do so no matter what. The whole hearing was a complete masquerade: during the following 1-2 hours Judge Townsend kept trying to have Alia provide any testimony she could use to incriminate me. If I started an explanation refuting Alia's allegations, she would interrupt me and move on into the next issue, or she would manipulate my words and try to provoke me into saying something that she could finally use against me. I tried to explain that it was false that Alia had left me 3 years earlier, because I had been abusing her all through our marriage: not only she had not made any such allegations of abuse until now, but, quite the opposite, just after leaving me 3 years earlier, she had wrote me admitting that she "had been an asshole to me for the best of times". I also told Judge Townsend that the true reason why Alia had left me was not any abuse on my part; rather, back in Cape Town Alia had helplessly and desperately fallen in love with some womanizer by the name of Gary Rhenda. At that point Judge Townsend interrupted me to ask, if I was saying that just because Alia had cheated on me, I was justified to abuse her. I just could not believe what was happening!! Either that woman was stupid or she did not understand any English or, perhaps, my English was completely unintelligible. But, clearly, I was missing the whole thing; because, obviously, none of the three propositions before were true. Rather, I was missing the crued reality: that judge was going to rip me off and was only looking for arguments that she could use to base her unjust decision.      

Indeed, Judge Townsend was going to grant the order of protection no matter what.  ...Literally, it did not matter that Alia's main allegation on the Petitioner's Statement was that her blind husband "was stalking her from outside the property." I just do not get how a blind person could possibly stalk anybody from the street. When Alia explained at the hearing that I was standing at the alley next to the house looking into the kitchen, watching her; I asked her how could I be possibly looking into the kitchen if I was blind. All what Alia was able to say in response was that she feared that I would attack, if by any chance anybody tried to leave the house or go to the garage. As awkward as it was, it turned out to be satisfactory for Judge Townsend.

Neither did it matter if Alia alleged that she would get a panic attack everytime I came around; although it was undisputed that I had only come around twice over the last three years, and I had only accepted to come those two times to collect my belongings, after she had been harassing and threatening me to dump them. It seems to me it should have become clear that, either she was lying about having panic attacks or she was otherwise admitting to be in really bad mental health (like suffering some acute form of paranoia).

Neither did it matter that Alia's main allegation of abuse was based on flashbacks! Indeed, if Alia had not given enough reasons to Judge Townsend to be concerned about her mental health, Alia also explained at the hearing that my abuse had been that bad that, eventually, she somehow erased all those memories; consequently, she could barely remember anything, but was still pretty sure I had abused her really badly all throughout our marriage. Moreover, to back her claim, Alia told Judge Townsend that she had been able to remember about an incident in Monaco, where supposedly I had brutally beaten her up, from a flashback she had had during a session with her therapist the year before (2017). I certainly did not find reasons to doubt that Alia was not in good mental health; however, what was really shocking to me was that I was getting the blame for it! So, Robyn had got Alia into drugs at the age of 11. When I first met Alia, she told me that she had done a lot of drugs and was, as a consequence, a very mentally unstable person; going through periods of extreme anger, depression and suicidal thoughts (and, boy, did I have to endure Alia's blazes of madness!). As a matter of fact it had been me who had inspired her into quitting all drugs (even tobacco); only to get back on them as soon as she broke up with me and returned with Robyn, to subsequently get hooked up to her drug-addict boyfriend, Cecilio Escatell Jr.. And, yet, I was now getting the blame for Alia's mental problems and Judge Townsend was buying it all!! I tried to point out Alia's extensive use of drugs, so that I could clarify where Alia's mental problems where really coming from. However, Judge Townsend was quick to cut me off and stop me from getting anywhere there and making such an argument. Well, she had to protect the victim from such a wicked attack. from her abuser. That is alright, only if it was not because I was under the belief that we were first actually still trying to figure out who is really the victim: the Petitioner, who alleges having been brutally abused, or the Respondent, who, perhaps, is being falsely accused of abuse. After all, I had always been told that I am innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.

Oh well, I guess Judge Townsend really cared for Alia, was very concerned about her safety and wellbeing, and did not want by any means to leave any door open to any risk of Alia being harmed. If that was the case, however, I wish Judge Townsend had put a bit more care watching for Alia's safety and wellbeing, and had considered more carefully that, perhaps, there was something more to it than what Alia and her drug-addict lover were telling her. Indeed, if Judge Townsend really believed that women are little angels who come from Heaven, and men are evil abusers by nature, then she might as well have considered that Mr. Escatell is also a man. In fact, it seems to me that Alia's drug-addict lover was making a better profile of an abuser than Alia's blind husband. After all, it was undisputed that I have a high-education degree, I have never taken any mind altering substance, and I had taken Alia and paid for all of our travels to some of the most beautiful places on the face of the planet. On the other hand, not only is Mr. Escatell a regular drug consumer, but he abandoned three children he had with another woman, who has an order of protection against him. I understand that, given that Judge Townsend had refused to take a look to any of the documents I had brought, she was probably not aware of those facts, but she only has herself to blame for her lack of knowledge, because I was certainly very eager to tell her all about it, but she would not want to listen to anything I had to say, because she had already decided, from the very beginning that she would grant the order of protection no matter what.

Now, Judge Townsend did hear all the non-sense and grotesque lies that Mr. Escatell and Alia had to say. Moreover, both parties were conveying to her the message that Alia had mental problems, and it, therefore, stood to reason to question to what extend her testimony was entirely reliable. It then seems to me that, at some point, Judge Townsend should have start wondering, if, perhaps, there was something odd, about Mr. Escatell bringing her mentally-ill girlfriend, to make the most grotesque and ridiculous false allegations of stalking and abuse, in order to get an order of protection against her blind husband, because they were so very afraid (panicking), that the blind guy would come anytime all the way from New York and beat the girl up, while Mr. Escatell is out of home.  

I keep thinking about Michelle Knight, Amanda Berry and Georgina 'Gina' De Jesus. Between 2002 and 2004 they were kidnapped and held captive by Ariel Castro. I cannot imagine the kind of nightmare those girls went through. We immediately think about the sexual abuse they suffered, but it seems to me that the torment and psychological abuse they were subject to by Mr. Castro was probably as hurtful and scarring if not more. I keep thinking that if the girls had been kidnapped in Missoula and they had depended on an old boyfriend to alert the authorities, they would have never been rescued; because Judge Townsend had believed Mr. Castro, the same way that she believed everything Mr. Escatell said.     

               

Undoubtedly, if Judge Townsend was indeed only trying to protect and help Alia, she definitely did a really poor job, by tearing Alia off of me to put her in the hands of Mr. Escatell. Remarkably, I find that to be a really widespread feature: those who pretend to care the most for women and to be the strongest advocates of feminism, also end up being the same who bring the most hardships to the real lives of women. Now, interestingly, the hardships they cause on regular women's lives, always happens to be directly proportional to the benefits such fake feminism produces on their own careers.

Once the order of protection had been granted it was all over, or at least anybody would had so accepted it. That is certainly how I felt that morning alone at the guesthouse, as the tears kept running down my face and my kries kept desperately and despondently asking for an explanation: why..., why..., why have you done this to me Alia? ...What happened to you Alia? What have they done to you Alia? Why have they done this to us Alia?!!