Why Would You Believe A Single Judge Has Authority?

[palani]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=0tRseZjC4qsC&dat=17990501&printsec=frontpage&hl=en

http://i48.tinypic.com/5lwkly.jpg

[iOWNme]

I wouldnt.

Why would 3 out of 4 CRIMINALS have any different effect on reality?

[Twisted Titan]

A judge is a political appointee

The most corrupt people on the planet are responsible for the stewards who dispense justice.

Think about it.

[Hatha Sunahara]

Judges have authority by virtue of their 'public office'. They have the authority to throw you in jail. To fine you. To strip you of your assets. All the 'law enforcement' (cops) regard the judge as the guy who gives them orders and decides their cases aginst members of the public. So, a single judge has the authority of force. But authority based on wisdom or merit, authroity based on esteem of their abilities may be completely missing in a single judge as well as a larger group of them. The Supreme Court has the authority to decide legal matters. There are 9 of them. Does anybody think they are wise or principled? (Other than their clerks?) They are all members of the BAR, which is an elite British) monopoly of the legal profession. They all think alike. Why would justice be served better if legal cases were decided by more of them than by just one of them? They are the guardians of the elite--TPTB. They use their authority to protect the elite and to allow the elite to steal from everyone else. Just because they wear black robes doesn't mean they have virtue.

Hatha

[palani]

Judges have authority by virtue of their 'public office'. True when "public" exists. When in a condition of bankruptcy there is no longer a state of "public".


They have the authority to throw you in jail. A single judge in Law has the authority to hold you over for bail should someone claim that you are a flight risk.


To fine you. You may always ask how you might be expected to extinguish such a debt without circulating lawful money. Nobody may engage you in an impossible contract.


To strip you of your assets. Any assets he is able to strip you of are quite obviously in his plane. For example in a communist plane you can own nothing.


All the 'law enforcement' (cops) regard the judge as the guy who gives them orders and decides their cases aginst members of the public. More importantly ... he is the one who permits them to keep their job and pay their mortgage. Parasites are permitted to have their own parasites it seems.


So, a single judge has the authority of force. In a plane where force has any meaning this is true. When he leaves reason behind he also loses legitimacy.



But authority based on wisdom or merit, authroity based on esteem of their abilities may be completely missing in a single judge as well as a larger group of them. Authority is only based upon consent....your consent. The entire act is put on for your benefit and participation.


The Supreme Court has the authority to decide legal matters. Until the (un)civil war is settled they cannot sit as an article III court.


There are 9 of them. Doesn't matter if there were 100. They will still not grab a rifle and enforce their judgments.


Does anybody think they are wise or principled? I would bet they believe so.


(Other than their clerks?) The clerks have more power than the judges.


They are all members of the BAR, which is an elite British) monopoly of the legal profession. Possibly your attending physician is an AMA member ... set up by the Rockefeller family.


They all think alike. If you read any supreme court cases you will tend to find a dissenting judge or two.


Why would justice be served better if legal cases were decided by more of them than by just one of them? Why is justice served only by a unanimous decision of a panel of jurors?


They are the guardians of the elite--TPTB. I have never met one of these. Have you?


They use their authority to protect the elite and to allow the elite to steal from everyone else. A single judge has no authority. He only has your consent. Why are you making it easy for the elite to steal from you?


Just because they wear black robes doesn't mean they have virtue. I doubt if many people would claim that they did.

[palani]

Why would 3 out of 4 CRIMINALS have any different effect on reality?
Simply put ... the odds become better. Even better if you could disqualify individual justices.

[palani]

A judge is a political appointee Sometimes political appointees arrive there by merit.


The most corrupt people on the planet are responsible for the stewards who dispense justice. The most corrupt people on the planet are also the most delusional. Do you have a plan to change this?

[Uncle Salty]

Because the cops with guns think he does and follow his orders. Therefore he does have authority. You can play all the semantic games in the world to come to the conclusion he has no de jure authority, but at the end of the day, if his word is followed by the cops, he has de facto authority and we live in a de facto world.

[Twisted Titan]

at the end of the day, if his word is followed by the cops, he has de facto authority and we live in a de facto world.




Quoted for Truth.

[iOWNme]

Simply put ... the odds become better. Even better if you could disqualify individual justices.

No. The odds seem better when a bunch of men playing make believe dont try and run my life. If a bunch of dwarfs claiming to work for 'Santa Clause' stormed your home in the name of 'St. Nick' would we think it had ANY bearing on reality?


Lets see what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about 'Authority':

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/authority/



1. Legitimate Authority, de facto Authority and Political Power

Let us start with the distinctions between political authority as a normative notion (or morally legitimate authority) and political authority as a non-normative notion (or de facto authority) and between political authority in either of these senses and political power. To say that a state has authority in the normative sense is to say something normative about the relationship between the state and its subjects. This is the relationship that we will concentrate on in what follows.

For most contemporary theorists to say that the state has authority in the descriptive sense is to say that the state maintains public order and that it issues commands and makes rules that are generally obeyed by subjects because many of them (or some important subset of them such as the officials of the state) think of it as having authority in the normative sense (Hart 1961) (Some thinkers have understood the idea of legitimate authority in this descriptive sense as well (Weber 1970); in what follows, we will use the term “legitimate authority” in a normative sense only.) We should note here that the attitudinal component of de facto authority is not accepted by everyone. For both Thomas Hobbes and John Austin, political authority in the de facto sense simply amounts to the capacity of a person or group of persons to maintain public order and secure the obedience of most people by issuing commands backed by sanctions. Subjects need not think of the authority as a legitimate authority, on this account.

Also, the distinction between de facto and morally legitimate authority is not universally accepted or at least it is not accepted that the distinction makes a difference. Hobbes insists that any entity capable of performing the function of de facto authority is necessarily justified and deserves the obedience of the de facto subjects (Hobbes 1668). But most have argued that there is an important distinction between de facto authority and legitimate authority. We will explore in what follows the conceptions political and legal philosophers have had of legitimate political authority.

De facto authority, on anyone's account, is distinct from political power. The latter is concerned with the state's or any agent's ability to get others to act in ways that they desire even when the subject does not want to do what the agent wants him to do. Political power does not require any kind of pro attitude toward the agent on the part of the subject, nor does it require that the state is actually successful at securing public order. It operates completely in the realm of threats and offers. No doubt for the state to have de facto authority or legitimate authority requires that the state have the power to compel those subjects who do not wish to go along. This is necessary for the state's ability to maintain public order and to assure those who do see it as an authority that it will be able to do what it is supposed to do.


NO class of men has a 'Moral Authority' over another. PERIOD. Its all make believe CRAP. The idea that somehow if a group of men get together and agree on a set of 'rules' that a magical power is bestowed upon another group of men in order to 'legitimately' rule over all the other men.

There is no legitimate ruling class. Their are only psychopaths, and those that believe them.

[palani]

at the end of the day ... he has de facto authority and we live in a de facto world.

Bush Jr thought de facto authority was sufficient to start several wars. Now he is afraid to travel abroad as it becomes probable that he will be arrested and hauled into the world criminal court as a common despot.

True under the de facto doctrine you are advised to follow necessary orders given you but if that order happens to be unlawful and you are injured as a result you have an action. Best memorize the following phrase: "Under cause and necessity I agree to (do whatever) but I am notifying you that I do not consent voluntarily to this and intend to charge for the service."

[palani]

It operates completely in the realm of threats and offers.

Here is an example of de facto authority. It is 4:00 pm and schools are just getting out . There is heavy traffic. Suddenly the power grid goes down and there is chaos as the traffic lights stop. A concerned "person" steps into the intersection to direct traffic, prevent accidents and protect the school children.

The one directing traffic does so in a de facto manner. That is the way the system is supposed to work in a republic. A need is detected and someone steps in to fill the void.

Another example: Bush Jr vacates his rental home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Before leaving he tells his good buddy Obama of his move. Obama, knowing the office to be vacant, moves in the following day and occupies the office in a de facto manner. All the pomp and circumstance surrounding the election was facade.

Another example: I detect a need in government for someone to accept oaths and bonds. If the oath is given to nobody then nobody can hold the office holder accountable. If there is no bond then there is no penal sum for violating the oath. As the particular office (one to accept oaths and bonds) is vacant I decide to step in and notify the world of my occupation of that office. I do so by public notice in which I suggest that anyone in public office with an oath and bond send them to me so that I may hold them responsible for their acts. As there were no responses these office holders make it clear that they are de facto and have no interest in being responsible. Neither are they to be considered part of my government.

There you have it. If your standards are low you may accept the words and actions of a de facto actor. Otherwise you have options.

[iOWNme]

Palani - The belief in Authority is a SUPERSTITION. A myth. Like the Easter Bunny.....

For thousands of years this myth has controlled the world. This superstition has allowed certain groups to come along and say "I have the right to rule you" and lots of other people have believed them. They used to call themselves 'Churches' now they almost always call themselves 'Government'. It is the SAME THING.

[palani]

Palani - The belief in Authority is a SUPERSTITION. A myth. Like the Easter Bunny.
Yours is not a position that has been well thought out. Of course there are authors. Hobbes describes the concept very well indeed:


Every One Is Author
And because the Multitude naturally is not One, but Many; they cannot be understood for one; but many Authors, of every thing their Representative faith, or doth in their name; Every man giving their common Representer, Authority from himselfe in particular; and owning all the actions the Representer doth, in case they give him Authority without stint: Otherwise, when they limit him in what, and how farre he shall represent them, none of them owneth more,than they gave him commission to Act.
.
.
.
Of Authors there be two sorts. The first simply so called; which I have before defined to be him, that owneth the Action of another simply. The second is he, that owneth an Action, or Covenant of another conditionally; that is to say, he undertaketh to do it, if the other doth it not, at, or before a certain time. And these Authors conditionall, are generally called SURETYES, in Latine Fidejussores, and Sponsores; and particularly for Debt, Praedes; and for Appearance before a Judge, or Magistrate, Vades.

[iOWNme]

Yours is not a position that has been well thought out. Of course there are authors. Hobbes describes the concept very well indeed:

Not well thought out? Well it is based in REALTY, something that man-made Law can never be.

Quoting Hobbes is not very well thought out, as he was a STATIST. His thoughts on the 'social contract' are what ENSLAVED all of us. I dont care if somebody claims to be a Constitutionalist or other they are still a STATIST. Someone who believes in the superstition/myth of a 'Ruling Class'. (Representitive or otherwise) It matters not that we have the illusion of controlling our 'Ruling Class', it is just that....An ILLUSION.

This is how we got to where we are: People believe that when they are being run over by their own Government, it is being done for the good of 'The People'. A bigger lie couldnt be told.

[palani]

it is based in REALTY, something that man-made Law can never be. Don't you mean REALITY? I believe Einsteins observation was that reality was illusion, just more persistent.


he was a STATIST. Nobody is perfect. I cite Hobbs frequently because his discussion of "person" is the only one I have read that makes sense.


His thoughts on the 'social contract' are what ENSLAVED all of us. While he does talk of contract Leviathan does not contain the word "social". Perhaps you meant "society"?


It matters not that we have the illusion of controlling our 'Ruling Class', it is just that....An ILLUSION. I have no illusions of controlling anyone. Or of being controlled by anyone for that matter.


This is how we got to where we are: People believe that when they are being run over by their own Government, it is being done for the good of 'The People'. A bigger lie couldnt be told. Beliefs are subject to change. You might believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.

[7th trump]

Palani.....what gives!!
You say nothing with which releif can be granted.....I know you know what that means.
If anything all you say is what all of us already know and feel.

[palani]

Palani.....what gives!!
You say nothing with which releif can be granted.....I know you know what that means.
If anything all you say is what all of us already know and feel.

I am no granter of reliefs. I merely point out what was well known to my ancestors. Perhaps it helps to know that there was always reason behind government even if it was in the form of checks and balances. No single actor is permitted so much power that he/she may become a despot.

As to options ... knowing that a single judge has no authority ... rely upon appeal where a panel of judicial actors will sit in review of the facts (or any facts that you permit to be placed on the record). You might also recognize his "orders" as clerical memorandum and ask the court how they propose to cure the defect. Empower yourself because you are the source of his authority.

[iOWNme]

Don't you mean REALITY? I believe Einsteins observation was that reality was illusion, just more persistent.

Yes, i misspelled that.


I have no illusions of controlling anyone. Or of being controlled by anyone for that matter.

Ok, but your founders did, and so does the US Constitution.


Beliefs are subject to change. You might believe one thing today and another thing tomorrow.

I said people believe. I didnt say anything about me. I happen to believe in moral absolutes. I believe in Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice, Truth and Lies, etc. These things exist in reality and are not to be decided arbitrarily on a day to day basis using 'the mob' as the compass. No man or group of men has any legitimate authority over another. PERIOD. Everything else is make believe and fictional.

[iOWNme]

Perhaps it helps to know that there was always reason behind government even if it was in the form of checks and balances. No single actor is permitted so much power that he/she may become a despot.

You think there has always been 'reason' behind Government? I guess your right if you count Evil's burning desire to rule over you as 'reason'.


Why do we need Government? Because there are bad men and women in the world.
Who is Government made up of? Men and Women.

So if we know there will always be 'Evil' men and women, then why on earth would we create a Government with the POWER and AUTHORITY to steal, murder, compel and rape? If we create a powerful entity called 'Government' we can rest assured that these same 'Evil' men and women that exist will find a way to get into Government. This is circular logic at its finest.

Government = Monopoly on Violence.

If we truly want to live in a Peaceful world, we HAVE TO get rid of Government.

[palani]

Ok, but your founders did, and so does the US Constitution. I have no founders. As to the U.S. Constitution it exists as a promise for future generations and as a novation to pass debt along to whoever might choose to recognize said debt. My status is similar to "inhabitant" and my relationship to the U.S. is that of autochthon.



I said people believe. I didnt say anything about me. People may be singular or plural.


I happen to believe in moral absolutes. I believe in Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice, Truth and Lies, etc. These things exist in reality and are not to be decided arbitrarily on a day to day basis using 'the mob' as the compass. Right, wrong, justice, injustice, truth, lies ... all categories that create stress. I believe in reason and necessity. When reason fails necessity provides a form of artificial reason until reason returns.


No man or group of men has any legitimate authority over another. PERIOD. Everything else is make believe and fictional. The first Law in Iowa was created by a group of miners upset over the murder of one of their own. As there was no Law west of the Mississippi they formed a miners court, brought in the accused in front of a jury and asked him if he had any objection to any of the men on the jury. He stated "no, I have no objection to any of them, but you can't try me because there is no Law west of the Mississippi." He was tried, found guilty and sentenced to hang by the neck.

The authority for the jury came from the defendant.