A suppression of truth is equivalent to a lie.
I think we are in for a treat. Mary Maxwell has just completed her book,
FRAUD UPON THE COURT.
As a teaser, this is the prologue.
I hold this truth to be self-evident, that if you give ten men the reins to run the whole world — secretly – they will run it according to what they need for themselves.
After all, why should they do otherwise? Why look at, say, the needs of the people? Since their own helmsmanship is a secret, they lack one of the main incentives to act nobly, namely the incentive of getting credit, of being thanked and admired. They will proceed selfishly.
Am I saying that human nature is, overall, more bad than good? No. I am not saying anything about human nature overall. I’m analyzing a particular scenario, one which I think actually exists. I believe there is a small coterie of guys up there today who run our planet as though there were no sovereign nations, no human history, no cultural values.
They live in the raw, so to speak. Take my “self-evident truth” a bit further. What if the ten men (ten is just a guess) were each from different cultures. Would they bring their background preferences to their day’s work? If one guy up there were from India and one from Pakistan would they be having a go at each other?
Of course not. They are too busy surviving. “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” as Shakespeare said. Very uneasy lies the head that has to concentrate every minute on what will happen to him if he gets caught for what he’s been doing. Most of what he’s been doing is criminal, per the laws of any of the nations he fiddles with. It could be firing-squadsville for him tomorrow and he well knows it.
I feel sorry for those ten jerks. The dedication of my book Prosecution for Treason says “To our prodigal sons, Come home! Come home!” Not that I expect them to apologize and be restored to the bosom of society. It’s unlike they would do that, and even more unlikely their victims would be nice to them. Still, I think it would pay for us to stop fearing them and understand that they are in a bind.
Their bind is killing us and, worse, it is killing the biosphere. They are so worried about their position – it’s my claim that all that motivates them now is survival – that they will do anything, or instruct their minions to do anything, to keep them from falling of the perch. Logic can show that this means ecological disaster.
The book at hand is about only one institution of society, the law. At present, the men in charge of the world have applied their genius to decimating this wonderful institution. If you don’t believe me now, I think you’ll believe after reading some of the chapters. The judicial system no longer functions in a free way. Its black-robed elite have developed a blind spot to issues that would normally engage them. They are truly under the sway of the aforementioned secret rulers. It is sooo pathetic.
Clearly a main preoccupation of the judiciary nowadays is to prevent the punishment, or even the exposure, of the secret rulers (and thereby of their fantastic crimes). So I have gone about showing how we would normally proceed, were it not for that blockage.
You will therefore find me old-fashioned, non-innovative, boring. I am so boring it is unbelievable. (Check the frontispiece of the Conclusion, Chapter 25.) I am rah-rah the past. This book is strewn with law maxims, which I take to be both a record of the clear thinking of our forebears, and a kernel of what humans relations are all about.
Here is an example of a law maxim: Minatur innocentibus qui parcit nocentibus. Sparing the guilty threatens the innocent. Boy, is that ever true! Here’s another: Suppressio veri, expressio falsi. A suppression of truth is equivalent to a lie.
Are the maxims in Latin because they come from ancient Rome? Nope. They’re in Latin because law was done in Latin even in the courts of England until a few hundred years ago. I presume that was because of the power of the Church. (As to why Jesus’ message should have a base in Rome, that is anyone’s guess. WWJS?)
My fave maxim is, of course, this one: Lex non deficere potest in justitia exhibenda. The law cannot fail in dispensing justice. Ahem. Can we make the legal profession live up to that? What is the authority of a maxim? I believe it has long been considered that a maxim so sums up the principles that it can be called into service as an authoritative comment.
I hear you ask “Does a maxim have standing? I would like to know “Does ‘standing’ have standing?” We in the law field are too devoted to precedent and formality. Any existing precedent or formality came from human beings; it does not reside in the sky. Among the maxims, some are simple guides for a judge in regard a specific type of case: Lex succurrit minoribus. The law assists children. Others show how to think about reality: Necessitas non habet legem. Necessity has no law.
That last one may come to be needed soon. If there is no other way to get around today’s blockage in the courts, people may have to take the law into their own hands. But, I say, we shouldn’t think we are quite there – yet.
Walk with me down a very happy road. The restoration of sensible law. It CAN BE DONE.
Mary W Maxwell, Adelaide, July 15, 2015