- Mysteries of Initiation
- The Debt Problem
- Keys Writings, Part 1
- Keys Writings, Part 2
- Keys Writings, Part 3
- Keys Writings, Part 4
- Keys Writings, Part 5
- Keys Writings, Part 6
- Keys Writings, Part 7
- 103 Favorite Quotes
- Understanding Illusion
- Djwhal Khul Predictions
- A Principle: Like Attracts Like
- The Search for Unity
- Anwar al-Awlaki Discussion
- Keys Writings, Part 8
- Keys Writings, Part 9
- Keys Writings, Part 10
- Keys Writings, Part 11
- Keys Writings, Part 12
- THE LAW OF REBIRTH
- MOLECULAR RELATIONSHIPS
- Ye Are Gods
- The Gathering of Lights
- Fundamental Doctrines
- The Molecular Business
- Keys Writings, Part 13
- Keys Writings, Part 14
- Keys Writings, Part 15
- Keys Writings, Part 16
- Keys Writings, Part 17
- Keys Writings, Part 18
- Keys Writings, Part 19
- Keys Writings, Part 20
Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.1
I don’t believe the Constitution differentiates between criminal and commercial law. You can go to jail over a traffic violation just as you can burglary. My friend Wayne went to jail several times over traffic violations without a jury trial. I didn’t see any reason to break the law down to its various parts when the Constitution did not.
Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law
Eke: “The constitution is made for man and not man made for constitution.”
JJ Great statement Eke.
On a different note I notice that the posts of you and Judy both have a lot of unwanted characters. Usually this is caused from your creating the post in some incompatible software. What I’ve found that works is to convert your formatted text to raw unformatted text format and then post. This usually solves the problem.
Oct 21, 2011
Re: Muammar Gaddafi Killed
Have you ever seen a worse job of taking a video than the one associated with Gaddafi’s killing? You’d think for such a historical event someone would have made sure the camera was steady and focused. As it is it looks like it was filmed by someone wacked out on LSD dancing around a fire pit.
Oct 22, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law
I’ve been checking into what you said Larry and found a few things. I couldn’t find any evidence though that something like a speeding ticket would fall under commercial law. Do you have a reference on that? Most are in a different category than felonies or misdemeanors, I know that.
You are right that normal traffic tickets are called infractions. Others though can lead to misdemeanors or felonies such as DUIs, reckless driving, refusing to sign or pay a ticket, driving without auto insurance and failure to stop at the scene of an accident.
The next time I get my driver’s license I’ll have to see what I actually signed on for.
Now there are those who drive with no license and they didn’t sign up or agree to anything yet they can be charged with a number of crimes while driving and sent to jail like my friend Wayne. Speeding without a license has nothing to do with morality but it can certainly get you in trouble.
The Fifth Amendment says:
No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
When one is fined for speeding he is indeed deprived of property (his money) without due process as some define it.
When I was talking about due process of law I was talking about all laws that can lead to loss of life liberty or property. That does lump the various categories together. I see nothing wrong with this as it has nothing to do with saying all law is the same or currently dealt with the same way. Why you thought I was saying such a thing is a mystery and such technicality has nothing to do with a ring-pass-not.
That said, thanks for your information on the various kinds of law. I learned several things.
Oct 22, 2011
A short time ago it was suggested that a molecule could be created through online communications. One of the things that will have to be dealt with in a molecule will be various disagreements. Since we had one here I thought it may be a good opportunity to illustrate two things. One is how difficult and slow it is to solve any problem online. We could have probably hashed out this Awlaki problem in person within an hour or so but here we have spent many days and intensive hours in writing and still we have not gotten beyond the first simple point of whether Obama’s action was legal.
The second problem that is illustrated is how difficult it is to solve personality disagreements when they come up. What seems simple and clear to some is very complex to others.
Another problem is that many tune out when a round of disagreements materialize whereas in person most people are willing to wade through a couple hours of arbitration.
I tried to break down the various elements of the problem in an attempt to make it solvable. If we started out talking about what is right or wrong then emotions will run high. I thought I would begin by examining whether or not the action was legal – which should have had nothing to do with good or bad, but still we did not escape confronting that from the beginning.
I think that seeing the futility here of bringing harmony between two good people illustrates the difficulty we will face in creating a united Molecule. Obviously, we will need to draw from a large pool of seekers to create the first unified molecule.
After the first one is created the second will be easier, however.
This arguing process is becoming very time consuming and not doing anything to convince our holdout – Blayne. What do you think? Should we continue on this subject or not?
Oct 23, 2011
The First Point 101
Thanks for your feedback. It sounds like the group would like us to see this subject through to see where it goes. Okay.. I’ll cooperate.
As you know, I’ve tried to simplify the discussion by breaking the conflict down to its simplest parts. This sometimes can be quite beneficial. Suppose person A is arguing with person B about Topic C. Perhaps Topic C is composed of five different parts and the two actually agree on four of those parts. This means the path to union is found in a correct understanding of the fifth part.
On the other hand, if they disagree on four out of five of the parts then the division is pretty wide and agreement will be difficult to negotiate.
The funny part about point one is that both Blayne and Duke thought the assassination of Awlaki was illegal, as well as myself. It turns out that looking into it changed my mind and caused strong disagreement from Blayne. I do not recall Duke even weighing in on the legality since the analysis began – so maybe they both disagree with my thoughts so far.
Let us first summarize where we are on point one.
Arguments can be made either way on this and both sides have their points.
One side claims it is illegal because Awlaki is an American citizen. As such before he can be punished he needs to be arrested, read his rights and then given a jury trial. Only then can we punish him. This they say is mandated under the Constitution.
The other side claims the Constitution is not so black and white and during a time of war we can attack those who are working to destroy this country whether they are citizens or not.
I found one scientific poll on this and 73% of the population agree with the second side.
The New York Times cites reasoning that Obama’s attorneys give for the action being legal. Among them are:
“The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.
“Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.
“The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.”
In my opinion the second side makes the strongest case. Suppose an American citizen had an atomic bomb pointed at New York and we had the chance to take him out before he pressed the button. Would we allow millions of people to die just so we can adhere to a black and white surface interpretation of the Constitution?
No. This does not make sense.
So far all judges and attorneys involved in decision-making have deemed the action legal and its legality thus stands unless the some action through the legal system proves otherwise. If this were to happen then I would agree that the action is illegal, even though I wouldn’t agree with that assessment.
Question: Is there anyone besides Blayne that disagrees with my conclusion? If so, why?
Oct 23, 2011
Re: Cyclopean vision
Good points, John. I’m sure that advanced beings with one eye do not suffer from the limitations of seeing that one of us have with one eye. Evolution always goes forward, not backwards. It is quite possible they can see more with the eye closed than we can see with both eyes open and that eye works in combination with other sight centers they use creating not only three dimensional seeing but dimensions we cannot even see. There are reasons the masonic symbol is called the “all-seeing eye.”
Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties
Larry W JJ quote, “…we see that the Molecule is basically a representative government, but with maximum authority (which can be removed at any time) in the hands of the leaders. It follows the Middle Way principle and uses the best of the democratic system combined with the efficient elements of the authoritarian system.”
I think if you look at the context where you got that quote, Dan, you will see JJ was talking about the business molecular relationship there.
JJ This principle basically applies to the spiritual molecule as well.
Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties
Good point Rick. If there is a principle involved you are on to it. Creation involves going from the disorganized to an almost perfect organization. In between there will be broken eggs. Perhaps we can call this “the broken eggs principle.” Without the broken eggs you will not have that great tasting omelet.
Oct 24, 2011
What springs to mind is the ‘Push the Boundary’ Principle. Children do it all the time, and it seems a natural aspect to growth.
The flip side is that those in power under glamour and illusion will also use it to their own gain, more often than not to the detriment of others. Once a precedent is set, it can be like opening a new door of opportunity for them.
JJ Glad to see you guys thinking about principles.
There is indeed a principle involved and “Push the Boundary” is a great name to describe one of its effects. But this is a branch of the real principle which gives us an opportunity to do some discovery:
Question: What is the real principle behind this Push the Boundary force and how it works?
Oct 24, 2011 Re: Moving Onward
Duke: Lincoln suspended civil liberties during an undeclared war, but so far we have not elected someone so evil as to twist that into justification for imprisoning political opponents.
Oct 25, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.2
Blayne: I admit I could have a blind spot. However I go to great lengths to try and re-examine things when told that or several I respect disagree with me. Could I still be missing it? Sure but after going over the facts several times there is nothing to suggest to me that I am missing something here.
JJ Unfortunately, facts are not enough to assure a correct decision. A number of us here are familiar with the same facts yet come to different conclusions. You have come to one conclusion and everyone else with the same facts has come to another.
And why is this?
It isn’t because you are honing in on some fact the rest is missing. Instead, it is that you have a strong attachment to certain values or ideals that are not that all-important to the rest of us. This causes you to take the same facts we use and come to an entirely different conclusion.
And what is that difference in values? You give a hint in your next statement.
Blayne: I hear yours and others reasoning and it is contrary to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
JJ This is not the core reason for most of our disagreements but a branch reason. We’ll deal with this for now.
First, innocent until proven guilty, is not a principle, but a procedure and not all nations practice it or believe in using it. In reality a person is guilty the instant he commits a crime. Instead of being a principle it is a procedure that has a place in our legal system.
If you believe it to be a principle then I can see why you would be fairly black and white that it must always transpire just as gravity always works.
So, here seems to be the reason we cannot agree on the first point.
You have a black and white view where the Solomon principle does not even apply, no exceptions, a person should be presumed innocent until found innocent or guilty by a jury trial.
I do not think anyone else here thinks that way. Here is my view that most here seem to support.
Innocent until proven guilty is a procedure and all procedures are subject to exceptions. In other words, there are times when the procedure does much more harm than good and in such cases they should be abandoned and replaced by something more efficient.
For instance, if we had evidence that a certain citizen was going to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York and there was not time to follow standard procedure then to hell with procedure – let us instead save millions of lives and neutralize the situation anyway possible. The people, as the final arbitrators of the law, would support such an action.
This is where the Second Key of judgment comes in.
Wise judgment always trumps procedure from a higher point of view.
Does this mean that the legal procedure of innocent until proven guilty is meaningless? No, of course not. All of our laws and legal procedures stand as written unless sound judgment and the will of the people decrees they should be overridden.
Does this mean that we should make a list of 10,000 exceptions to our legal procedures?
No. This again goes against the key of judgment. The people will have a feel for when a wise judgment is made that overrides procedure and if the judgment is in a gray area they will be forgiving.
Obama taking out Awlaki was in a gray area, but 73% of the people support it which gives evidence that good judgment was used.
Blayne I can’t do much more then that if all the arguments don’t make logical sense to me, and I am not going to concede until they do.
JJ The arguments do not make sense because they do not harmonize with that to which you give great value. If your values were the same as the rest of the group then the arguments would start to make sense.
Blayne Your excuse that I am just being a fundamentalist here does not apply because we are dealing with foundation principles of justice here; innocent until proven guilty.
JJ Justice and “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” are two very different things. True justice is only created by good judgment. “Innocent until proven guilty” requires no judgment but is a black and white procedure that usually helps insure justice, but not always. We should always seek justice, but we should not always seek the same black and white procedure.
And since we are dealing with black and white things the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” rarely happens even in a jury trial. Sometimes a person is proven guilty, as was O J Simpson. He was judged innocent because of bias. Other times there is not solid evidence of guilt but the guy is still found guilty. Rarely is a person proven guilty beyond any doubt.
You want “innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial” for every crime which is a different animal than a mere “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Those who judged the Awlaki situation most likely presumed he was innocent until the evidence convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of treason and more. So the procedure was most likely applied there, but without a jury trial. You do not have to have a jury trial to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, a jury trial does not always establish a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt as in O J Simpson.
Blayne Basically what you are saying is because judges and government have perverted the foundations of law through precedent we have to just go with it.
JJ Perverted is your choice of wording not mine. What perversion are you talking about?
If a law is declared legal by constitutionally appointed judges and I do not agree with that law then it is still the law and legal and binding in your society. And what do you suggest we do with laws we do not like – break them and go to jail? Complain about them? That doesn’t do much good. If a person is really outraged then he should seek to make changes.
Blayne So where do we draw the line?
JJ Once something is legal there is no line to draw. It is just legal and there is nothing you can do about it in the short term. You can disagree with it but you will still be subject to it until it is changed.
Blayne: Do we just abandon the principles of justice and allow ourselves to devolve until all the principles are no longer adhered to in any meaningful way because generations of corruption are the precedent?
JJ I’m certainly not abandoning any of my principles.
Blayne First of all the constitution does not give any rights at all.
JJ Where do you get that idea? Of course the Constitution gives us rights. That’s why we have different rights here than people in other countries.
We have the right to bear arms here but in North Korea they do not. What gives us that right where the North Koreans do not have it?
The Constitution and the will to uphold it.
We have many rights because of the Constitution that many in other countries just do not have.
There is a difference between something being right (correct) and “a right.”
Blayne Just because all branches approve does not mean it is lawful.
JJ Wow. If all branches of government cannot make a law which is legal then who can? By your reasoning then it would seem that nothing legal exists anywhere if legality cannot be decided by anyone living.
Blayne: So according to you since that is the reality we might as well abandon its principles.
JJ And what principle have I abandoned? The answer is none.
Blayne In light of this (the power of juries) why is it so hard for you to understand that a star chamber of attorneys approving hits is wrong and un-American?
JJ Not all legal decisions in the universe are made by juries. In Awlaki’s case the attorneys advised but did not make the decision. I understand it was the military in connection with Obama giving final approval. If you try and apply one solution to all legal problems this will create more problems than it solves.
Blayne: The Jury is the the forth branch and government and the most important.
JJ Yes juries are extremely important and need to be restored to their rightful place. They even have power to negate Constitutional law. But in times of war many things do not go through juries. One size does not fit all.
Blayne What is not logical about law needing to be foundationally moral? It is perfectly logical.
JJ You are not hearing me. I said nothing even close to this conclusion you have conjured. Whenever possible a law should be moral. I have NEVER said anything contrary to this.
BUT I have said that a law does not have to be moral to be legal. If those who have power to make law pass a law that says slavery is legal then it would be legal, but that wouldn’t make it moral. Oh, wait, we’ve already had a law like that which was Constitutional.
Blayne What is not logical is putting the stamp of some legislative and judicial process on something immoral and calling it legal.
JJ It happens now and then but it’s still legal just as immoral slavery once was.
Blayne: You still haven’t addressed the rape law scenario. Calling that legal would be absurd that is what is called “color of law” meaning it has the color of law but is not really law as it is immoral or harmful.
JJ Just as slavery was legal when declared legal by the authorities even so would rape be legal if it was passed as a law. In some countries rape is pretty much legal and one can legally rape his wife or even beat her. Not much morality there in what is legal – but it is still legal.
JJ (Previous Post) I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.
Blayne And you are wrong here it is in our jurisprudence. I have studied this stuff in depth.
JJ Then explain how slavery was both moral and legal if only the moral thing is legal.
Blayne: Basically what you are saying is if some group of thugs comes and takes over your neighborhood or town and starts abusing everyone and there is no one to stop them since that is the reality then that makes it legal as they are the new law.
JJ That’s crazy talk. We have a legal system set up and those who operate outside of the system cannot decide what is legal within that system.
On the other hand, if a group of thugs overthrew our government and instituted their own then they would have power to decide what was legal, just as Hitler did when he took over Germany.
You do not seem to be able to get it in your head that legal is not always moral. It was legal to abuse Jews in Hitler’s Germany but that was not right or moral.
You have a very strange ephemeral idea of what legal is and that is making this discussion a thousand times more complicated than in talking with anyone else here about this subject.
Blayne What you are saying in essence is might makes right or legal in this case.
JJ No. I’m not saying anything close to that. Legal is not always right. Might has not produced bad law here but it is the result of legal representatives we have chosen through election.
Blayne When in fact everyone knows it is not legal because it is not right. Sure everyone knows that is the reality but that does not make it legal. Well what the heck here is a couple references the second one a US supreme court ruling that bad laws are not law at all:
(Wordy legal quotations omitted)
JJ Your quotations say nothing about laws being moral only that they need to be in harmony with the Constitution or they can be thrown out. Both sides of the argument already believe that so why spend so much time on this?
The problem is that you think it is your sense of morality that determines Constitutional law rather than constitutionally appointed judges. Everyone thinks their interpretation of the Constitution is the right one and to avoid bedlam certain judges must be appointed to interpret law.
Blayne (Previous Post) So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.
JJ (Previous Post) I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.
Blayne Sure you said that due process of law in the 5th Amendment has no clear meaning leaving the door open to interpretation to allow star chambers of politically connected attorneys to order hits on American citizens. The sixth amendment defines due process as trial by jury by saying all are entitled to it. It could not be much more clear then that.
JJ I didn’t say “no clear meaning” I said “It can indeed be argued.” The President, his attorneys and military chiefs in a time of war are hardly a star chamber. The sixth amendment is a separate entity from the fifth and doesn’t even contain the phrase “due process.” How can it be defining something it does not even reference??? Due process merely means a legal process.
I don’ think you’ve refuted anything here.
JJ (Previous Post) So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.
JJ Blayne then gives a discourse on parking tickets and does not address the fact that it would be impossible to give every crime a jury trial.
Blayne What part of the Constitution being the law of the land do you not understand? I have showed you twice now how it DOES define due process and has been used in that definition.
JJ No you have not. You keep referencing the Sixth Amendment that does not even contain the words “due process” neither does it define the term. It is not clearly defined anywhere in the Constitution.
You are using traditional assumptions.
Blayne So you refuse to acknowledge the clear language of the 6th amendment that all men are guaranteed trial by jury. If all men accused of a crime are guaranteed such how is it that due process could be anything else? It is illogical to think otherwise.
JJ The sixth amendment does not even use the term “due process” is but speaks of some legalities which can be part (but not the whole) of due process.
The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
This gives the only other hint as to what due process is. Note the term “due process of law.”
Due process is merely considered to be following that which is legal. Most of the legal minds agree that Obama’s action was legal along with 73% of the people and, after all, the people are the final judge of the law.
Blayne: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson
JJ Good quote. He is in harmony with my thinking.
Blayne: We know what the Founders meant when they wrote it we have plenty of their writings of them telling us what they meant, as if the language of it was not plain enough.
JJ Not all the founders were in agreement on the contents of the Constitution. What they said may have influence on a judge’s interpretation but what is written in the actual Constitution is paramount and many of the lines are subject to interpretation. If you do not think so then you are in a very tiny minority.
You seem to think that a dozen people can read any line in the document and the wording is so clear that all will come to the same conclusion. This is La La Land thinking and history proves you absolutely incorrect. You and I who are both libertarians and we cannot even agree on many lines and you and I would both unitedly disagree with many Leftist interpretations.
Blayne: Tell me what is the spirit of the words of “In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” It says “all” not some.
JJ Awlaki was notified a year before his execution that that he was a wanted man and if he could not be captured and tried by jury he would be taken out. He had a year to exercise his right to a jury trial, but refused. So the word ALL did include Awlaki. He was then turned over to the due process of a military action.
What is and is not a criminal prosecution is also subject to interpretation.
Your thinking that everything in the document is crystal clear and no interpretation is needed is strange indeed and none of the Founders support you in this thinking. If there were not numerous ways of looking at the words and interpreting the words then we wouldn’t even need judges for this purpose. The Founders would not have created the Supreme Court if no interpretation of the Constitution was needed..
Blayne: I in fact would like to abolish the constitution.
JJ Wow. Who would have thought? What would you have in its place?
Blayne: So you can stop trying to associate me with the fundamentalist moniker.
JJ Pick six people here and ask them whether or not you sound very fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Constitution.
Blayne’s quote: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson.
JJ Again – a good quote.
JJ (Previous Post) This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:
“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”
Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.
Blayne And this is like listening to a liberal leftist saying oh the constitution is a living document and it means what ever some judge Attorney or the president says it means as long as he agrees with my liberal belief’s.
JJ This is the first time in my life I have been compared to a liberal leftist.
When leftists speak of the Constitution being a living document they are NOT referring to the fact that intelligent people can have differing interpretations. They are saying that they should be able to negate what is written as immoral and create law true their version of what is right and moral rather than by what is written or by adding amendments. I am totally against the leftist view of the “living document” as they understand it.
JJ (Previous Post) And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.
Blayne This is getting ridiculous. Nothing is perfect the point is all the evidence is heard by an impartial jury not a bunch of politically connected attorneys who are biased to an agenda. The attorneys are supposed to be making the case to a jury not ordering deaths.
JJ The question under consideration is – was the action legal? If it was then there was probably no more bias involved than would occur in the regular jury process. It looks like our main difference in thinking.
You think that a law has to fit in with your version of what is Constitutional, right and moral to be legal.
I think that laws are legal, whether I think they are right or not, if they have been created through our Constitutional process.
I’d say that over 90% of the people would agree with me on this and when 90% of the people support what is deemed to be legal then that legality will indeed be upheld until it is changed by new law.
I’m talking about legalities here, not whether Obama made the best possible choice in dealing with Awlaki. That comes later.
Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey
(You do not have to log in to add comments)