janekane (imported) wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:07 am
I demand to be noticed or ignored according to the choice(s) of whosoever might notice or ignore me. Nothing like having a demand that cannot fail. Nothing like a demand which demands only that which would happen the same without the demand...
There are folks, and I work away at an effort to be one such, who ponder the deepest values , foundational beliefs, unquestionable edicts, and other such aspects of human society.
We, who are in the U.S.A., live in a society which was allegedly founded on the principle of the rule of law as contrasted with the rule of men. The rule of law seemed to work for a while. There were few enough laws that an ordinary person might have a pragmatic grasp of the law, and so be capable of abiding within the rule of law.
I happened to stumble into doing a bit of research. I supposedly have the sort of high-falutin' formal education that grants to me the privilege of the delusion that I have been educated in the ways of research.
If the results of an unintended experiment are fully known in advance, is an experiment actually possible, or is it possible only to replicate one or more prior experiments.
Consider the following experiment, one which may eventually become noticed...
Something happened contrary to my intentions and contrary to the effort I was making, and it happened because of the actions of people other than myself. The something led me to make an appointment, with my expecting to pay regular fees, to see the attorney who drafted my wife's and my wills.
I have a collection of posters, 11 by 17 inches, printed in color and laminated, of some original artwork I have done (I plan to bring the posters to the MoM). The posters touch upon what I believe may be deep social values which this commmunity and the Eunuch Archive Fiction Stores call into question.
The unintended experiment:
I showed the artwork posters to the attorney, and summarized my understanding of their meaning, taken as a whole"
janekane: "I understand that ignorance of the law is an excuse."
Atty: "No, ignorance of the law is no excuse
Well, I happen to have, as research resources, the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth editions of Black's Law Dictionary, and have read the Legal Maxims (spread throughout the Sixth and in an appendix at the back in the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth.
To me, my expressed view (one which challenges a long-standing legal tradition?) and the Attorney's expressed view, when combined, result in a testable hypothesis of the null-hypothesis / alternate-hypothesis form. The core of this testable hypothesis is of fact; "Is it fact of law that ignorance of the law is unavoidable?"
Either ignorance of the law is avoidable, as demonstrated by someone having avoided ignorance of the law, or, absent anyone being able to avoid ignorance of the law, it surely must needs be a fact of law that no one has demonstrated being capable of avoiding ignorance of the law.
The null hypothesis, "It is demonstrable fact that one or more persons have demonstrated being without any trace of ignorance of the law."
The alternate hypothesis, "It is demonstrable fact that no person has demonstrated being without any trace of ignorance of the law."
Diligent students of Popper, Lakatos, Feyerabend, and Kuhn may recognize that dichotomous null-alternate hypothesis structure, and so may others.
Let me start over with the experiment description, with the added introductory observation that the attorney is known to jakekane to be a member of a "Church" the name of which includes the word, "Christ"; it therefore seemed appropriate, in talking with the attorney, for me to include a reference to a supposed teaching of one Jesus of Nazareth, as will soon be revealed...
I showed the artwork posters to the attorney, and summarized my understanding of their meaning, taken as a whole, and the following word exchange (verbatim to the best of my recollection):
janekane, "I understand that ignorance of the law is an excuse."
Atty, "No, ignorance of the law is no excuse
janekane, "How many laws are there?
Atty, "I don't know.
janekane, "I called the American Bar Association headquarters some time ago, and they could not tell me how to find out how many laws there are."
Atty did not speak.
janekane, "Is it reasonable to require that people do the impossible?"
Atty, "I don't know."
janekane, "Is it decent to require that people do the impossible and punish them for the inescapable failure?"
Atty, "I don't know."
janekane, "What is the law?'
Atty, "I don't know."
janekane, "Well, I do know the law, and there is only one of them. 'We are to love the Lord, our God, with all of heart, mind, soul, and strength; and, in so doing, learn to properly love our neighbors as we learn properly to love ourselves; and in so doing, find ourselves learning the truth; and in leaning the truth, find ourselves being set free.' Now, you know the law. How much do I owe you?"
Atty, "Nothing."
The attorney promptly left the law firm conference room.
The next day, came a letter from the attorney, informing me that I was never again to communicate with the attorney at work or at home.
It is my observation that many laws now "on the books" require what other laws "on the books" prohibit. There is my observation that many attorneys and law professors have come to recognize that the law is what the judge says it is, and the judge says what the law was, during a possible infraction of law, only at trial; hence all law has become functionally ex-post-facto, and thereby a presumption of intrinsic unconstitutionality arises, given that a qualified attorney could not tell me what the law is. If a qualified attorney cannot answer the simple question, "What is the law?". what chance greater than identically zero for being law-abiding does anyone else have?
The matter of law and the rule of law may (or may not?) be of material significance regarding the Eunuch Archive Fiction Stories.
Will my concern ever be noticed?
I make no demand(s).
Is it possible to make this thread moreso group-serving?
I make no such demand.
shakemitk
(ref. boredom.)