Honest vs. Dishonest -- Legal vs. Illegal

[wrs]

These are my own thoughts respond if you want.

Many people today believe that honesty and law-abiding go hand in hand. Let's exmine this by looking at the definition of honest:

Honest: 1a: free from fraud or deception

Now for the definition of legal:

Legal: 1 : of or relating to law 2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law

So legality has nothing to do with fraud and deception, legality just refers to whether something
is based on law or not. Now when one enters a contract, one is making a law. That is fact,
contract law is the most basic. When one makes an agreement to fulfil a contract but
believes that it's possible that under normal cirucmstances they may not be able to fulfil that
contract, they are acting legally but dishonestly.

Now most contracts are clear enough that they include penalties for failure to comply and that is
the penalty for breaking the law i.e the contract. So law-breakers are usually penalized, even
contractually. However, the US code has made it legal to nullify contracts and that in and of
itself is a violation of the intent of the framers of the constitution, to wit:

""Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary
to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public
councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative
interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and
influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the
community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788."

The constitution directly prohibits bills of attainder and ex-post facto laws but it hasn't kept
either of them from being implemented by congress and the exectuive branch. An ex-post facto law
is one which makes something that was legal, illegal and moreover, makes it retroactively
illegal.A bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out one or more persons and imposes
punishment on them, without benefit of trial.

The perfect case in point was the series of executive orders issued by FDR concerning the private
ownership of gold and the right to implement contracts with gold payment clauses. In this case
the government singled out the holders of gold and called them hoarders and punished them for
the crime of hoarding by forcing them to give up their gold. In addition to this, the government
acted in an ex-post facto manner by anulling all existing gold contracts, therefore they made
future gold contracts illegal and made all existing gold contracts illegal. These laws were
approved by Congress on March 9, 1933 under the guise of The Emergency Banking Relief Act which
passed in 40 minutes with no discussion, not unlike the Patriot Act.

The Emergency Banking Relief Act gave the president powers that the Congress didn't have itself
and so really has no constitutional basis. This act allowed the president to close banks and
this was yet another impairment of contract by the government in favor of the banks and most
certainly to the disadvantage of the depositors. It was essentially a bill of attainder in
that it hurt depositors and shut down banks that would not comply with the requirements of
the gold ownership prohibitions that followed.

These odious actions are well documented and mostly ignored by people today because they aren't
taught for what they were. Instead of focusing on what preceded the New Deal, which was
dishonesty on a large scale by the government with respect to the governed, we are taught how
the New Deal saved the people from destitution. Nothing could be further from the truth and
more dishonest.

How one asks can that which is clearly illegal, i.e. contrary to the constitution, become legal?
The answer is simple, no one contests it and it becomes legal in the de-facto sense but not the
de-jure sense or they are challenged and subseqently the challenge is lost in the Supreme
Court. There were three challenges to the gold contract executive orders that the
Supreme Court answered in one decision and in a 5-4 ruling they decided against the plaintiffs.
It took 40 years for Congress to restore that which they allowed the President to take away
in 1933 but not until incalculable damage had already been done to our liberty. In the
meantime the Congress passed the SS act which was challenged in the Supreme Court and the
challenge was upheld so Roosevelt packed the court to obtain a decision 3 years later in favor
of SS.

The people that created ths idiotic system (SS) are long since dead and those that were their
children are reaping the benefits while those of the third generation are paying those benefits
and clearly able to see that the fourth generation can in no way pay our benefits. We are
expected to believe that the government will find some way out of this without defaulting on
it's agreement. Well I would have to ask, if the government defaulted on it's promise to
give gold in exchange for it's notes, why should we expect that the promise of SS will be
kept when it's clear that there is no way to do it?

Tell me, is our government honest or dishonest? If you answer the latter, how can one expect
that laws passed by our government are honest? If the law is not honest then why should it
be respected? The concept of the rule of law is based in the notion that laws are honest
while the rule of the dictator makes no such pretense, as Mao said, all authority proceeds
from the barrel of a gun. If our laws are no longer honest, what is different between living
in the US and communist China? If our laws are honest then how can you explain the
Emergency Banking Act and the Patriot Act?

I believe that living in the United States is now like living in a building where the contractor
took a bribe to use cheap cement. The dishonest laws represent the cheap weakened cement,
when the ground shakes, we will see the effect of the cheap cement. As long as the ground
doesn't shake, the effects aren't noticed. I believe the ground started shaking with
Hurricane Katrina.

[money matters]

If you are a Born-Again Christian, you live by the Guidance of HIS Holy Spirit and are not bound unto this world. At some time you just have to decide.

Pretty obvious that fraud and deceit are at the heart of all the "promises to pay" and "promises to the people".

It is a dangerous game to attempt service unto 2 masters.

Those bound to the world, skate on by; living on their wits and by the seat of their pants.

Those who've Surrendered their lives Unto YahWeh, are not driven by the same fear-motivation mentality. God shows us HIS Realness and HIS Provision and Protection.

Most simply pay HIM lip-service.
Soon, very soon; all will Know HE IS REAL, Judgment Is Coming, and to Worship HIM.

Maranatha!!!

Unfortunately, Mao's maxim is true. And I am in agreement with HT when he says that our system (legal or otherwise) is designed to preserve a hierarchy of power. The parasitic minority at the top construct the laws and institutions which the rest of humanity at the bottom are forced to follow. Such has been the case for millennia. All of recorded human history resolves itself to this ongoing attempt by a hidden minority (Top) to benefit at the expense of the majority (Bottom), a history of covert parasitism.
The so-called War Crimes Tribunal is a case in point. Who created it and who has vested it with authority to pass judgement on so-called war criminals? Who defines who is a war criminal. The Top, naturally. They alone decide what is legal or illegal. Were the Opium Wars legal or illegal? I am quite sure how the Crown would have answered that question at the time.

[_79]

Originally Posted by wrs

These are my own thoughts respond if you want.
Many people today believe that honesty and law-abiding go hand in hand. Let's exmine this by looking at the definition of honest:
Honest: 1a: free from fraud or deception
Now for the definition of legal:
Legal: 1 : of or relating to law 2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law
So legality has nothing to do with fraud and deception, legality just refers to whether something
is based on law or not. Now when one enters a contract, one is making a law. That is fact,
contract law is the most basic. When one makes an agreement to fulfil a contract but
believes that it's possible that under normal cirucmstances they may not be able to fulfil that
contract, they are acting legally but dishonestly.
Now most contracts are clear enough that they include penalties for failure to comply and that is
the penalty for breaking the law i.e the contract. So law-breakers are usually penalized, even
contractually. However, the US code has made it legal to nullify contracts and that in and of
itself is a violation of the intent of the framers of the constitution, to wit:
""Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary
to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public
councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative
interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and
influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the
community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788."
The constitution directly prohibits bills of attainder and ex-post facto laws but it hasn't kept
either of them from being implemented by congress and the exectuive branch. An ex-post facto law
is one which makes something that was legal, illegal and moreover, makes it retroactively
illegal.A bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out one or more persons and imposes
punishment on them, without benefit of trial.
The perfect case in point was the series of executive orders issued by FDR concerning the private
ownership of gold and the right to implement contracts with gold payment clauses. In this case
the government singled out the holders of gold and called them hoarders and punished them for
the crime of hoarding by forcing them to give up their gold. In addition to this, the government
acted in an ex-post facto manner by anulling all existing gold contracts, therefore they made
future gold contracts illegal and made all existing gold contracts illegal. These laws were
approved by Congress on March 9, 1933 under the guise of The Emergency Banking Relief Act which
passed in 40 minutes with no discussion, not unlike the Patriot Act.
The Emergency Banking Relief Act gave the president powers that the Congress didn't have itself
and so really has no constitutional basis. This act allowed the president to close banks and
this was yet another impairment of contract by the government in favor of the banks and most
certainly to the disadvantage of the depositors. It was essentially a bill of attainder in
that it hurt depositors and shut down banks that would not comply with the requirements of
the gold ownership prohibitions that followed.
These odious actions are well documented and mostly ignored by people today because they aren't
taught for what they were. Instead of focusing on what preceded the New Deal, which was
dishonesty on a large scale by the government with respect to the governed, we are taught how
the New Deal saved the people from destitution. Nothing could be further from the truth and
more dishonest.
How one asks can that which is clearly illegal, i.e. contrary to the constitution, become legal?
The answer is simple, no one contests it and it becomes legal in the de-facto sense but not the
de-jure sense or they are challenged and subseqently the challenge is lost in the Supreme
Court. There were three challenges to the gold contract executive orders that the
Supreme Court answered in one decision and in a 5-4 ruling they decided against the plaintiffs.
It took 40 years for Congress to restore that which they allowed the President to take away
in 1933 but not until incalculable damage had already been done to our liberty. In the
meantime the Congress passed the SS act which was challenged in the Supreme Court and the
challenge was upheld so Roosevelt packed the court to obtain a decision 3 years later in favor
of SS.
The people that created ths idiotic system (SS) are long since dead and those that were their
children are reaping the benefits while those of the third generation are paying those benefits
and clearly able to see that the fourth generation can in no way pay our benefits. We are
expected to believe that the government will find some way out of this without defaulting on
it's agreement. Well I would have to ask, if the government defaulted on it's promise to
give gold in exchange for it's notes, why should we expect that the promise of SS will be
kept when it's clear that there is no way to do it?
Tell me, is our government honest or dishonest? If you answer the latter, how can one expect
that laws passed by our government are honest? If the law is not honest then why should it
be respected? The concept of the rule of law is based in the notion that laws are honest
while the rule of the dictator makes no such pretense, as Mao said, all authority proceeds
from the barrel of a gun. If our laws are no longer honest, what is different between living
in the US and communist China? If our laws are honest then how can you explain the
Emergency Banking Act and the Patriot Act?
I believe that living in the United States is now like living in a building where the contractor
took a bribe to use cheap cement. The dishonest laws represent the cheap weakened cement,
when the ground shakes, we will see the effect of the cheap cement. As long as the ground
doesn't shake, the effects aren't noticed. I believe the ground started shaking with
Hurricane Katrina.

wrs, you gave much deep thinking to these problems, i can't do this due to Mogamboish nature of my character.

Would not you like to refer to natural law instead, or in a addition ?

It has 2 (two) premises: 1. Do not harm anybody 2. Respect any contract.

The standing guy (and armies) in the middle of these ways is just the "legalized" way for slow killing. "The power to tax is the power to destroy".

Morality of a man has nothing to do with the "legality" of his actions. for one is the result of his beleifs, and the other - is the result of the impositions by the crowds and their wardlords.

[Tn...Andy]

GREAT post wrs.....thanks !

[Hypertiger]

Originally Posted by little-O

Unfortunately, Mao's maxim is true. And I am in agreement with HT when he says that our system (legal or otherwise) is designed to preserve a hierarchy of power. The parasitic minority at the top construct the laws and institutions which the rest of humanity at the bottom are forced to follow. Such has been the case for millennia. All of recorded human history resolves itself to this ongoing attempt by a hidden minority (Top) to benefit at the expense of the majority (Bottom), a history of covert parasitism.
The so-called War Crimes Tribunal is a case in point. Who created it and who has vested it with authority to pass judgement on so-called war criminals? Who defines who is a war criminal. The Top, naturally. They alone decide what is legal or illegal. Were the Opium Wars legal or illegal? I am quite sure how the Crown would have answered that question at the time.

They the top of the Hierarchy construct the rules that WRS and money matters mistakenly call laws...

Mao's Marxism? Have you read the red book? I have and it is just an absolute capitalist rule book...

Communism is just a another Absolute capitalist system...It is not based on Law it is based on rules of which most go against the LAW of the Universe...

It is patterned after the Brahmin caste method while the current absolute capitalist system is based on the Babylonian method to operate and sustain a food powered make work project...

3J has promoted the belief that Ignorance is truth...When in fact Ignorance of the truth is the root of all evil...

Truth has been obvious for 1000's of years yet Money matters says that soon you are all going to see it...Yes hopefully this is the last time you all need to see the truth and will accept it this time since all along the past 1000's of years you have been seeing truth and rejecting it...

I enter into an contract with another to complete a task and it will require a day and a 100 person workforce...When the task is completed I will recieve $10,000...I complete it and pay the 100 subcontracted people $50 and I pay myself $5000...

You can easily see it now...

It's no mystery to me...But as I said ignorance of the truth is the root of all evil...As long as those above workers are ignorant of the truth I can claim to be treating them equally...The inequality is not exposed...

Yes Wrs and Money matters you all are going to see the truth and you ain't going to like it especially when you find that your current cherished beliefs that you have performed some favor or service that GOD is going to reward you for are false beliefs...

Sorry but I did pick up a red hot iron with my bare hands and my ignorance of the truth did not save me from paying for the evil act I had commited...Unless you are like me and accepted the reward as a reward...That was the reward GOD gave me for my ignorance...

You two are not going to escape your reward.

It's is going to be a real jaw dropper for you two...For everyone.

It won't be for me...I have known since I was born...Believe me I have tried very hard to see it the way you two and almost everyone does...

I would have to go against GOD to accomplish that...sorry. I know that is impossible so for me to see it like you poor unfortunates do is impossible.

[wrs]

Well HT, I don't see much for you to argue about in my post, what you have done instead of addressing the post is to go off on a tangent based on the comments of money matters. If you would stick with my post, you would see it is about truth. Honest contracts are written to enforce truth. The definition of truth according to Webster is:

1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance

So therefore adhering to an honest contract is truth. Writing an honest contract is truthful. Hence my point is that if the law cannot be honest (truthful) how can those who issue the laws be trusted? You constantly harp on the top sucking from the bottom but you fail to ever give a solution to the problem. People acting honestly is the answer and that is what Natural Law says as well as Biblical Law says and if you adhere to truth as your guide, then that is what your conscience should tell you as well...................

[Hypertiger]

There has not been an honest contract in 1000's and 1000's of years...sorry.

The LAW is enforced by GOD...And there is no contract involved.

All the contracts you have ever signed are against GOD and all attempt to break the LAW.

You are again mistaking rules that require enforcement as Laws sorry...

Laws are self enforcing...

Lies need enforcement truth does not...sorry...

I'm fully aware that you are unaware...And you must maintain your ignorance since you are dependant upon it to sustain your will to live as you currently have chosen to see fit.

You have strayed too far from the right path to turn back currently.

You are like the others who think I'm on their side while I'm tied up with another...You are mistaken...I'm on no ones side...

You are to follow GOD...You are to be on the side of truth...You can not serve or follow two masters...

Devils deal in contracts. GOD does not.

[hoarder]

Originally Posted by _79

Would not you like to refer to natural law instead, or in a addition ?
It has 2 (two) premises: 1. Do not harm anybody 2. Respect any contract.

Sounds better than the status quo but even sanctity of contract is a flawed idea.
It is easily circumvented by complexity. Look at how often merchants offer something and when you get there people are lined up to sign a contract they do not understand and the merchant knows they do not understand, nor has he provided them with enough time to study them. Unless the merchant intends for signers to fully understand the contract they offer, those who breach that contract have not neccessarily done anything immoral in many cases, IMO.
Our legal system and contracts have become so complex that most parties entering into contracts do not understand them and those who don't want others to understand them simply make them unnecessarily complex.
I have thought about the gap between morality and law before, as I'm sure most here have. The same applies to enforcement. Cops can only expect to receive as much respect for the laws they enforce as the laws themselves command, no matter how professionally they enforce them.

[wrs]

That is my point to HT but he chose to ignore it in his typically oblique response. See he cannot accept that a contract is required in order to make clear what each side agrees to do. People can forget or things can change and that is what contracts are for. An honest contract is one in which there is no fraud or deception.

HT, you are incorrect regarding contracts, they are needed to make clear what the obligations of each side are if nothing more. Whether or not you enforce a penalty with a contract is another matter but there are any number of instances where contracts are important in achieving any kind of progress. Your statement that devils deal in contracts is incomplete, devils deal in dishonest contracts but God does not. God does deal in contracts but again you cannot see that. If ignorance of the truth is evil then what does your god do with evildoers? If your god punishes evil then he deals in contracts. If he doesn't punish or correct evil then what is evil and what is truth? Sorry, you haven't got a very reasonable set of premises for your philosophy..................

[hoarder]

Maybe HT is the type who enters into agreements knowingly and then decides later whether or not they are just.

[Hypertiger]

Originally Posted by wrs

That is my point to HT but he chose to ignore it in his typically oblique response. See he cannot accept that a contract is required in order to make clear what each side agrees to do. People can forget or things can change and that is what contracts are for. An honest contract is one in which there is no fraud or deception.
HT, you are incorrect regarding contracts, they are needed to make clear what the obligations of each side are if nothing more. Whether or not you enforce a penalty with a contract is another matter but there are any number of instances where contracts are important in achieving any kind of progress. Your statement that devils deal in contracts is incomplete, devils deal in dishonest contracts but God does not. God does deal in contracts but again you cannot see that. If ignorance of the truth is evil then what does your god do with evildoers? If your god punishes evil then he deals in contracts. If he doesn't punish or correct evil then what is evil and what is truth? Sorry, you haven't got a very reasonable set of premises for your philosophy..................

I'm incorrect because you are dependant upon contracts to be your master or your slaves master...

That is why you think I'm incorrect...

I'm not incorrect...

My GOD? Is the GOD of all...

GOD does not punish evil doers....You finish yourselves off trying to defeat truth.

Your defeat is the reward you will recieve when you choose to attemp to defeat GOD.

Sorry but I'm not part of a social club that dresses up in spiffy duds produced by slave labor calling itself the true Religion.

Like I said I'm on no ones side...And I have a very limited ability to help others...Most contracts demand far too much for me to entertain and of the ones you force me to be party to I will break them and you when if you think for a second that I will drop to my knees and worship false GODS or Lords...You poor unfortunates sign your souls away carelessly...You trample over each other in a stampede to do so...

If you try to prove to me that I'm wrong all you will do is prove that I'm right.

I'm not a game player at all...In the slightest...If that hurts your feelings then that is your reward for claiming ignorance.

Contracts are a game for game players.

It is impossible to mask the stench...reguardless of how much fabreeze you use.

Other than this interaction you would be oblivious of my existance.

[Hypertiger]

Originally Posted by hoarder

Maybe HT is the type who enters into agreements knowingly and then decides later whether or not they are just.

No WRS is that's why hes crying...

There is no way to enforce any contract that attempts to break the law...

And again The LAW not the rules of the ridiculous game you are all playing.

[goldissima]

.... you are incorrect regarding contracts, they are needed to make clear what the obligations of each side are if nothing more....

I believe HT right here. If everybody knew the absolute truth, nobody would act in the detriment of oneself (or/and beloved ones) automatically... if everybody knew that very absolue truth, where is the point to have it written on paper or even state rules? :albertein

PS: I cannot claim to be a HT follower but if dealing with absolutism, his reasoning makes sense.

[goldissima]

Honest vs. Dishonest -- Legal vs. Illegal

The laws punishing crimes between conencting adults illutrate this very well.... then take all the so-called christians against abortion but supporting legal genocides/wars. I cannot stand this illusion anymore. These days I do not laugh much, unless it is about the silliness/derision of our world.

[jerry]

AFRIKAN RESISTANCE, AFRIKAN LIBERATION
13 OCTOBER 2005

FROM:
COUNTERPUNCH

*********
*********

CALIFORNIA PREPARES TO EXECUTE TOOKIE WILLIAMS
Countdown to a Legal Lynching

By PHIL GASPER

http://www.counterpunch.org/gasper10122005.html
On the morning of October 11, the US Supreme Court declared that it will not hear the case of Stanley Tookie Williams, the most famous inmate on San Quentin's death row.

Last February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals turned down Stan's request for a new hearing by a vote of 15 to 9. But the minority issued a blistering dissent, condemning the "blatant, race-based jury selection" in Williams' original trial.

Williams appeal reached the Supreme Court in May, where it has been sitting ever since. A decision was originally expected last week, but the court delayed, reportedly to allow its new Chief Justice an opportunity to weigh in on the case. Now it has spoken in no uncertain terms.

Welcome to the racist Roberts' court.

The office of California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, wasted no time, announcing that it would be seeking a December 13 execution date for Williams.

The countdown to a legal lynching has begun, and the only thing that can stop it is a massive campaign by Stan's thousands of supporters around the state and around the world.

In 1971, at the age of seventeen, Stan Williams co-founded the Crips in Los Angeles, which rapidly became the city's most notorious street gang, spawning imitators around the country and eventually the globe.

Eight years later, with the Los Angeles Police Department eager to find any pretext for getting him off the street, Williams was charged with four murders. In 1981, he was convicted and sent to San Quentin.

In prison, Williams faced hostility and racism from the authorities and eventually served several years in solitary confinement. During this time, he began to rehabilitate himself and made the decision to leave the Crips and speak out against gang violence.

During the 1990s, with the assistance of journalist Barbara Becnel, Stan wrote a series of award-winning books for school children, warning them against gangs, crime and prison. He also set up the Internet Project for Street Peace, which encourages street gangs to stop fighting each other.

Stan's work has had an enormous impact in schools and inner-city communities. Last year, for instance, gang members in Newark, New Jersey negotiated a truce based on the "Tookie Protocol for Peace," which has remained in effect ever since.

This work has earned Stan a series of Nobel Prize nominations since 2001. (I am proud to have nominated him for the Peace Prize four times since 2002.) It also led a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit to make the unprecedented statement in 2002 that his anti-gang initiatives made Stan a strong candidate for clemency from the governor.

Since Jamie Foxx played Stan in last year's made-for-TV movie Redemption: The Stan Tookie Williams Story, many people have heard about his amazing anti-gang work. But the movie steered clear of seriously addressing Stan's original conviction, and so far fewer people are aware that he was framed for crimes that he did not commit.

The main evidence against Stan was the testimony of jailhouse informants who claimed that he had confessed to them. All of these "witnesses" were facing serious felony charges and had strong motivations to make a deal with the police to reduce their own sentences. In fact, in its 2002 ruling, the Ninth Circuit admitted that these informants had "less-than-clean backgrounds and incentives to lie in order to obtain leniency from the state in either charging or sentencing."

Since the original trial, another prisoner has come forward to say that he witnessed one of the informants being given the file on Stan's case by members of the Sheriff's Department so that he could learn details about the murders.

None of the physical evidence found at the two crime scenes, including fingerprints and a boot print, matched Stan. A witnesses description of a person seen leaving the scene of one of the crimes did not fit him either. A shotgun shell supposedly matched a weapon he had bought several years earlier, but that gun was in the possession of a couple that was also facing serious felony charges. After they claimed that Stan had confessed to them, however, the investigation against them was dropped.

To get the charges to stick, the prosecutor in the case, Robert Martin, used blatant racism. The trial was moved from Los Angeles to Torrance, a predominantly white, highly conservative area. All the African-Americans in the jury pool were dismissed and Stan's case was heard by an all-white jury.

In his closing argument, Martin compared Stan in the courtroom to a Bengal tiger in the zoo, and said that "in his environment" (i.e. South Central LA) he would behave like the tiger in its "habitat."

Despite the fact that Martin was later censured twice by the California Supreme Court for his racist practices, which led to death sentences in two of the cases he prosecuted being overturned, and despite the fact that the ACLU, the NAACP, the Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund and numerous other groups, filed an amicus brief on Stan's behalf, the Ninth Circuit has twice rejected the claim that his constitutional rights were violated. Now the Supreme Court has upheld these decisions.

After years of inadequate legal representation, Williams now has a top legal firm working on his behalf, which claims to have uncovered fresh evidence of his innocence. They will be attempting to get the courts to reopen the case while simultaneously preparing an appeal for clemency to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who showed no mercy in the execution of a severely brain-damaged prisoner at the beginning of the year.

But the legal strategy is hopeless without enormous outside pressure. Stan's case exemplifies many of the key problems with the death penalty-racism, inadequate counsel, reliance on jailhouse snitches, all of which may soon result in the execution of an innocent man. Stan Tookie Williams needs your help.

For information about what you can do to help save his life, visit http://www.savetookie.org.

Phil Gasper is Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame de Namur University in California and a member of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. He can be reached at pgasper@ndnu.edu.

[wrs]

Well here's the problem, who prints the truth? Where is the truth written down that everyone can agree is the truth? Since no such truth exists, HT is just rambling when he says ignorance of the truth is the root of evil. The fact remains, not all people agree on the absolutes and so contracts are required in order to maintain order and make progress as well as conduct business. So here we are, dealing with honest contracts which are free from deception and fraud and as such in and of themselves truthful, or we are dealing with dishonest contracts loaded with deception and fraud. Seems to me like Washington DC and Wall Street are full of the latter.

I as a Christian can certainly enter into a contract with a Muslim and neither of us has to compromise our beliefs in order to fulfil the contract. So in that way, if we are honest and truthful in our dealings with one another, we have done no evil and can certainly have different views on the absolutes. Contracts are therefore very important in order to facilitate social order and progress. The world that HT envisions is simply primitive............

[goldissima]

Well here's the problem, who prints the truth?

Everything/law that is subject to changes because evolution itself imposes those changes, is not the truth... there are just less feudal laws than others which all are bound to change as Knowledge moves up to the next level, one step at the time. As long as the elite -NWO - is out there, we'll have lawlessness/destructive anarchy anyway.

I have become disllusioned lately. Nothing can save Mankind from itself. It is a learning duty depending on each of us. Meanwhile the American Dream as enviosned by its Founders is dead - forever.