Aren't cases that settle out of court a little too similar to Blackmail; in that the public does not receive whatever benefit knowing the truth might have provided them?
In as much as that is true; how many times has the public been victimized by this in how many different ways? The credibility or reputation might have saved a member of the American public from homelessness?
Hush money creates a two tiered legal system. It creates a system whereby the wealthy, no matter how they got their money are more immune to equal sentencing.
The reason cases settle out of court is because their is a whole lot of damning evidence that wealthy person doesn't want to be publicly known. Hence we get the idea that reputation, no matter how granted equals wealth preservation. As such are their those who are of equal skill means that will never earn what they should because a reputation of a wealthy person was falsely maintained?
Stuff like this bothers me. At some point I have to assert that some people should be evicted from the United States just because their money doesn't have integrity behind it. More to the point their money doesn't represent the values of the United States and our Constitution. We see this with political figures who advocate torture and or gun control. Both are unconstitutional and therefore treasonous. How can people like that represent United States currency with wealth? They don't, instead they erode it.
I also have to wonder about members of different races working for the United States government. Are they indeed loyal to us or some other lesser type of Government. And you know this is true just because of what they believe in. Religion is your belief system. You can't take those spots away from a person when it contradicts with Supreme United States law. It is as if a long knife came in from every other country in the world and took root in the United States and they don't believe what our country is founded to believe. They don't believe what our forefathers fought and died for. Their belief an expression of some odd spoiled will. And it is dangerous to the entire world. Why? Because what happens when all of the brave who believed in freedom are indeed impoverished by them? Who is going to be there to save those who could never have saved themselves in the first place. One thing that you don't know about the criminal mind is that it believes it is someone else. It believes in the idealism of being someone else. As such its thought constructs are not congruent. As long as that person is alive or they all believe themselves to be their adversary they are okay. But absent the adversary they attempt to act like they believe the adversary would. However because their isn't an adversary to be dependent minded to any longer. It is like a train about to derail. What functions as thought is something from a brain that had a hammer taken to it. And indeed a good way to tell is when a person becomes wealthy and famous who do they start to act like that becomes their downfall? Do you see what I am getting at? They didn't want to be something they were imprinted to be someone, else. Their idea of being famous...the happiness they thought they would attain from it...comes from the ability to act just how they believe a famous person they wanted to be would act like. And that is dangerous to them because it leads to epiphanies that contradict whatever little person is the core of themselves. Causing depression or psychotic aggression? How do they abuse power when they never thought for themselves for one moment as they rose to an ultimate power position. And better yet, who is it among us that loves to promote people like this? It is also that promoters worst nightmare come true in the end? Promoting flawed people as a means to increase popularity because it makes a good story? Never believing the flaw is important or perhaps rather knowing all along that the flaw is representative of a personal weakness in that person whereby cashing in on their downfall will never be a problem to you.
So that is a bunch of mumbo jumbo that was interjected to and broken up by the voices so that it couldn't be exactly articulated as I wanted to. But perhaps in all my bobbing, weaving and jabbing through that you still get the basic gestalt of what I was saying.
Back to the title. I wish I kept a list of all the bad policies and legal principles like this that defeat Democracy. Somebody should do it so that freedom does indeed last and prevail. Somebody needs to create a playbook to counter the playbook of legal principles that have historically defeated democracies. And a lot of those principles center around projections of self pity, falsely based human empathy, criminal creed and misconduct normalized by money.
Rather than let people like this defeat democracy wouldn't it be a lot better if we just nicely encouraged them to leave? And even Russia and China have to know that without a U.S. of strong integrity they are at risk! Did we not fight on the same side as the Soviet Union in WWII? Without the U.S. in that War would Russia have survived?
Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 11 28 2015 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com