Now Hear This

It is in the nature of a “job” that sometimes They want you to do things you’d rather not do.

I try to avoid doing things I’d rather not do. Which is why I have never been known for making money.

At present I am employed in the law game. And occasionallyodor in the court the lawyers want me to go to court.

Now, going to court is one of those things I’d rather not do. Because it involves watching police officers testify as if they feared they’d be struck by lightning if they told the truth, prosecutors strutting around like they’re wearing swastika armbands, and judges leaping up from behind the bench to fawningly kneel to grovelingly offer their genitals, their brains, and their lips, to the prosecutors and the police.

There are enough nightmares in this world, without willingly offering oneself up to spectacles like that.

Recently one lawyer wanted me to go to a court where I would be subjected to a prosecutor who I swear has the number 666 carved into his forehead, and a police officer who has already “transferred” from two different local departments when his superiors wearied of the fact that his fingers would burst into flame if he even once inscribed an accurate police report.

I sent the lawyer the video clip below. Informing him that my sinuses were acting up. And that if he asked me—for whatever amount of money—to sit there and endure those swine, there was no doubt whatsoever that I would be compelled, there in the courtroom, to loudly and repeatedly emit the same sort of sounds as possessed Felix Unger.

I didn’t have to go.

Advertisements

11 Responses to “Now Hear This”


  1. 1 roger March 2, 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Rumpole would do all sorts of distracting things – tear a scrap of paper, blow his nose, all that, and of course call down the god of the English Common Law – the Magna Carta. It is, as Burroughs said, “innarestin'” that in fact The Great Writ is now entirely repealed. Some may have noticed that at the Oly-mpiks this was not even listed as a significant matter in English History – being replaced by – yup! Cyclops. (Did the artists put one over on her royal henie (HRH) ?). Well, now that everything’s illegal, who needs court? Or, as the Great Edwin Meese is supposed to have said to the Bar Association, “They wouldn’t be in jail if they weren’t guilty”.

    • 2 Miep O'Brien March 2, 2013 at 1:26 pm

      You have a point there. Since it’s mostly okay now to arrest us without probable cause, no need for concern about reasonable doubt.

    • 3 bluenred March 4, 2013 at 12:46 am

      One of my fave barristers is the retired Irving Kanarek, “the human continuance.” Dragging the trial on as long as possible was his goal: who knows what might happen? He once objected to a witness giving his name, claiming the name was hearsay, as the witness had first heard it from his mother. He was right, of course.

  2. 4 Miep O'Brien March 2, 2013 at 8:37 pm

    People run into trouble when they think the point of the law should be to protect us from each other. The point of the law should be to protect us from the police.

  3. 5 roger March 5, 2013 at 10:57 am

    Law is spoken of as if it were a coherent body of rules that lie in accord with long-established ways of doing and seeing. But law is divided into several sets of rules; things naturally bad – like murder or robbery – and things simply prohibited. Lawyers recognize this when they refer to an Nth rule as mala in se or mala prohibitia. Many might say that the drug laws are an example of mala prohibita rules. But generally both sets are in some relation to custom – moral custom. Hence what a law says is properly a matter of cultural and moral determination. However, there is – and some might say this is a new development in our unfolding history – another kind of law, a third category. This is properly known as ukase. Ukase occurs when a rule is decreed by an emperor. Ukase has no relationship to moral custom or to any culture – it is simply what the emperor or his minister says. Alas, juries might ignore such law, but they’re not permitted to rule on the law, only on the limited “evidence”. And from juries nearly anybody possessed of the tendency to analytic thought are famously and rigorously excluded. Me? I never advocate, but I’ll say that the Rabbis are right when they say that there’s only one law – do not do to somebody else anything you would not want done to yourself – and the rest is simply commentary. Ukase creates rapid anti cultural change, and some might recall what Hoffer said about change creating… uh, I’ll stop there. QED

  4. 8 Alexa May 14, 2013 at 10:31 pm

    thank you. i will. 😉

  5. 10 Alexa May 14, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    what’ll you have, honeybee? law-abiding citizens, dirty coppers, or my latest sacred duty and oath to secure mi comunidad speech? because all of these, palabras verdad. truth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Recent Comments

When I Worked

March 2013
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

%d bloggers like this: