Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Prejudice, is it the "inn" thing?

Every one has a history. It is your story: This is true even if it is a "lie." The story put out their by a rogue prosecutor to project herself into being the "pink Prick." Colluding with others to do the will of the elites. She put her name on perjured testimony. She corrupted the validity of the law. She used her position for fame and fortune. She knew that the witnesses perjured their testimony. But she wanted to use this case as a stepping stone in her career, regardless of the fact that she swore an oath to not allow her own "prejudices" to interfere with the administration of the law. Yes! Because she was interfering with the pieces of the game - her personal prejudice. key point! The Social Contract says
Life is about the law that governs the situation. The context in question; Was it perjury, or not? Because if there is no evidence there can be no conviction; unless, of cause -there is corruption.  This is the game of Law: you act according to the statutes. But her prejudice begs to be heard; therefore, she says "guilty" based upon some instinct buried deep down in the dogma of the church -the bowel of her psyche. As far as I'm concerned, she did not care about the truth. She cares more about her perception of civic duty. For example, Men have a penis; you have a penis; you are a man; therefore, you are guilty of sin -guilty in "imagination" -their prejudice. There is nothing, if the church can get the edge over on your interest -in favor of their interest. If they can in fact do this, why is there a law? -A law of evidence?  Why should anyone be subjugated to a prejudice? What will you do about it? Nothing most likely because no one cares. Yes! I know that maybe you side on the side of those who believed that it was Marie Antoinette who did in fact say, "...Let them eat cake...."Well let me say, "fuck you" if you think that there is a place for individual prejudice in the administration of the Laws that governs the Social Contract.