Johannes,
…>But I do not understand the retreat to moral and principle simplicity and absolutism.<
My friend, it is not moral absolutism to require a defendant to tell the truth in a court of law. This is simply a logical requirement of our legal system if we are to maintain a viable society.
You seem literally to argue that a defendant has the right to lie to a court should he determine the court has overstepped its authority. Surely you can see how untenable a doctrine this is. We as a society have mutually agreed to the terms of general engagement in legal disputes. Those terms do not include lying. When a defendant uses lies in court to settle arguments against him, he is in effect declaring war against society. Again, society has everywhere already declared the general terms of engagement and those terms do not include lying. Clinton could have appealed to the 5th Amendment, or to a higher court. While I understand the argument that in the latter case the “damage” would have already been done, the court, by training its attention upon Lewinsky in effect claimed such “damage” necessary to get to the truth of Jones's claims. It was the court's decision, not Clinton's.
>The highest Separation in America does not occur between legislative, judicial, and executive, it is between the Federal government, the Local governments, and each individual citizen. The court system is only a part of a part of our country.
My argument begins that the court may have exceeded its authority.<
The court has no authority to force a defendant to give up his right to plead the 5th Amendment. If an individual charges another individual with a crime, then in accordance with our society's accepted terms of engagement the courts have every right to inquire as to the details and factors that may support or refute the charges. This is why Judge Wright yet considers holding Clinton in contempt of court. He swore to society and to society's legal system that he would abide by the mutually accepted terms of engagement, and then he abused society by using what is not included in the terms.
>1) The argument I then raise is that, indeed, the facts support the court having exceeded its authority by demanding immaterial testimony. [This is an argument of fact, so not established.]<
Yes. You are correct in saying the argument is not established. This is why we have all agreed to use courts. Instead of provoking instability by allowing individuals to take it upon themselves to use lies, deceit and weapons to establish such arguments, we have decided to use courts. If the courts will not do their job fairly (instead allowing lies as legal devices) then individuals will be compelled to use whatever methods they deem appropriate to settle their disputes.
You cannot here argue with much force that the court exceeded its authority. You are but one person. The terms of legal engagement are established by society via Congress, deliberated by the Judiciary and implemented by the Executive branch of our government. This is the system Americans have accepted. You here propose something altogether different.
>2) I then point to our agreement that Clinton stood to suffer real damages. [This is thus no argument.] 3) I then bring attention to the fact of the damages being:
3a) irreparable, and so not amenable to fixing after the fact. [This is an argument of fact.] and 3b) done within the actual court process, disclosure. [Again, an arguable fact.]
Because 1)the court is in error…<
Your argument died with its first point. The notion that the court may have exceeded its authority is most debatable, and yet by no means affords the individual the right to change the mutually accepted terms of legal engagement. If Clinton did not like those terms, then he had the option of declaring war against us (which he did), which would have given us recourse to punish him, at the least banish him from office (both of which we have failed to do).
(snip the rest of the argument)
>This approach is not a loophole, it is written into and grounds our original Constitution. Had Clinton not invoked this highest right, he would have been disrespectful to the Constitution, allowing a court to do injustice.<
The right to lie as a defense in a court of law is not codified within the ninth and tenth Amendments of the Constitution. No reputable legal scholar will agree with you here.
>Having to come to this resort was clearly distasteful to him.<
No doubt. He should have pleaded the fifth.
>The individual citizen must have this right and power to invoke 'immediate appeal'…<
He does have this right. The individual can appeal to the fifth Amendment. Our system cannot touch him should he make this appeal. Clinton thought that no evidence existed that would tie him sexually to Lewinsky. So he thought he could boldly stand firm and lie his way to credibility. Do not defend this, my friend. Your man is a liar and a cheat, a man who assaulted your legal system and society.
>Under Nazi law, the supremacy of the state and its courts allowed such intrusion into private matters. Using them as only extreme example, not a comparison, the possibility of the law as master is as clear as the king as master.<
The law is indeed Master in that all individuals in our society have willingly subjected themselves to it. Should one of those individuals claim to be part of society, but yet reveal an unwillingness to be subjected to the law, society has an obligation to punish that individual such that he either repents, is banished (i.e. Jail, deportation, etc. etc.) and/or is fined.
>I look at the ordeal from an Occam's Razor criteria: On one hand is that the P.J. lawyers, as Officers of the Court, as well-funded, experienced, expert and avowed Clinton enemies….<
I cannot see how any of this has anything whatever to do with Occam's Razor. Jones's supporters are completely irrelevant to her case. Here is how we might apply Occam's Razor to the case:
Instead of claiming Clinton wasn't listening when he claimed Lewinsky's affidavit was “absolutely true”, instead of claiming his definition of “Sexual relations” really is different from that of virtually every single American in the country, instead of claiming he does not know the meanings of the words “is” and “alone”, instead of claiming he was just refreshing his memory when he prepped Madam Currie with his listing of questions, instead of claiming he merely “misled” his cabinet members concerning his relationship with Lewinsky, it is all so very much more plausible and clearer that he lied and obstructed justice.
>I have no doubt grand juries can not try private matters, including sexual behavior…<
The private matter concerned lying to a court of law. Simply because the lie concerned sex is irrelevant. |
