The whole topic of discussion in the blog is what could be called fractal?  The subject is so vast and intricate because it is actually so simple. I will enter the topic from many different avenues and eventually all of the posts and discussions will begin to make a cohesive whole, like a mosaic that doesn’t make sense when looked at from too close up will form a picture when the observer steps back and can take it all in at once. I suggest that the reader of these blogs, just reads for a while and lets it all soak in bit by bit.

​

“Right” to face one’s accuser

​

Could the only point be, really, who is it in court that has a bitch?  Who is it that is claiming that one made a claim?  Is it true that for a court to have jurisdiction that there has to be a controversy and for there to be a controversy, would there need to be two people bitching at each other? If there are not two people bitching at each other, where would be the controversy and where would be the jurisdition?

​

In a case such as THE STATE vs JOE BLOW,  where is the state?  Is it assumed that the state and joe blow are in a controversy?  I mean in godzilla vs the smog monster, godzilla and the smog monster are bitching with each other. In Ali vs Foreman, you have two people scrapping with each other. In the state vs joe blow, who is the state? where is the state? If you think you are joe blow and you get a letter saying that the state wants you to confirm or deny a charge, would it be best to ask to speak to the state? Does any court system make sense if one can’t speak to one’s accuser, speak to the one who has a bitch that you did something to them to cause injury or loss? If you go in there to so called court as a friend of the brothers and sisters to provide first hand reporting of one’s perceptions if one had such a thing and a brother or sister told you that the state had  an issue with you and asked you if you were guilty or not guilty, would it be best to ask to speak with the state so that you could help to settle any matter that the state might have with you?

​

Does it make sense that I could go to bob on the play ground and say that I am going to beat him up because sally said that bob put sally’s pigtails in ink?  Would it be best for bob to say- “Hey, could there be a mistake here?  I mean would it be best to get sally over here and make sure that all of the info that you are acting on is accurate and true? ”  What if sally had been talking about a different bob? Shit- what if maybe sally had lied?  Would it be best that bob get to face the actual accuser and cross examine her? Otherwise, where is the justice?  Otherwise is the system of justice being perverted?

​

So in the state vs joe blow, joe might get to talk to a prosecutor who would probably say that she represents the state. Fine, so the prosecutor is saying that she is acting, speaking on the behalf of the state- good for her, but when did she talk to the state last to get instructions or did she just get instructions from someone else who claims to represent the state who gets instructions from someone else who says that they represent the state? Where does the buck stop so to speak?  How can there be an accuser when the accuser never makes themselves known to the accused?

​

If you say something, you got to be able to prove it

​

He who makes a claim has the burden of proof.  Yet how can one prove anything other than by getting a sucker to believe in a story? If one believes a story, then I guess that the assertions made in the story are considered proven.  right? Where is truth other than when two or more agree, besides that could it be that all we have are the observations of perception?

​

So if you agree that the burden of proof falls on the accuser, would it be best to ask to speak to the accuser so that the accuser can have a chance to prove the accusations? And how can an accuser prove her accusations if the accuser never shows up to make a presentation? So, if someone makes a claim of loss or injury against joe, would it be best if the claimant came in to talk to joe and convince a jury that joe did what the claimant claims that joe did?

​

Now, if one agrees with a claim, the claim is as good as proven

 

How does one make it known that one agrees with the claim of another? Lets call a claim an offer, ok? What I mean is, if someone claims that the world is round, can we consider that claim as an offer looking for an acceptance? Let us say that one guy to the left claims (offers for your acceptance) that the world is flat and another guy on the right say that, claims, offers that the world is round, are any of the claimants right? We could ask them to prove their claims or we could simply just accept the assertion of one over the other without much perusal of the evidence.  We could say to the guy who says that the world is round that we agree with him and now we can consider his assertion as a proven matter for the moment, for purposes of further discussion. So we can accept an offer by saying, “ya, I agree.”  Could it be that another way to signify acceptance could be to simply remain silent to an offer? If someone says (claims) that the world is round and you don’t respond to the claim with a call for further evidence and you don’t call bullshit on the claim, could it be considered that the claim has been accepted as fact, that the offer has been accepted? Silence is tacit acceptance.  Could it be similar to a “russian” kid being told that he is a citizen of russia or an american kid being told that he is american?  Could it be that the kid is told such a thing often enough and that the kid never asks for proof and never denies the claim, that the kid has accepted the claim as true without ever having asked for proof?  Later when someone asks the kid if he is a citizen of his country, he could say that he knows for a fact that he is.  Could silence be tacit acceptance.  Could it be that he has accepted the offer of citizenship and is now a self professed citizen?

 

One need not speak of things which one knows not

​

Does it follow that if one has to prove that which one claims that it would be best to refrain from making claims, saying shit, that you know nothing about? If you talk about shit that you don’t know about, could it be that you are an asshole?  And what does one know anyways? Could it be that the only thing that one can know is that which one experiences? How does one know what a word means?  How does one know what day it is?