Reality, a Swiss court, and bad lawyers

posted in: General | 0

Reality, a Swiss court, and bad lawyers

 

“A man that flies from his fear may find that he has only taken a short cut to meet it.”

J.R.R Tolkien

In the life of every honorable man comes a difficult moment … when the simple statement that this is black and that is white requires paying a high price.”

Adam Michnik, Polish dissident

 

Has anyone ever heard of a Swiss dissident?

“Well… why would you need one?”

Any naivety reflected in the above question would relate to legal system deception that cynically supports itself on the substantial myth of Alpine virtue. A case in the Swiss legal system demonstrates the point.

A district attorney in a particular jurisdiction was faced with a black and white choice. Prominent professors at a university had misused an accusation of sexual harassment to rid themselves of a mounting problem– an employee– of a nature actually unrelated to sex. In the process, employment contracts were violated, science papers mishandled, major scientific collaborations terminated, students were threatened– all while “blackballing” prevented the employee from reaching out to or hearing from other scientists. (Later, a scientist lied in court and a law professor helped her, either as a result of disqualifying ignorance or straight-up intent to deceive the court.)

What did the district attorney’s office do? It not only disregarded the reality of the false accusation by the professors (printed on university letterhead, along with the obvious, immediate removal of the employee in violation of contract and the cancellation of the scheduled class that he was to teach next day) … but they claimed it never happened.

District attorneys have the power to call black white. That power was used here, to deceive the public and create a fantasy world where tough decisions can be avoided at the expense of reality.

“Harsh judgment. Can you prove all or any of this?”

Yes, in fact all of it, with witnesses and in document form, no less. But being able to prove a fact and being allowed to prove it are two very different things. In a courtroom, the existence of evidence can be irrelevant if the information is politically unwelcome and certain “standards” are lacking. Evidence is suppressed; witnesses blocked from testifying. It happens in USA, and it happened here in Switzerland.

The defense lawyer and the law professor in the case helped conceal defense evidence, thereby preserving status quo and hierarchy. Rather than allow the potential objectivity of the law to emerge and the hearing of evidence, the defense lawyer explained that such issues in Switzerland can resolve by pressuring the “weakest link.”

The weakest link is the person who has the most labile nervous system. Raw evolution is allowed to take its course. The lawyer also made reference to the expediency of “suicides” in such cases.

Do they teach that at Swiss law schools?

The book Lawyers Broken Bad (www.lawyersbrokenbad) explains how evidence is concealed from or in courts in both the USA and Switzerland to achieve predetermined outcomes. There is also a bullet-pointed list of ethical and legal infractions committed in this case under https://www.lawyersbrokenbad.com/district-attorneydefense-lawyer-concealed-false-accusation-sexual-harassment-scientific-wrongdoing-swiss-university/

Further elaboration is unnecessary here.

Currently, on an international level, great concern is being expressed in regard to the mental stability of the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Essayist and political commentator Andrew Sullivan wrote a compelling argument in New York Magazine recently, entitled The Madness of King Donald (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/02/andrew-sullivan-the-madness-of-king-donald.html)

The essay warns of the dangers of a man whose sense of reality does not match its more common understanding in too many instances. The U.S president seems to be “playing with our heads.” And Sullivan is not the only one to notice.

When lawyers or police lie in court, the reinterpretation of verifiable facts isn’t called “madness.” Instead, such actions are dismissed, due to the fear that the legal system can impose on those who see the king without clothes.

We are seeing, for the first time at such a prominent level as the US presidency, the escalation of a strategy that has already been steadily increasing in intensity in the legal system for many years. District attorneys can virtually routinely lie in court now, as can the police (See evidentiary links in www.lawyersbrokenbad.com for references).

Courtrooms have become places to mold truth, not reveal truth.

Throughout the ages, reality distortion has been discussed philosophically as the ultimate sin against the humanity of an individual. To survive, an individual must have accurate information on his or her environment. As pointed out in Lawyers Broken Bad, the practice of law today has yielded to the practice of reality distortion, as it peels off and sacrifices many an individual, while the group fears the king. Courtrooms can become de facto deviant psychiatric clinics that practice the dark arts.

Statesman Henry Kissinger perceptively addressed the avoidance of difficult reality with his description of “the odious smell of truth.“ Needless to say, the source of the smell is not going to be welcome at the party.

There is a problem at a Swiss university and in a Swiss legal jurisdiction: Three German professors were permitted to remove an employee in violation of published university rules and (an) employment contract(s). (contracted to teach, contract to edit research publications) That removal helped conceal scientific wrongdoing.

In this case, when asked to say black is black and white is white, the people entrusted to do so failed miserably, confident that their version of easier reality would prevail by concealing the evidence.

What kind of men seek to distort reality, find truth odious, and try to turn white to black? Men who have things to hide? Perhaps the kind who may not have lived good lives?

At some point, someone has to say, “No.” The number of onlookers that it takes to do that is the true mark of a culture, even more so than chocolates, watches and ski vacations.

 

Mark Inglin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.