RIGHTS ARE DEFENDED WITH LAWSUITS, NOT THROUGH THE POLITICAL PROCESS

No rational man would ask the public to debate the merits of his own selfish interests. Rights are selfish interests. People so often advocate for their own selfish interests by calling them rights, it is a common mistake to think people have a value for the ideal of rights – including your own rights – which one can appeal to. They do not. The Exxon Corporation might equally put to the public the question of what should be done with their oil. The public would say you should give it to us as free gas.

It has recently been proposed in this forum that we should hold a protest outside the courthouse. In my case I would be protesting the standardized use of perjury by prosecutors. But the general theme of our protest would be judges and lawyers who ignore the rules to fix cases along lines of political convenience. This serves their own self interest as operators within the political environment, and comes at the expense of the self interests of parties whose interests the courts are supposed to protect.

Laws and courts are not needed to discover and enact the public interest. This can be obtained by the force and threat of the mob in the street. Laws and courts are designed specifically as a fulcrum and lever to counterbalance against the force of public will. The anti-federalists were not confident their rights would be respected by a national collective. So they insisted that a Bill of Rights be logged, against which fulcrum the lever of the courts could be used to push back against the collective.

The Bill of Rights is like any contract. It provides a fulcrum for the weak against the strong, to force someone to do something he otherwise has the desire and power to not do. Contracts are needed specifically because agreements cannot be enforced by social appeals, but need the lever of the courts. No right exists which cannot be obtained through lawsuits in a court, but only through groveling to obtain the public pity. A man who asks the public for his rights goes into a desert in search of water.

People are all over Twitter, hoping to defend or obtain what they consider their rights to free speech, but which is just their preference what others should do. They want members of the legislative branch to call in employees of a private company, and lecture them on TV about what people want. They misuse the Bill of Rights as a tool to suggest what is good. But the Bill of Rights is only useful in a courtroom. The Constitution does not give Congress executive power to enforce some popular will and call it rights.

They deploy mob psychology, to produce a culture of what speech should be allowed by whom, to sway others to serve their own preference. Notably, they seek to override the rights of other private actors. All such social appeals to a collective, will produce a consensus to control the outcome of some process in the majority interest, against the interest of some individual rights. Any appeal to change the public opinion will at best result in a collective consensus that violates someone else’s rights not yours.

Our rights cannot be obtained through protest, because the political process has already voted and will always vote the same way. We cannot change the public will that individual rights be violated through abuse of discretion and perjury. Because the public will is defined as this exact collective interest against rights. Courts and the political process operate in natural opposition and conflict. If the court does not provide water, you cannot turn to the fire. The tool to oppose public will is the courts.

Criminal courts serve the public interest. A crime victim has no standing to sue in a criminal court. I believe a citizen has standing to petition for action, or injunction against action, by a public official such as judge or prosecutor. I believe a citizen also has standing to sue for misuse of public funds. A citizen can sue state actors in federal court for constitutional rights, and under USC 1983, to obtain injunctions against actions and critically enabling laws, that are likely to chill constitutional rights.

So I am looking to file a federal lawsuit against a judge or circuit, to obtain an injunction against certain official practices and enforcement of multiple case laws, which I can demonstrate constitute official violations of public duties and erode constitutional rights. I want to seek an injunction against various plea bargain and coercion practices that involve the rampant use of perjury, which I can easily document and demonstrate. And also some case law like “Ortega v. Post-Newsweek Stations”.