ON THE CROSS OF GOLD
February 16, 2015
There is nothing we say that is ultimately final and there is nothing we do that everyone will agree with. Concepts and perceptions abound andso too with ideas, doctrines, opinions, regulations, rulings, laws and theories which are scattered everywhere in bits and pieces. In a free society everything is a free-for-all. Every topic, every approach, every solution and every action is always an issue.
The element of dissent makes free speech meaningful to the point that everything in life is a battle of references. Conflicting references surround us and are intact in every dispute which is anybody's game. This is a panoramic view of the social conditions incubated in our adversarial society where confrontation is everyone's pleasure. There is always an issue for everyone has something to say. Issues lead us to the domain of reference everywhere disputes arise.
Our minds are crowded by a clutter of issues dealing with problems and solutions, causes and effects, and questions and answers. We are swarmed by marathon talkers from politicians and mass media bringing us nowhere with commentaries and opinions that pollute rather than purify issues. I find it hard to argue against those who buy ink by the barrel and it is not easy to change the thinking of people in power. What was unlawful in the past is now lawful today and what was immoral in the past is perfectly moral at this present time. What was right then will be wrong in the futureand what was wrong in the past has been made right today. This changing evolution of right and wrong made morality obsolete as it has become seasonaland generational. With conflicting references updated by the powers that be, issues of good and bad and right and wrong appear to be the enduring issues to the endof time. In short, issues never die. They just fade away.
Two sides on every issue is a playground for argument, a battleground for reason and a circus for explanation. Arguments and reasons collide to engage in a battle of persuasion where each side supports its position with references which are likewise opposed by cross-references from the other side. Argument is an open sky, reason has no demarcation lines and explanation knows no delineations. Every argument has a basis, every reason has a foundation and every explanation is tagged to logic. A party shops for references in bits and pieces and picks only those reference materials to support its own argument and reason. The same holds true with the other party. With conflicting references coming to full circle, the burden of proof dwindles and the standard of proof is not foolproof. The issue is magnified by a bundle of references from each side like the stuffing in a turkey.
What to believe is one thing and who to believe is another thing. Preponderance of reference materials is not easy to weigh especially when such materials come from courts of the same level. It becomes easier when such materials come from a lower court decision of one party and a higher court decision from another party. In any event, a fair decision makes a decision maker consider what to believe as the only formula for objective justice as opposed to who to believe which is the norm for subjective justice. Burden of proof and standard of proof are matters that occupy one's mind in determining what reference materials will prevail on the issue in dispute. However, there is no guarantee that someone with the best references will win for more often than not decision makers are just as biased and prejudiced as the parties themselves. Burden of proof and standard of proof are set aside when decision makers look at who is right in determining the prevailing party.
Except in cases of extrajudicial settlement, issues and disputes are argued in three stages. In each stage the same basic requirements of burden of proof and standard of proof apply. The party asserting the affirmative, i.e. the party coming up with a grievance or a claim, has the burden of proof and the standard of proof to make a prima facie case. In civil and administrative cases, preponderance of evidence is the standard of proof. In criminal cases, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard of proof. A hearing before an arbitrator, conciliator or mediator is the first stage and is called an alternative dispute resolution. A hearing before an investigator, a board or commission is the second stage and is called an administrative proceeding. A hearing before a magistrate, a judge or justices is the third stage and is called a judicial proceeding. In all these stages, believe it or not, stimuli plus personality equals decision.
One set of references may prove what is right and another set of references may prove who is right. One set of laws may prove what is legal and another set of laws based on the same facts may prove what is illegal. Questions of right and wrong are issues that have nothing to do with burden of proof and standard of proof, especially when stimuli and personality come into play. The integrity of the proceedings under these three stages are compromised when the parties in dispute are David and Goliath. Something is wrongwith a justice system that has become a respecter of persons where the rich get a fair shot while the poor get a raw deal. We are told that justice is blind, and because this is oftentimes repeated it has been accepted as true. I disagree for the ugly truth is that justice is not blind. It is filled with bias and prejudice embedded in the mind's eye. For as long as justice is occupied by people who have wants and needs, evidence is for sale, truth is for sale and justice is for sale.
Decision makers are not self-fulfilled and none of them reach self-actualization. Just like us they want to feel secure with friends and benefits that are in the position to do them favors. They want to be in the company and keep the friendship of those who could prepay their junkets elsewhere in paradise. Clout and connection play an important role in compartmentalized justice. Grave abuse of discretion and prejudice play a deterrent role in objective justice. Money and influence peddling play a motivating role in the dispensation of inequities. These human flaws account for miscarriage of justice to the point that acquitting the guilty amounts to punishing the innocent.
Equality and justice are the most basic of all human rights and the most fundamental of all human duties. These basic human rights and fundamental human duties are perpetually enshrined in the golden rule. Legal rights and legal duties come and go as government keeps redefining them from time to time but the golden rule remains relevant with time and circumstance. The golden rule is a rule embedded in every age, every color, every race and every creed for it belongs to humanity. It is acclaimed as a rule of ethical conduct referring to Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31 to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Burden of proof and standard of proof are relegated to ancestry. Equality and justice capitulate to the power of money. Undue exercise of discretion and the power of interpretation have driven decision makers to break away from the golden rule. The power of moneyhaddistorted the golden rule, disrupting the justice system and overthrowing standard of proof and burden proof. The power of money blurred ethical conduct and the guiding principle for even as it is a hard and fast rule, the power of money made everyone play it by ear. The power of money is both invasive and destructive as it seeks to change right is might into might is right. Violation of human rights has become a menacing culture of immunity and a frightful doctrine of impunity becausethe golden rule has been cooked on the cross of gold.