| We probably know our readers better than they know themselves!!! The problem is, so do your adversaries, such as the banks, financial institutions, debt collectors, legal professions, the judiciary and "the State". HOW DOES THIS DESCRIPTION OF YOU FIT YOU? 'You have a need for other People to like and admire you, and yet you tend to be critical of yourself. While you have some personality weaknesses, you are generally able to compensate for them. You have considerable unused capacity that you have not turned to your advantage. Disciplined and self-controlled on the outside, you tend to be worried and insecure on the inside. At times you have serious doubts as to whether you have made the right decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain amount of change and variety and become dissatisfied when hemmed in by restrictions and limitations. You also pride yourself on being an independent thinker and do not accept others statements without satisfactory proof. But you have found it unwise to be too frank in revealing yourself to others. At times you are introverted, wary, and reserved. Some of your aspirations tend to be rather unrealistic'. Does this sound accurate? Does it describe you? It should do … it describes everyone. All the above statements came from a personality test carried out in 1948 by Bertran Forer. He gave students the test, and told them each one had been personally assessed, but gave everyone the very same analysis. The block of text above was a mishmash of lines taken from horoscopes collected by Forer for the experiment. The students rated the statement above as being 85% correct. So how did you fare? "if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles" - Sun Tzu "Know your enemies" starts with knowing yourself. If you find that the above statement is relatively accurate and correct about you, then your perceived enemy or adversary have a distinct and great advantage over you, and more especially if you do not know yourself. If you know yourself, then you can change yourself, and therefore make it difficult for your perceived enemy or adversary to find you and engage with you on their terms. There are times in any battle, war of attrition or competition to hide, to hit and to run, and there are times to stand and fight. It can sometimes be a very difficult thing for any Man or any Woman that has never been involved in some form of competition or competitive sport, to reconcile how to win a game. Similarly, one of the most challenging things even for People that have mastered their pursuit in competition of any sort, is to recognise when or if their opposition are wounded, vulnerable, weak or exposed, and how to finish them off completely and properly. In other words, how to get to the finish line and win. In general; most Children (People) are brought into and grow up in a world designed to be acquisitive and competitive, although babies are by their nature inquisitive and not acquisitive, and are by their nature cooperative and not competitive the day they are born. As they grow, society subjects and programmes them towards the all-important mantra of "survival of the fittest", and holds little place for those that are not prepared to compete to win. This is the contradiction we just don't get: If society has programmed and conditioned People in the modus-operandi of "survival of the fittest", wherein the strong should always slay the weak, why do so many People first of all, fail to see or identify when their opponents in the context of a Court of Law are vulnerable? And secondly why, even when they do see their opponents vulnerability and weakness, do they not per-say slay their opponent (metaphorically speaking of course)? To use a Boxing analogy: When a Boxer or Fighter is facing an opponent in the ring, if the Boxer identifies that their opponent has a Cut over their Eye, or possible Cracked Ribs, then the Boxer will focus on causing the maximum impact on the Eye or the Ribs, thus causing the maximum amount of hemorrhaging of blood, and/or of pain to his counterpart. In other words the Boxer will focus heavily on his opponents weakest and most vulnerable points, and will not be concerned about scoring points to get a "technical win". Every experienced Boxer knows: Continued loss of blood creates weakness, and sustained pain creates exhaustion, because at one time or another they may have been subjected to losing blood and/or suffering pain. The same analogy can be applied to a Court case. Thus far in ALL the cases that we have ever reviewed and/or worked on, EVERY Plaintiff and/or EVERY Accuser has made mistakes, errors, and/or omissions and/or will have inadvertently broken some law. ALL mistakes, errors, omissions and/or laws that are and have been broken is their "cut eye" or "damaged ribs", and if you do not keep jabbing and punching their "cut eye" and/or their "damaged ribs", then you are letting them off the hook, and they will get a "technical win". As they say 'a win is a win', and that is all they need or require, then on to their next target or conquest. The Ethical Dilemma: The biggest problem that most Lay Litigants (People) face in any Court of law, is that they carry their morals and/or principles on their shirt sleeves, and delude themselves that Solicitors, Lawyers, Bar*isters and Judges operate under and fight within the Law. To be absolutely Crystal Clear the Legal Professionals do not use the "Marquees of Queensberry Boxing Rules", the rules that they use are more akin to "Street Fighting", and a very dirty form of "Street Fighting" at that, as in, almost anything goes! A wounded animal is most dangerous. The place that most Lay Litigants come unstuck, is not that they cannot find their opponents weak or vulnerable spots, but that when they do establish them, they do not thrown in the jabs, punches, kicks, scratches or bites that cause the pain, and/or lead to a loss of life-blood. Most Lay Litigants back down after they have thrown a couple of jabs or punches, and most Lay Litigants won't kick their opponents when they are down. This is a big mistake. If your opponent gets back up, they will shake themselves down and finish you off entirely. When your legal opponent is down, it is your job to keep them down and make them stay down, and not just for your own personal benefit or gratification, but for the People (Lay Litigants), that may have to face the same opponent in the future. In other words, when you get them down, and you have beaten them per-say, it is now your personal moral duty and obligation to keep them off the streets, so that they can no longer do damage to any other Man or Woman. We are iterating this in light of some "wins" that People we have worked with have had in the Courts of late, and have perhaps revelled in the "win", not realising that they were allowing time to pass, for their legal opponent to catch their breath in preparation for another fight. In view of recent relative successes, it would be ideal to see some Legal Professionals and members of the Judiciary pay the equivalent price that a great many People of this Island have being paying for many generations, in that a great many members of the Legal Professions and Judiciary should be stripped of their offices/professions, the loss of their business, stripped of their assets/properties/lands/home, financially penalised, criminally charged and ultimately imprisoned. What's good for the Goose: When you do get a win, do not let up until the FULL penalty has been paid by the other side. After all if you got beaten in Court, the story just doesn't end there, in ends with you being penalised, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Remember; the only time you lose, is when you give up. Thinking Critically is remarkably easy to learn. Attend Trivium Three: www.Trivium3.eventbrite.com/ Access Password: T3 | 
No comments:
Post a Comment