The “facts” people get from the news would be laughed out of court, but the masses gobble them up like candy.

 

The press listens attentively while the Pentagon spokeswoman explains how the go 5 big bad terrorists in the last week. 5's a lot!

The white house press is captivated at the briefing by the pentagon spokeswoman’s dramatic tale of how the brave government soldiers saved the unsuspecting towns people from 5 BIG BAD  lone wolf terrorists last week. I overheard the N.Y. Times reporter gasp… 5’s a lot!

Many lay people are fascinated by legal things. Or maybe I should say, things people imagine to be legal things. That’s why our controllers make so many preposterous legal shows and movies. They are dramatic and thrilling and provide an excellent and insidious way to continue the long con they run on everyone about all of the justice and freedom there is. The TV shows and movies bear no resemblance to the reality of the actual “just-a-system” that exists inside the world you inhabit, but then… that’s the whole point of brainwashing, isn’t it?

Today I am going to give you a quick lesson in the law of evidence, gratis. You are going to learn what hearsay actually is. People hear “objection, hearsay” on TV and in movies all the time, but really they have no idea what it is. And, it is my hope, that once you learn what it is, that you will then be able to use that concept in your everyday life to help you negotiate the maze of lies they have you living in.

Technically hearsay is a form of inadmissible evidence. Like speculation, or opinion, or testimony given without a proper “foundation”. If something is “hearsay” then it is NOT admissible evidence. Evidence is supposed to be factual and reliable.

The underlying concepts developed by lawyers over a long period of time can be very useful in thinking about what type of information is reliable factual evidence. The centerpiece of all methods for ferreting out the truth, or more accurately, for ferreting out what is not true, is cross examination.

Ask yourself, would you agree to a trial where you didn’t have the right to cross examine the witnesses against you? I doubt it. That is why you have a constitutional right to face the witnesses against you. And would you trust the results of any trial where the evidence was not cross examined? Again, I doubt it.

An unnamed source sent me this top secret document showing some of the planning that went on behind the scenes at the NSA. Apparently they are adding some great new characters to the show this season!! Yay, set your DVR.

An unnamed source sent me this top secret story board showing some of the ideas they are floating at the NSA pitch meetings. Apparently they may be adding some great new characters and a touch of romance to the ISIS lineup this season!!  So be sure to set your DVR to find out — on  the news.

The simple reality is that most any “story” can be made to sound pretty damned good…. IF I am not allowed to ask any questions about it. And that, my friend, is the reason that hearsay is not admissible.

Because you can’t cross examine hearsay.

Hearsay is not permitted, because time and experience have shown that evidence that is not subject to cross examination is inherently unreliable.

Here is working definition of hearsay under the rules of evidence:
Any out of court statement (this includes the information in documents) offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

It may look simple but it is not. They spend weeks examining it in law school evidence class. It is subtle. Now there are a lot of minor exceptions to the “hearsay rule” but those exceptions can be summarized generally as follows, official records, statements against interest, and “excited utterances”. We’re not going to get into them. We’re just going to cover the basics and show you how to apply the concept of hearsay to the matrix around you.

The tricky part to determining whether something is in fact hearsay is that the out of court statement must be offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.  MOST out of court statements are NOT hearsay. Let me show you what the difference is with an example.

The witness testifies that, “Billy said he closed the garage door‘.

So, is that hearsay? On TV, sure it is. But the fact is you CAN’T KNOW if something is hearsay until you know what the evidence/out-of-court-statement, is being offered to prove. You must always remember THAT.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

A simple truth that people never apply to themselves.

Let’s just say the case involves liability for a very cranky old three legged cat having gotten out of the house. And it is suspected that this wonderful creature may have gone out through the garage when the door was left open. Can the above testimony be “offered” to prove that the garage door was in fact closed? NO. That would be hearsay.

But the testimony could be used if it was offered to explain why the witness hadn’t checked to see that the garage was closed before he left. Do you see the difference?

In the first instance it is hearsay because it is offered to prove “the matter asserted” in the statement, namely, that the garage door was in fact closed. But in the next instance it is being used to show a state of mind for the actual witness. Whether the garage door was or was not in fact closed is not relevant.

All that is relevant is that the witness CLAIMS he heard Billy make the statement. NOT that the statement he claims to have heard is/was true. So you can cross examine the witness on whether it is believable that he in fact heard the statement, and whether he actually believed the statement, and whether he acted consistently with someone who had heard and believed such a statement from Billy.

Do you see the difference? It is subtle and it can be quite confusing. Don’t feel bad if you don’t quite see it, most lawyers don’t even understand the distinction. Like most people, they just think that any out of court statement is hearsay, but it’s not.

This type of "proof" has lost favor in most jurisdictions, but I have heard that the evil muslim radicalized lone wolf extremists still use this method!!

This type of “evidence” has lost favor in most western jurisdictions, but I heard someone on FOX news report that the White House says that it is still used in traditional sharia law  where they have evil muslim homegrown radicalized lone wolf extremists waiting to destroy our way of life!! 

You have to ask what it is being offered to prove. And if you can cross examine the witness on the reason for why it is being offered, then it is probably NOT hearsay.

Think of it like this. If the witness is there to prove that the garage door was closed, then he has to testify about that fact. He could testify that he saw it closed. Or that he heard it close. Those would not be direct evidence that Billy closed it. Maybe an inference from circumstances could be drawn, but not direct evidence of who closed it, just that it was closed.

So if the main issue was whether Billy closed it and all you had was the witness saying that he heard Billy say he closed it, well, that’s hearsay, it doesn’t come in.
Do you see how it all comes down to the ability to cross examine the witness on the evidence the witness is offering?

A witness can be questioned on whether he actually heard a statement made or whether the witness was mistaken about that or is in fact lying about what he heard IF ANYTHING. But you can’t cross a witness on whether or not the door was in fact closed by Billy if all he knows is that he heard Billy say he closed it. Got it?

Evidence is about facts. A witness needs to say what he knows, not repeat what someone else said to show something is true. If the basis for a witness’ knowledge about something is that he heard someone say it, well, that ain’t Jack S**t. That is hearsay. If what someone  said is the evidence you want to bring that something “is” true, then you need to bring in THAT person and let me cross examine them about the BASIS for their statement. That is the distinction.

You may have to re-read it and think about it a bit. It is complex. But the distinction is vital in assessing information that comes at you all the time.

I objected to the picture the government produced to finger my client, on the grounds that it might be photoshopped but the judge denied my objection saying that the government's word of the picture's authenticity was good enough.

I objected to the picture the government produced on the grounds that it might have been photo-shopped so I should have a right to examine it and the person who took the picture.  The judge denied my objection saying that  having it appear on a government website was proof enough of the picture’s authenticity so it was coming in.  The judge said that in this post 911 world that if I didn’t believe the government then maybe I was a terrorist too!

Congratulations, you may have just learned something that less than 1% of the population understands.

Once you see the distinction and grasp what hearsay actually is, then it should be clear why no thinking person should accept HEARSAY to form a firm opinion on anything. It defies logic to do so because there is no way to know if the information you are relying on is true e.g. that Billy in fact closed the door, because the information has not been “examined”.

Now of course the reality is that the world is overflowing with hearsay. And everyone loosely relies on it out of necessity for many things. And that’s fine. The world you live in is not a court room and you can’t expect to live by the rules of evidence. That would be absurd. 

But what you can and must keep in mind is that if the only evidence you have would be considered hearsay, THEN you need to be WARY of the reliability of any conclusions you draw because you don’t have ANY EVIDENCE. So your opinion should remain very flexible because your opinion is based on crap.

Naturally, the reality with people is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it should be. And of course our controllers know this and they take advantage of the people through this. The people tend to treat all information equally. Or even worse, they OVER weight the least reliable hearsay information just because they saw it on TV or read it in what they have been TOLD is a “respected” journal or newspaper etc.

In fact most people form almost all of their opinions of the world on nothing but rank hearsay twice removed. (meaning hearsay on top of hearsay!) People gobble up whatever their favorite “trusted” mouthpiece says. And they base their opinions on information that would NEVER EVEN BE ALLOWED IN as evidence in a legitimate proceeding.

Now I want to give you a bit of insight into how much of your world view has been built on this type of “information”. Let me take apart just one simple example of a very common piece of “news” you might hear or see and show you how ridiculously UNRELIABLE it is and how totally INADMISSIBLE it would be. Then you can see what I mean and you will see hopefully by analogy, how much of your world is just a concoction. No evidence at all for any of it.

Here reporters risk their very lives to bring the viewer the latest news footage from the naval tensions with China. Thrilling TV footage. Our brave troops were victorious once again!

Here a scene is shown from recently declassified pentagon footage of recent naval action in the South China Sea. Reporters  risk their lives to bring viewers footage like this and to get the story.  They said  that Our brave troops were victorious once again!  Freedom is safe for another day.  

And just so we’re clear, there is no official records exceptions to cover un-checkable nonsense like I’m about to give. So we can eliminate that.

You are watching TV and they show a clip of the white house press secretary making an announcement that the pentagon is saying that a top ISIS leader has been taken out in a drone strike. Then the hosts and guests begin to discuss the “implications” of such a thing.

Can you spot the incredible number of hearsay problems with this situation?

The white house spokesperson making the announcement is just reading a statement he or someone else wrote. The spokesman tells us it is based upon information they were given. How do we know they didn’t make the entire thing up? OR that the person who gave the information to them just made the information up? We don’t. We don’t know if they were even given any information let alone the information they are telling us. Do you see?

That is how fundamentally flawed the “statement” as evidence is and why it would never be allowed IN to any serious fact finding venue to “prove” that some ISIS leader had in fact been killed in a drone strike. AND why you should be very wary of trusting such information to form your opinion!!  It is useless hearsay, nothing more.

At a minimum we need to see the reports upon which the statements are based and find out who wrote them so we can question THAT person. But we NEVER do see the reports. The government cloaks everything behind a veil of “national security”.  Isn’t that convenient?

Yet people act as though this type of silliness from the news and government is the holy of holies of information. I mean “my god man, the white house announced IT!!!” lol Such nonsense would be laughed out of court.

Here an artists renders the scene where only the top reporters get their information. You must be very advanced in the profession to even be allowed access to this sacred place.

Here an artist renders the holy of holies – the reporters briefing room at the pentagon.  Average people could never understand the information the chosen ones are given here directly. The government and the reporters must work together to interpret the information so they can then give it to the people.   They have gotten quite adept at GIVING IT to the people.

Now let’s continue analyzing the “statement”. Right off the bat we know that the “pentagon” can’t say anything. Only a specific person at the pentagon can say anything. So again, without the ability to find out WHO at the pentagon allegedly provided the information — so we can at least go CROSS examine THEM — we are truly in the never-never land of untrustworthy UNTESTABLE information.

In a trial, you can’t just wheel someone in and have them make statements about something called ISIS and its “leader” having been “killed”. You have to bring EVIDENCE that can be cross examined. How do we know who was killed? How do we know anyone was killed? How do we know what if any connection they had to something called “ISIS”. We don’t.

At trial, in order to allow evidence in for any of what we heard in the press secretary’s statement there would first have to be a foundation laid to identify what “ISIS” is, who is in it and how we know who their leaders are. And that information all has to be from someone with actual knowledge of each of those pieces of information and each of those people have to be subject to cross examination.

But the public has never gotten that. And we never will! All the public EVER gets about anything of substance is just an amorphous blob of innuendo, speculation and hearsay hidden behind the protective and convenient veil of “national security”. Thus people imagine ISIS to be whatever they want or “fear” it might be. “Membership” in ISIS is no different than a slogan like “hope and change”. It is meaningless because it means something different to everyone.

Think of all the hearsay problems with just trying to “confirm” some ISIS leader was IN FACT killed. Who ID’d the body? Who has actual knowledge that he was “a leader”. Who has actual knowledge of how he died? Do you see?

Think how many ways the “information” from the press secretary could be picked apart in a murder trial by defense counsel. Think how ludicrous it is to trust such a sweeping completely unsubstantiated statement to make “decisions” about whether we should “bomb the country back into the stone age”!! lol

I think it's pretty clear what she stands for. She fights for us! I know she does, because I saw it right there.

What do you mean how do I know what she stands for?  She fights for us! I saw it right there.  And she said it. Plus I got a bumper sticker that says the same thing.  So sure I believe it.  Why wouldn’t I? I mean if it wasn’t true everyone would know right?

All you actually have in that example I gave you is some political hack at a podium making a statement. That is actually all you have. You have ZERO FACTS to support the truth of what he said.

How much validity or credence should a rational person give to such a statement to accept that a “leader of ISIS” was killed in a drone strike by the U.S.? None.

Without the ability to cross examine you have to TRUST. You are not going “trust” the government witnesses against you in a trial if you are charged with murder are you? Of course not, you are going to demand your right to cross examine them, because Cross is the only way to find out whether what someone is saying holds up to scrutiny! But we never get that scrutiny with government information or news. Hell we don’t even get to cross examine the person making the hearsay statements let alone the actual witnesses we NEED access to! Lol So it is crap.

Now if you want to consider the press secretary’s statement for purposes OTHER THAN the FACT that some ISIS leader was supposedly killed in a drone strike by the U.S. well… that is fine. THAT makes sense. Because that is NOT hearsay.

There is nothing unreasonable about considering the statement to be evidence that the  government wants to continue to create the appearance of a “war on terror”, or that the president is trying to deflect attention from his signing of some bogus executive order. Or maybe someone in the government wanted the guy killed because he knew something he shouldn’t and now they are covering their tracks by making this ISIS story up. Or maybe it was all a mistake. Or maybe NOTHING at all even happened and the guy they said they “killed” and was a “terrorist” is a gyro salesman obliviously vacationing in Cabo. We don’t KNOW.  Analyzing the statement LIKE THAT makes sense, BECAUSE it isn’t hearsay for THOSE purposes. Get it?

I could do the same analysis with basically any information we are given from “the news”. It is virtually all nothing more than repeating something some government spokesman or report claims to have found, or telling you what someone else told the reporter. Totally useless hearsay.

An early lesson most people just don't ever learn when it comes to their own lives.

An early lesson most people never learn how to actually apply in their lives.

The dirty unspoken secret is that News and government “information” relies almost 100% upon a TRUST by the people that the newsmen and governments do not deserve to be given. Trust is something that is earned. It is something you give a friend or family member you know and who has a reason to be honest with you. Trust is something that is given to someone who would bear the brunt of violating that trust.

The news and the government have NONE of those qualities and risk nothing by lying. They just make up more lies to cover their lies when they are caught because there is NEVER any outside investigation of the government. Only the government is allowed access to the people and information that is necessary to investigate the government. And only the news “investigates” the news. Do you see that?

You can’t be a rational person and “trust” a government spokesman or some Brian Williams or Dan Rather type character who claims he has gotten information from some unnamed source within some organization. THAT type of trust makes NO SENSE. There is no basis for it. In fact there is a huge amount of evidence to show they cannot be trusted. But still the fools trust.

The sad fact is that we can’t know if even one tiny bit of  whether most things that parade around as “news” are true. Not one stinking thing. All we know is that they are reporting that something happened. What happened, if anything, is something you have to use your own brain and experience to try and figure out. Not just accept what they say. That is silly.

Yet the masses run around and argue with each other about “reports’ and “facts” given to them by the government and the news about things that supposedly “happen” all over the world. They have built whole industries on this nonsense! The people in the “news and commentary” business argue about all of these “events” and imagine that they “have” all sorts of “details” about who did it and why and who they were connected to and on and on.

The reality is that all of these “experts” and analysts and commentators are just arguing about a bedtime STORY that was released by the government. A story so unreliable that a jury would never even be allowed to hear it. Not even reliable enough to “let the jury decide for itself”. Just think about that.

That is the actual quality of the information the people “get” from the news and their government. Rank Hearsay. But the conditioning and brainwashing are so deep, the people can’t see this. And the entire rickety broken ass system relies completely on this illusion. Just a grand sleight of hand over the population. And they gobble it up!! lol

Now there is someone that understands ironic humor.

I was thumbing through this textbook and I came across this graphic describing journalism’s sacred role in a free society and how the people depend on the press. It really made an impact on me.  The press deserves my appreciation. They keep the government honest you know. 

I find it particularly funny that political operatives and mainstream newsmen have some of the lowest credibility ratings whenever supposed polls are done, right down there with used car salesmen and lawyers! Yet people nonetheless continue to imagine that they are “informing themselves” by watching the “news” or reading the NY times or “the economist” or waiting to find out what their favorite commentator has to say about the latest “news”. My god the idiocracy.

And I laugh extra hard at lawyers who fall into all of this, and they do. Oh believe me they do. THEY should know better. It is a bunch of useless hearsay for gods sake. It is crap!

Well I am about done. Maybe now that you understand what you are looking right at, you will get a kick out of how insidious and prevalent hearsay is. It is everywhere. And maybe you will rethink some of the things you thought you “knew were facts”.

The fact is that we don’t know Richard, lol. We get told a lot of stuff from cradle to grave and most of it is just hearsay. It is up to each of us to use our brains. Those in charge know that isn’t going to happen, and they take advantage of that.

I hope that understanding what hearsay actually is and why it is not admissible helps you.

I have to run, I just remembered that I taped the “No Spin Zone” last night and I need to go watch it to find out what’s happening in the world and what I should think. lol

Take care, move towards the light, and tell someone the truth about the law. Oh and enjoy my new pic of Legalman.

And the truth shall set you free.

    And the truth shall set you free.

25 thoughts on “The “facts” people get from the news would be laughed out of court, but the masses gobble them up like candy.

  1. Ted

    This reminds me of an argument I had once with several friends, all college students. I forget how it came up, but one guy said that he thought he remembered reading in his philosophy text book that it’s impossible to prove a negative. I told him that’s absurd, since all you’d need to do is rephrase the assertion as a positive, and disprove it. By this point, everyone else at the table is making statements like, “I think he’s right… I remember reading that somewhere too.” As the lone troglodyte there who wasn’t shoveling my money into the educational bonfire, everyone agreed that I must be wrong. So I told them that the glass in front of me was not too heavy for me to lift. Then I lifted it, thus proving the negative statement that it wasn’t too heavy. That was met with immediate complaints of, “Just because you say something, doesn’t prove it’s true!” I pointed out that they could all clearly see me holding up the glass, and there can be no more fundamental proof than direct observation. The first one shouted me down with, “But I read once in a philosophy book that it’s impossible to prove a negative. HAVE YOU EVER EVEN TAKEN A PHILOSOPHY CLASS? WHY SHOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU?” The rest of the table nodded in agreement, having no clue that I’d just schooled them more accurately on the subject than the classes they’d paid for.

    That’s the power of the hearsay you write about. A vague, hopefully faulty, memory of something in a text book was more real to them than the plain reality in front of their eyes. Even worse, I’m convinced that the incident greatly reinforced their belief in that absurd notion they thought they heard from some authority figure.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      LOL yes. Very apt example. The power of logical fallacy and unclear thinking is so prevalent it is impossible to overcome. THAT is why the govt wants control of education and to get the kids young. Once they confuse your thinking it is very had to overcome.
      The hearsay mistake is so common it is incredible. There is also the very common misunderstanding that a lack of evidence is evidence of the lack. IT IS NOT. But I would say it is the most common I run into. Avg ppl are way to far gone to reach as I have said over and over. No point trying. It’s why I never argue with them. Pointless.

      The other very powerful tool they have developed to control us is the power of “expertization” of everything. If you aren’t a certified expert in the area then ppl act as though your opinion based upon fact is crap. Again, ppl are simple lost. No clue at all. I have deposed countless “experts” in a whole range of fields. HOW?? How can I do that if you have to be an expert in order to understand their “field”? lol

      No matter how many times I tell people this they STILL don’t get it. Brainwashing. It is all simply brainwashing. Glad you’re here Ted. I hope I hear from you over on Twitter. Take care. — L

      Reply
      1. Robert Graf

        ‘Expertization’ is the fallacy of appeal to authority. How did anyone learn anything before there was an expert to learn from, if this was to have any validity. As Neils Bohr said, an expert is someone who has made every possible mistake their is, in a given field.

        Another device they use is appeal to emotion, which is usually the fallacy of generalization. Take a specific incident as the general case. The voice of reason requires no appeal to emotion.

        Reply
    2. Robert Graf

      You’ve got it wrong. It is not that you can’t prove a negative. The saying is that you can’t disprove a negative. That is not even close to the same thing.

      Reply
  2. Kram

    A War mongering body politic delegating authority=force upon any it sees fit without transparency, oversight, responsibility or liability is not about the people casting a “vote” The status quo will not change, they are all liars at the top running down. The only answer is for the people to actually see it for what IT is …. a small group of self serving psychopaths selling their agenda, regardless of the cost or consequences to the people they “serve”…. and stop “feeding” it otherwise the Jokes on us. I am all about peaceful non-consent. Amazing what several hundred million people could do with a single idea of peaceful coexistence and cooperation could do to the status quo, the statist ideologies, repackaged Marxist political correctness being fed by force to us all. lol I woke up and while there was sleep still in my eyes and before i knew to keep my head down BAM! kinda like the eye of Sauron focusing on me without the frickin cloak! Gotta love it! Peace Legalman

    Reply
  3. marlene

    There are several new sites that DO print the thoroughly investigated facts. Fetch.com is one. Naturalnews.com has a list of more

    Reply
  4. Hereticdrummer

    I gave a cursory scan to Anna Von Reitz’s site and book, the retired Alaskan judge. Her trillion dollar “lien” won’t get to first base. The site and her book reeks of “Patriot Mythology”, tragically pandemic to the so-called pro se movement. As soon as I read that part about your name in all caps on any government license or charging document is just a corporate fiction and not the real you, I knew it was time to get out the barf bag. Simply put, it is horse manure. The capital letters for one’s name is just for emphasis and clarity, nothing more. It is analagous to the “patridiot” argument that the gold fringe around the flag in American courtrooms means that the courts are under martial law ergo that is why you have no constitutional rights in them and so many other bullshit contentions, ad nauseum. You have no constitutional rights because the power system doesn’t want you to have them, and their running lap dogs, the slimebag judges, control the goons with the handcuffs, tasers, clubs, guns, and keys to the cages. There is not now, nor will there ever be a single case won in any court in Soviet America using these asinine arguments. They will however get you a court ordered visit to a shrink or a ticket to the Slam, I guarantee it. There it is.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Heretic you have such passion for hating the system. I really do get a kick out of it. Refreshing. I suspect O’Pappy posted it because he was glad to see most anyone speaking up in any way who held any kind of public position at all!! I am pretty sure he knows the thing is going nowhere just like you and me. All of that cap letters and fringe stuff is, as you made quite clear, a load of sheeIte.

      For the life of me I don’t know why people think that the ones with the guns need to rely on something so silly and transparently nonsensical. They have the guns and the fools all brainwashed. They ignore the laws that exist. Why in the world would they feel any obligation to obey some double secret probation set of laws?? It makes no sense. Can anyone honestly think that if you “got it right” and “cracked their secret word code” that THEN they would just give in? Lol. Think how preposterous that idea is.

      But there is a large group who they convince with that transparent disinformation. God knows how much of good peoples’ time they can flush down the drain on that whole load of crappola. Lol. Though I am quite sure O’Pappy is not among those sucked int it. Take care Heretic. Stay mad. — L

      Reply
        1. Ol' Pappy

          Yup. Legalman is spot on…as usual. I just posted that site because it warmed my cockles (haha…what a strange aphorism) to see a former judge who appears to have awakened to the sins of her profession. I’m sure nothing will come of it. But if small numbers continue to awaken, pursue dead ends, become frustrated, and then angry, isn’t that at least slightly better than everyone remaining asleep?

          Reply
  5. ol' Pappy

    Here’s something recently stumbled upon that you and your readers might find interesting. A retired Alaska state judge opines on the unlawful and fraudulent actions of the federal government and takes action via a $279 trillion lien.
    http://annavonreitz.com/

    Reply
  6. Arnie Lerma

    A pioneer of covert hypnosis, Dr George Estabrooks states in 1943 that these METHODS of covert hypnosis would continue to be effective until the targets became familiar with them.

    So… logically, if one teaches these methods, then they will stop working…

    I had a kid, recently, 19, an American “Constitutionalist” who read my arnielerma.wordpress.com pages and came back and said, ” this material gives me hope that we can win against the new world order…” Since 1999 when I first webbed the first one of the “Secret” methods, called The Confusion Technique…

    There are more methods… the most important one I have not written about much yet…. DEMONIZATION as I am still searching for the best wording…but here you go:

    Thought stopping phrases like HOLOCAUST DENIER, RACIST, Hate-Monger, Anti-semite and the like are weaponized covert hypnosis.

    For whatever reason, once your thinking stops, you leave the door to your subconscious unguarded… anything said after the emotionally shocking phrase or imagery goes directly into your subconscious as a hypnotic command,

    THIS is how they did 911…

    Hypnosis has one major shortcoming, it requires constant re-enforement or it wears off.. which is WHY you must stop watching MSM TV.. this is also why that date was chosen for 911…

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Arnie I have done a lot of looking into mind control etc. it is more than clear to me that what they tell the public in mainstream news and publications and schools about how it doesn’t work etc. is crap. And why wouldn’t it be? Why would they tell the public information this powerful? Their entire goal is control. They aren’t going to be giving away their secrets. Lol. Glad you posted I hope you info helps some people. — L

      Reply
  7. Hereticdrummer

    Here is something else, very germane to Legalman’s great article on hearsay. A secret of the legal industry; Statements of counsel are NOT facts before the court, not verbally nor in motion or brief. A lawyer or attorney is just a counselor, not a witness, neither plaintiff nor defendant. They are not placed under oath to testify. Nothing they say or write can legally be construed as fact. Yet how many millions of court cases in the U.S., civil or criminal, federal or state jurisdiction, are decided on what a lawyer says or writes which the court takes as fact? Probably in the millions. If I get the ambition I can locate the ruling by the 9 Swine a.k.a. the 3 stooges times 3 a.k.a. the Supreme Cult which affirms this legal industry secret. But like virtually all other decrees, rules, and laws that are ostensibly designed to protect the rights of citizens it is routinely ignored and shredded by the BAR Mafia. The whole system is a fucking travesty.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Unfortunately Robert, I think we all know the answer to that. The disconnect between fact and fantasy is so complete in most peoples’ minds that there is simply no getting through to them. Honestly, no point in trying because they will only get angry at you. So i leave them alone. But I certainly have compassion for those people who get swept up in the madness and who’s lives are ruined by it. The best advice, stay alert, and keep your head down. — L

      Reply
  8. Hereticdrummer

    Truly outstanding Legalman, you keep raising the bench (pun intended). There is no more egregious example of hearsay than what transpires in the satanic family courts, legally sanctioned under the unconsitutional and disgusting Domestic Violence statutes. Not that the Constitution means a flying fuck anymore. Under the auspice of this particularly reprehensible aspect of the legal racket, any female can go to family court ex parte (without the other party in question, who is not even aware of what is transpiring) and lie about threats to her person. For the accused who is not present, there is no presumption of innocence, no burden of proof on the accuser (Maxim of law: He who affirms must prove.) ,and of course all rules of evidence are trashed. Faster than you can say, “Scumerica, land of the fee and home of the slave”, the Pigs will be cuffing you and taking you to the Slam. And as in the Napoleonic code, you are guilty until proven innocent. To add injury to insult, this can happen to anyone in a “dating” relationship and as there is no legal definition of dating, it gives these slimebag sanhedrins authority to adjudicate virtually any inter gender relationship. What the fuck ever happened to the vagueness doctrine? These outrages against men happen countless times every month of the year across Soviet America. It is hearsay par excellance as these misanthrope “judges” play the role of politically correct commissars and routinely stick it to men where the sun don’t shine. Just think, the feminoid bitches whine about being oppressed by men when in truth they have absolute power courtesy of the legal industry. Only the most brain dead featherless biped can imagine that American courts exist to administer justice.

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Lol nice Heretic. Now that is passion. I wish I could assure people that you were exaggerating. But I cannot tell a lie. Because if I did I’m sure the bulldogs in the press would dig in and find the truth and expose it for the world!!!! Lol. – L

      Reply
      1. Hereticdrummer

        Thanks Legalman, I assure you I am not exaggerating one scintilla. I have felt the lash of that nefarious insitution. Years ago the gentleman/scholar who mentored me pro se told me that of all the adjuncts of the multi faceted legal industry in the USSA, the most lawless and vicious are the IRS and the family courts. They do not even make a pretense of due process and fundamental fairness. Of course we can thank the swinish Clintons for the star chamber, bolshevik family courts. It was under Billary’s administration that it all came about, first with federal law, then it spread to the states like prairie fire. Those scumbags should be made to do the rope dance for that alone. If I had absolute power, the first thing I’d do is completely abolish the family court system at all levels. The court buildings I would turn into whore houses, productive enterprises that help rather than harm the male populace. As an institution, morally superior as well. All former family court personnel, judges, prosecutors, bailiffs, counselors, etc. would be forced to perform honest labor digging sewer trenches at gunpoint until natural death. A much more apprporiate job congruent with their character and integrity, more accurately lack of.

        Reply
        1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

          Lol Heretic they are just trying to help, and of course to do what is in the “best interest of the child”. I know that because I read that in a government publication. So it must be true. Oh and I am glad to see that you have an employment transition plan ready for the dedicated government workers in the system if your changes are ever implemented. Otherwise they couldn’t keep earning towards their pension.

          The only question is, if you got your way how would we protect the CHILDREN??? Most men are rapists or child abusers you know. Or are you not familiar with those government facts either. So without the foster care system, what would happen to them? I have to assume that you want the children abused since you don’t support the government system. There is no other conclusion to draw. Unfortunate. – L

          Reply
  9. Alan Donelson

    December 26, 2015 — Belated Merry Christmas, dear blogger!!!

    Another wonderful posting, Legalman. You do not know how much I look forward to receiving notice of another posting. Congrats for getting linked on http://www.rense.com!!!!

    I do have a substantive comment.

    One of those exceptions in a court of law — so far as I, have served and continuing to serve on many occasion as an expert witness, understand the subtleties of “hearsay rules” — is when an expert chooses to rely on a source that otherwise, in and of itself, would be, technically and legally, considered “hear-say”. For example, information from a “treatise” from a learned source, including, remarkably, “government-sponsored research” in a “government-published document”! Or even statements SUMMARIZED, not verbatim, as reported by a police officer.

    How reliable is that, I wonder?!

    May 2016 bring us enough Peace, Joy, and prosperity to celebrate Christmas Day once again.

    Alan

    Reply
    1. Profile photo of LegalmanLegalman Post author

      Well thank you Alan that is a nice thing to say. I’m glad to know someone enjoys what I do. And yes your exceptions are great. What a surprise that so many exceptions have to do with the information that the government compiles and promotes. Lol. The game really is so simple. Merry RammaHannahKwanzaMas to you as well. Take care. — L

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *