Neo-Tech Protection Kit, Volume II

Next Page | Contents | The Heresy Site | Previous Page

APPEAL OF THE
HONESTY-MOTION DENIAL

by Frank R. Wallace

"...the oath or affirmation which has been administered in courts of law throughout the United States to millions of witnesses for hundreds of years should not be required to give way to the defendant's idiosyncratic distinctions between truth and honesty."

The above quote is from a court order by a federal-magistrate filed on August 2, 1990 and received by the defendant, pro se, on Monday, August 6, 1990 by United States mail. That order denied the motion for a fully contextual honesty oath. Those quoted words were the sole reason for denying that Honesty Motion filed on July 9, 1990 by the defendant. That motion requested that the corruptible truth-oriented oath be replaced with an incorruptible honesty-oriented oath.

"...the sun rotates around the flat earth is a truth which has been firmly held by billions of persons for thousands of years and should not be required to give way to the defendant's idiosyncratic distinction between historical faith and reasoned facts."

...That hypothetical quote is the essence behind the Inquisition trial of Galileo in 1633.

X = Mind-created realities for advancing the arbitrary, a-point truths needed to usurp and dispose of precious values produced by others.

Y = Mind-integrated reality for advancing the resolute, the-point honesty needed to create and produce competitive values for others.

People 350 years ago were persecuted, imprisoned, even executed for tendering crucial knowledge developed from facts, reason, and logic that challenged established beliefs. People today are still persecuted, imprisoned, even executed for tendering crucial knowledge developed from facts, reason, and logic that challenge established beliefs. Consider the most blatant examples in current history: Castro's Cuba, Xiaoping's China, Ceausescu's Romania, Hussein's Iraq. ...Now, today, in more indirect and subtle ways than a bullet in the brain, persecutions and imprisonments of the most courageous and farsighted value producers are occurring more and more in the United States. But ironically that destructive trend has reversed itself in Eastern Europe and even in Russia. How? Through a newly rising trend toward objective reality, the-point law, and integrated honesty (Neo-Tech) in those countries.

1. properly presented as specifically and crucially relevant to this case.
2. logically developed.
3. objectively integrated.
4. factually structured with a wide array of concrete illustrations and germane examples.
5. integrally underpinned with objective metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

Any intellectually valid or objectively legal challenge to the Honesty Motion must address the five essences listed above. ...In addition to being specifically relevant to this case, the honesty motion is profoundly relevant to law and justice in general, not only in America but worldwide.

The federal magistrate subjectively denied the Honesty Motion with a non sequitur ...with an unintegrated, irrelevant a-point. Indeed, unintegrated a-points can always be subjectively plucked from an infinite parade of arbitrary, mind-created realities. Such a-points can serve any rationalization, whim, or desire. Moreover, such a-points evade the responsibility, discipline, and effort required to respond within the strict boundaries of objective, mind-integrated reality.

Thus, the federal magistrate's denial eloquently demonstrated the validity of and need for the Honesty Motion--for incorruptible the-point law based on the dynamics of fully integrated honesty. The federal magistrate's denial also validated the twin pillars of judicial and social needs upon which the Honesty Motion rests:

Pillar A: The need for eliminating corruptible, manipulative, a-point law based on the static assertions of truth as illustrated in the Honesty Motion and its denial.

Pillar B: The need for objective justice through incorruptible, nonmanipulative, the-point law based on the dynamic process of integrated honesty as illustrated in the Honesty Motion and its denial.

Dismissing the Honesty Motion with a non sequitur will not diminish the significance or inevitability of incorruptible, honesty-based, the-point law. To the contrary, the Honesty Motion will return again and again, stronger and stronger, at every opportunity, until incorruptible the-point law based on the nonmanipulative dynamic process of honesty replaces corruptible a-point law based on the manipulative static assertions of truth.

1. The premise of the federal magistrate's denial of the Honesty Motion is invalid by all standards of objective reason and logic.

2. Denial of the Honesty Motion will lead to the abridgment of justice in the defendant's trial. For, by administering the truth oath rather than the honesty oath, justice can be subverted by the manipulation of a-point facts, truths, and law.

3. Denial of the Honesty Motion would abridge the defendant's first-amendment right to free expression.

4. Denial of contextual honesty in law always leads to increasingly subjective, corruptible, a-point law and justice. Without the demand for and discipline of contextual honesty in law and justice, professional value destroyers will increasingly proliferate throughout society as described in the attached Honesty Motion.

5. Acceptance of contextual honesty in law leads to objective law, which in turn leads to incorruptible, nonmaniplative, the-point law and justice. With the demand for and discipline of contextual honesty in law and justice, professional value destroyers will increasingly be driven from society as described in the attached Honesty Motion.

Appeal Brief to the
Honesty Motion By Frank R. Wallace

The concept of the Honesty Motion is presented in the attached Motion of July 9, 1990 and in the attached Appeal of that Motion of August 21, 1990 to the U.S. District Court.

Denying the use of the attached Honesty Motion would deny the defendant his Constitutional Rights to a fair trial. Denying the Honesty Motion would also deny the defendant and other defendants of future fair trials.

A fair trial would let the defendant testify and call witnesses to testify at his own trial. The right to testify, to give full and honest testimony, and to call witnesses at one's own trial is provided by the Bill of Rights. By contrast, to deny the right to testify and call witnesses would violate the defendant's Fifth-Amendment and Sixth-Amendment Rights to due process.

By contrast, an honesty oath demands that law, evidence, and testimony be locked into noncontradictory context. Thus, with the Honesty Oath, no one can manipulate law, evidence, or testimony to self-serving or unjust ends.

With the current "Truth" Oath, one can maneuver law to evade justice as well as to pursue questionable or self-serving policies, agendas or motives that harm society. The "Truth" Oath also lets heinous or bona fide criminals escape justice by hiring lawyers skilled at maneuvering law. By contrast, the Honesty Oath serves justice through making impossible the manipulation or distortion of law, evidence, or testimony. For, again, the Honest, Oath requires that every presentation of law, evidence, and testimony be locked into full, noncontradictory context within the scope of all available, relevant knowledge.

The Honesty Motion in no way weakens the right against self-incrimination by any defendant or witness. In fact, the Honesty Motion assures protection of that crucial right--the keystone right that prevents legal proceedings from falling back to the Inquisitions and Star Chambers

The request for the Honesty Oath is simple and reasonable. The defendant is merely requesting that he and his witnesses be allowed to voluntarily affirm or swear to speaking honestly in addition to speaking the truth. Who could object to legally binding oneself to being honest in addition to being truthful? And why would anyone object to requiring honesty in addition to truth?

Consider the reason and need for the Honesty Oath: The "Truth" Oath allows facts, questions, and testimony to be taken out of context and manipulated to dishonest or unjust ends. By contrast, the Honesty Oath prohibits the purposeful manipulation of facts, questions, and testimony for any purpose or agenda.

Runnymede, England, June 15, 1215 A.D., the most radical evolution of law and justice in history became a practical reality. The Aristotelian concept, lost during the Dark Ages, that laws should serve the individual not the ruling class struck thunderously in a legal motion that led the world out of the Medieval Period and into the Renaissance. ...King John had signed the Magna Charta. The first legal wave toward consistent justice had begun.

That epochal event was capped 574 years later in Philadelphia: The United States Constitution appeared as a brilliant star in 1789, leading the enlightened development of the Western World for the next two hundred years. The strength of our Constitution was forged in eloquent simplicity through a brief Preamble combined with but seven brief Articles. Two years later, the Bill of Rights comprising ten amendments was added. ...That masterfully succinct document has to this day served to protect America and its citizens from political oppression and tyranny. Growing atop that first wave originating from the Magna Charta, the second legal wave toward even more consistent justice grew from the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

Today, on the two-hundredth anniversary of the Bill of Rights, its ten amendments are summoned in this Appeal Brief for perhaps their most important mission--to usher in the next evolution of law. That evolution will yield major advances and benefits through an oath that permits only objective law and fully integrated honesty....Those advances and benefits will roll in as thunderously as those from the Magna Charta and the Constitution. Growing as the third legal wave, the Honesty Motion will deliver consistent, incorruptible justice forever into the future

Yet, historically, the use of case law or common law was a crucial evolution from the Magna Charta in moving toward a more objective, consistent system of law. Indeed, the evolution into common law made statutory law more equitable and just. Ultimately, however, consistently objective law can be based only on a nonmanipulative process of honesty, not on manipulative assertions of truth. Still, sincere use of case law certainly makes the application of statutory law more objective and just. Indeed, development of common law was the initial move toward integrated honesty.

Even statutory law itself, especially when applied to obvious hard crimes such as murder, assault, rape, and robbery can deliver objective justice with relative consistency. But, unless anchored or locked into the nonmanipulative process of honesty, statutory and common law alike can be manipulated to serve unjust or harmful ends. Such manipulation especially occurs in pseudo-criminal and civil-tort cases. Such cases are increasingly designed not to serve justice but to serve political or special-interest ends -- or self-enriching agendas. ...The manipulation of unanchored law based on "truth" is accelerating in America. In turn, those manipulations of law are increasingly subverting our government, economy, and national security.

Still, the case-law citations in this Appeal demonstrate that past history, including the most current rulings and opinions, consistently "support" the defendant's constitutional right to the Honesty Oath. And, in the pretrial proceedings, the prosecutor himself offered no objection to either the Honesty Motion of July 9, 1990 or the Honesty-Motion Appeal of August 21, 1990. Moreover, without request for such, the U.S. District Court Judge Lloyd D. George unilaterally filed this Interlocutory Appeal on behalf of the defendant.

Most important, all political, legal, and social advances by nature move toward the process of honesty and away from the static assertions of "truth." In addition, all historical progress moves by nature toward a the-point system of law based on fully integrated honesty. With the development of the-point law as defined and explained in the attached Honesty Motion, both law and justice become increasingly consistent and immune to arbitrary change. Why? Because the-point law is by nature noncontradictory.

Consider how American society progressed under our Federal Constitution: With their framing of the Constitution, our founding fathers changed the idea of government serving authoritarian rule to government serving individual citizens and society. Thus, the idea changed from government serving the state or the ruling class to government serving individual growth and development. That single change in concept allowed an ever increasing production of prosperity and happiness for others and society.

To understand that beneficent change in government, one must first understand the difference between the government and the State: Over a half century ago, Journalist Albert Jay Nock identified the difference between the government and the State. The government is a social institution designed to protect and benefit its citizens and society. By contrast, as Noch identified, the State is an antisocial system designed to perpetuate and expand a parasitical ruling class consisting of those politicians and bureaucrats who are dishonest and destructive.

To initiate America's momentous evolvement into a beneficent government and prosperous society, Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers recognized the necessity to confront the old system of authoritarian government with an armed revolution. The American Revolution was imperative to break the grip of tyranny based on dogmatic rule that prohibited free competition of ideas.

Now, today, to effect an analogous evolvement of beneficent law and justice, we must recognize the need to confront the old system of corruptible law with an honesty revolution to incorruptible law. Indeed, that honesty revolution will break the grip of manipulative a-point law--law based on corruptible "truth" rather than incorruptible honesty.

The moral responsibility of every conscious being is to grow through new knowledge in order to move society toward ever increasing levels of prosperity and happiness. The Honesty Motion represents the evolution to more advanced levels of law and justice -- levels that will eventually eliminate crimes, wars, and sufferings caused by power usurped through manipulated laws and "truths."

The meaning and implementation of the Honesty Motion may on superficial consideration seem idiosyncratic and disruptive -- too different and inconvenient. But, on more deliberate considerations from wider integrations, one discovers the opposite as the fact: implementing the Honesty Motion represents a major evolution of law and justice required for all advancing civilizations. That evolution is required to grow beyond our current state of law and justice that is now retrogressing toward decline, breakdown, and chaos.

The Honesty Motion, therefore, must and will be implemented -- if not in this trial, then through the coming literature and future trials. Nothing can stop the Honesty Motion from evolving into those natural dynamics of an advancing civilization. For, the process of honesty anchored in reality is the natural, inevitable evolution into the future. This natural evolution of law and civilization will leave behind a legal era during which Law and "truth" could be manipulated into agenda-serving ends that violated justice and harmed society.

Thus, this Appeal Brief asks the Justices of the Ninth Circuit Court to summon their foresights in seizing this opportunity to advance civilization toward nonmaniputative, objective law and justice.

As with any fundamental advance in civilization and knowledge, much courage and foresight are required to break from the old, the familiar the seemingly sate. For, the Honesty Motion means the end to the abusive aspects of law that are escalating today. A large majority of law practiced today would be greatly simplified or eliminated by the Honesty Motion. That simplification and elimination of large areas of destructive and consumptive law would, of course, financially rock the legal profession. But the benefits to our country and society would be immediate and profound.

Yet, even the severe financial readjustment inflicted on the legal profession would be temporary Indeed, the lawyers and judges themselves will eventually benefit the most. For, they would reestablish law on a consistently healthy, incorruptible basis, especially civil law, to prevent the collapse of an increasingly unpopular system of corruptible law. ...Without eventual implementation of the Honesty Motion, the expanding value destructions through the current legal system would eventually collapse the foundation of law, bringing chaos and anarchy.

The Honesty Motion leads to incorruptibility in all court and legal proceedings. That incorruptibility, in turn, cuts off manipulated agendas and injustices not only by defendants and prosecutors, but by judges themselves. For a legal system based on fully integrated honesty prevents dishonest or immature judges from ruling through self-gratifying emotionalisms, insecure egos, or arrogant power.

In addition, the Honesty concept would greatly reduce the work load on the court system, allowing the court not only to crystallize the integrity for the entire justice system, but to eliminate the unjust, easily corrupted idea of plea bargaining. Most important, with the Honesty Motion, the court could immediately assume its constitutional role of being the ultimate protector of our government, country, and society. How? By using the Honesty Motion to seize its constitutional power in removing those destructive areas of power usurped and accumulated by the Legislative and Executive branches of government. By nature, the Honesty Motion can end all legal corruptions inflicted upon society-- legal corruptions and manipulations used to accumulate destructive power.

The Appellate Justices of the United States Ninth Circuit Court can now play a key role in history by exercising their Constitutional responsibilities. They can retrieve the constitutional power for our Judicial branch of government. For decades that power has been sapped by the power-usurping directions of the Legislative and Executive branches. By contrast, the Judicial branch is the only entity in America with both the constitutional power and moral responsibility to protect our country and government from political harm. Only the Judicial branch has the power to reverse the destructive power usurpations being garnered by an increasingly presumptuous and invasive ruling class. ...The Appellate Justices can fulfill that responsibility by exercising their constitutional power through using the Honesty Motion to emasculate all usurped power. How?

Consider that in any trial, court, or legal proceeding, all evidence and statements can be subjected to a process of integrated honesty. That process includes locking or connecting together all relevant information into noncontradictory contexts. At the same time, that process includes delimiting all information to only that which is relevant. ...As Aristotle identified, in reality contradictions cannot exist. But contradictions always exist in manipulated illusions, mind-created "realities," and dishonest agendas.

Yet, in practicality, how does one apply the Honesty Motion to end those manipulated illusions and dishonest agendas? Consider harmful or bogus laws enacted for power usurpations. The contradictions of each such law is unmasked on examination through integrated honesty. Resolving those contradictions means breaking the illusions supporting each such harmful law or situation.

Those illusions are almost always designed hypocritically or speciously to project doing "good,' serving society, or protecting the public. The bogus and destructive nature, for example, of many "financial" crimes, business regulations, and "protective" laws are immediately revealed on examination with fully integrated honesty. Specifically, many antitrust laws, SEC regulations, and deep-pocket tort litigations grow and exist entirely on contradictions and manipulated illusions.

By the courts exercising the Honesty Motion, they can assume control over all such corrupt proceedings throughout the legal profession, government, and business. From that judicial control, all such corruptions can be consistently eliminated by the courts.

Most important, once publicized, all people can use the Honesty Motion to protect themselves and their assets from destructive laws, abusive power, excessive civil litigations, and dishonest prosecutions. Prosecuting attorneys can also use the Honesty Motion to protect society from genuine criminals who damage others through guns, fists, force, fraud, or coercion. For example, with that motion, clever defense lawyers hired by dangerous or violent criminals can no longer "beat the law" or technicalities. The Honesty Motion is a powerful, legitimate tool to protect society from dishonest and destructive people, both in and out of government.

With the Honesty Motion, the court can lift the legal profession to a foundation of incorruptible justice. The court can lift the entire concept of law to reside upon that never-before-achieved foundation of honesty. Utopian? No. For, implementing the Honesty Motion establishes the simplest, easiest to apply, most practical foundation upon which objective law and justice were always meant to reside -- the foundation of honesty.

That maneuverability of a-point facts and laws increasingly opens the legal system to control by those most skilled at manipulating chess-like moves and poker-like deceptions. In such a system, justice itself increasingly becomes secondary or irrelevant. That a-point system results in justice being replaced by maneuvered illusions. And such illusions are usually designed to serve self-aggrandizing agendas harmful to our government and society.

With the coming the-point process of law based on the Honesty Motion, Section Two consisting of maneuverable, unintegrated laws would become largely extinct. Instead, all facts and laws relevant to the point under consideration would be more efficiently integrated into a nonmaneuverable unit-- such as done in this Section One as well as with the Section Ones of the attached Honesty Motion and Appeal to the District Court. Then, from that fully integrated unit of honesty and law, one can much more easily make valid and accurate decisions. ...With the Honesty Motion, all contradictions of unintegrated, a-point facts, laws, or "truths" become obvious and are discarded.

This Appeal Brief is submitted under the current a-point system of laws. Thus, Section Two used to support this Brief becomes a contradiction. Yet, that contradiction is presented not only to meet the current a-point requirements of the court, but to illustrate the erroneous nature of a-point law. How? By juxtaposing the-point processes of law reflected in Section One against a-point assertions of law reflected in Section Two.

Support for the Honesty Motion need not come from voluminous, unintegrated facts, "truths," and case-law citations maneuvered to create illusions of support. But rather, support for the Honesty Motion comes from a solid block of fully integrated honesty presented in a simple, straight-forward, objective manner.

In sustaining his conscientious beliefs and life work, the defendant cannot support an oath or system based on corruptible "truth." Moreover, the defendant has a social responsibility to protect his First-Amendment rights, especially when he readily offers to abide by an even more exacting oath demanding honesty in addition to the truth.

Next Page | Contents | The Heresy Site | Previous Page

Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact

Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com