A Shyster's Pettifoggery

- The proof lies with those who Assert -
Justinian

This page was last updated on Sunday, March 03, 2013

Pettifoggery is not an invention or coinage of mine. It is simply a word in the dictionary that I chose to attract attention. A pettifogger is a person who quibbles over trifles. This word also refers to a lawyer whose methods are disreputable, petty, devious, and deceitful. A shyster. All of this comes from an article that appeared in Forbes Magazine, May 22, 2012. Their story is that men are upending ‘Domestic Violence Laws to Scam an Advantage in Divorce’ and Jeff Landers contributed this article. The American Bar Association (ABA) is the foremost purveyor of false statistics and misandrist garbage.

Mr. Landers says that men are ‘conflicting out’ all of the top divorce lawyers. According to his claim, men are interviewing top lawyers so that they can create a conflict of interest. This is not true because a competent attorney does not want to create that kind of relationship. Otherwise, what goes around, comes around and no one wants a bad reputation. Still, according to Landers, it is perfectly proper for a woman to go shopping for an attorney because she wants to find the most qualified attorney with which she feels at ease. Now that makes sense, because otherwise their relationship would start on the wrong foot and keep on stumbling (a figure of speech).

This word, ‘abuse’ has several connotations and a particular common connection, projection. Other people call it blaming the victim when they are falsely claiming abuse. So the most common grounds for divorce are adultery, desertion, habitual drug use, drunkenness, imprisonment, cruelty, lying, and the legal inability to consent. Many countries now accept ‘no-fault’ grounds for divorce to insure that after the divorce is confirmed that both parties will retain much of their property and savings but that does not occur here. Women usually get all of the property and men get the bills including a bill from her unscrupulous lawyer, so the term, ‘shyster’.

So this is why I have promoted bifurcated divorce. It is dividing the matter into two parts so that one party cannot take advantage of the other by introducing issues that were not relevant. For an example, during a divorce one party unexpectedly inherits property. Without bifurcation, the other party can run up the bills and then skip with all the property. Although this is illegal, many states turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior, especially if the actor is female.

In the past, women claimed mental cruelty because they had to blame their husband to ease their own feelings of guilt. This is why women who sue for divorce often introduce false claims of abuse at the behest of their attorney. It is not about money because the attorney always gets paid, it is about the personal satisfaction that one might gain from their own private desires. I cannot speak for every man but I can say that most of them would prefer to avoid divorce unless their wife is an unbearable shrew.

Nevertheless, he might not have any choice because the government has created the mandatory arrest policy that allows women to falsely accuse men without fear of being charged for making a false report. As a matter of record, the authorities do not prosecute women for lying. They simply overlook her lies and justify their own behavior by saying that ‘he’ must have done something to her to avoid the salient point. Her actions are hers alone and she wants it that way and only her way. That is why these false allegations continue to exist, the authorities prefer that result.

Only Women have the Final Say?

According to many, only women have the final say of what is and what is not rape. Moreover, they claim that only women have the final say of what is and what is not abuse. So unlike women, men have no right refuse or to say ‘no’ to others or to defend themselves. This is reason that some judges want to penalize men for what they perceive as abuse. So they alter the recordings and change the wording in signed documents to mean something other than what the Court and the litigants had ratified. That is why they call it a material alteration, a fancy term for forgery.

A material alteration is simply any change that affects the legal effect of a document. So changing the document also changes the interests, rights, and obligations of the parties to the document. For an example, a court order might state that Kate must pay Bob $1,000. However, someone can alter the document to state that Bob must pay Kate $10,000. This happens quite often and the courts know about it because they are the ones who do it.

Of course this is a lie because it is the clerk’s responsibility to see that these papers are there and no one has removed or altered them. The point is that judges, lawyers, and others alter and remove files and no one cares. This is simple harassment because these lawyers have the copies of the papers and they are not entitled to the originals. In some places, original documents often disappear only to appear again as an altered reproduction. The strange part is that many individuals who made these changes are immune from lawsuit or prosecution. That is why they do nothing about it for they are the actors in this scheme.  That is why alterations are common in some places where the records are not closely kept in a secure computer system that would easily detect theft and alterations.  The technology is simple and it has been in use for centuries, it is a variation of encryption.

Probably most men want to resolve the issues in a divorce very quickly because they believe that they have a better chance of keeping their property. However, many lawyers of doubtful repute do not like that because it diminishes any clout that they may exert in the proceedings. Many law journals including the American Bar Association publish their recommendations on countering this strategy.

Extortion is a crime, but the courts almost never hold lawyers responsible for their damages. This is why they can do almost anything to prevail. It is a part of their ethic and their substance to lie and extort and when the government penalizes them, they spread the cost over the entire membership. So the penalty becomes chump change and nothing more than that. One way of dealing with this problem is to disbar the lawyer and their bar association. However, the courts will not do it because they are a part of the syndicate.

Depending on local circumstances, a divorce can be completed very quickly. What a divorce really does, is to change the status of the two parties from spouses to unmarried persons. This means that they can testify for or against their former spouse in a civil or a criminal case. If they were married, this might not be so and that right depends on the jurisdiction. However, not every judge follows the law.

For an example, the court can tap a person’s bank account that had been set aside to receive a veteran’s disability payments although his or her disability payments are not subject to court-ordered garnishments. However, that becomes a real problem when judges ignore that law and the veteran discovers that his checks have bounced or he has no money in his account. So this sets him up for a criminal charge for act that was not of his making.

Most people do not know that real privacy does not exist in the banking and financial industries. This means that most anyone can monitor your accounts and report financial activities to other persons without your knowledge or consent. So when somebody falsely claims that a person is hiding their money, they are lying because they have the same information that you do. They just want to pull your chain because they know that the judge will do nothing and these are the people who should be paying reparations.

Some Women Do Not Want Their Husband's Property, They Simply Don't Want Him to Have It.

Separate property is anything that a spouse acquires by way of gift, inheritance, or the use or sale of that property. So most divorces should be simple, each spouse keeps their own property. The proceeds derived from a person’s separate property, remains their separate property. Moreover, each spouse also has an equal interest in the property that they acquire as a couple during their marriage. The reason that I make this point is that many vindictive women do not want their husband’s property, they simply don’t want their husbands to have it.  It's the epitome of selfishness and despotic control that couldn't exist without the favor of the courts.

When a person actually studies the roles of those in a courtroom, these notions do not support the presumption of innocence. For an example, a Prosecutor conducts the prosecution of any person who has been accused of a crime. The only duty of a prosecutor is to see that the laws in her or his jurisdiction are faithfully executed and enforced. This is where many fail and much of it is about preconceived notions that lead to gender preferences and not the truth.  So the problem with our laws, as they have been for some time, is that they presume that men are guilty. This is based upon claims from persons who have everything to gain and nothing to lose and it’s called the prior presumption of guilt and it stems from the mandatory arrest doctrine.  This notion appears in three forms, the prosecutor and the defendant, the plaintiff and defendant, and the petitioner and the respondent. In each form, the accused person is considered guilty and he (or she) must prove their innocence. Under those circumstances, asserting guilt is easy and proving innocence is much harder. This is not what the writers and framers of The Constitution had in mind.

Restraining Orders and Selective Memory

Restraining orders are relatively easy to obtain if you are female in certain jurisdictions. Just dial the phone and your protective order is activated. However, some other jurisdictions may have a different process. However, the results are the same because it’s an ex-parte hearing and so she has all the rights. This also means that the courts will not allow a man to keep his own property and that gives her leverage. This is, and still is, the court’s intent because it cannot be any other act but extortion.  Now some may say that this is an exaggeration, but tell that to the men who have been wrongly accused. They know what extortion is and they know that the courts are a part of it and judges don’t want to admit it although it’s true. That’s evidence of their guilt.

Now this is the problem, most women plan on evicting their husband from his home and that mental process is called premeditation. This means that her husband will have extremely limited access to the evidence and his possessions in the family home. In the interim, she and her accomplices are trying to find the evidence that establishes her husband’s innocence so that she can destroy it. That establishes prior intent and her guilt. For an example, my wife’s first lawyer decided to withdraw from the case after she discovered that my wife had lied to her.  I had pointed out a phoney document.

So the District Attorney could have ended the matter and charged my ex-wife with perjury and spousal abuse but that did not happen. Instead, after I had signed the August 19, 1993 orders, someone changed the writ by printing that the court revoked the restraining orders. So the prosecutor filed a bogus charge against me that I violated an altered restraining order that did not exist. Some six years later he would admit that he had removed or altered documents but he could not recall when he last did, now that is an example of selective memory. They call it a lie of convenience and connivance.

The point is that they should have restored my property to me. However, that did not happen because the courts refused to complete the matter without the presence of my former wife and her lawyer. I never knew that this was a requirement. In the past, if someone refused to accept service, the court could issue a default and then continue without them. However, before the court can enter a default judgement, the court must serve the opposing party notice of the pending action. So the failure to appear and answer the service is considered an admission of the truth (that she had lied) and is the basis for a default judgment. This is the reason that some people claim that deposing an alleged female victim perpetuates the cycle of abuse.

According to Forbes Magazine, the court should not allow a defendant (through his lawyer) to depose the alleged victim because it ‘perpetuates the cycle of power’. The problem is that the ‘alleged victim’ might not be a victim at all and this means that prosecutor had false accused the defendant and most people will find many prosecutors admitting to that. Instead they will clam that the accused got away on a mere legal technicality. We know it as actual innocence.

Perjury and the Elements of Fraud

Most of my website is about perjury. In fact, I would not be writing this essay if it were not that perjury was so rampant in our legal system. The reason that this is true is that the definition of perjury is different from lying. Lying is simply not telling the truth. So perjury is lying when that person had promised not to do it. So a factual prevarication occurs when a person avoids giving a direct answer to a question. The difference between perjury and material alteration is this. Perjury substitutes a lie for the truth while an alteration changes the effect of a writing or statement. (An example of a material alteration is changing 100 to 1,000.)

These means that both are counterfactual and the result is a statement is partly true and is partly false. The problem is that no one can accurately decide which part is true on the bear face of the facts. So anybody can tell a partial truth by simply selecting a collection of facts and lies that the speaker wants others to believe. In the end, what remains is Descarte’s candle. For after he heats the candle in a fire and sees that it melts, he concludes that the candle has changed but the wax is the same. (Note 1)

Now some people believe that domestic violence is so rampant that the authorities only prosecute a few offenders while letting the rest go free. However, if anyone would tell that to the millions of men, that the courts evicted from their own homes, they would be in for a revelation; women and cops who lie rarely go to trial or to jail. This means that factually innocent men still have no legal recourse against their accusers. This comes from the inferred immunity of the prosecutor that protects the accuser. Moreover, they have derivative immunity from prosecution through the mandatory arrest laws. Anyone who has attended a trial might have noticed that neither the judge nor prosecutor has pledged to tell the truth.

Adding to this, the legislative bodies created these laws to deprive a man of his property so he would not abuse his wife. That excuse was a facade because this was exactly what these sleazy women wanted to do. So in their own mind game, they were using this tactic to manipulate and intimidate men. Since false arrest is mandatory, actual innocence is no longer important and this means that guilty women are free to lie.

This is why perjury and material alterations are common in the courts. The establishment has designed it to deprive men of their homes and property, no matter what the evidence is. So the real focus of the mandatory arrest laws was to punish men for crimes that never occurred. That means that these men are the victims of selective prosecution.

Think about this. When a woman complains to police and they have no clues, they will always charge the husband no matter what she did. This is more evident when she seeks his home and all of his property. So she and the police are in collusion in their planned vilification of him. This fact is more evident when neither she nor the officer signs the report under the penalty of perjury and that proves their collusion to be true. (Note 2)

An assault can mean a determined endeavor such as an assault on Mount Everest or a try at the World pole vault record but it may also mean an approach. However, it does not mean battery.  In the past, assault was an approach toward another person with the intent of threatening or injuring them. Still, how does anyone prove prior intent? The problem with today’s definition of assault is that it includes a person’s apparent ability to injure another. This means that anyone can accuse a person of assault based on their size and gender. The crime of assault does not now require any proof of physical contact.

So when Magee tries to hit Jiggs with a rolling pin that is assault and if the rolling pin hits Jiggs that is battery (the crimes of assault and battery). So as usual, Magee blames Jiggs for making her throw the rolling pin. The reason that the courts did not punish her, was that they were on the opposite end of a horse’s tail.

Many states define sexual crimes other than male-on-female penetration as sexual assault rather than rape. Moreover, no national standards for female-on-male sexual offenses exist. So they do not include these crimes in the rape statistics. However, reporting the crime is important because the rules that apply to women also apply to men. While this notion may seem redundant, it does not make it any less true. In sexual terms, the slightest genital contact is sexual assault while the slightest penetration, envelopment, or other contact without mutual consent, completes the crime of sexual battery, rape. The issue is not gender, it is consent and the problem is that some women lie about that. Although she said yes then, the court only later hears ‘no’ and that is her lie but not her perjury.

When the police make an arrest, they have to write a report. However, most reports are simply forms where the officer fills the spaces with the appropriate information. Then another officer reviews the report and may add additional information. However, neither officer will attest to the authenticity of the information that they have written in the report. In other words, they will not certify that the information is true and complete. Instead, they will quote the accuser who has more to gain by lying than by telling the truth. That is the reason that they have not confirmed her information is that they have become her flunkies. More than this, no one can charge an officer with perjury since they have not taken an oath to tell the truth and that proves their culpability.

An arrest deprives a person of their liberty by legal authority to answer for a crime that may or may not have occurred. So a false arrest only occurs without legal authority. This means that many arrests are unjustified but the law does not classify them as false arrests because an officer can arrest anyone during an investigation of a crime. So an arrest of an innocent person is not a false arrest since an officer has legal authority to make the arrest. Moreover, the mandatory arrest law requires an arrest without regard to the innocence of a falsely accused male.

A citizen's arrest is only legal if that citizen personally witnessed the crime being committed and can positively identify the criminal. Moreover, the law requires the arresting person to call the police so that they can make a formal arrest. If the arresting person fails to follow the law, then the accused party can sue for false arrest, an act that most anyone would try to avoid.

Telling truth is an absolute defense to a claim or defamation even if that truth harms someone. An opinion generally does not amount to defamation when no one offers it as a statement of fact but a witness who falsely testifies is subject to prosecution for perjury. In reality, women are almost never jailed lying about abuse, although it was part of a plan to deprive their husband of his possessions. This was precisely what the authors of the mandatory arrest mandate were trying to do. So when women have accused men of terrible acts that never occurred, that proved that no one can bring forth a lie without omitting the truth. It was the titillating satisfaction of obtaining an outcome without being arrested and that is what they got.

The Elements of Fraud

The elements of fraud include five separate acts. They include a false statement of a material fact and the accuser knows that their statement is untrue. The intent of the accuser was to deceive the authorities while depriving the victim of their rights and property while she knew that the police would rely on her statement. The police would arrest him for a crime that did not occur while the accuser would benefit from this plan. This meant that the falsely accused would have to prove his innocence since the application of law is based on probable cause and not reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt comes from the result of a trial and not verifying the truth of the accuser’s claim. So he loses his home, property and reputation while she remains free and state will never prosecute her because the State preferred that outcome. When a person has a duty to speak, a jury may treat their silence as perjury. It is that person's right under the Fifth Amendment where no law can compel another to be a witness against themselves.

Edward Steven Nunes

Note 1: The Sixth Century Digest of Justinian (22.3.2) provides, that the burden of proof lays with the accuser and not with the accused. This simply means that the accused does not have to prove their innocence because they are presumed to be innocent. But treacherous women and their supporters want to turn this principle around where men are presumed to be guilty until they have been proved innocent, but by whom? When was the last time that a shrewish woman or a crooked prosecutor has accomplished an act of contrition?  They can't because that's their nature. On the positive side, there are probably more than seven billion people on this planet and some have not yet learned to lie but they know what a lie it is.

Note 2:  Descartes Candle - Rene Descartes was trying to prove the existence of God. Instead he found himself alone in a dark room with a lighted candle and he concludes that the candle has changed. However, the wax is the same but less of it exists.

Note 3:  See the police reports in Coercion.

Note 4:  See the police reports in Material Alteration