Propose Some "wisdom Of Solomon" Even At This Late Date? Options

[Johann]

and don't intentionally study independent thought looking for truth.

Do you regard independent though an adversary of truth?

[Rosyroi]

Confused but surprisingly enjoying this post.

[Rosyroi]

Double posted... deleted.

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Oct 26 2007, 08:03 PM

[mystery- man]

My faith in my fellowman is influenced by my awareness of the 97% honesty I experienced during an extended period of federal tax administration where there appears significant pockets of lack of compliance. The areas of noncompliance seemed to involve a sprinkling of all levels of assumed morals including all religious persuasions. One could hope for an optimum level of 97% for their religious experience; however, I will not be so naive to go anywhere handicapping what is required of you. I'll simply rely as requiring 100% only for myself as being judgmental even I try to exercise good judgment on a continuous basis.

You high contributing SDAs may appreciate this example of FMV when it comes to charitable contributions. I was approached by a nearby city commissioners regarding a tract of land on which the city had entered into an option to purchase at a firm price for a term certain. The proposed seller must have visited a tax professional who suggested a revision of the option for sale to be for only half of the proposed track at the same option price with the understanding, oral or in writing, that the other half would be donated to the city for a park. If you have a problem of understanding the morals of the matter taxwise, talk to your tax advisor. Don't trust your morals to others as the indication of Lunesta® or Sonata® may be appropriate for you.

CPAATTY has single handedly done what all the previous Danny supporter and Danny protractors have not been able to do. With a litagy of words he has been able to be on both sides, confusing all. With satanic zeal he has hijacked the entire 3abn saga and so mumble jumbled things up as to leave everyone totally confused and now unsure about everything. After reading one of his post I no longer knew for sure if 3abn actually existed at all. I am still confused as to the meaning of his post because he has inserted NLP into his writing thus destroying the very fabric of the discussion here. For every example he has been in a certain situation which can apply, thus making him a expert on everything. With the single swipe of the keys and the admission that he was a lawyer; tho I dont remember anyone ever asking him, his professional advise has trump everyone because of his many years being a professional. Even those who have come to a conclusion on the validity of the divorce and remarriage now ask what he thinks, and out of the abundance of experience and education he answers only to leave one in a daze wondering about the answer so stun and confused. If I were a gambling man I would say he might very well be a jesuit, but he would have to be of the highest order as demonstrated by the double speak and power his words carry. As from the very bowels of the pit he would say "dont trust your morals to others" which totally confuses everyone, thus being a good jesuit sending all to the drug lords suggesting
Lunesta or Sonata. The person has created utter confusion and has even made the reasonable seem unreasonable. Yes he even has gotten to me I am showing some of the madness, in a single swipe the man has taken my mind completely of the topic and has done his job, give him a oscar .

[Fran]

CPAATTY has single handedly done what all the previous Danny supporter and Danny protractors have not been able to do. With a litagy of words he has been able to be on both sides, confusing all. With satanic zeal he has hijacked the entire 3abn saga and so mumble jumbled things up as to leave everyone totally confused and now unsure about everything. After reading one of his post I no longer knew for sure if 3abn actually existed at all. I am still confused as to the meaning of his post because he has inserted NLP into his writing thus destroying the very fabric of the discussion here. For every example he has been in a certain situation which can apply, thus making him a expert on everything. With the single swipe of the keys and the admission that he was a lawyer; tho I dont remember anyone ever asking him, his professional advise has trump everyone because of his many years being a professional. Even those who have come to a conclusion on the validity of the divorce and remarriage now ask what he thinks, and out of the abundance of experience and education he answers only to leave one in a daze wondering about the answer so stun and confused. If I were a gambling man I would say he might very well be a jesuit, but he would have to be of the highest order as demonstrated by the double speak and power his words carry. As from the very bowels of the pit he would say "dont trust your morals to others" which totally confuses everyone, thus being a good jesuit sending all to the drug lords suggesting
Lunesta or Sonata. The person has created utter confusion and has even made the reasonable seem unreasonable. Yes he even has gotten to me I am showing some of the madness, in a single swipe the man has taken my mind completely of the topic and has done his job, give him a oscar .

Yes! Maybe it should be an Oscar that says something like, "Voltaire" or "Not", across the front! JMHO

[LaurenceD]

Well, you know, mystery- man, every lawyer knows, technically, there is no right or wrong...it's just which ever way you choose to argue it.

[Panama_Pete]

Well, you know, mystery- man, every lawyer knows, technically, there is no right or wrong...it's just which ever way you choose to argue it.

That seems to be the size of it, all right.

[Johann]

The person has created utter confusion and has even made the reasonable seem unreasonable. Yes he even has gotten to me I am showing some of the madness, in a single swipe the man has taken my mind completely of the topic and has done his job, give him a oscar .

How do we rediscover reason?

[CPAATTY]

The thread was begun with the thought of possibly substituting "Solomonian Wisdom" for "he said", "she said" and "they said" which is subject to "bearing false witness", another of the TEN where we are all better able at applying to our neighbors than ourselves. While I suggested polygraph, another suggested truth-serum.

At first blush, I sensed what I would define as a "red-neck, poor white trash environment" in dealing about parties participant where a reasonable proof may not always present itself.

One message offered that a reasonable resolution of "Solomonian Wisdon" had already been presented which tended to support my flexible conclusion at the time to which I did not indicate agreement since I had no dog in the fight and wasn't a paid advisor. I still have a degree of doubt on one side of the issue that "the very appearance of evil was not avoided" based solely on allegations. It is sad that you are able to be drawn into a situation where you feebly attempt to help others when all along you are doing yourself more harm than helping others, sad but true!

My main interest in the whole subject is the inroads that have been made by "improper associations" into Adventism as a whole, especially leadership which appears to be readily accepted. If you are a church leader burdened with "relationship problem, I question your ability to lead, a position I have held for 53 years since I joined the church before marriage. My local church is burdened with a couple, both divorced.

Some have alleged defamation, which I do not accept, as being the main reason for a significant reduction in support. I think more of the brethren in my church organization who have been allowed by church officials to use their local church as conduits to support certain private ministries without the proper degree of control to what the individual member may see as significant sin.

Some have alleged that 60% of the support of some private ministries came from the conduit through organized SDA churches. I am further aware that the local church is heavier weighted toward the female gender where their gender has spoken sympathetically with their withdrawal of support. The Adventist Church has a significant grapevine where I got my first information with no firm discussions of guilt, even to this date. I have read where certain management changes have replaced one divorced with another divorced which I am not convinced as the solution; however, time could speak to all more clearly.

Since I have no firm evidence in the matters, it may be wise for me to move my "rat killing" to another venue so those with fixed opinions reach their comfort levels without my verbage.

[Johann]

Since I have no firm evidence in the matters, it may be wise for me to move my "rat killing" to another venue so those with fixed opinions reach their comfort levels without my verbage.

As a lawyer you are not certainou which witness tells the truth? Or which can be proven to tell the truth, even if you have a sense of what went on?

This post has been edited by Johann: Oct 25 2007, 09:42 AM

[Seraphim7]

For those with substantial amounts of disposable time, the following vocabulary crosswalk will probably allow certain wordy posts to be reduced to 1-2 lines. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that either the full or abridged post will actually say anything.

Have fun!

-bear

Eschew, Evade, and/or Eradicate Legalese

Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/legalese.htm

It seems CP likes to the sound of his/her own voice. In any event why give him/her any play at all in light of the fact that he/she is just as content talking to him/herself.

[CPAATTY]

As a lawyer you are not certainou which witness tells the truth? Or which can be proven to tell the truth, even if you have a sense of what went on?

Lawyers, as a general rule, are not required to be "certain" which witness tells the truth. Let me humbly inform you, the jury determines who is telling the truth if a jury trial. Divorces in my jurisdiction are conducted by courts of equity, aka chancery. Many of these actions are held in chambers out of public view without a jury if the parties so request and can be sealed. You are being fed a bald faced lie if one of the parties allegedly has damaging evidence against the other if that party so moves for it to be heard in chambers by a judge. Evidence obtained by illegal means brings on more talk which some may allege to the public outside the jurisdiction of a court. My religious ethics speaks to me that a failure to have the guts to go forward with illegally gained evidence is tantamount to condonation, a valid defense against divorce in my jurisdiction.

[CPAATTY]

Lawyers, as a general rule, are not required to be "certain" which witness tells the truth. Let me humbly inform you, the jury determines who is telling the truth if a jury trial. Divorces in my jurisdiction are conducted by courts of equity, aka chancery. Many of these actions are held in chambers out of public view without a jury if the parties so request and can be sealed. You are being fed a bald faced lie if one of the parties allegedly has damaging evidence against the other if that party so moves for it to be heard in chambers by a judge. Evidence obtained by illegal means brings on more talk which some may allege to the public outside the jurisdiction of a court. My religious ethics speaks to me that a failure to have the guts to go forward with illegally gained evidence is tantamount to condonation, a valid defense against divorce in my jurisdiction.

On the other hand Johann by not being a one-armed lawyer,

If my opposition in a divorce court alleged to have any damaging evidence against me, I would move to have it exposed in chambers of the proper court rather than making some pronouncement for same on some internet site with nothing more to be gained but some shade of innocence were the voluntary compliance request not met. Only a court of proper jurisdiction can enforce compliance.

[Johann]

On the other hand Johann by not being a one-armed lawyer,

If my opposition in a divorce court alleged to have any damaging evidence against me, I would move to have it exposed in chambers of the proper court rather than making some pronouncement for same on some internet site with nothing more to be gained but some shade of innocence were the voluntary compliance request not met. Only a court of proper jurisdiction can enforce compliance.

Aren't most court cases a gamble?

[CPAATTY]

Aren't most court cases a gamble?

Johann, we are well aware of your ability to pose "loaded-questions!" I hope you paid enough attention to the first where you queried my basic approach to "independent thought" of which I intended to convey a level of "awareness" that had not ripened to a state requiring "diligent study thereof!" I may be of little assistance in changing your thoughts on the above enumerated query, "Aren't most court cases a gamble?" based on any vested interests. Since I presently continue as an"officer of the courts" required of all dues paying members of their local bar associations, I may continue to "straddle the fence as some may feel with the greatest of ease. I doubt you will find your query, stated as such, on any bar exam in any jurisdition. The various and sundry exams are phrased in such a manner whereby the exam candidate can demonstrate in writing their ability to recognize the separate issues in a multi-party cause of action in the administration of a system of "courts of competent jurisdition as opposed to what some term as "kangaroo-courts. All parties in a court action have both rights as well as responsibilities. All courts of competent jurisdiction are empowered to sort the facts of these individual rights and responsibilities, under law in an orderly fashion or manner so as to mete out impartial justice tempered with mercy in any two-sided matter.

Some view the results of exercises of a "partial" justice meted out with no mercy as "kangaroo courts" commonly understood in those matters with a need for the judge and jury of peers to exist in only one person to facilitate desired administration for a desired final results. I see this system as a result of independent thought coupled with a need for self justification caused by "unholy selfishness!" I continue to view Lucifer as "having eaten his cake while retaining an unfettered feeling of need of its physical retention on the same plate as it was orignially delivered to him." There still appears to be an "element" or "elements" existing among us that cares little about ever having to face reality!

I see the possibility that some parties in divorces may have been made offers of settlement whereby "bones" have been tossed by either the opposition or third parties to effect a settlement to which the other party really did not represent all the facts in the matter when they feltl no alternative for "loaves and fishes." Some settling parties may later decide that matters of character were really more that the "overall offer" subjected to certain stipulations with acceptance" may later be construed by a court of competent jurisdction as "fraud in the inducement" which can be reasonably researched by any good search engine for better understanding for those not satisfied the present state of affairs of their church as it relates to independent ministries. Be it remembered, my interest is only in my regularly organized church and with no intent here to incite litigation. There may be qualified attorneys who would handle some matters on a pro bono basis.

Johann, I am furnishing you all this free information with the hope that you may change your attitude toward our system of laws and the appurtenant system of courts and more specifically toward one of my professions saddled with its ability to spawn lawyerly jokes.