Under the Mosaic law no one is allowed to willfully lie, nor is it acceptable for anyone to speak that which they do not is the truth, as if it were truth. If something has not been confirmed as true or false, the acknowledgement of what is unconfirmed must always be included in any testimony about any person and literally about anything and everything. Today defense lawyers lie like rugs on a daily basis and are well paid for it. Prosecutors do the very same thing, which is lie in the courts on a daily basis. Here is where the penal substitute comes in; the court will state that the defense attorney is representing the defendant and speaks for the defendant. Therefore, the defense attorney is paid to say whatever the defendant’s point of view is, regardless of whether it is true, possibly false, or demonstrably, patently, and knowingly false. This would be acceptable if it were not a defense attorney, but an interpreter in the case of a defendant’s tongue being foreign to the court. But the attorney “speaking on the defendants behalf” is not simply the act of reiteration. But it is because of this liberal view, it boils down to the defense attorney is playing penal substitute with the defendant, in the eyes of the court. When it is discovered afterward that the attorney had spoken and willful lie, they just claim he was representing the defendant. Therefore, the lying gets transferred to the defendant. It is like a criminal substitute rather, because many of the lies and false arguments that attorneys make in court, were never even thought of in the imaginations of the defendant. And any argument that a defendant has not made, but originates with the lawyer…is not the attorney speaking on behalf of the defendant. It is the lawyer taking liberties with lying. Origination is not representation, if it originates with the lawyer, it did not come from the defendant, and therefore is not part of the defendants testimony or argument. Now as for the attorney being the criminal stunt double for the defendant, they ought to then penalize the defendant when the attorney speaks a lie. Let’s see how well that works out in the eyes of the defendant. So, rather the defense attorney himself should be penalized when speaking a known lie in court, or even speaking of something uncertain as though it were certain in a court of law. I find it fantastically ridiculous and classically liberal for knowingly speaking that which is false and attempting to mislead the jury to be found to be not only permissible, but also the epitome of lawfulness. If you will notice that in a criminal trial where the defendant pleads “not guilty”, and is later found guilty…that perjury charges are never levied against the defendant knowingly lying in court. If those found guilty lied also to the police officers, they should be sentenced for that violation of law as well. This is where “conservatives and liberals alike” say that it is the best system we have and the defendant has the right to a “fair trial”. Their definition of fair is not found in the dictionary, for anyone to knowingly lie in a court of law is not fair. And it is not fair play for a defendant to try and lie his way out of an offense that he is guilty of, and that goes for the attorney representing him too. So conservatives have been “sold a bill of goods” with the liberal “fairness” version of how to administer a trial. Is it ever lawful under the Mosaic law to bear false witness in a court of law? Of course not, for the one found knowingly lying, or speaking of that which is uncertain, as though it were certain; shall suffer the penalty of the crime alleged in the criminal trial. Which is more fair play or more lawful or has the higher standards of law in a court; any lie you can get away with tell it, or no one shalt bear false witness ever? There are so many things and areas and vocations and institutions that are so far liberalized that it isn’t even funny, and no “conservative” has any idea that they are actually liberals.

A prosecutor should not speak of things uncertain as though they were certain. That is once again lying in court, knowingly. So what do you think of a prosecutor that knows there is reasonable doubt, but argues before the jury as though their isn’t any? My thoughts are easy and predictable, if you know my principles of law. My thoughts are this: if it is a murder trial, start building a gallows for the prosecutor without delay. If a prosecutor speaks of something unproven, as though it were proven; cuff him immediately and he shall suffer the penalty of the crime alleged that he was involved in prosecuting. No one should be allowed to lie in a court of law and that is not part of any lawful defense or prosecution, PERIOD. Now defense lawyers lie when it profits them or their case. This is seen when a man is on video tape with 1,000 witnesses committing a crime; for the defense attorney to “pull a Rick James of Charley Murphy true Hollywood stories fame” and say “I don’t see a crime,do you see a crime, because I don’t see a crime? Video tape? I don’t see no video tape. Witnesses? I don’t see no witnesses, y’all iz crehy-zee!” Now would a judge remove a defense lawyer for pulling a Rick James in court? I suppose one would assume that the judge would rule that the lawyers lie is not beneficial to the client’s defense and remove him on those grounds. But what point of law would be used, the judges subjective judgment? So, I suppose it boils down to the lawyer not telling the right kind of lies, that he is allowed only to tell lies that are approved of by the law. Yes! For the first time in the Mosaic law, we have lawful lying which is not a violation of law! Now lies which do not serve the defendant in lying his way out of guilt, are unlawful? I see, no i don’t, but yes I do. And no my name is not Rick James and this ain’t Hollywood.

Consider this scenario: Lawyers on both sides of the court are not allowed to lie ever and a defendant is on video tape with the customary 1,000 witnesses, and the defendant wants to plead not guilty. And the defendant wants to hire a lawyer to lie for him and defend the indefensible. The lawyer says no. The lawyer then says “I recommend that you plead guilty, and if not, I will to it that you get a fair trial and that the prosecutor does not lie and does not try to seek a penalty that is unequal to the criminal offense that you have committed.” Now, what in this scenario is liberal or is not the Mosiacally correct thing to do? I rest my case. Time for some ribs and cherry fizzles, yeah baby!

Post script: If you like to have bearing false witness as an option or as standard operating procedure in your portfolio, it goes without saying that this article is rejected by you faster than you see green in front and hear a horn in back. If you do not have bearing false witness as part of your portfolio, whether in court or on the golf course, I predict that you have no problems whatsoever with this article. The innocent do not need to lie now do they? Those doing evil and trying to escape the penalty, sure they lie, all damn day long. So which is the righteous in this matter, those who advocate bearing false witness as being part of fairly executing the law, or those who do not? I can smell those ribs now! Oh boy!

p.s.s. So is it wrong to say that if the Mosaic law principles judged todays liberal lawyers, that most would be dead, in jail, awaiting sentence, or just getting out of jail? That sounds “fair”.