Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ecce

Pages: [1]
Current Law Students / Recruiters, Kidnappings, Inquisitions
« on: December 26, 2005, 05:22:09 AM »
The tactics of the recruiters differ substantially from those of kidnappers or inquisitors. Recruiters generally do not kidnap or capture their recruits, and they are not known to use torture as a typical conversion method. This raises the question of whether their victims are controlled without their consent. Some recruits are not truly victims of mind control and are willing members of their communities. Similarly, many recruits into mainstream religions should not be considered victims of mind control. To change a person's basic personality and character, to get them to behave in contradictory ways to lifelong patterns of behavior, to get them to alter their basic beliefs and values, would not necessarily count as mind control. It depends on how actively a person participates in their own transformation. You and I might think that a person is out of his mind for joining Scientology, Jehova's Witnesses, or Jim Roberts' The Brethren, but their "crazy beliefs and behaviors" are no wilder than the ones that millions of mainstream religious believers have chosen to accept and engage in.

Some recruits into non-mainstream religions seem to be brainwashed and controlled to the point that they will do great evil to themselves or others at the behest of their leader, including murder and suicide. Some of these recruits are in a state of extreme vulnerability when they are recruited and their recruiter takes advantage of that vulnerability. Such recruits may be confused or rootless due to ordinary transition difficulties (such as new college students), difficult life circumstances (such as failing in college or at a new job), or even tragic personal events (such as death to close friends or loved ones) or world events (such as war or terrorism). Some may be mentally ill or emotionally disturbed, greatly depressed, traumatized by self-abuse with drugs or abuse at the hands of others, etc. But it would not be to the advantage of the cult to actively recruit the emotionally disturbed. As one cult recruiter said,

Cults have complicated ideologies and practices that mentally or emotionally upset people have difficulty grasping. These structures are what allow the cult to control the person. Cults do not want people who are difficult to control.

Thus, while some recruits might be very vulnerable to those who would like to control their thoughts and actions, recruiters look for people they can make vulnerable. The recruiter quoted above also said,

Cults seek out strong, intelligent, idealistic people. They also seek out the rich, no matter what their mental status is.

The goal is make the recruits vulnerable, to get them to give up whatever control over their thoughts and actions they might have. The goal is to make the cult members feel like passengers on a rudderless ship on a stormy sea. The recruiter or cult leader has a rudder and only he can guide the ship to safety. The techniques available to manipulate the vulnerable are legion. One technique is to give them the love they feel they do not get elsewhere. Convince them that through you and your community they can find what they're looking for, even if they haven't got a clue that they're looking for anything. Convince them that they need faith in you and that you have faith in them. Convince them that their friends and family outside the group are hindrances to their salvation. Isolate them. Only you can give them what they need. You love them. You alone love them. You would die for them. So why wouldn't they die for you?  But, love alone can only get you so far in winning them over. Fear is a great motivator. Fear that if they leave they'll be destroyed. Fear that if they don't cooperate they'll be condemned. Fear that they can't make it in this miserable world alone. The manipulator must make the recruit paranoid.

Love and fear may not be enough, however; so guilt must be used, too. Fill them with so much guilt that they will want to police their own thoughts. Remind them that they are nothing alone, but with you and God (or some Power or Technique) they are Everything. Fill them with contempt for themselves, so that they will want to be egoless, selfless, One with You and Yours. You not only strip them of any sense of self, you convince them that the ideal is be without a self. Keep up the pressure. Be relentless. Humiliate them from time to time. Soon they will consider it their duty to humiliate themselves. Control what they read, hear, see. Repeat the messages for eyes and ears. Gradually get them to make commitments, small ones at first, then work your way up until you own their property, their bodies, their souls. And don't forget to give them drugs, starve them, or have them meditate or dance or chant for hours at a time until they think they've had some sort of mystical experience. Make them think, "It was you, Lord, who made me feel so good." They won't want to give it up. They have never felt so good. Though they look as if they are in Hell to those of us on the outside, from the inside it looks like Heaven.

What religion doesn't use guilt and fear to get people to police their own thoughts? Even some therapists use similar methods to control their patients. They prey on the vulnerable. They demand total loyalty and trust as a price for hope and healing. They often isolate their prey from loved ones and friends. They try to own and control their clients. The methods of recruiters are not much different. Are the recruits, the converts to the faith, and the patients willing victims? How would we tell the difference between a willing victim and an unwilling victim? If we cannot do that, then we can't distinguish any true cases of mind control.

Recruiters and other manipulators are not using mind control unless they are depriving their victims of their free will. A person can be said to be deprived of his free will by another only if that other has introduced a causal agent which is irresistible. How could we ever demonstrate that a person's behavior is the result of irresistible commands given by a religious, spiritual, or personal growth leader? It is not enough to say that irrational behavior proves a person's free will has been taken from them. It may be irrational to give away all one's property, or to devote all one's time and powers to satisfying the desires of one's divine leader, or to commit suicide or plant poison bombs in subways because ordered to do so, but how can we justify claiming such irrational acts are the acts of mindless robots? For all we know, the most bizarre, inhumane, and irrational acts done by the recruits are done freely, knowingly and joyfully. Perhaps they are done by brain damaged or insane people. In either case, such people would not be victims of mind control.

That leaves for consideration the acts of kidnappers and inquisitors: the acts of systematic isolation, control of sensory input, and torture. Do these methods allow us to wipe the cortical slate clean and write our own messages to it? That is, can we delete the old and implant new patterns of thought and behavior in our victims? First, it should be noted that not everybody who has been kidnapped comes to feel love or affection for their kidnappers. It may be that some kidnapped or captured people are reduced to a state of total dependency by their tormentors. They are put in a position similar to that of infancy and begin to bond with their tormentors much as an infant does with the one who feeds and comforts it. There is also the strange fascination most of us have with bullies. We fear them, even hate them, but often want to join their gang and be protected by them. It does not seem likely that people who fall in love with their kidnappers, or who turn against their country under torture, are victims of mind control. There is certainly some explanation why some people act as Patricia Hearst did and why others under similar circumstances would not have become "Tanya". It is doubtful that mind control should play much of a role in the explanation. Some women are attracted to gangsters, but have few opportunities to interact with them. We do not need to revert to mind control to explain why Hearst became intimate with one of her terrorist captors. She may have thought she had to in order to survive. She may have been genuinely attracted to him. Who knows? Mind control is a better defense than "changed my mind about a life of crime" when facing bank robbery and murder charges.

Current Law Students / Re: Talismans and Spells For Law Students
« on: December 26, 2005, 05:15:15 AM »
[...] The first rule of the New Age: When it doubt, it comes from the Vedas. Viewed by many as an extremely useful tool, organizations such as Scotland Yard and the French police currently use palmistry and the study of hands for detecting criminals. [...]

Intelligence agencies do a lot of this crazy stuff!

The rationale appears to be that fear is a weapon just a rifle or a tank is; if you frighten your enemy enough, you may defeat him without having to fight. In full-fledged wars and quiet covert operations around the world, U.S. military and intelligence specialists have long practiced intimidation through propaganda. Some of the most productive (and some of the most fanciful) psywar operations have sought to exploit ideas about the supernatural.


Using fear or force to manipulate or coerce people into doing what you want them to do should not be considered some kind of sophisticated "mind control". Inquisitions do not succeed in capturing the minds of their victims. As soon as the threat of punishment is lifted, the extorted beliefs vanish. You do not control the mind of someone who will escape from you the moment you turn your back.

To render a woman helpless by drugs so you can rape her is not mind control. Using a frequency generator to give people headaches or to disorient them is not the same as controlling them. You do not have control over a person's thoughts or actions just because you can do what you want to them or render them incapable of doing as they will. An essential component of mind control is that it involves controlling another person, not just putting them out of control or doing things to them over which they have no control.

Some of the more popular misconceptions of mind control originated in fiction, such as "The Manchurian Candidate." In that film, an assassin is programmed so that he will respond to a post-hypnotic trigger, commit a murder, and not remember it later. Other books and films portray hypnosis as a powerful tool, allowing the hypnotist to have his sexual way with beautiful women or to program her to become a robotic courier, assassin, etc. Other fictional fantasies have been created that show drugs or electronic devices, including brain implants, being used to control the behavior of people. It has, of course, been established that brain damage, hypnosis, drugs or electric stimulation to the brain or neural network can have a causal effect on thought, bodily movement, and behavior. However, the state of human knowledge on the effects of various chemical or electrical stimulation to the brain is so impoverished that it would be impossible using today's knowledge and technology to do anything approaching the kind of mind control accomplished in fantasy. We can do things that are predictable, such as cause loss of a specific memory or arousal of a specific desire, but we cannot do this in a way which is non-intrusive or which would have the significance of being able to control a large array of thoughts, movements, or actions. It is certainly conceivable that some day we may be able to build a device which, if implanted in the brain, would allow us to control thoughts and actions by controlling specific chemical or electrical stimuli. Such a device does not now exist nor could it exist given today's state of knowledge in the neurosciences.

There also seems to be a growing belief that the U.S. government, through its military branches or agencies such as the CIA, is using a number of horrible devices aimed at disrupting the brain. Laser weapons, isotropic radiators, infrasound, non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse generators, and high-power microwave emitters have been mentioned. It is known that government agencies have experimented on humans in mind control studies with and without the knowledge of their subjects (Scheflin 1978). The claims of those who believe they have been unwilling victims of "mind control" experiments should not be dismissed as impossible or even as improbable. Given past practice and the amoral nature of our military and intelligence agencies, such experiments are not implausible. However, these experimental weapons, which are aimed at disrupting brain processes, should not be considered mind control weapons. To confuse, disorient or otherwise debilitate a person through chemicals or electronically, is not to control that person. To make a person lose control of himself is not the same as gaining control over him. It is a near certainty that our government is not capable of controlling anyone's mind, though it is clear that many people in many governments lust after such power.

In any case, some of the claims made by those who believe they are being controlled by these electronic weapons do not seem plausible. For example, the belief that radio waves or microwaves can be used to cause a person to hear voices transmitted to him seems unlikely. We know that radio waves and waves of all kinds of frequencies are constantly going through our bodies. The reason we have to turn on the radio or TV to hear the sounds or see the pictures being transmitted through the air is because those devices have receivers which "translate" the waves into forms we can hear and see. What we know about hearing and vision makes it very unlikely that simply sending a signal to the brain that can be "translated" into sounds or pictures would cause a person to hear or see anything. Someday it may be possible to stimulate electronically or chemically a specific network of neurons to cause specific sounds or sights of the experimenter's choosing to emerge in a person's consciousness. But this is not possible today. Even if it were possible, it would not necessarily follow that a person would obey a command to assassinate the president just because he heard a voice telling him to do so. Hearing voices is one thing. Feeling compelled to obey them is quite another. Not everyone has the faith of Abraham.

There seem to be a number of parallels between those who think they have been abducted by aliens and those who believe their minds are being controlled by CIA implants. So far, however, the "mind-controlled group" has not been able to find their John Mack, the Harvard psychiatrist who claims that the best explanation for alien abduction claims is that they are based on alien abduction experiences, not fantasies or delusions. A common complaint from the mind-controlled is that they can't get therapists to take them seriously. That is,  they say they can only find therapists who want to treat them for their delusions, not help them prove they're being controlled by their government. Thus, it is not likely that the "mind-controlled CIA zombies" will be accused of having delusions planted in them by therapists, as alien abductees have, since they claim they cannot get therapists to take their delusions seriously. In fact, many of them are convinced that their treatment as deluded persons is part of a conspiracy to cover-up the mind control experiments done on them. Some even believe that False Memory Syndrome is part of the conspiracy. They claim that the idea of false memories is a plot to keep people from taking seriously the claims of those who are now remembering that they were victims of mind control experiments at some time in the past. It is hard to believe that they cannot find a wide array of incompetent New Age therapists willing to take their claims seriously, if not willing to claim they have been victims of such experiments themselves.

Current Law Students / Re: If you say Sweden, what do you think of?
« on: December 26, 2005, 05:01:36 AM »

Current Law Students / Must You Squeal on Your Fellow Lawyer?
« on: December 26, 2005, 04:58:47 AM »
A lawyer who knows another lawyer has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct should report that misconduct to the state appropriate disciplinary body. However, that duty is usually aspirational in nature. A lawyer who fails to report another lawyer for such known violations will not be disciplined by the disciplinary system for failing to do so. Under Rule 8.3(a) of the ABA's MRPC, and similar rules in many jurisdictions, however, that same duty to report is mandatory, and failure of a lawyer to report another lawyer's known ethical misconduct is conduct subject to discipline.

For the misconduct to be reportable, the lawyer must "know" that another lawyer has committed the misconduct with knowledge being actual knowledge and not merely a suspicion. Further, the known misconduct must raise a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer. Known violation by a lawyer of certain ethical provisions would clearly seem to raise substantial questions about a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer.

Current Law Students / Re: Liquidation of Limited Company
« on: December 26, 2005, 04:41:49 AM »
The above applies if you're talking about an LP (Limited Partnership). If what you have in mind, on the other hand, is an LLP (Limited Liability Partnership), then you've to remember that LLPs are general partnerships with some limited liability protection in that each partner is responsible solely for his/her own negligence (and those working directly working under him/her), and not that of the other partners. In LPs, general partners have personal liability and are actively involved in the business, whereas limited partners contribute funds and are passively involved. If you and your partner are thinking to become actively involved in your venture the LP may not be the right choice for you. As for the LLP -- although they isolate you and your partners from each other's negligence, they don't shield your personal involvement in the venture.

In many states, owners of an LLP have only a reduced form of limited liability from the claims of the business's creditors. This "limited shield," as it is sometimes called, does not afford the owners the same protection they would enjoy in either the LLC or the corporation. In addition, in many states, the business interests of the owners of an LLP are afforded less protection from the claims of the owners' personal creditors, as compared to the LLC.

Current Law Students / Re: Liquidation of Limited Company
« on: December 26, 2005, 04:30:39 AM »
You may insert some sort of provision stating that in the event of the dissolution and termination of the Partnership for any reason, the General Partner shall act as liquidator of the Partnership. The Liquidator winds up the affairs of the Partnership and sell or otherwise liquidate its investments. The Liquidator is usually vested with full right and unlimited discretion to determine the time, manner and terms of any sale or sales of Partnership Property pursuant to such liquidation, having due regard to the activity and condition of the relevant market and general financial and economic conditions. Following the payment of all debts/liabilities of the Partnership and all expenses of liquidation the proceeds of the liquidation shall be distributed to all Partners in accordance with the positive balances in their respective Capital Accounts. Any Partner with a deficit balance in his Capital Account shall contribute to the Partnership an amount equal to such deficit (but only to the extent of the amount of the positive Capital Accounts of the other Partners) and such contributions shall be distributed to those Partners with positive Capital Accounts at such time.

Current Law Students / Social Security Numbers = De Facto National ID Card
« on: December 26, 2005, 04:03:14 AM »
SSNs should not be used the way they are currently used.

Refuse to provide it whenever you can -- e.g., strange as it may seem, you can be hired without giving your SSN to your employer.

Yet, SSNs are not unique identifiers as they say. After all, you can simply make up Social Security numbers randomly, and create a valid number not assigned to anyone. On the other hand you can make up a SSN that can be valid, while being probably been assigned to another person.

Current Law Students / Re: Assistance Writing a Business Plan
« on: December 26, 2005, 03:52:39 AM »

Current Law Students / Re: Talismans and Spells For Law Students
« on: December 26, 2005, 03:41:23 AM »
LOL Amelia!

Current Law Students / Re: subliminal studying?
« on: December 26, 2005, 03:34:28 AM »
Quite interesting, toof u c k i n. I mean, that there may be out there stupid asses thinking they'll be able to influence your behavior via these lousy techniques is pretty much understandable, but it's almost unbelievable that CIA would pay so much attention to this crazy stuff.

Pages: [1]