The New Consensus

Podcast: Download

Subscribe: RSS | More

Darrell Castle talks about the new way of looking at things or the new general consensus that emanates from a disrespect for the constitutional framework of law and justice.

Transcription / Notes

THE NEW CONSENSUS

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday, the 29^th day of March in the year of our Lord 2024. I will be talking about the new way of looking at things or the new general consensus based on how the system programs us toward a general agreement on a preconceived set of outcomes for a particular series of events. I will argue that the new consensus emanates from a disrespect for the constitutional framework of law and justice now being taught in America’s law schools.

This is not just Friday but Good Friday, three days before Easter Sunday. Good Friday commemorates the day more than two thousand years ago that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a borrowed donkey to great fanfare. He was the king, but he did not look like what the system thought a king should look like. He did not ride in on a great warhorse, he wore no battle armor, and he carried no sword and so the system and the people rejected him and called for the Roman, Pontius Pilate to order him crucified. The consensus went from hosanna to the son of David to cries of crucify him in a matter of hours.

Please don’t think that I am comparing anyone alive today with Jesus because that is not my intent. I am just trying to show how the consensus can change quickly and how that can sometimes subvert the entire system of law and justice. Consensus today goes something like this; there’s widespread agreement that something must be done; there is a growing consensus in the country; the general consensus is this; the study shows a strong consensus so let’s take a vote.

Trouble arises with the idea of a consensus when we forget that America is a country based on law and the rights of the individual. Each individual American is protected by law and assured that his rights cannot be taken from him without a fair and proper hearing called due process of law. The hearing must not be an already decided sham of the law based on what the consensus has already decided. The system must not, whether by consensus, or by the dictates of one individual, declare a person or group as tainted or already guilty.

The act of labeling someone as tainted was common in the English Crown days and was occasionally used against the American colonists so they specifically prohibited it in the U.S. Constitution. That prohibition is in Article one Section 9, paragraph 3: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.” The term ex post facto means a law that was not in effect when the accused supposedly violated it but was passed later.

These two things specifically prohibited by the supreme law of the land are being used against one person and those who support that person today right here in America. Yes, Donald Trump, it seems, is not liked by those in charge and has been declared “tainted” by them. The idea of due process and presumed innocent are now just quaint memories from our history, interesting but no longer there to protect individuals who are tainted. I will also tell you that the obligation to provide due process of law cannot be met when the accused has been declared guilty by the system before the process starts.

I have been a lawyer for more than 40 years having gone to law school in the mid 1970’s so I admit to having a love for the rule of law and its protection of the individual American. Here in America some overzealous prosecutor or judge is not allowed to override the rule of law because they think someone or some group of some ones is tainted and outside the protection of law. I scratch my head and I wonder how the system could have changed so much in the 45 years that I have been a lawyer so I read, I investigate, I try to discern what happened and I reach conclusions.

In my day we were taught and we believed that as lawyers we were officers of the court and protectors not just of our clients but of the system of law and justice in America. My investigation of system changes led me to talk with lawyers, law professors, and retired lawyers around the country. I have looked at the new instruction in many places from obscure state schools to the Ivy League and the West Coast schools. The ideas being taught to lawyers today are definitely different from my day.

I wonder, along with many others, how lawyers in prominent positions, often elected positions, such as the district attorneys of Atlanta and New York City, can commit obvious fraud and confess to felonies under oath and nothing is done by their state bars. Lawyers used to have a code of ethics drummed into them constantly and even had to pass a special ethics section of the bar exam before they were licensed as lawyers.

Most lawyers live in fear of running afoul of some obscure section of the code of ethics because they might suffer discipline by the bar like a public reprimand, censure, or if the violation was bad enough, disbarment. The discipline would be bad enough but the embarrassment of being labeled as unethical would be the worst fear. To face your fellow lawyers who knew you had been disciplined would not be pleasant.

The district attorney in Atlanta, Fani Willis, appears to have confessed under oath to felony violations thus adding perjury, allegedly, to the violations. The district attorney in New York City, Letitia James, campaigned for office on a platform of getting Donald Trump, which should be an ethical violation by itself. They don’t seem to care whether this man is guilty of anything or not because the fact that he is politically “tainted” is all the evidence they need.

So, what is different and what has changed? My investigation revealed that what is being taught to law students today is not respect for the rule of law but disrespect for the entire system. The curriculum now seems to be that the Constitution, which says it is the supreme law of the land, was written about 250 years ago by racists who owned slaves. The fact that the founders of America, the authors of the Constitution, lived in an era when ownership of other human beings was commonplace and accepted, invalidates everything they did.

Since they were racists, the Constitution need not be followed today or even treated with any respect. What follows from that reasoning is that all those individual rights like those in the Bill of Rights may be violated at will by those in authority if their victims are “tainted” or outside the consensus of political acceptability. I oppose this person politically, therefore, anything I do to him inside or outside the law is justified because the end justifies the means. Good fascists agree that Mussolini was correct in fascist Italy when he allied his country with Adolph Hitler because he incorrectly thought that Hitler was the strongest power in Europe. The end, which for Mussolini was the building of an Italian empire like the Roman Empire, justified the war which was used to build it.

The end that justifies the evil deeds of our various district attorneys and their coconspirator judges is keeping Donald Trump off the ballot and ruining him financially. The fact that he is not guilty of any of the “crimes” of which they accuse, indict, and persecute him is irrelevant because the end justifies the means. The fact that many of the charges aren’t even crimes or at least they were not at the time he supposedly committed them is also irrelevant.

Even the President of the United States is caught up in these works of darkness. There is now growing evidence that the president and/or officials of his department of justice colluded with the corrupt district attorneys to bring the false charges against his political opponent. He, according to the special prosecutor, is guilty of one of the charges himself but is too old, infirm, and forgetful to be charged.

The president, in one of his recent speeches, bragged that some 800 people had been prosecuted for the “insurrection” of January 6^th. The fact is that more than 1300 people have been tried, convicted, sentenced to incarceration, or forced to plead guilty to the FBI’s and CIA’s false flag incident of January 6^th. Not a single one of the 1300 was tried and found not guilty. A 100% conviction rate is amazing so congratulations to the Washington D.C. system of injustice.

Finally, folks, where does this disrespect for the law lead us and what will be the result? Time will tell I suppose, but my fear is that it will lead to something resembling Stalinist Russia so that there is no law, no justice except that defined by the authorities in power and along with it only approved speech allowed and fear of running afoul of the consensus would dominate our lives.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.