It’s the return of the Inquisition…

Sovereign Man provides actionable intelligence and rational solutions for personal liberty and financial prosperity. Read more at www.sovereignman.com

In the early 1300s, the county of Toulouse in southern France was locked in an epic struggle with the Catholic Church over religious freedom.

A large group of individuals who called themselves “Good Christians” were sort of proto-Protestants in that they still believed in the basic tenants of Christianity, but they did not adhere to the strict belief system of Catholicism, nor submit to the authority of the Church.

The Pope labeled them all heretics and had even gone as far as waging a mini-crusade, i.e. genocide, against Toulouse in which up to 1 million people were slaughtered.

But the movement still wasn’t dead. So, in 1307, Pope Clement V appointed one of his rising stars– a highly educated Dominican friar named Bernard Gui– to be the Chief Inquisitor of Toulouse.

The Pope’s orders to Gui were crystal clear: snuff out any remaining heretics by any means necessary. And Gui, an ideological fanatic, was all too happy to comply.

Gui might very well be the single most ‘successful’ Inquisitor in medieval history; he humble-bragged in his own records about personally issuing a whopping 930 sentences during his sixteen-year career, with several hundred people imprisoned and dozens more burned at the stake.

(Church law forbids clergy from spilling blood, so the condemned heretics were burned as a legal convenience to the Inquisitors…)

Gui was so ‘good’ at his job that he literally wrote the book on how to be an effective Inquisitor called Practica Inquisitionis Heretice Pravitatis (i.e. The Practice of the Inquisition of Heretical Depravity).

The book (technically a five-book volume) draws upon his extensive experience to provide his holy justice warrior readers with practical tips on how to stamp out intellectual dissent.

In Book III of Practica, for example, he explains that a good Inquisitor will ask leading yet confusing questions in an attempt to trip up the accused and get them to inadvertently commit an act of heresy.

In Book V, Gui recommends detaining suspects in Inquisition prisons and maintaining them in poor conditions with minimal food or light for extended periods. He described this as a “state of suspense” to “soften their obstinacy”.  

He further recommends psychological manipulation– including false promises of lighter sentences if they confess and even feigning kindness and sympathy for the accused’s alleged views.

If all else fails, of course, Gui fully endorsed the use of torture as a tool to extract confessions, including the infamous “rack”, or the “strappado” in which the suspect was hoisted into the air by his bound hands, behind his back– resulting in extreme pain and shoulder dislocation.

Gui’s message to his readers was unambiguous: the goal was not to seek truth and justice, or even to follow the law. These were activists, not judges… warriors on a holy crusade to rid the world of evil. And their singular objective was to convict heretics– regardless of the facts, regardless of the law, regardless of guilt.

(BTW, there’s a great old Sean Connery movie from 1986 called The Name of the Rose, based on Umberto Eco’s best-selling historical fiction novel, where an extremely villainous Bernard Gui is played by F. Murray Abraham. Check it out if you’re looking for something to watch.)

The last Inquisition was finally abolished in 1826. But the idea of activist judges who ignore the law to advance their belief system is still very much alive today… especially in the Land of the Free.

And that activism goes all the way to the Supreme Court.

Just one of the many, many examples came during the Covid Dark Ages in the case of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Andrew Cuomo (then governor of New York). The church was suing Cuomo for his executive orders that banned religious gatherings, which was a pretty obvious violation of the First Amendment.

Justice Neil Gorsuch summed up the decision when he wrote, “The government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis.” He then pointed out the absurdity that liquor stores and marijuana dispensaries could be open, but that churches, mosques, and temples must remain closed.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor disagreed completely, essentially arguing that the ends justified the means. They must ignore the Constitution because “medical experts” in their “expert judgment” insisted that closing churches was necessary.

That was classic judicial activism– setting aside the law and Constitution in favor of one’s personal beliefs. Sotomayor was terrified of Covid, so let’s just forget about the law.

Over the past three months we’ve seen a flurry of judicial activism that’s been taken to an even higher level, with judges across the country ignoring or overturning Presidential executive orders.

Certainly, this has happened before; the Biden administration was sued dozens of times, as were the Obama and Bush administrations. But to put it in context, the Trump administration has been sued over 250 times just in the last three months.

And more importantly, judges are issuing “Temporary Restraining Orders” or TROs like candy, essentially squashing the White House’s ability to do just about anything.

Over the weekend another ruling came out by yet another activist judge. The complaint was filed by the law firm Perkins Coie, which played a prominent role in the 2016 Russiagate hoax.

As reported by the New York Times, the Clinton campaign paid $12.4 million to Perkins Coie, which acted as a financial conduit to fund and manufacture the infamous Steele Dossier. A firm partner was later indicted for lying about their connection to the Clintons.

At a minimum, it’s highly suspicious. And the President, undoubtedly motivated at least in part by spite, ordered all executive agencies to terminate business with Perkins Coie, and with contractors who engage the firm. He also ordered that security clearances for employees of the firm be suspended and put under review.

Naturally, yet another lawsuit was filed. And over the weekend the Judge resolved the matter resoundingly in favor of Perkins Coie.

His rambling 100+ page opinion was one of the most self-serving, self-aggrandizing legal opinions I’ve ever seen. It reads like an overly preachy sermon, full of fire, brimstone, and salvation.

He invokes Shakespeare, claiming that Trump wants to “kill all the lawyers I don’t like,” and even opens his opinion by proclaiming how critical lawyers are “to ensuring the American judicial system’s fair and impartial administration of justice.”

Just remember that the next time you see some idiotic billboard for a personal injury lawyer– that guy is saving your democracy.

The judge goes on to cite John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, and even more Shakespeare.

There’s also plenty of deranged hyperbole, i.e. “no American President has ever before . . .” blah blah, and that “eliminating lawyers . . . removes a major impediment to the path to more power.”

Yes, it’s all part of a secret conspiracy to subvert democracy.

Or… or… maybe, perhaps, it’s possible that a corrupt law firm that willingly engaged in one of the biggest political hoaxes in modern American history shouldn’t be trusted with classified information? Or maybe they shouldn’t have tax dollars steered their way?

You’d think the President of the United States, i.e. the guy who was elected by voters, would have the authority to make those decisions.

But apparently, it’s up to some activist judge. And that seems pretty anti-democratic, which is pretty ironic given that these are the same people who claim to be the saviors of democracy.

Source

Sovereign Man provides actionable intelligence and rational solutions for personal liberty and financial prosperity. Read more at www.sovereignman.com

Source: https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/its-the-return-of-the-inquisition-152734/