Profanity.

Absent intent or authority as legal advice.

U.S. District Court Judge Marco A. Hernandez, (USDC- Oregon) (full disclosure - whom I personally fucking hate) issued these words in his ruling in Knotts v. Or. Trail Sch. Dist. 46 (2017) 3:15-cv-02296-AC:

”For example, profanity as political expression when communicated in a courthouse is protected speech. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1971) (state could not, consistent with the First Amendment, punish the defendant for wearing a jacket which bore the words "Fuck the Draft" in a courthouse). And, profanity-laced criticism of police officers is also protected speech. E.g., United States v. Poocha, 259 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (defendant's utterance of "fuck you" or [*10]  "that's fucked" to National Park Service ranger was constitutionally protected).”

I have personally directed “Fuck You” at Marco, and escaped with my life and freedom intact. Go figure. Had I known about this ruling before I did that, I may have been even bolder to speak my opinionated observation of Marco’s character.

At the time, I was going through one of my versions of hell, trying to gain equal access to his court, and which he conveniently avoided giving me. And, he was immune from accountability for this.

Marco goes on to say: “[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942) (listing such categories as lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and ‘insulting or 'fighting' words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’)”

Let me be very, very clear. My very existence is most likely an “immediate breach of the peace”. My words are equally disturbing to the “peace” of status quo. 

I’ve done a video on this subject, and it’s on my Rumble (https://rumble.com/v1nl8fq-profanity.html) but I’ll recap the most important points here.\

A common definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I’ve written and said that “Profanity” is realizing you’ve been living the definition of insanity and that it isn’t working for you. (That’s the “ohfuck” moment).

I’ve also said that my mission in life is to embrace the profane.

In my video, I say a life-long motto:

“If religion can issue directives based on whim,

If gods can prescribe punishment without personal communication,

If judges can demand honor and jail those who dare challenge them,

If nations (or states) can require allegiance without reciprocity,

If police can kill or injure without fear of accountability,

If courts demand respect without giving it,

If all of these things are sacred, 

Then my mission in life is to embrace the profane.”

Marco goes on to say:

“For example, profanity as political expression when communicated in a courthouse is protected speech. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780, 29 L. Ed. 2d 284 (1971) (state could not, consistent with the First Amendment, punish the defendant for wearing a jacket which bore the words "Fuck the Draft" in a courthouse). And, profanity-laced criticism of police officers is also protected speech.”

The comparison between the profane and the sacred has filled libraries. For the sacred to exist, it must have an enemy or antithesis - the profane - a line that is not to be crossed. But is it really a line at all, or is it just some judge’s opinion of a line?

There is no line. It’s all conjecture and opinion.

I say that it’s profane to have a “justice system” in which those who demand the sacred accountability measure are automagically immune from that same measure.

I say it’s profane to empower cops to lie to a person, when that same cop demands that the person tell the truth.

I say it’s profane to demand allegiance to a nation or state, without a duty of protection being exchanged to the individual. 

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), at 22, says that “Citizenship is membership in a political society and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” (emphasis added)

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, 545 U.S. 748, at 755, says “The so-called ‘substantive’ component of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not require the state to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” (emphasis added)

The state/nation has no duty to protect you or your individual rights. “Protect and Serve?” Bullshit. Their only requirement is to protect and serve the state/entity that writes their checks.

And if there is no duty of protection, Luria says, based on its logic, that there is no duty of allegiance, because there is no reciprocity.

The “sacred” is all smoke and mirrors, when it comes to the United States being a free country, protecting your rights, and providing equal protection as a rule. They protect themselves just fine. You, on the other hand, not so much.

So, what, exactly is profane?

Joseph Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) at 521, in their consideration of “profane”: “The injuries which would  constitute  [*522]  ‘sacrilege’ received specific and detailed illustration. This teaching of Aquinas is, I believe, still substantially the basis of the official Catholic doctrine of sacrilege. Thus, for the Roman Catholic Church, the term came to have a fairly definite meaning, but one, in general, limited to protecting things physical against injurious acts.  Apostasy, heresy, and blasphemy coexisted as religious crimes alongside sacrilege; they were peculiarly in the realm of religious dogma and doctrine, as "sacrilege" was not. It is true that Spelman, writing ‘The History and Fate of Sacrilege’ in 1632, included in ‘sacrilege’ acts whereby ‘the very Deity is invaded, profaned, or robbed of its glory . . . . In this high sin are blasphemers,  [*523] sorcerers, witches, and enchanters.’” (emphasis added)

I dare to say what no one else will: The “Justice System” is a religion of which the judiciary are the gods of said religion, and to speak against them in any way, is to have their “Deity” “invaded, profaned, or robbed of its glory”, and as such for me to say that, or for anyone else to repeat it, is to ascribe the “high sin” of blasphemy, sorcery, witchcraft and enchantment.

Is God not declared to be above reproach? 

Deuteronomy 32:4 (KJV) “He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (emphasis added)

2 Samuel 22:31 (KJV) “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. (emphasis added)

And this is the same level that the judiciary holds. As shown here, the SCOTUS has ascribed “immunity” to acts of the judiciary, even if maliciously, errantly, or corruptly done.

Psalm 113:5-7 (KJV) “Who is like unto the Lord our God, who dwelleth on high,Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth! He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth the needy out of the dunghill;”

I dare say that judges hold themselves to be “like unto the Lord our God”, exccept for the humbleness, and raising up the poor. 

Hell, judges toy, abuse, and obliterate the poor. We all know it to be true, and yet no one dares to speak this blasphemy.

Until now.

Who hasn’t walked out of a courtroom feeling violated, molested, and abused by the actions of a judge? And there they sit, with immunity, and fuck you if you don’t like it.

I’m merely calling attention to the absurdity of Lady Justice appearing with a scale and blindfolded, while claiming immunity for taking off the blindfold, using unjust and unequal weights and measures, and calling it “justice”.

Judges are social deviants. A.B.K. v. A.B.K, 323 Ore. App. 246 (2022) defines social deviancy: “Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.”

Between the individual (judge) and society, the judge believes that they are immune, and they are, due to a granted social deviancy by SCOTUS. Everyone in society is expected to be held accountable for their wrongdoings, right? Well, except these social deviants. Cops, prosecutors, legislators, and others are also availed of this socially deviant behavior, but this article is about judges.

They can literally fuck you over, fuck your life up, even take your life, and if these things are done in error, maliciously, or corruptly, the availability of judicial immunity allows social deviancy on the part of the judge, because they cannot be held accountable. Fuck that to hell and back.

It’s not a mental disorder, it’s “entitlement.” Judicial privilege. (insert both middle fingers here)

If my use of profane language is blasphemy, then I stand ready to receive my punishment, but I want a jury of my peers, and I’m betting there are none. I refuse and oppositionally defy a construct that speaks with pomp and piety while destroying the very values it proclaims to protect.

And if you’re afraid to speak against the injustice I’ve clearly laid out, you’re dead already, because the imposed compulsory fear against the blasphemy of the justice system already has taken your ability to reason, think, and most importantly speak against it.

Fuck that, and fuck the absurdity of a “justice system” where the injustice of the purveyors is without remediation.

For change to occur, soul force has to stand in the face of brute force, and say “Fuck You. I’m not moving.”

I embrace the profane.

P.D., JAY V SHORE, as Certified ADA Advocate