I apologize for the long pause from blogging, but I'm afraid work and life, as they always do, interfered. However, I'm back now so let's dive right back into the completely credulous mind of Robert Runyon, Benton-area genius.
Let us begin with some developments that have occurred since my last post. In a submission to 30 Seconds, Prof. Lee pointed out that Runyon had largely plagiarized his legal argument from another source. Here is her post:
Had we any doubt about the competency of PV-Runyon to be a school board director, his 9/11 Op-Ed lays it to rest. Unable to distinguish between "the" and "thee," oblivious to the meaning of "in personam," making nonsense comparisons of "sow's ears" to "city halls," and confusing "god's law" with "common law," either he's writing to a secret audience (his UFO pals?), or he has no idea what he's talking about, or both. Plain truth? Runyon's Op-Ed is a poorly CRIBBED version of legal dilettante Howard Freeman's unintelligible take on Texas property law. No kidding. See www.landrights.com/UCC_1-207.htm and http://autarchic.tripod.com/dixon/chapter6.html.
Needless to say, I went to the websites to clarify that Runyon had indeed, stolen his argument from another author. The first URL she provides links you to the second URL, where a little exploration and a link to buy the author's book reveals this. I cannot say I am completely shocked that Runyon would plagiarize his legal argument from some theocratic wingnut who is not a lawyer and has never attended law school. But don't take my word for it, here is the description of the author from the same site above:
The author is from a small southern Christian Community where contracts were spoken aloud and hands were shaken in fellowship. Word is bond and few would dare transgress upon an agreement. This love of our Brother has been reduces to ‘summary’ contract.
The author failed the second grade in Louisiana and averaged out in several California High Schools. He did not get interested in any meaningful study until he attended college. He found a Constitutional Law class which taught Lawyers how to make elliptical, everyday words to mean whatever they presumed. He decided there was more to Law than “social engineering” and being a Reserve Deputy Sheriff.
He became an insurance agent in Tennessee and soon learned that he was up to his neck in Lawyers and Bankers. He decided to fall back on his limited resources and fled back to California. He is a self studied Administrative Law Consultant whom has found that words within the Bill of Rights are of God’s Law.
That's right, this brilliant legal mind has found "God's Law" in the Constitution, and I always innocently thought it was a completely secular document. Here's my most recent 30 Seconds entry, posted in today's Press Enterprise in response to Runyon's idiocy:
Theocrat and plagiarist (his Sept. 11 ltr. to the editor was taken from William Dixon's "Sovereign Covenant") Robert Runyon wrote that the Constitution was founded on God. Runyon is wrong. The Constitution is a secular document whose authority is derived from the consent of the governed. God is not in the Constitution. Moreover, the Free Exercise Clause directly conflicts with the First Commandment (Ex. 20:3), for which the punishment is stoning (Deut. 17:2-5). Historian Donald Lutz noted when the Federalists were defending the Constitution during the years 1787-88, they did not cite the Bible. The anti-Federalists, who opposed the Constitution, were the ones citing the Bible for support. Runyon should stick to plagiarizing his arguments.
Unfortunately, 30 Seconds is an extremely limited forum, only allowing for 700 character entries. However, I feel I accomplished my goal despite my normal verbosity. While Prof. Lee may have been wrong about the exact author Runyon plagiarized, she was certainly correct about the argument being taken wholesale from another, in this case, a man who is probably very much like Runyon - at least if his legal argument is any indication.
This post, like all my other posts, seems to be getting rather long. I'll end it here for now, and post the legal analysis in Part III, which will hopefully be posted either later tonight or sometime tomorrow (no promises though). However, if you are interested in actually reading a case that dealt with the constitutional issues Runyon was attempting to mention in his original argument, the name of it is Berwick Area Landlord Assn. v. Borough of Berwick. I apologize for not providing a link, but am afraid I was unable to find it available online for free.
No comments:
Post a Comment