The Bible’s best example of asymmetrical warfare is the story of David and Goliath. Goliath was a literal giant armed to the teeth and backed by a massive army. David was a young shepherd so little regarded in King Saul’s Israel that he was relegated to running errands for his older brothers who had for 40 days been arrayed impotently with the rest of Saul’s army along a battle line that was frozen in place by Goliath’s intimidation. But when David arrived on the scene delivering lunch for his brothers and heard Goliath’s gloating mockery of the Israelites for having no warrior willing to fight him mano-a-mano, David burst forth in righteous scorn and indignation: “Who is this uncircumcised Philistine who dares to the challenge the armies of the Living God?!” Saul immediately enlisted David as his champion and offered him the king’s own armor. But David rejected it, dispatched Goliath with a slingshot, and then cut off the giant’s head with his own sword as a trophy of battle.
Today in America, God’s people seem similarly impotent against a Goliathan tech monopoly over an internet domain that has all but replaced the “public square” and its “marketplace of ideas” once enjoyed as the commonwealth of prior generations. This Goliath has virtually unlimited power to punish and “cancel” anyone who dissents from the official narratives of our political “elites,” who have abused their own power to grant Goliath immunity from prosecution on the judicial battlefield. We see the same corrupt government/corporate collusion in the realm of “public health” in which poisonous Big Pharma (King Og of Bashan, if you will) has been granted similar immunities to poison us. But, of course, speaking this truth about giant Og’s “vaccines” will get you crushed by Goliath as rapidly as if you affirmed the fact that Trump won the 2020 election and the usurper/puppet/stooge Biden is a traitor.
Asymmetrical warfare in the legal arena is far different than in the kinetic military context. Military conflict pits separate entities against each other, but the legal battlefield is designed for the resolution of internal conflicts. Kinetic civil war is the result of failure to resolve these conflicts internally, causing the single entity to split into two warring bodies. But as long as the entity remains whole its judicial sphere is intended for resolving disputes.
This has always been true since God established the “rule of law” in human civilization, starting with Adam. The most refined form of God’s system was seen in the Israelite Republic, established in the Holy Land through Joshua. That period is remembered as the era of the Judges, but in point of fact the people under that system enjoyed the liberty of self-rule (under the Mosaic Law) punctuated by the intervention of Judges raised up by God whenever self-rule degenerated into anarchy or foreign enemies invaded (in consequence of the peoples’ sin).
The closest modern replication of the Israelite Republic is the United States of America. In fact, it was the 1788 election sermon of Harvard President Rev. Samuel Langdon, “The Republic of The Israelites An Example To The American States,” which broke the political logjam that had been preventing the final state, New Hampshire, from ratifying the newly written U.S. Constitution.
When top-down centralized government in the form of Saul’s monarchy replaced the final Judge Samuel’s republic, God adjusted his system to emphasize what we know today as a “balance of powers” between “kings” and “priests,” which morphed over the millennia into what the British common law called the Court of Law and the Court of Equity. Vestiges of this distinction remain even to this day in the American judiciary and in the (largely misunderstood) political maxim “the separation of church and state.”
Throughout Bible-based civilization, church and state have been recognized as separate sovereigns with equal but distinct roles and power, serving as “co-adjuvants” of society. (That is the true reason churches are not taxed in America – because the “king” has no authority over the “priest.” Read my essay here for a more thorough explanation.) An entertaining example of this separation of powers is seen in Victor Hugo’s novel “The Hunchback of Notre Dame,” where refugee Esmeralda receives sanctuary in the church, beyond the reach of the king’s law. The medieval Christian church merely replaced the ancient Levite “Cities of Refuge,” preserving a legal concept still in use (and gross misuse) today in the leftist “Sanctuary City” false narrative.
Interesting stuff, but how does it relate to waging asymmetrical warfare against our Big Tech Goliaths?
The Court of Equity still exists in America with power separate from the Court of Law. An example is when a party gets a judge to grant an “injunction.” An injunction is not based on law (though it may be codified in law) but on the exercise of equity (fairness) within the discretion of, and dependent upon the ethics and honor of, the presiding judge: stopping a law or corporate policy from being implemented until a court of law rules on which party is in the right in the dispute – just as a person who had accidentally killed someone in ancient Israel could run to a City of Refuge for protection from the “avenger of blood” until it was determined if he was guilty or innocent of murder.
Another surviving equitable legal doctrine is “unconscionability,” usually seen modernly in contract law addressing “terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience.” (Sound familiar?)
Modernly, equitable remedies are only available when a party cannot obtain relief unless there is “no adequate remedy at law,” usually boiling down to whether or not monetary damages would be a sufficient remedy for the injury in question. How can one quantify the monetary value of informed consent? Freedom of of speech or conscience? The right of citizen self-rule? And how can questions about such rights even be addressed when a corrupt over-reaching government has foreclosed access to the Court of Law with devious tactics like Section 230?
Only in the Court of Equity does there remain hope to vindicate citizens rights when the Executive and Legislative branches of our tripartite government have conspired on behalf of and in league with powerful corporate oligarchs to close the Judicial branch to the victims of their tyranny. It is outrageous! And unconscionable!
On July 25, 2022, at 4:07 a.m., YouTube terminated my account for “election misinformation” (basically for repeatedly saying that Trump won) wiping out three years of video content I had archived there and providing no meaningful appeal process or even the ability to speak with a human representative of the company. Since then my lawyerly mind has been seeking some means of fighting back against this seemingly unbeatable Goliath with the smug arrogance of an imperial monarch to whom We the People are less than serfs.
It seems to me there is a strong legal argument to be made for an injunction against YouTube cancellations for unconscionability in the Court of Equity because Section 230 has essentially eliminated any “adequate remedy at law.” As a lawyer (long retired) my expertise has always been in the art of analysis and advocacy, not the craft of litigation.
This column is an SOS to my fellow attorneys across America. Contact me at [email protected] if you can help pursue this – pro-bono here in Tennessee. Or if you have the skill set to give this idea real legs (and you practice your craft in a Constitution-respecting jurisdiction), by all means take the idea and run with it yourself. Everyone else, please help this idea go viral, if for no other reason than the educational value to your fellow citizens.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.