A Warning Shot Heard Loud and Clear| The Post & Email

WHO WAS REALLY IN “PERIL” IN GEORGIA?

by Keith Baker

Who was Kemp warning of “peril” in his January 25 letter to Obama attorney Michael Jablonski? Had the issue of Obama’s placement on the Georgia ballot already been decided?

(Feb. 11, 2012) — “If you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

The stern warning is clearly stated. At least most of us would interpret it that way. If you don’t show up to the legal proceedings there is bound to be a punitive consequence. It is understood that peril is not a good thing, particularly when used in the context of a legal proceeding.

But what does “peril” actually mean?

Well, the warning does not, in words, say what peril is. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. By common usage, the meaning of which most people are familiar with, it was never doubted that causes have effects, and that when a cause is poorly executed, negative consequence may result. This is peril, as opposed to safety and security. Some people go further and include as a negative consequence uncertainty without regard to punishment. As to this class of risk in a legal proceeding there is doubt that uncertainty is equivalent to punitive consequence, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this examination, it is unnecessary to resolve those doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider that peril is punitive, and that failing to participate in the proceedings, as stated in the warning, will result in lawful punishment.

The word “peril” is certainly comprehensive in the context of the warning. Judgment against the defendant and a ruling for the plaintiff are implied in the warning. That is undeniable. In fact, the entire reason the warning was issued was to convey this very sentiment.

By saying “[t]his is peril, as opposed to safety and security. Some people go further and include as negative consequence uncertainty without regard to punishment,” is it left open to consider that uncertainty is peril? Or does the statement only leave open the possibility that uncertainty is among those results which may be considered to be a negative consequence?

Now consider the following:

via A Warning Shot Heard Loud and Clear| The Post & Email.

 

Related articles

• Georgia warns Obama of ‘peril’ of ignoring eligibility hearing (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast. Catholics Won’t Get Fooled Again (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Obama eligibility challenges spread to 6 states (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Prison Planet.com ” Obama Accused of Contempt of Court in ‘Birther’ Hearing (gunnyg.wordpress.com)