General Comments Jan 2026

Disclaimer“This is a structural analysis, not legal advice and not an accusation toward any court, judge, or official. The purpose of this explanation is to examine how certain civil frameworks operate in practice and how their internal contradictions affect individuals subject to them. Nothing here challenges the integrity, motives, or constitutional commitments of the judiciary. It is an attempt to describe the system’s mechanics so that courts and policymakers can evaluate the structure without assigning blame.”

“Every judge in this country takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, to administer justice without respect to persons, and to faithfully discharge the duties of the office. That oath presumes clarity, fairness, and a legal framework that allows both the court and the individual to understand the obligations at issue.”
“If we start with basic definitions: a civil dispute usually involves obligations that can be satisfied through payment, administrative action, or other non‑criminal remedies.
Servitude refers to compulsory duties imposed on a specific group, backed by the threat of confinement if those duties are not performed.
A disability, in the structural sense, is a legal condition that limits a person’s ability to act freely or to meet obligations that others can meet without restriction.
Ambiguity is the absence of clear, knowable rules — a condition where duties, boundaries, or consequences cannot be understood in advance by a reasonable person.
A victim is someone who suffers a direct, identifiable harm caused by another’s conduct.
And revenge is the imposition of burdens or penalties not to remedy a specific harm, but to express societal anger or fear toward a group.”

“When a caste is created to respond to different legal structures in every jurisdiction, the individual must comply with obligations that shift from state to state. These obligations are compulsory, backed by confinement, and cannot be satisfied through payment or any ordinary civil mechanism. The ambiguity of the rules — changing definitions, inconsistent requirements, and non‑portable identity — creates structural disabilities: the person cannot know the rules in advance, cannot satisfy the obligations through civil means, and cannot avoid the risk of incarceration without continuous, compulsory compliance work.” “In such a system, the traditional concept of a victim disappears — there is no harmed party whose injury the civil scheme is meant to remedy. Without a victim, the burdens begin to resemble revenge in the structural sense: penalties imposed on a caste not to repair harm, but to express societal condemnation. That is the contradiction.” “The story I wrote is not about blaming courts or questioning their motives. It’s about showing how the structure itself produces contradictions that no individual — and no court — can resolve without a principled off‑ramp. Ambiguity creates the disability; the disability creates the compulsory duties; the lack of any payment mechanism undermines the civil label; and the absence of a victim invites the appearance of revenge.”
“And all of this stands in tension with a constitutional right: the pursuit of happiness, understood as the individual’s ability to move freely, make personal choices, and participate in ordinary life without arbitrary or unknowable restraints. When a system imposes shifting, compulsory duties on a single caste — duties no ordinary citizen must perform — it restricts that pursuit in ways that the civil label was never designed to permit. That is why the structure needs a coherent, principled way to correct itself.”