“Learn the Law in 7 Days”- The most important book ever written

 

I recently published a book titled, “Learn the Law in 7 Days”.  I am very proud of this small handbook, coming in at just over 98 pages. This handbook gives the average citizen the ability to learn the basic ins and outs of the legal system in a way that makes sense to them.

The “law”, is what drives society. If you do not understand the legal system, it becomes impossible to navigate inside society. If you learn the rules of the game, you can either learn how to avoid certain pitfalls or you can even learn the loopholes and how to profit! Regardless of your desire, having a basic understanding of how the legal system works will give a huge leg-up in life.

I have many friends who are from foreign countries and I experienced a brief stint of homelessness. I wrote this book with these types of people in mind, but this book is truly applicable to the entire human race.  While most people have little desire in learning the legal system, the poor and those who freshly arrive in this country are especially ignorant to what their rights actually are and what they can if they find themselves in a tight spot.

This book could have easily been 300-400 pages long. But, I did not want to overwhelm the reader. I wanted to give them the bare-bones in terms of legal knowledge. 98 pages isn’t that long of a book. I do my best to add in humor and other interesting “tid-bits” in order to make the book less boring and bland. I also share many stories about my own personal life and how the legal system has shaped me.

I hate most aspects of what the law is, but I respect what it tries to do for society. Sometimes you can hate something so much that you appreciate its strength. Sometimes you can love something so much, that you hate how much control it has over you. That’s how I feel about the legal system. It gives our society moments of justice and beauty, as well as moments of corruption and disgust.

In this title, I try to emphasize both the beauty and ugliness of the legal system.  This book is short, sweet, somewhat entertaining, and highly useful! I pray that those who read it will be triggered to dig a bit deeper and truly develop a skill-set that can protect themselves, their friends, their families, and perhaps even spark an interest in a law related field.

Whether you are a student, bus driver, computer engineer, boxer, doctor, or a cashier working at a fast food joint, the “law” controls your life whether you like it or not.  I am not saying that you must become a lawyer in order to survive in the modern world of legalities, but, having some basic knowledge on how to escape everyday legal pitfalls is extremely useful, and this book confidentially achieves that goal.

Please pick up a copy on Lulu.com or on Amazon.com. Search for “Randell Stroud”, and you will find all of my amazing books which will bestow you with infinite wisdom and practical knowledge.

Lulu.com

Amazon.com 

Good luck!

-Randell Stroud

Nalini-Global

2019

Soldiers need more Free-Speech

The right to say what you want, without fear of government or societal persecution is so great of importance that our founders listed it as our very first amendment. For when ideas, whether good or evil, are suppressed, society cannot engage in a progressive evolution. When people fear to utter a word, whether it be written or spoken, the world begins to become a quiet, cold, and gray place to live in. The feeling of having your thoughts trapped inside of your head with no legal way to escape is akin to a sort of mental prison.

Many Americans falsely believe that “free speech” protects us in a way that allows us to say anything we want, so long it doesn’t involve a threat of violence. While I wish this was the case, it is not. Under the Smith Act of 1940, it is illegal for any American citizen to express sympathetic communist viewpoints. Under the National Defense Authorization Act, passed under the Obama administration, anyone who is merely “suspected” of having terrorist sympathies, can be detained without a trial. These are very vague parameters which can easily be applied to silence social dissent.

Those who serve in the military have it even worse. If you are a private citizen, and you make a Facebook post about the president being “incompetent” or “unqualified”, the FBI isn’t likely to show up at your door. However, if you are serving in the military, such a simple statement can likely have you standing before a judge in a court martial hearing. In a court martial setting under military jurisdictions, there are typically no requirements for a jury, making the case that much more difficult to fight.

You would think that those who are literally putting their lives on the line to defend our nation and carrying out the orders of congress, would have more right than anyone to criticize the commander in chief and/or the orders given to him/her. But, the reality is, soldiers are expected to follow orders, show support for the commander in chief, and to keep their mouth shut if they disagree.

Article 88 of the U.C.M.J, 10 U.S.C. 888, makes it a crime for a commissioned military officer to use contemptuous words against the President and Congress, among others. The Department of Defense has also expanded this rule to include all military enlisted personnel (DOD Directive 1344.10).

These rules have a practical rationale for the fact that a soldier’s ability to criticize a mission could destroy his unit’s morale. While this is a noteworthy rationale, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the opinions of our men and women in uniform should matter a lot more than they currently do. If we are going to limit their ability to publicly criticize a mission or leader, should we not at least require that our congress, president, and commanding officers consult with our enlisted members in regards to input on whether or not missions should be pursued? Perhaps we should hold a yearly caucus where servicemen and women can express their opinions regarding missions and operations.

Many jurisdictions have implemented an on base “public forum” that is only visible to other military personnel whereas enlisted members have the chance to fully express their thoughts without fear of punishment. This is a step in the right direction. However, when you consider that the United States has not had a properly declared war by congress since WWII, we soon realize that there is a major problem with how our soldiers are treated as mere pawns on a chess board when we should consider them as individual human lives, only sending them to war if absolutely necessary.

Our law makers need a huge reality check in terms of civilian vs military life. Unmarried soldiers are expected to live celibate lives in the barracks whereas they have no freedom of speech; Talk about having pent up rage! Perhaps its all apart of the plan to make them better fighters. Who knows!? Regardless, I will exercise my free speech by saying, its about time we start humanizing our soldiers instead of viewing them as mere pieces of flesh covered expendable “equipment”.

-Randell Stroud

Nalini-Global

Is hate-speech considered Free-Speech?

 

On October 28th, 2017, a rally will be held in Shelbyville,Tn. The rally is called, “White Lives Matter” lead by a group of White Nationalists. An event that I want no part of. Being a Tennessean myself, I know the history of my state very well. Tennessee,Georgia, and Alabama are cradles for The Ku Klux Klan, a group that has very much weakened in the last 50 years, yet, some racial sentiments from their heyday still live on in rural areas.

While the south has progressed quite a bit over the last few decades, there are still remnant of racial tensions.  After several incidents involving white police officers killing unarmed black citizens, a group known as “Black Lives Matter”, has began to emerge. The decentralized group plans to counter protest the rally in Shelbyville. The rise of white nationalism has grown since the election of Donald Trump who espouses populist ideals.  Black Lives Matter groups want to bring awareness around minorities who are targeted by police, treated unfairly in the justice system, and other problems that go ignored in their communities.

The “White Lives Matter” activists claim that police officers killing white citizens are being ignored in the media, and the constant accusations of racism against them (i.e. playing the race card), and their disdain for “Political Correctness”, is why they are speaking out. White Lives Matter claim that they are tired of being “scapegoats” for media induced race wars.

These statements do not sound extremely controversial. However, among these groups exists a more sinister wing.  The same can be said of the Black Lives Matter movement. In both movements, we see disturbing trends. On the far right, we have Neo-Nazis, skinheads, and the KKK. On the far left, we have Antifa, Black Separatists, and Neo-Anarchists. On both ends of the spectrum, violence, bigotry,  and hateful comments are often dispersed.  Extreme opinions on both the left and the right are resulting in 1960s styled race-wars. It is truly sad to see.

Accusations of “hate-speech” have been numerous in recent years. With the rise of legalized gay marriage, transgender activism, and race riots, the label of “hate speech” is often seen in the media.  Many even advocate that “hate-speech” should be illegal. Protesters on the left can be seen holding signs saying, “Hate-speech is not Free-Speech”. 

Hate-Speech, as commonly defined, is any sort of slur or comment that demeans someone based on their race, religion, gender, or nationality.  But, is hate-speech considered free-speech?”

Yes and no.

Under the Constitution of the United States,  citizens are guaranteed the right to express grievances. There is no stipulations in the constitution as to what those grievances may be. In many instances, grievances are not always agreed upon. My grievance may be to support abortion, whereas another may consider it offensive, thus deeming it as “hate-speech”, since, in the mind of a pro-lifer, I would be advocating for something offensive to their religion.

The gray area of what is “hate speech” is very hazy. Free-Speech has been suppressed many times in American history. The Smith Act of 1940 , made it illegal for American citizens to openly support Communism or Socialism publicly during both World Wars, yet many people today support those policies without fear.

However, generally, as I understand how liberty and freedom works, is quite simple.

A man or woman has the right to say and/or believe whatever they want so long as their words are not encouraging criminal acts such as murder, theft, or vandalism.  From a civil standpoint, this would also include libel and slander.  Under the Civil Rights Act, this also expands into the work-place applicable to employers hiring employees without considering their race, gender, or religion.

If your words are not encouraging violence, libel, slander, or mayhem, then the Constitution supports your right to say whatever you desire, no matter how ridiculous it may be. If a man were standing on a public sidewalk holding a sign that said, “I hate White people”. Would I be offended? yes! Would I be upset? Yes. Would I organize a counter-protest? Very likely.  Would I ask that his action be made illegal? No.

In some situations, the ability to say controversial things sparks debate, communication, and growth.  The 1st amendment of the Constitution was not designed so that we may talk about the weather, it was designed so that people could say very controversial things outside of the norm of society without fear of suppression.

It is a very slippery slope. In fact, under the Patriot Act and the NDAA , free speech is suppressed. Under these laws, anyone who supports terrorism, even verbally, can be detained without a trial and/or placed on a watchlist effectively having their passports revoked.  It sounds good in theory, until you realize that it is very ambiguous. Let’s say I post on Facebook, “I hate paying taxes!”.  Under the Patriot Act, some controller from a far away office could legally monitor that comment and place me on a watchlist saying that I am advocating “anti-government” rhetoric.  It seems far fetched, but it is actually happening and has happened to many people.

Soon, our political leaders will be able to silence anyone so long as they use buzzwords like: Terrorism. Racist. Homophobic. Islamphobe. Bigot.  We see it all the time in politics. When Barack Obama was president, I was often called “racist” anytime I criticized him, even though my criticisms were always towards his policies and not his race, the accuser didn’t care, because my skin did not match theirs. On the flip side, when I criticize President Trump, the far-right accuses me of being an undercover “Antifa” member or a “liberal”.  Some could argue that such accusations could be illegal under “libel” and “slander”, since these are attacks on my personal character/reputation. General comments made towards society and public officials are absolutely protected under the 1st amendment.

I am non-partisan and I am not easily offended, so, I let those comments roll off my shoulders, however, the point is made…

Do we truly live in a society that is only able to criticize those who look exactly like us? I may catch a lot of flack for saying this, but, I believe that a man or woman should legally be allowed to utter any comment that does not command a criminal or libelous act. If they are general comments made and they do not instruct murder,theft,vandalism,libel, or slander, then the person/group should either be left alone, or, if you disagree, you should peacefully counter-protest that individual or group.

If a protester is advocating for murder or destruction, the protester should not be counter-protested, but rather, you should call the police and have them thrown in jail because they are guilty of conspiracy.  If a Neo-Nazi shouts into the streets, “I am going to kill all black people.”  This is not free-speech. He is openly expressing his intent to murder anyone who has black skin. The police should be called.  However, if that same Neo-Nazi exclaims, “We shouldn’t allow foreigners to immigrate into the US”,  his words are extremely unintelligent, but they are not illegal.

The fact that the Neo-Nazi is even allowed to say this will spark a debate. Debates are very necessary for human evolution. The only way we can remove stupidity is to allow for stupidity to rear its ugly head so that we may publicly shame it.

Free-Speech is often confused with “popular speech”.  Just because a speaker isn’t saying something that is widely accepted, doesn’t automatically mean that he/she should be locked in jail, castrated, or charged with a felony.

Are racists idiots? Yes

Should we fear all Muslims? No

Should we care whether or not Gay people get married? No, that’s their business.

Should we assume that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is racist? No

These are my opinions, but many may disagree. And they should have the right to. 

In the words of a great philosopher….

 “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

 

On October 28th, 2017,  Black Lives Matter will counter protest the “White Lives Matter” rally in shelbyville.  The Constitution says that both groups are allow to commence in their activities. Both groups are legally protected.  If violence, vandalism, libel, or slander is used during these rallies by either side, then you can expect arrests to be made. The judge will not care if you are a Liberal, Conservative, or whatever. If you do the crime you must do the time.

If the judge or jury issues what is perceived as an unfair verdict, the public has every right to protest, boycott, counter-sue the state, and/or express their grievances towards that also.

It’s time we get back to the basics and read a little “Common Sense.”

I’m sure Benjamin Franklin would agree.

Nalini-Global

2017

Randell Stroud