Steven JP Dionne: There is a difference between law and justice

To The Daily Sun,

I have little understanding of the law-making process. However, I possess a sufficient acumen to recognize the intrinsic difference between "law" and "justice." Make no mistake, both can and have been mutually exclusive for some time. In my limited capacity, I believe laws are created in order to define structure. However, justice is the simple application of one’s common sense, and is inherent to one's very existence. Is not justice the moral fabric of any society? What is fair, equitable for all, is not justice than the very foundation of liberty, democracy, not law, but justice?

Legal verbiage is a difficult cipher. The law, written by politicians (a.k.a. lawyers) allows for a wide berth of interpretation, thereby creating a broad range of movement within the lane of so-called truth. Justice, on the other hand, is a hypothetical thought, in a very simple language defined by common sense. If a particular action, through legal speak, is deemed acceptable within the perimeters of law, it may, at the same time seem unreasonable and unfair when common-sense is applied. I have never held for a moment that the interpretation of the "law" necessarily serves the greater good of the community, but rather, benefits those who might afford to mount a challenge.

Like it or not, when a judgement is passed down, defending the Belknap County 21, the court has effectively endorsed and at the same time entitled future activities with a like outcome. Such actions as, committee stacking, the defense of illicit behavior of certain members, gaging the public voice, rewriting of the law to achieve a certain political scheme, the removal of individuals without cause in order to further one’s agenda, the control of the entire county by a handful of individuals who publicly acknowledge their approval of autocratic rule (Rep. Richard Littlefield’s recent comment "turning the entire county red.") I wondered for a moment which shade of red he was referring to?

Jurists have the luxury of retiring to the sidelines upon speaking their verdict, claiming a simple interpretation of law. I would respectfully suggest one has to, every now and again, raise their vision above a page of the volume. You see, for far too long the courts were thought to serve the law... fallacious rational at best... you serve the community, justice for all, not just the chosen few with "cushiony" positions as state representatives.

One of the 21, recently defining himself as an "astute legal" clairvoyant, foresaw the outcome. He at the same time continues to pontificate the merits of the delegation's actions, never a word of the cause. That cause, which has precipitated this entire diatribe. He defends the merits of the law, at the same time killing any sense of justice by hiding the evidentiary from the taxpaying public.

Please excuse the redundancy. Without a public examination of all the facts, testimonies and documents, the law may be served, justice never will.

Steven JP Dionne

Laconia