I've just been informed – by someone who I refuse to reveal – that Donald Trump has dispatched a team of private detectives to California to examine my birth records. Worse, I'm told he can't believe what he's finding! So, even I know when the jig is up. It's time for me to come clean. I'm a Canadian-based plant, sent here to infiltrate your society. The election going on up North yesterday? I did that (I also pre-determined the outcome). You're a fan of bacon, maple syrup and you say 'eh?' a little too much? It's not Vermont – and you're not hard of hearing. It's me.
I know I've told you I'm an American citizen, but how can that be possible under the following facts?
- I was born in Northern California.
- Both, not just one, of my parents is/was a citizen of Canada and neither is/was a dual-citizen.
- The first three digits of my social security number were issued from a state in which I've neither set foot, nor ever had a mailing address.
- Furthermore, I wasn't even living in the United States when I legally-procured my social security number.
- I didn't have a copy of my birth certificate, so I wrote to the State of California to request one – and was sent a short-form "Certified Abstract of Birth", which I then used to request my social security number.
- No religion or hospital information is listed on the short-form.
Yet, these are the additional facts: I am an American citizen. I have a valid social security number. And – what makes my mother most proud – I can be President of the United States; notwithstanding the pesky requirement that I must somehow convince people to vote for me.
Why do I bring this up? Because the juror at your next trial might be a birther or a truther. And before anybody takes offense, I'm using those terms in their broad sense; just as many people were willing to believe that George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. Quite an interesting time to be discussing it with the recent death of bin Laden.
This is a mindset; conclusion-based thinking. Like it or not, pre-conceived bias affects judgment. "I've decided what I want to believe, now I'll allow in all facts in support of that belief while filtering out all those that oppose it".
Do you think that might be why, in a jury trial, attorneys concentrate on demonizing an opponent through hearsay and innuendo? Oh sure, the opposition objects, but once the jury has heard it, it's too late. They're already deciding whether it's plausible. The attorney knows that if he or she succeeds, they've accomplished the following goal:
Filter / On
At least that's what somebody told me…