Write about this quote by j. R. Midha: “in a court of justice both parties know the truth. It’s the judge that’s on trial.” I moght add “will the judge be ina lignemnt with truth enough to gather rhe truth and nothing but the truth?! That’s what gets really judged and when judges are corropted or ignorant or simply not truth/authenticity practitionaires you can never ever know which case they actually got the truth of, or seemed like they needed to choose a specific part for it.

….

“In a court of justice both parties know the truth. It’s the judge that’s on trial.” — J. R. Midha

I might add:

Will the judge be in alignment with truth enough to gather the truth, and nothing but the truth?

Because that is what actually gets judged.

People walk into court carrying their version of what happened.

Somebody knows what they experienced.

Somebody knows what they did.

Somebody knows what they did not do.

Somebody knows what they saw.

Somebody knows what they felt.

Somebody knows what actually happened.

And then you have the judge.

The person whose role is supposed to be to gather what is true from everything presented before them.

That means the real question isn’t simply:

“Which side told the truth?”

It is also:

“Was the person judging capable of recognising it?”

Because what happens when the judge is corrupted?

What happens when the judge is ignorant?

What happens when the judge has already formed an opinion?

What happens when the judge is more attached to procedure than reality?

What happens when the judge is not a practitioner of truth and authenticity themselves?

You can never fully know which case actually reached the truth.

You can only know which interpretation was accepted.

And those are not always the same thing.

That is what makes the judge so significant.

Because a judge can hear the truth and still fail to recognise it.

A judge can hear two different versions of the same event and select the version that fits their understanding of reality.

A judge can have access to evidence and still fail to assemble the complete picture.

A judge can even have enough information to see the truth and, consciously or unconsciously, give greater weight to one fragment of it.

And then a decision gets made.

A life can change.

A person can lose their freedom.

A family can be separated.

A reputation can be destroyed.

Money can be taken.

Rights can be restricted.

And everyone walks away calling that justice.

But was it truth?

Or was it simply the truth as interpreted by the person holding the authority to decide?

This is why SHS keeps returning to something much deeper than authority.

Authority without truth alignment is dangerous.

The higher the authority, the greater the requirement for authenticity.

Because the person making the decision isn’t supposed to bring their ego into the room and make reality fit around it.

They are supposed to do the opposite.

They are supposed to bring themselves into alignment with reality.

That is the difference.

Truth does not become true because a judge declares it.

A ruling does not make something factual.

Authority does not manufacture reality.

Reality already exists.

The question is whether the person holding the authority was capable of finding it.

And that is why I would take Midha’s quote one step further:

The judge is not only on trial for the decision they make.

They are on trial for their ability to recognise truth.

Their integrity.

Their discernment.

Their authenticity.

Their openness.

Their resistance to corruption.

Their willingness to see the whole picture.

Their capacity to distinguish evidence from assumption, reality from narrative, and truth from whatever version of truth happens to be most convenient.

Because if the judge cannot do that, then what exactly are we judging?

And how many times have we called something justice when what actually happened was simply that someone with authority chose which part of the truth would count?

That is not a small distinction.

That is the entire fucking foundation of justice.