As for the possible damage to any relevant office, we begin by asking whether the context itself is also relevant. And of course it is, for there is every reason to believe that wrongfully withheld truth is an ipso facto injury not only to the office but to the undergirding principles, never mind the implied insult to the sovereign whose ultimate authority must also be reprised so as not to be further corroded. To the extent that the publication of this book exposes what amounts not to dangerous risk-taking but to embarrassment only, the provisional conclusion can only be that the prior damage done has to that extent been repaired by a so-called crime. Accordingly, it becomes a tad difficult to simultaneously entertain accusations of damage to the office(s).
Concluding unscientific postscript
I have been approached by those who believe that I am trying to tie the hands of officeholders, or that by enforcing stewardship standards I thereby deplete the moral value of self-help and innate honesty. These are very easy accusations for ignorant people to put forth, and I would only ask whether the absence of that ignorance would find us still accused. I seriously doubt it, and here's why: stewardship exists to serve all parties related to the office. It serves the grantor by whose auspices the office receives its authority; it serves the officeholder who requires autonomy to use specialized understanding; it serves the principle giving rise to the office-beneficiary relation, and it assures the beneficiary of the highest standard of service possible, one that without question could not have been possible absent the office, ergo absent the stewardship.
In other words, knowing what stewardship is about obviates a good bit of nonsense. It does not pay to be ignorant of stewardship, and it especially does not pay the legal community to be grossly ignorant of the single most important concept undergirding legal obligations. One day we shall hope to shame them into reprising the teaching curricula at our law schools. One day we may even convince judges that the law and its service to the citizenry are more important than assuring CEOs the prerogatives to maximize profits at the expense of all those other things the courts are supposed to uphold, directly or otherwise. We are in a bad way, and the composite of secrecy and political correctness in government and military dealings offers the strongest evidence of all that we need an overhaul.
The current practice of law simply does not pass the smell test for stewardship or, therefore, justice. It's high time judges practiced enough stewardship of their offices to at least learn how and why stewardship matters to eighty percent (or so) of the jural and 100 percent of the juridical content of law. Were we all better acquainted with the normative tasks of the legal profession, whistle-blowers would not be despised for being no longer so necessary. Please, lawyers and judges, think over that last remark carefully before you jail and miserably punish more of our bravest patriots.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
