The Chain-of- Hearts, Part II.” The Hollow Man, a movie about a man who has lost his mind, had this to say about the use of hypnosis, after being placed into an altered state of consciousness. “When I opened my eyes, I could still feel the hand that held me and even more strongly the presence of the woman behind me. I reached out and took her hand, the hand that had been inside my head. It had a strong electric current running through it, like I was holding a part of the circuit.” The Hollow Man, Part I The use of hypnosis is growing and many are coming to the same conclusion. There is so much confusion today that we have to use every trick in the book. The following website outlines the use of hypnosis to put someone into a trance. The following is from a website called the Skeptic's Dictionary. The following is a paraphrased statement of the use of hypnosis. Hypnosis is a state of relaxed, yet attentive focus. It uses self-suggestion and mental imagery to control the attention and body of another person, who is also in a state of intense focus. Skeptics often point out that a hypnotist can hypnotize someone without even touching them. What if the hypnotist just asks the subject to imagine that he or she has been hypnotized? The hypnotist can simply tell the subject to imagine a vivid scene and they can put them in that trance state. The whole point is that an experienced hypnotist has developed an expertise that many laypersons do not have. A hypnotist would know when he or she can no longer hypnotize the subject because the state would change and would then need to stop. Hypnotized Masters, this post is also available as a PDF file. Just click on the following link and the PDF version will be downloaded to your computer. (a) It is well settled that the law will not tolerate any secret or iniquitous means resorted to, to obtain possession of property to which a person is rightfully entitled to, and, therefore, will not permit one to use deception to obtain property which he is not entitled to. ... (b) But in this case there is no deception; there was no pretense of lawful rights; no trickery was used to induce appellant to consent to the purchase of the lands, or in payment of their purchase price. It is not a case of buying stolen goods, but a case of purchase of property that was not owned by him. ... (c) In these circumstances, can it be said that the jury should have been instructed on the law of agency? ... (d) It is true that there are some expressions in the earlier decisions of this Court to the effect that the mere fact that one is acting as an agent of another person will not justify a criminal or fraudulent act. But, as said by Mr. Justice McLean in the case relied upon by appellant [United States v. Whiting [51 U.S. 200, 11 L.Ed. 591 (1850)]], those decisions are not based upon the soundest principle, since it is universally conceded that, when the principal owns and possesses property, it is within the power of his agent to sell it for him without reference to the consent or approval of the owner. As said by Mr. Justice Brewer in an opinion in a similar case: It does not matter that the agent is not the owner, but if the owner is not bound by law, the agent is. It would be difficult to state a principle more universally recognized or one better settled by the case-law of this country. Carpenter v. People, 1869, 4 Colo. 173, 176. ... [T]his court has repeatedly held that 'he who has the power to commit the fraud and is the owner of the property (which he is endeavoring to obtain by a false pretense) is liable.' ... I do not perceive how the law is any more concerned to ascertain whether the agent has some interest or right in the property which he is endeavoring to obtain by false pretense than it would be concerned to ascertain whether the agent was himself the owner of the property in that case. (The majority opinion of Justice McLean in Whiting states the rule.) The cases relied on by appellant (which were also relied on by the trial court and appellant here) and the reason for the rule are fully stated in the majority opinion of the court in the case last cited. The rule being so well recognized, the reasons stated by the court for the rule apply with as much force in this case as in the cases relied upon. The cases cited by appellant relate to cases in which the agent is acting in his own name as the owner of the property which he is endeavoring to obtain by false pretense. In the case before us the agent was not acting in his own name as owner of the property, but was the agent of appellant, who had a right to sell and deliver the property that had been purchased from him. We cannot escape the conclusion that, under such circumstances, appellant would not be protected by the rule mentioned and that the trial court did not err in not instructing the jury upon it. The judgment of the lower court is accordingly affirmed. (end of paraphrased statements) Hypnosis, Laws and the Lawyers The laws of the United States are complex and it is difficult for most people to understand them. The laws are becoming more and more complicated to protect the rich and the powerful. Laws have no meaning without lawyers, and these laws were being written by people with little understanding of what they were writing and trying to force on a public that did not want to read them. The most important laws were not written in their entirety, but were drafted in short clauses and phrases. If there is any conflict between the clauses, the attorneys can pick and choose which clause they want to use. This is why hypnosis is so useful in changing the public's perception. The lawyers and the authorities have to rely upon hypnosis as a method of mind control. When legal issues are not covered by the law, a judge or jury has to use their common sense and experience. The laws were written so that judges and jurors use their common sense and experience and apply it to the case. This is what the law should be, but today's courts are more interested in the law than in the facts. The courts are getting smaller and the public is not getting better legal representation. Many cases today are decided on the basis of a short hearing, where one of the attorneys says "Your Honor, I think that is the ruling of the court." This is known as a "oral ruling" and there is no way that one can appeal from an oral ruling because the lawyer does not know whether the judge will rule in the person's favor or not. The same judge will also make many other oral rulings, some of which will be in favor of the person and some which will be in favor of the government. When the lawyer makes these statements, they know that they have a winning argument because they have the client's best interests in mind, but if they lose they will be sued and have to pay for the wrongs they do to their client. Judges that rule in favor of their client also have to worry about getting sued because they will not have the law on their side. In order to make this story interesting, it is necessary to create a legal issue for the judge to decide. The court should have an opinion about what they think the case is, but that opinion will probably be in the form of a question and it would have been helpful if the answer was not so obvious. If the person being asked the question says "I have no idea," that answer is in itself a good indication that the court should not ask the question. An example of how to create a legal issue can be seen in the case of The People v. Dr. Bongiorno, 1979, 27 Cal. App. 3d 635, 103 Cal. Rptr. 82. In that case, the state of California's attorney general prosecuted Dr. Bongiorno for unlawful transportation of aliens. Dr. Bongiorno was convicted, but on appeal, he was denied certiorari and the decision was overturned. When they found the case on appeal again, they had a chance to put in new evidence, and this time they did. There was a trial, and the court heard about testimony from government officials and others that showed that Dr. Bongiorno did have permission from the government to bring aliens into the United States. The judge in the court heard the evidence presented and had to decide on whether to grant Dr. Bongiorno a new trial or not. The only evidence against him was the testimony of