Skip navigation

A woman who owns a part of a small house is engaged in a legal battle with other owners in Kaunas, Lithuania. The link is here.

It is common there that what would appear to be a single – family home is owned by several people – each owning a part. As one walks around, one sees parts renovated, parts painted, parts unpainted, and, from time to time, additions.

The woman added a separate entrance. She is seeking to ‘legalize’ it, and her neighbors in the house object.

Here is the problem. In the real world, such small houses just can’t be ‘run’ in this way. There are no “condo associations,’ and if there were, they would be too small to function. (What to do when half a house doesn’t pay because they can’t?)

The deeper problem is this. If she really owns her property, she should be able to do what she wants. To say she can’t is to say she does not own it.

Yet adding parts to houses obviously impacts, at the very least, aesthetics of the rest of the building. This impacts the value of the other units of private property in the house. It is hard to say that they should not have a veto power.

The case has a twist. They are not talking, really, about knocking it down, but in having it be recognized by the type of land registry they have there, which registers not only land but buildings and apartments and other units.

My point is both sides have legitimate interests, and there is no way of coming up with a solution which would be truly just. And my second point is that the government should put measures in place to encourage single ownership of buildings such as these. This could be done by alterations to the tax code which would favor parties seeking to purchase units within the same building. The bottom line being that one really cannot own such property in fee simple (independently, as private property), because it is just too bound up with the property of neighbors. The situation causes constant tension and a type of captivity. The government should not encourage this sort of thing. (I am sure this powerlessness and stress served the Soviets well, but it does not jibe with a yeomanry.)

I am sorry for both sides in this quarrel, and for all the others I have seen as well.

Most priests get it wrong.

There is an unusual reading (Matthew 20:1-16) from the Gospel that comes up every three years in Roman Catholic churches. It is unusual because it appears either to be about contract law or management lore. It isn’t. So what typically happens is that the homily (sermon) says something about either topic and then segues into the idea of spiritual development – with the bottom line being that anyone can be called, and that the reward of salvation is inherently equal to all persons. Which is not untrue, but it is not the message of that reading. The message of the reading is actually extremely seditious and supremely revolutionary, and that is why it is so important.

The passage can be read here:

First, it is not about contract. If it were, the message would be jejune. It would go something like this: it is possible to contract to pay one person the same amount as another for less work, or to put it in more easily understandable terms, to pay one person more than another. Well of course it is. And just to firm the argument up, only the first group called has their reward specified (one coin). The rest are only promised a fair wage.

Secondly, it is not about management. It may not be smart for a manager to pay one person more than another for the same work, or to pay the same amount no matter the hours worked, as the practice would tend to foment dissatisfaction. It is within the manager’s power, however, to make such an arrangement. The manager in the story is God, and it is obvious that God would have such a power. The story is not enlightening if explained in this way.

The only possible way to make what I call the management explanation (or, if you will, the ‘same wage for less work’ approach) meaningful is to equate it with the idea that the people in the story are all saved, but at different times, and that the people saved first are not to be jealous of those receiving salvation later, since salvation is the same for all. The trouble with this approach is that it is based on the notion that those saved first would be jealous. Thus the teaching is for one not to be jealous in such a situation. But is this a problem? Are those saved early jealous? I do not think so at all. Why would one care in heaven that another made it there more easily?

The real explanation has to do with the mind-set prevalent at that time. This existed in the entire Indo-European region, apparently. The main idea was that whatever you had, your position, even your health, was given to you by the gods. Therefore, it was deserved. As was castigation of those less fortunate and even those fortunate who become afflicted with disease. As an aside, one takes note that such a mentality is in a way unconsciously cruel.

The first group called to the vineyard are the privileged ones. They have not earned the right to work the whole day – they did not, for instance, stand in line the longest. They did nothing. They were merely called first – the owner approached them, not the other way around. These then represent those at the top of the social pyramid: the emperors, kings, and governors; perhaps the pharisees and so forth. The others called at the various hours occupy intermediate positions.

The manager/owner calls the last group. Interestingly, he asks why they are not working. They say that they have not been called. This illustrates that it is not through their own fault that they have not been called. The owner/manager then calls them. Here I bemoan my own use of the word ‘call.’ It connotes salvation. They are not being saved, however. They are being placed in a hierarchy, and the point is that it is not of themselves, for their virtues or vices, that they are being ranked, but they are being placed at the pleasure of the manager/owner.

What is happening here? The denouement is that those who came last received the same wages as those who came first. Thus, those who came last got more (per hour). The story tells how the people in the first group protested, to no avail. Meaning that the hierarchy has been subverted.

Thus, the first shall go last and the last shall come first. In the kingdom of heaven.

With Christ, we are all called to a life of moral courage and enjoined to seek perfection. This is what matters. Even those who are in the lowest social, economic, or other position in this world may be the greatest moral heroes and the best Christians. And thus “wind up,” as it were, on the “top of the heap.”

This message, however, was completely and staggeringly revolutionary. That we don’t recognize its sedition is testimony to its success. It was new and brought forth a completely different type of person and mentality.

Yet it remains radical. As radical as can be. For instance, it gives the lie to socialism and communism (as well as what is often called ‘statism’), since an imposition of equality by government is as irrelevant to the new moral imperative as is an imposition of inequality.

I’ve been wanting to get this one off my chest for years.

I picked up a box-full of used books for peanuts recently and something of import became very clear while reading one of them. The book is by H.R. Haldeman, titled The Ends of Power. It’s his view of Watergate.

I’ve got to give the guy some credit. Watergate was weird, and Haldeman’s got a whole section about how weird it was. Haldeman was White House Chief of Staff during the time of the scandal.

Haldeman makes the most interesting aside. He describes how powerless the President is in the American system. That’s right, powerless. Well, in a way of speaking. He describes how impossible it is to get mid-level bureaucrats to go along with President’s policies (for instance, on not appealing certain losing judgments in divestiture cases – a pet peeve of mine, as in non-criminal cases I really think this is overreaching and tantamount to an abuse of power on the part of the government: Nixon wanted a rule enforced: no appeals if the government loses in trial court, and I agree with him).

This (the powerlessness of the chief executive) struck me especially when I thought of the contrast with communist ideology – and the way organizations, including universities, continue to act in present-day Lithuania. The contrast could not be greater.

Under a doctrine called ‘democratic centralism,’ in a communist – and post-communist – system power is unitary. There is no place in the system for a second, third, or any other decision-maker. The top has and uses this power to make a decision at any level, including the lowest; and also to change any decision that has already been made. Indeed, this power was so developed that decisions in court cases used to be re-written prior to filing by people in power. (For more on this, see John Hazard’s book: Communists and Their Law).

The contrast between unitary power and the non-unitary nature of power in the American system can only be attributed to an unwritten convention. Yet it is an essential one. I think it is of great importance, and indeed I have written in support of the idea previously.

Yet it is also amazing to consider the implications. I mean, well, the President is the chief executive, right? The buck stops there and so forth. He is responsible for the actions of the executive branch, as he should be. But there are independent power centers and in truth it seems he can’t control them. And he probably shouldn’t be able to, either. But then again, shouldn’t he? Don’t we think of him as the boss?

I should interject here or somewhere that in today’s Russia the concept of unitary power is still firmly in place, and, indeed, they can’t imagine anything else! This would mean that the boss is not the boss! I can tell you from personal experience this fixed-idea constantly manifested itself in Lithuania.

Back to Watergate. Probably the main count against President Nixon was that he was accused of seeking to influence the CIA to influence a criminal investigation. The special prosecutor said that this was obstruction of justice, a criminal offense in itself.

Firstly, it is clear that in a Soviet or perhaps even a post-Soviet society, a president would simply have ordered the investigators to pull back on their investigation. No need to have gone through another agency.

Secondly, it is clear that if the U.S. president cannot do so, it is because of the (unwritten) conventions which support a diffused system of power (that is so different from the unitary system described above).

Here, it seems necessary to posit that in principle there could arise a situation wherein a U.S. president should have the power to order (or otherwise influence) an agency of the executive branch to desist from (or engage in) some activity in order to avert some true and palpable danger to the United States (to its national security). This is, one would think, especially true in wartime.

This is what, I now think, Nixon meant when he said, “When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”

Are we at war at present? With whom? Drones have killed thousands in recent years, and most certainly not just in Afghanistan.

Who should judge this? I do believe there is nothing illegal per se, and so, I guess, to be honest I can’t say my position differs from that of Nixon (as I understand it).

But what is really at issue is the paradigm. It seems that the correct paradigm is not a legal/illegal one. It is precisely for that reason that judgement of the matter is given over to the Congress. It is a very involved question of legitimacy.

And here is the rub. Most people, it seems, believe strongly that Nixon’s actions were illegitimate. Illegitimate is an interesting word, and it is perfect for this idea: it connotes an improper use, something unsanctioned, unjustifiable. Not necessarily criminal, but as I said, that is a different paradigm.

Were they? Among all the crazy business that is/was Watergate, the “Smoking gun tape” and the attempt to influence the CIA presents perhaps the clearest set of facts.

Was this a legitimate use of (or attempt to use) presidential power? The tapes do not, it seems to me, show an attempt to stop ongoing criminal investigations (so that their subjects could be freely prosecuted), but to contain them so as not to create embarrassment. Ostensibly things would become public that would be embarassing. A modern-day example would be, let us say, the extent of NSA phone surveillance, which arguably is not illegal but certainly was embarrassing.

Haldeman was to go to the CIA to tell them the President thought that unless they told the investigators to pull back that the “Bay of Pigs” would resurface.

Sounds weird? You bet.

But Haldeman says that when he mentioned the Bay of Pigs,

“Turmoil in the room. [CIA director] Helms gripping the arms of his chair leaning forward and shouting, ‘The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs.’ Silence. I just sat there. I was absolutely shocked by Helms’ violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story?” [p. 39] Haldeman eventually comes to believe it involved the Kennedy assassination. [p. 40]

Thus, a defense attorney would argue that, hey, Nixon’s actions were legitimate: there was a bombshell there that reasonably could be expected to be a danger to national security at at time of war.

Me, I do not pretend to know enough about Watergate to be able to come up with a comprehensive case against or in defense of Richard Nixon. I tend to side with those who believe his actions were illegitimate.

Yet I have my doubts. These questions were of the first impression. The fact of the tapes (and of a President using mild profanity) were strikingly new and therefore shocking. The country was at war, and in a most unpopular one. Nixon was uncool and the epitome of uncoolness.

Watergate recedes. As all things do. But the ideas, motifs, and problematics of the situation demand our attention. The area they inhabit is a crucial one for us. They haven’t been worked out yet. I wrote this piece to contribute a bit towards the solution.

Obamacare is an important issue and it seems everyone has an opinion. But to my knowledge no one has written about it, Lithuania, and baksheesh.

Baksheesh is defined as a payment (as a tip or bribe) to expedite service. Note that it expedites service and may not exactly be quid pro quo – it can be like a tip, or a gift. But in the Western world, such payments constitute bribery.

Baksheesh drives Lithuania’s medical system. Lithuania had been occupied by the Soviet Union from World War II until 1990. It has something like universal health care, which it inherited from the Soviets.

Health care is free. There is a system of clinics: there is no limit to the number of times a person can use them. If one needs a specialist, one gets sent to one. All free.

Except it isn’t. It isn’t free. Baksheesh is required. Of young and old. To the doctors and other health workers.

Oh, no one extorts the bribe, per se. If, however, you don’t pay it, you are treated completely differently. No care is taken. Your operation is not scheduled. And you won’t see the specialist again, let alone a good one. (One gets to see the good ones only by using clout – and a bribe.)

I recently spoke with an eighty year old woman about this. She said she paid a bribe to her doctors. I asked why. She said, leaning forward, because they treat you completely differently. Meaning that they actually take care, instead of going through the motions.

Baksheesh is an unavoidable consequence of limited resources

Bribery of one’s physicians is so ingrained that … the Civil Code, as adopted in 2001, contained provisions specifically devoted to this and seeking to legitimize and even legalize it. (The code section — 6.470 (4) — was repealed only in 2006.) (Interestingly, the usual documents accompanying a repeal are unavailable.) It seems the general opinion is that the repeal facilitates bribery by removing any restriction, although interestingly it is not considered bribery as such. Baksheesh, rather. Something natural.

The point is that if Obamacare is not repealed, legitimate choices are going to decline – and unlawful activity (such as accepting patients off the books) will be encouraged and legitimized. It is likely to bankrupt the insurance companies and equally likely to demand a bailout – resulting in even more government control of health care. Similar to Lithuania. Very natural.

Baksheesh is only natural, too.




The Nov. 11, 2013 issue of Kauno Diena contains a front page article on a young man who, when he was 18 but yet in high school, retaliated (allegedly) against a young woman classmate who he claims had verbally abused him on numerous occasions.

The young man with an accomplice crushed a couple of raw eggs and rubbed them into the head and hair of the young woman, or so it is reported. This occurred in a public place, not at school.

He was brought to trial for this: a criminal prosecution. The judge apparently arranged for what is provided for in the law in LT: a settlement. Instead of receiving a jail term (or, again, so it is reported), the young man was to pay 3000 Lt to the woman.

(Just to put it in perspective: that sum is more than the take-home salary of most attorneys in Lithuania.)

Apparently the young man had never been in trouble with the law before.

I don’t have too much trouble with that result, although I do feel sympathy for the young man. Verbal abuse, including slander, can be very, very painful. More painful than a punch in the nose. I’ve been punched in the nose – in karate class, by mistake. It hurts, but it’s nothing, because there was no intent to harm; indeed, the puncher was very much concerned about all the red stuff coming out of my nostrils. Way more so than me, actually, as I had grown used to it! But about the young man and high school: one can’t get away. One is trapped at school. A punch in the nose or eggs in the hair is an assault. But meanness, especially if repeated, is not so easily reachable, yet does as much if not more harm.

But the situation has a few more facts. The young man alleges that the girl’s father came to his home and hit him in the face with his fist, then went outside and damaged the young man’s motorbike. This allegedly occurred right after the egg incident.

The young man is described in the paper as being upset that the police are not prosecuting the young woman’s father.

And here is where it gets dicey. And juicy. The police are described as saying that this kind of thing is why there is something called a private prosecution.

A private prosecution is a strange legal device by which one puts forth documentation and pleadings as if one were the prosecutor, who is not involved. It is a criminal prosecution, yet carried out privately.

I have to say here that I think there are two very ‘bad’ things about this story. One is that there could be a ‘settlement’ in which a fine is paid not to the government, but to the other party. That is the realm of civil law. (And in a civil case, it would have been easy for the young man to counter-claim for damages done both to him physically and to his motorbike.) Obviously, the settlement did not aim to settle the entire panoply of issues deriving from the incident (which again could be done more readily in the civil setting).

The second point is more or less a reiteration of the first from another perspective. I do not think the criminal justice system is the place which should handle the young man’s potential suit against the young woman’s father. Justice, I think, will not be well-served. The alleged actions of the father are much more of a private nature than of a public one (especially given that significant time has elapsed since their alleged occurrence).

In short, I think the possibility of dropped charges in relation to a monetary settlement is not a good idea and should not be part of the criminal process, and I think private prosecution similarly should not exist. These legal ‘institutes’ are too prone to producing very strange results.

The Spartacus and Game of Thrones TV series are spectacular. I can’t help but admit that they are wonderfully well-made. Indeed, I am a fan of both.

They are both bleak.Unreservedly so and without hope.

Spartacus has to be. We know the ending. While it is not clear what they were actually seeking, it is known the slave revolt failed. The slaves were brutally crushed – indeed, thousands were crucified.

Thrones is bleak as well. But here lies the rub. Its author, the gifted Martin, has stated that the idea of it was to portray what is essentially Europe in the Middle Ages, but with the intention of depicting its cruelty. Readers of the book, especially, know that Martin is true to his stated purpose.

The “rub” lies here: the real Middle Ages, while cruel, also were extremely enlightened. Indeed, it was a time when enlightenment took on cruelty and made great strides.

Why? Because of Christianity.

This was the time of the great hospitalers,  the orders who originally ran hospitals – a Christian invention.

This was the time of thousands and thousands of monasteries. Organized and sharing knowledge, mostly of practical sciences and agriculture.

This was a time, for instance, when poor women could have hope. Take a walk in the University of Leuven, for example: while I forget the name of the order, there were thousands of women given the means to support themselves. The order organized, trained, and gave them shelter. The numerous buildings remain for all to see.

Universities were begun: starting from cathedral schools, which were literally schools run by the side of the great cathedrals.

Hope was given to mankind by the Good News. The best that could be achieved otherwise was a kind of reserved detachment.

Spartacus cannot have a leavening of hope, really, because the setting is the time before the Christian era. Thrones does not because its author chooses not to put it in. Martin apparently has a skewed view of the time he is portraying.

Now, Martin’s work to me is excellent – but there is no one to root for. I suppose Jon Snow and Daenerys are the two most sympathetic. Would you really like to live under even their rule? And what of their heirs? Remember who followed the remarkable Marcus Aurelius: his despicable son.

No, me, I’ll stay right here.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder. Most pundits and indeed most of the main-stream press agree, it seems, that race was not an issue in the trial. Yet, curiously, so many have fixed upon race in the context of the case.

Many explain this puzzling situation as being caused by those for whom “racism” is an industry. This explanation is not far from the truth, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.  It is not racism or, rather, the need to maintain racism (or charges of racism) as a cause, a cause celebre,  in a post-racial nation, that is the driving force, both for the shameful indictment and the equally shameful cries of racism regarding the verdict. Why? There is something else, something worse, going on.

I began to suspect something else (and worse) was going on because, simply, there were too many people upset with the case for it to be merely a problem of racism, especially since  the facts of the case just don’t support a finding of racism whatsoever. Then there was that weird, inexplicable, fetishism going on about the so-called ‘stand your ground’ doctrine, which is totally inapplicable to the case. There had to be, it seemed to me, something that was causing people angst.

And then it struck me.

People, many people, don’t like … self-defense. These persons don’t like the norm expressed by the privilege of self-defense, and they don’t like the essentially religious (dare I say Christian?) mores expressed by it.

While the basic idea of self-defense appears to have been around even from Hammurabi’s day (sec. 206 – although in primitive form), our notion of it was developed in the eleventh century by, of course, Christian theologians. It has to do with human acts: you are responsible, to varying degrees, for your acts; this comes out of the notion that God loves us and that therefore our acts have both meaning and a type of logic behind them.

“Moral acts are either good or bad. An action is morally good when the object, circumstances, and purpose of what is done are all good. An act is morally bad when either the object, circumstances, or purpose of an act are bad.” (John A Hardon, The Q and A Catholic Cathechism, sec. 504).

It can easily be seen how this kind of thinking leads to a concept of self-defense, and indeed to a concept wherein the purpose of an act defines it.

It also can easily be seen how this kind of thinking is not outcomes-based. Indeed, it is deeply individual. It is intention or motive-based.

The Enlightenment’s emphasis on individualism is, in reality, a development of those same ideas. It goes without saying that our American system is based on Enlightenment values.

Yet for many these are, increasingly, anathema.

In a way of thinking, if one wishes to depart from this world into another, a fantasy land, where, as in Communism, the worth of rules and decisions were all to be based on outcome and never principle, well, yes, such a set of mores as that which developed the American experiment are indeed anathema.

So is Christianity, by necessity. But that shall remain an aside for now.

This explains why many hate the idea of self-defense. It is an idea built on other ideas, and all of them are, well, beyond-the-pale for those who reject the fundamental principles upon which our society, especially American society, has been based.

Here I can pause and tell a story. A diplomat serving in Western Europe told me about her son. She  has a ten year old who was struck by another child at school. My friend’s son struck back — and was punished for it. The teacher wrote a note to my friend explaining that she had instructed the child to run away if attacked and that this was school policy. The teacher added that it was permissible to lift up one’s arms to block a blow …

Just a little aside. I know of no martial art wherein there are no offensive moves, only defensive. It doesn’t work.

Well, the law doesn’t stop at the doorstep of the school. Every human being has the right to self defense. But that school doesn’t tolerate it. And it does sound a lot like what many wish the USA to become: a nation of peasants, not citizens. A citizen has a right (technically, it’s a privilege) to protect himself. Peasants and zeks  do not; at best they can call the overlords. If they survive. (Note that the adjudication in such a scenario would not be on the basis of justice, but on the basis of convenience.)

Yet the same attitude as at the Western European school exists in many American schools as well. A typical one is here. Of course, this is wrong for a plenitude of reasons. The first reason: safety. The second: we need to instill a sense of fairness in children, not the reverse.

But it does illustrate much the same underlying motive as seen in the reaction to the Zimmerman acquittal.

Self-defense is difficult, as are many worthwhile things. It is easier, lazier, to punish everyone involved. In Soviet times, there could have been no neighborhood watches. Even the police were considered too risky as an institution and were militarized, formally.

As a result, years after independence, I go for a walk on a Sunday morning in one of the main Lithuanian cities. I see blood, not a giant amount, but considerable, on a wall. I walk on over to the police precinct and inform the man on duty. He was polite enough, but he said … no locals would ever walk in to tell the police a fact like that. Me, I felt it was my civic duty.

So the result of relegating defense to the authorities is not only dangerous to one personally, but it has the effect of changing one’s relation to the state, from its master to a dependent. Needless to say, however, some people are in favor of such a thing. It is in accord with their deepest sympathies.

(And there is something to be said for their position: after all, even Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor received a kiss – from Jesus, no less.)

It is not, however, in accord with American principles.

As you can read here, on 21 Dec. 2012 the Russian Parliament passed a law purportedly in response to an earlier law adopted by the USA.

The U.S. Magnitsky Act (signed into law on Dec. 14) will allow the USA to deny entry into the U.S. of Russian officials who are involved in human rights abuses.

The reality is that the Magnitsky Act is modeled upon the practice of the European Union, which routinely denies visas to those foreign government officials involved in human rights abuses. (I admit that  I’ve never heard of it being used vis a vis Russian officials – but plenty of Belorussian officials are denied visas.)

The Russian act on the other hand is, as always, out of proportion, to say the least.

  1. It bans all adoption by American parents of Russian children.
  2. As reported by Reuters, “The law also enables Russia to impose visa bans and asset freezes on U.S. citizens who have allegedly violated the rights of Russians abroad, and bars lobby and campaign groups from political activity if they receive U.S. funding.”

Russian children who live in state orphanages are in a world of hurt, but we can live with the ban: I never liked the idea, as it was just asking for trouble.

But the rest is, shall we say, par for the course. It is far, far more wide than the U.S. (and EU) laws: ANY U.S. citizens, and includes asset freezes, and also it will have , at the very least, a chilling effect upon all organizations working for change in Russia. “U.S. funding” will of course be understood as any money traceable to any U.S. source.

Note that anyone may act as an agent (and can be paid for it) of Russia or any other country in the USA. Thus, he may receive orders directly from a foreign government, and also may lobby, and it is all legal. He merely must register. (Some may remember when Pres. Carter’s brother got in trouble for this in re the Libyans.)




The Lithuanian constitution provides that the president receive the decision of the parliament in regard to who is to be in the posts of the various ministers. It does not stipulate that the appointments are to be made with the consent of the president (and cannot be made without his/her consent).

The president of Lithuania has stated that the party having received the most votes, the Labor Party (Darbo partija) is not gong to have any part in the “coalition,” which is really a divvying-up of the ministerial posts. You can read about it here.

It is wholly unclear whether the president can act in this way. The idea is that the president has to confirm the will of the parliament in this matter.

Which is just another example showing why the present constitution is so poorly written. If the idea is that the president has no discretion, then what use is it to require the president to confirm the decision of the  parliament? If the president has discretion, why is it not written in that way? (E.g., “ministers are appointed only with the consent of the president, which may be withheld for any reason at the discretion of the president.”) The president would then be the one with whom the parties would be debating to form a coalition.

But if so, why? The majority should rule. If a president were a right winger, and if the parliament were divided into three parties – center, right, and left, the president could always block the left. (Substitute left for right as you please.) Why? The voters have spoken, and the center has gone with, say, the left. Well, such a decision sounds like democracy to me.

The reason I am not for presidential discretion in this scenario is this: All in all, the more complications one adds, the less the tie between a citizen’s vote and the result. It is entirely unpredictable and as tenuous as a pipe dream or smoke therefrom.

It is true that the ostensible reason that the president has stated has to do with voter fraud – the Labor party has been accused of massive voter fraud. Ok. But this is a separate question. Certainly it is one which should be resolved ASAP. But then the emphasis must be upon the resolution of this matter with the greatest of speed. That is what the president should insist upon. As it is, the impression is that of lawlessness – on the part of, well, everyone.

There is no real voter registration system in Lithuania.

A voter’s registration system has a purpose of, well, registering voters. This has two sub-purposes: one, to determine the citizen’s voting district and, two, to enable authorities to check the signature of the voter in order to determine whether, for instance, a candidate seeking to be registered as such has gathered a sufficient number of supporting signatures.

As explained in an earlier post, Lithuania’s system does not involve either sub-purposes. They never check signatures against any registry. They don’t have a voter’s registration system.

That’s why I call that which they have an anti-system. It serves no reasonable, democratic, purpose.

What determines the geographical area in which a citizen is allowed to vote in Lithuania? A registry of inhabitants.

All inhabitants must be “registered” into a government-approved address. Obviously, there is no requirement to actually live there. Many live in so-called “sodai” (little houses built in the country-side in collectively owned Soviet era “clubs”), which are not capable of being used as official residences. The system, thus, has falsehood built into it. It is normal to have friends register one in their apartment whilst one lives wherever.

The inhabitant registration system has little utility. Nevertheless, it remains, somewhat as an “extra” appendix. There is a cost of upkeep, there are circumstances when it is troublesome, but in general, it has little meaning. One cannot state that in registering oneself one actually is stating that one is residing at the address given: it is more of a formal requirement.

Now, there is a new party trying to get elected, and it has a good deal of support. Its leader is one Venckiene. She is from the Kaunas region, but she has chosen to run for office in the area where an arch-enemy, the present speaker of the parliament, is running. This is a voting district in Vilnius.

So – her supporters have been … re-registering themselves in the aforesaid Vilnius voting district!

Indeed, they have registered 1500 people into one apartment!

I love it! They are turning the system against itself. The authorities are having fits, but since the system is vestigial at best, there is little they can do about it.

The info can be found here (at the end of the news article) in Lithuanian.

Note: the stakes are high. If Venckiene beats the present speaker, she will at the least have gained even more moral authority.

This just in! The present speaker of the parliament has demanded that the voting commission stop the ongoing registration into the “ghost headquarters,” but the commission has replied that they are powerless to do so …

I suppose I should explain. When one has a normal voter’s registration law, obviously submitting false information, such as a false address, would and should be a punishable offense. One in that case has obviously tampered with the voting process, fraudulently.

BUT there is no voter’s registration in Lithuania. There is only the inhabitant – registration system I described above. It is not fraudulent to register oneself anywhere one likes. One must register, but that is it. One can register anywhere.

So, in this “system,” Lithuanian citizens can register as they please. They are not per se committing any fraud. It is not their fault that the “system” then uses this data to determine where the aforesaid citizen can vote.