It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Never Plead "Not Guilty". Plead "Innocent".

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:35 PM
Ah, good'ol 'words of art'...

"The vocabulary or terminology of a particular art, science, or profession, and especially those those which are idiomatic or pecular to it." [Black's 6th p.1605]

There are 4 words that must be understood fully before any foray into 'legalese' can be fruitful.

'Words of art' - defined above
'Term' - Black's 6th p. 1470
'Word'- Black's 6th p. 1604
'Definition' - Black's 6th p. 423

Many arguments about 'meaning' stem from the misunderstanding of an items 'inclusive' or 'expansive' nature.

Clearly, from the above definitions the general rule is words are expansive; terms, definitions, and words of art are inclusive [limited, restricted].

This becomes important because now we can guage what statute and administrative code, and rules of civil procedure are actually saying. Whether they give DEFINITIONS of TERMS, provide the definition in the statute/context itself, or allow for the presumption of the common meaning, when one should be checking a legal dictionary FIRST. It is my opinion that law operates on the presumption that idiots [layman, a private man - latin 'idiota' also in Black's] will presume the webster's meaning of words, when they need to be concerned with the legal definitions of terms.

As an aside the legal definition of 'meaning' is Black's 6th p. 980 and is good to know in this context.

I have not looked into courtroom administrative procedure as of yet, but I know the Traffic enforcement chapter of [NC's] Administrative code does define many terms, as does the traffic code itself.

That is where I would look to get to the bottom of the OPs 'words of art', and the lens I would initially examine the claim through.

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:24 AM
a reply to: Kratos40

No contest means you plead guilty just don't admit guilt. Why would you want to do that?

posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 02:24 AM

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: skunkape23
I do not understand your question.
Want to see a judge get pissed off and dismiss your case.
The answer to the question, "Do you understand?"
Is a simple "No."

Never, under ANY circumstance say that you do 'understand' when asked by someone in authority, such as a Judge or Police Officer etc.

In law (NOT in common language..) admitting or affirming that 'you understand' is the same as saying that you agree to stand under that person authority over you.

Always answer that you do 'comprehend' what is being said to you, which is completely different in law.


This whole plead innocent crap is .. well .. crap. It's not true.

new topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in