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.


I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about the law on this board

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:44 AM

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by boondock-saint

One of the common misconceptions people have is that they throw around the word "unconstitutional" quite a bit. These people's readings of the Constitution is seldom based on any case law and often conflict with the case law.

Case law has nothing to do with the constitution, neither does precedence. This is a HUGE misconception that Lawyers, Judges and Political Mules have. This is also why we are in such a mess, because some idiot decided, well in Idiot Vs Moron such and such was ruled, even though the constitution says this, but since it was ruled that way, we will follow it!

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:52 AM
I suggest people watch this and hope it will stand. Then lawyers (traitors, officers of the corrupt court) can take a fresh oath. They are currently standing so people can be declared wards of the court. A lawyer should not be necessary and most crime is not crime.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:52 AM

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
As a lawyer

Good job! You lost me on only three words!

I am sure you are a nice and helpful sort. But to be honest, why the hell does it take a lawyer to understand basic things anymore? Lawyers have twisted words and meanings for profit for a very long time.
I hold them right up there on the mantel along side Bankers. They make a good pair.
Now, every once in a while, you find a lawyer or a Banker that is helpful and not overly greedy. Let's hope you are one of them.
What am I thinking, you must be if you are on here...................

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:21 AM
I think it's a great idea, and please include me in as a student.

I'm always interested but often puzzled when listening to one of the SCOTUS justices explain something. Simple things like the term 'settled law' confuse me.

Thanks for offering your time and energy to doing this.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:25 AM
It would be nice if someone set the law straight, but I don't think I would trust a lawyer to do it either.

The real law is what we the people decide, and if our leaders don't respect that, they have about three thousand years of histories of uprisings and revolutions and civil wars to answer to, as always.

That's the truth, but the people who need to hear it most seem too frightened of the idea to take it nearly as seriously as they ought to.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:28 AM
I learn a lot from watching a new show called Jail that comes on weekly. Looks like everyone that goes in for booking gets a black face hood n are shackeled into a chair

happens in every episode...

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:28 AM

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by webpirate

There are those that are so deep into conspiracy theories they would think a Supreme Court case is not for real. There is nothing you can do to "save" those people.

Supreme Court cases are very real, however, especially on a conspiracy website, I would be remiss if I did not mention that the Supreme Court rulings vary greatly dependent upon whether the court is made of more left- or right-leaning justices.

If the Supreme Court had the final black and white conclusions to every case, their verdicts would always be the same regardless of political affiliation. As we all know, this is not the case and politics plays a huge role.

Now, I am not saying that the Supreme Court rulings are meaningless, that is not the case at all. But, I will argue that as humans, they will not get it right all the time and that allows for others, such as myself, to still disagree with a ruling and state my case.

Disagreeing with a specific ruling by the Supreme Court does not make us ill informed or unable to be "saved".

The Supreme Court simply uses reasonable construction when dealing with any laws considered vague or ambiguous. As soon as personal interpretation enters into the equation, there is room for varying opinion.

Obviously, some interpretations are more credible than others. But simply because the Supreme Court made their ruling, doesn't mean that they necessarily got it right. If every argument we make is going to be cut-off by: "Well, the Supreme Court said....", we won't get very far.

If law was completely black and white we wouldn't need lawyers.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:29 AM
I'm in for law classes,
First lesson: The only real law is the one you can enforce.
Second: the only time you actually break the law is when you get caught!
Third: In this country you get all the justice you can afford!
Fourth: Truth and Justice are not interchangable terms which conflicts with the concept of personal testimony!
Fifith: Two wrongs dont make a right, but you can right a wrong.

thats enough American Law from :Street Justice soon to be aired on ATS live!

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by zaiger

Yep! He pretty much just summed up the ATS stance on constitutional law and the application there of. On a serious note...The OP's idea is brilliant, and I strongly suggest some of the more, shall we say, vocal resistance to the changes going on in this country try and and learn something about just how and why these changes are necessary. Sure some of the things happening aren't easy or fun, but what this government is trying to do is very important for our future as a country and world power going forward...I wish some of you could just see past your own little world view and grasp the bigger picture being unveiled with each passing day...Learn to let go...even if it's just a little at a time. This isn't your gran-daddy's America anymore where hard work and moral goodness gets you ahead, stuff is complex and confusing on purpose, to keep the morons, simpletons, and useless feeders from moving forward...

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:40 AM
Can you explain how the layman is expected to abide by a set of laws that is written in a language he does not understand. By that I mean legalese where English words are used but have different meanings.

Could you also explain if the freeman movement have got it correct. Is our consent really required to enforce statutes and acts. And what are they anyway. Are they actual laws that we have to obey or a set of corporate contracts that have no right being used in conjunction with the law.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:41 AM
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

Sounds like a good idea.

One question though: Would you charge by the minute?

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by JustJoe

"America anymore where hard work and moral goodness gets you ahead, stuff is complex and confusing on purpose, to keep the morons, simpletons, and useless feeders from moving forward.."

These same morons and idiots that pay attorny fees to stay away from incarceration long enough to pay their attorny fees so they can afford that third luxury car or vacation?

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:12 AM
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

Alright, sir, I accept. As a lawyer, or rather an Attorney, isn't it true that you had to pass the "BAR" in order to gain license to practice?

And isn't it true that “BAR” stands for British Accreditation Research?

Please explains for everyone the Lawyer's Secret Oath.

Isn't it true that the courts only recognize two classes of people in the United States today,

What was the effect and the significance of the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case decision of 1938?

Isn't it true that no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939?

Isn't it true that if you hire a lawyer, he/she is pledged not to reveal the true nature and cause of the case?

Isn't it true that a "Statute" is not a law at all, but rather a Corporate Rule?

And further, isn't it true that there are but two kinds of law in the United States, Civil Law, and Criminal Law"

How then can a Criminal Courts Judge sit on a Divorce Case, which is a Civil, not criminal action?

Thank you for the offer, and remember, I know the law too. Be careful your answers, if you care to answer them at all.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:19 AM
reply to post by autowrench

Isn't it true that no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939?

I don't see how this can possibly be true since the SCOTUS clearly relies upon Marbury v Madison in order to assert their authority of judicial review.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:25 AM
Heres a good first topic for you OP!

Recently there was a thread about what you can do it a police officer is attacking, without reason.

maybe we could go into the different specifics and different circumstances of this issue

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:33 AM
Love the idea OP, but I would actually prefer clarification on original constitution law. Most of today's law, as was stated earlier, is based on opinion and or biased control through the means of verbal misdirection, obfuscating the heart or original intent with which the laws were intended.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now just for example, where in this amendment does it express in any of it's words the ability or authority for any state to alter this or obfuscate it's meaning... seems pretty clear to me.

In point of fact, it's so clear in it's meaning, it flatly states that this amendment is for the sole purpose of protecting the people from the elected officials doing just exactly that.

But, with most things we've become so enamored with chasing "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" that we chickens forgot to keep an eye on our own hen house

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:38 AM

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter

Originally posted by Light of Night
So actually in your capacity as a lawyer you can actually cause laws to be reversed. Now the reason why I say that is because I've talked to a judge before and this judge pretty much said almost verbatim "it doesn't really matter what the law is, it's which ever side can convince me that they are right."

Which would go back to the points being made about how case law changes all the time.

In the end, this pretty much sums it up,
Attorneys argue and present their views,
The Judge has the final word.

BUT you see, they are both in on it and get a "cut" if you will. ALL courts are based on Equity and NOT LAW. It is a money sucking greed thing. Redistribution of the wealth, the take from us and keep it themselves. This is the problem with this country, most politicians are lawyers and are british agents, they work for the crown and not us. Lawyers will argue that, but it is their duty to keep the secrets.

I have though, met a few honest judges, not many but a few. They do know that Common law is superior.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:03 AM
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint

Common Law is based on the concept of Stare Decisis, but it does not apply to any decision that contradicts a previous decision.

When a judge hands down judgment in true Common Law, then it should not be possible for the decisions to contradict.

If the decisions do contradict then that is referred to as Jurisprudence Constante, and that is more appropriately applied to Civil Law.
But not the kind of Civil Law meaning contract law.
The kind referring to Roman Civil Law.

I have very little faith in someone who is telling me that "I should listen to them because they are an attorney".

Or something like "maybe they just need to be served a cup of shut the f*** up"
(I didn't quote you EXACTLY on those two, but I came close)

A lawyer is an agent of the court. All lawyers pledge themselves to the State Bar. Now....

If you tell me that you are a tax attorney, first and foremost, all I have is your word for it.
And secondly, if by some act of God you are telling the truth, then you are a tax attorney and ill-suited to answer questions regarding Constitutional Law.

I am not calling disinformation agent, because I do not know, but what I will say is that I have never met any attorney, who is worth their salt, that would present themselves with as much ego as you have presented.

Attorneys lose cases. They are not always right.

We have a system of checks and balances for a very specific reason, and that is to stop tyranny.
The Constitution is a very short document because it was the intent of those who wrote it to make the LAW understandable by all.

The bottom line to ALL law in America is this....

Not one single person can be convicted of any law, not any law, unless a jury of their peers allows that to happen.
A jury can overturn any law with their verdict, it is called Jury Nullification.

Judicial review includes the power of a jury trial.


Edit to add:

The differences between Common Law and a common law system are massive.
As are the differences between Civil Law and a civil law system.

Being that you seem to portray yourself more like a King than an esquire to the Crown, I would suppose that you understand why I would add this in an edit.

(BTW.... No gender is reflected in the word KING, or I should say that it was not my intent)

[edit on 4/27/2010 by Josephus23]

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:04 AM
I would love it if you did this. I have an interest in Law, would never attend Law school or pursue Law professionally, but I would love to learn. Please, do share. I will "attend" to learn how American Law works. Besides, I may or may not have several warrants out for my arrest
so this couldn't hurt.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:12 AM
Think about sad is it that a lawyer trying to help people understand law for FREE gets less credibility than the web bot that people must pay for and has never been right. Seriously sad..

I thought this was a great thread. Once again though an educated person comes forth and the brains of ats come in and flame it. Kind of sad, but at least it makes it easy for the government to find all the crazies together on one site.

Probably would have been taken more seriously if somehow you linked being a lawyer and law to 2012, aliens, nibiru, and the end of the world. Lol

This should be a lesson to anyone that wants to post anything intelligent on a site where the over all average IQ is 80.

Well I'm off to the latest and greatest "predict the future thread"

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in