It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by webpirate


There's actually a lot of misconceptions about most things here. Maybe there should be an IQ test to gain entry to certain boards?


[edit on 26-4-2010 by webpirate]


True and I like it! but only cos I think I'd pass, it would be crass and UNCONSTITUTIONAL if I failed though, it would probably be discriminatory towards me and I'd sue so watch it wise guy with ya ideas an stuff




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Novel
Think about this...how 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.
 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Should I point to the number of logical fallacies in this statement?
Or I would rather those reading investigate and learn it for themselves.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I like the idea. Perhaps it's better to realize from the beginning that this is a rebellious crowd of iconoclasts and go from there. I certainly hope everything is archived well in case I miss a lesson.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I'm completely down for this. I think it's a great idea. Any time someone want to teach something to me I'll listen.

Bring it on.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Guys/Gals don't let this shifty lawyer fool you.

He thinks he is so smart but I could beat him in Court with simple reasoning. The jury would listen to me (average citizen) over any lawyer (bias person out to make money).

See the LAW is malleable, it's like clay.
It's not Cut and Dry like this Lawyer claims. Law is not concrete or solid it is more like a fluid.

Every situation is different and a clever mind can easily find loopholes in ANY body of law no matter how tightly they thought they had it wrapped up.

There is always loopholes, always.

And juries are fickle and will take the side that makes the most sense to them.

See lawyers spend all of this time studying and preparing to try to manipulate people, and yet they will fail when it comes to actually having to face a real challenge.

Lawyers are trained to get people to plea-bargain and or plead guilty.

When someone actually contests them, they get their tails handed to them because they don't know what to do when citizens actually think for themselves and know how to read Law Books and prove their case in court.

I could have been a lawyer too. But I have morals and principals. Like that one where I refuse to LIE in court? Lawyers lie all the time, I guarantee it.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Try Blacks Law Dictionary..

legal Fiction

Fiction of Law.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 





Guys/Gals don't let this shifty lawyer fool you.


While I am one who in a general sense has been very hard on the lawyer profession, using language such as "priest class lawyers who utter their mystical incantations", but I firmly believe "shifty" is an unfair characterization of Hotpinkurinalmint. This most noble soul is indeed a lawyer, but there are few as open minded and as willing to engage in honest debate and discussion as Hotpink. I offer as evidence, this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...




He thinks he is so smart but I could beat him in Court with simple reasoning. The jury would listen to me (average citizen) over any lawyer (bias person out to make money).


This very well may be true, but what can it hurt to learn the mindset of the lawyer before making an argument before a jury? If you were in a court of law and representing yourself as a defendant, wouldn't it be best to know enough about lawyer arguments that you can effectively raise objections when necessary? Unlike the priest class lawyer set, who endeavor to keep their mystical incantations a secret, this man is offering to share those secrets.




See the LAW is malleable, it's like clay. It's not Cut and Dry like this Lawyer claims. Law is not concrete or solid it is more like a fluid.


If you are correct with this assertion then we are all in a heap of trouble. I would suggest that legislation can often me malleable, but that is what makes legislation so problematic, precisely because law is not malleable and any perceptions it is stems from a lack of knowledge regarding that law. There is much we don't know about gravity, but that ignorance doesn't make the law of gravity malleable, only our understanding of it.




Every situation is different and a clever mind can easily find loopholes in ANY body of law no matter how tightly they thought they had it wrapped up.


If a person is guilty of murder, and there is irrefutable evidence that this person is indeed guilty, then no amount of loopholes will change that guilt. The law is what makes that person guilty. Not legislation, but the law. O.J. Simpson's lawyers did not convince the jury to acquit him because of a loophole in the law, but relied heavily upon the law to insist that failing an establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the jury was required to follow the law and acquit.




There is always loopholes, always.


I suppose you could argue that air planes, balloons and parachutes are loop holes to the law of gravity, but that ignores that air planes, balloons and parachutes are in fact operating well within the bounds of gravity, or aerodynamics. If there are loopholes to legislation, I would suggest that serves as strong evidence that this legislation is not law.




And juries are fickle and will take the side that makes the most sense to them.


If this is true, then they are not fickle but instead reasonable.




Lawyers are trained to get people to plea-bargain and or plead guilty.


I fear you are wholly correct in this assessment, which is all the more reason that people should do what they can to learn the law.




I could have been a lawyer too. But I have morals and principals. Like that one where I refuse to LIE in court? Lawyers lie all the time, I guarantee it.


Unlike a witness who swears an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, lawyers have a different oath they take and it is to zealously defend their client. If they do lie, and I am not making any such argument, but if they do, it is due to their zealous advocacy of their client.

Shakespeare wrote; "First kill all the lawyers" I would recommend we not do such a thing and instead do what is necessary to reign in their general priest class attitudes and insist they stop using Congress to invent law, and go back to discovering law.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The Masterful use of Language.

While I am sure the OP's sentiment is sincere, saying that learning law from him will help you is like saying that taking lion wrestling courses from a lion will help you when you climb into the lion's cage.

Protip: You can't win. Don't get into the cage. Law is a racket, much like war. Laws obfuscate simple situations just like fancy words make simple ideas seem complicated.

Don't get me wrong, if people wanted a lawyer's opinion on specific laws, then it's a great opportunity to hear it from an insider, so to speak. I am merely suggesting that we need to stop using the set of rules that exists to keep us reliant on lawyers and the courts, which only exist as commercial and financial entities.

I thought it was forbidden to solicit for commercial reasons on these boards ( I kid, I kid, hehe ).

Honestly OP (wish it showed the thread starter's name on the compose screen so I could be less rude) I'm not having a go at you personally. It's a generous offer of your time and 'wisdom', but maybe if we stopped letting laws tell us how to act we would have a nation of responsible citizens rather than consumers.

/2c



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by The Broadcaste
 





While I am sure the OP's sentiment is sincere, saying that learning law from him will help you is like saying that taking lion wrestling courses from a lion will help you when you climb into the lion's cage.


Sticking with your simile of lions, I would suggest that if a person is going to use a lion as an instructor on how to wrestle lions, a decision has to be made; does this lion know enough about the human condition to effectively instruct a human to overcome any weaknesses compared to that of the lion, and will that lion use such knowledge to teach the pupil the weakness a lion has, in order to defeat that lion? If a lion does this, then the knowledge gained from that can indeed be quite useful.

In the lion den of ATS, Hotpink has come to know a bit about the lions, and I suspect has much to offer in how to wrestle them effectively, without risking injury to oneself.




Protip: You can't win. Don't get into the cage. Law is a racket, much like war. Laws obfuscate simple situations just like fancy words make simple ideas seem complicated.


If you can't win, then your advice is sage indeed, however, law is not a racket, many lawyers have conspired to build a racket and have rejected law in favor of legislation. Law never obfuscates, people do. Legalese is not law and has little to nothing at all to do with law.




Don't get me wrong, if people wanted a lawyer's opinion on specific laws, then it's a great opportunity to hear it from an insider, so to speak. I am merely suggesting that we need to stop using the set of rules that exists to keep us reliant on lawyers and the courts, which only exist as commercial and financial entities.


Yes! Great point! If the rules are working against you and you intend to play the game, then change the rules!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Namaste1001
 


To address your first point, you can break down the law into two sets of laws- the simple laws that govern everyday life and the complex laws. There are simple laws we all know, even if the statute contains complex language. For example, your local homicide statute may contain the phrase "malice aforethought." You may not know what "malice aforethought" means, but you do know it is illegal to go around killing people. You also know it is illegal to steal things and rape small children.

Then there are the complex laws like securities laws and environmental laws. The law expects people to consult with a competent lawyer in order to follow these laws. I can see why people may find this troubling, but we live in a complex society which requires complex rules that take years of training to understand. Thankfully most people do not run into these laws on a daily basis. The average person is not issuing securities or administering a superfund site.

To address you second point about the Freeman movement, I have never heard of such a thing. My guess is that the Freeman movement is something that was hatched on the internet along with the Nigerian Prince who wants you to hold on to $10 USD for him.

Think about it, the Freeman movement makes no sense. We would all hate to live in a society where the law only applied to inviiduals if they consented to it. Serial Killers would be allowed to run amok because they did not consent to the murder statutes. Everyone would flake on their tax bills because nobody would consent to pay taxes no matter how low the rate was.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by The Broadcaste
 


I am not offering any legal advice and the topics I am covering may not be very practical on a daily basis. The topics I am thinking of covering are topics that people have an interest in because they relate to politics, current events, and such. My first topic, the commerce clause, has no practical value for it.

Being a selfish money, grubbing lawyer, I would not offer practical legal advice for free. If you want me to write your will, form your business, and plan your estate that will cost money.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Sorry hotpinkurinalmint,

But ignorance of the Freeman movement does not exempt you from it.

Couldn't resist. "I have never heard of the freeman movement but I will now tell you what the law thinks of it."

This is like a priest giving you a summary of this new thing called atheism, I mean come on, by its own description it's brutally flawed. How can there be no god when the bible clearly says there is.

Rolling coins and making analogies, two of my greatest joys in life, hehe.

Edit to add response to Jean Paul Zodeaux:

But you must agree that you won't last a minute in court unless you spend a LONG time learning legalese. I have to disagree that the system is designed to do anything but deter layman from taking part. Look at interpretation acts that change the definition of words in OTHER acts. So though you may research one set of laws, you have no idea that many of the definitions have been redefined and thus your understanding of the act or law is completely erroneous. And again, I don't doubt the sincerity in hotpink's offer. I just think all lawyers are completely evil. just kidding.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by The Broadcaste]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You make a few valid points. There are a lot of sleazy lawyers out there. I would be a fool to suggest that the legal profession as a whole is the most ethical pillar of society.

You said you could win in an argument with me before a jury. That may be true, but juries only decide facts in cases. Judges decide how the law is going to be interpreted. Judges decide whether to approve motions. Whether or not you think it is fair, a good litigator could pull the rug out from under you so you would not even get a chance to argue your case before a jury.

You are right in that many lawyers have neither the experience nor the skill to take cases all the way to trial. These lawyers make a living plea bargaining and settling cases and never go to trial. Although the best lawyers usually settle cases out of court, one should only retain a lawyer in a litigation matter that has a track record of favorable verdicts at trial.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by The Broadcaste
 


I will do some research into the freeman movement and see if there is good legal authority like a court case or statute that supports it. I know I am putting my neck out on the line when I say this, but the freeman thing is probably not good law. If it were good law, every law school in the country would teach it. It would also be the #1 greatest tax shelter and every tax publication would write about it.

You might find this link from the IRS helpful. It debunks common anti-tax arguments including the one that payment of tax is voluntary.

irs website



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I've noticed a lot of posters have misconceptions about the law. As a lawyer, I could patronizingly wave my finger at people with these misconceptions and tell them, "no you are wrong." Better yet, I can teach them the law.

What if we created an online law school where I was the professor and you were my pupils. Each week I can pick one or two cases on a subject of your choosing. We can agree to meet on ATS and discuss the cases. Bulletin boards like ATS are a great way to discuss cases as they allow people to question each other back and forth.

All you would need to do to participate is read the cases, maybe brief them, and show up to the thread and give us your 2 cents.

Is there any topic that anybody is particularly interested in? I think a great topic would be the commerce clause of the US constitution.


I wanna play, I wanna play! I WANT to learn the law. In my case I ACTUALLY BELIEVE that the court is operating as a court of contract.

Meaning that this is why they can trample all over the constitution and get away with it as we give them subject matter jurisdiction, when they present their contract whether probation, a sentence etc we sit there and just accept it.

Then we cry "unconstitutional!"

Now to read your thread and I have a great case we can look at that is happening right now with a person that "woke up" in the middle of this case and now is trying to change all kinds of things.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I've noticed a lot of posters have misconceptions about the law. As a lawyer, I could patronizingly wave my finger at people with these misconceptions and tell them, "no you are wrong." Better yet, I can teach them the law.

What if we created an online law school where I was the professor and you were my pupils. Each week I can pick one or two cases on a subject of your choosing. We can agree to meet on ATS and discuss the cases. Bulletin boards like ATS are a great way to discuss cases as they allow people to question each other back and forth.

All you would need to do to participate is read the cases, maybe brief them, and show up to the thread and give us your 2 cents.

Is there any topic that anybody is particularly interested in? I think a great topic would be the commerce clause of the US constitution.


No offense, but the laws you're referring to aren't laws. They're ever changing ideas of some men. They are priveledges. And not everyone agrees with them. And I think the ratio of those who take time to construct the law(scratches out)'priveledges' vs those who don't is extremely small.

I don't like the idea of lawyers.
Paid to lie.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The Venus project is just a dreamer’s future, but I can dream cant I?

The founder of the project says lectures that in this future lawyers will be criminals, and unnecessary for we will develop a system language which is not up for interpretation, like engineering, and chemistry, a language that won’t need to be toyed with, as for now we talk at each other and not to each other, because our language is hundreds of years old

Lawyers I never met an honest one not ever. Masters of the art of words, which mean nothing.

Manipulators of speech, some of these people make the most money to sit around and do nothing but manipulate the words of law, to work the corporate world into a place for their own needs. The ability to create great length in their task to continue getting paid to manipulate the world for their greedy bosses or themselves who intend to use their work to manipulate the rest of us into thinking and wanting what they see fit.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


One question though: Would you charge by the minute?


If I could, I would.....



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Yep i can tell you without knowing any law that the police and uk government have in effect tortured me for 18 years. No law gave them that right, but the pure evil in themselves, and everyone else jumping for joy that another human is destroyed.

Law only applies to certain people, and its not to the police or government.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by arcnaver

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!



Agree. This is the problem, the whole problem, and nothing but the problem.

CASE LAW.

The constitution means what it says. The only reason we use case law to determine what the constitution means, is so that people can interpret the constitution to their liking. Basically, case law allows people to break the law. period. end of line.

Whats the point of having a constitution if it can be interpreted into anything a judge wants. As every decade goes by, judges stray from the original meaning of the constitution further and further. Where will it end.

I'm sorry, but i cannot comprehend how people can think that the constitution means something other than what it says.

it says what it means, it means what it say.




top topics



 
39
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join