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: 7
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Primordial
 


Thank you Reverend.
Didn't take long for this thread to jump the shark, did it?




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   
My friend... Laws are there to be broken!

The question shouldn't be why don't people understand the law... the question should be why they choose to break them... maybe these laws are simply put there to keep us under control... maybe my souls journey is to do what it pleases and well that happened to be against the law. What makes the "law" which is written by some men beyond my existence?

Here's ONE law that suits all.....

"Do what you will, you live in a world of fiction full of contradiction, do as you see fit, explore all you will but don't do harm to anyone and you shall be set free"

[edit on 27-4-2010 by freighttrain]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Laws only pertain to those who choose to abide by them. Punishment is another story.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRoadLessTraveled
Laws only pertain to those who choose to abide by them. Punishment is another story.


If one jumps off of a skyscraper with no apparatus to prevent the inevitable plummet, that person has broken a fundamental law of gravity, not to mention survival. The punishment for breaking these laws is certain death. There are always consequences for breaking laws.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint

Alice, Bob, Charles, Diane, Edward, and Fred go out to dinner. Alice is a vegetarian. Edward orders a pasta dish. Fred orders Seafood. Charles and Diane share a dish. Who ordered the lobster?...You have 2 minutes to figure this one out.


Yep, you're an Attorney.

OK, who's hiding the Lobster?

-Alice is a "vegetarian". Could she have had a Lobster? Well, traditional "vegetarians" did in the past and do now eat fish, seafood and some eat poultry. People who eat only vegetable matter generally refer to themselves as "vegan". So yes, Alice might have some lobster meat on her salad.

-Edward, he ordered a "pasta dish". Pasta dishes come in many forms, some with and some without meat, including lobster. So yes, Edward could have had some lobster.

-Fred ordered seafood which may or may not contain lobster. We don't have enough information, but yes Fred might have had lobster in his seafood dish.

-Charles and Diane shared a dish, but of what. So yes, they might have had lobster.

-Bob, we don't have a clue. Hell, he might have eaten a hundred lobsters for all we know.

Your answer is that any one of them could have had lobster and the information you gave does not rule out any one of them with a single exception. If you define vegetarian as eating no seafood we can rule out Alice.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


Since the cases you linked are about Interstate Commerce is this an attempt to argue for or against the Constitutionality of using Reconciliation to pass the Health Care Debacle, err, I mean Bill?

I call my local Family Doctor and make an appointment. I go to that appointment in the office owned by my MD who lives here and does no business outside of this State. He refers me to a Specialist who also owns his office locally, who then does a minor procedure in his office. At what time did I engage in Interstate Commerce? Neither Physician is licensed in any other State.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
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.


I disagree. That is illegal.

I have a right to a jury. This cannot be withheld.

If it is withheld, all decisions the court makes are invalid.

6th Amendment Rights

en.wikipedia.org...



In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


If I am denied a jury, than it is a violation of my 6th amendment right.

My 6th amendment rights trump ALL statutes and any other paperwork you can throw at me.

Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
en.wikipedia.org...
United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


Also the 14th Amendment states ::

""No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."



[edit on 27-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

My point exactly. You may choose to do whatever you wish, but there may be punishments for your actions. Risk is inherent in everything, the question is are willing to take that risk? How important is that particular freedom for you to take that risk? Each person must decide for themselves.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by creaton91
I have to say though its VERY important that ATS users know the law


IMPOSSIBLE.

There are thousands and thousands of laws now.

There are countless cases and mountains of books on law.

No Human can EVER know the Law. Impossible.

Not even the lawmakers or lawyers know it all. That is the problem.

Here is a great video for you to watch. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy lays the record straight.



ALL OF YOU MUST WATCH THAT VID!!!


[edit on 27-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by TheRoadLessTraveled
Laws only pertain to those who choose to abide by them. Punishment is another story.


If one jumps off of a skyscraper with no apparatus to prevent the inevitable plummet, that person has broken a fundamental law of gravity, not to mention survival. The punishment for breaking these laws is certain death. There are always consequences for breaking laws.


Friend, I've enjoyed your posts, but have to challenge this one.

In the example you give, the jumper is not breaking the law of gravity at all, he is obeying it to it's fullest.

He will follow it all the way to it's logical conclusion.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
What if we created an online law school where I was the professor and you were my pupils.

No thanks. If you don't know how to end a question with a question mark, I'll take my law courses elsewhere.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





Friend, I've enjoyed your posts, but have to challenge this one.

In the example you give, the jumper is not breaking the law of gravity at all, he is obeying it to it's fullest.

He will follow it all the way to it's logical conclusion.


Point taken! That's what I get for mixing my metaphors.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Alright, so far everyone is keeping the thread friendly. That to me is either good or bad, sometimes I like the bad.

I would like to state that many people are saying that it is impossible to know the law.

That in and of itself is wrong. IF you know the Constitution, you know the law. It was set up in a no nonsense format so that ANYONE can understand it.

One poster mentioned that anyone arguing case law or statutes is completely wrong if the Constitution directly lays it out differently. HELL YES!

Law, is very easy to understand. It has a basic tenet. Everyone has absolute rights of Life, Liberty and Property. The only crime possible is to hurt another or infringe upon their absolute rights.

That is all you have to know about TRUE law.

All the rest of it is a bunch of hooey.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I agree Muzzleflash ...

and the problem I have with the OP's stated "misconceptions about the law" he has supposedly seen on these boards ..

is directly related to his law school that has been twisted so bad he truly thinks that a good lawyer should in fact kept an average person from their day in court..

shameful..



TONA



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


We are getting a bit into semantics. I indulged the law of gravity as an example and mixed metaphors were used. What if I chose to build something that might allow me to fly endlessly and therefore break the law of gravity. Would it not be my free choice to exert that freedom of choice if I felt the risk were worth it? My point still remains that freewill is the choice of every person. I might fall to my death or I might fly. The risk remains as does my choice.

Edit for if I was to fly endlessly....I would also need to create a way to live forever. Both possiblities and yet to be disproven by any science. Semantics argued upon scientific theory that is not definite, unlike killing someone. When you kill someone their body is dead, evident by the fact that it never moves again and will decay. Scientific theory is not always self evident. Some of Einsteins theories once held as truth are being challenged. I am not a scientist/physicist, but I'm going to paraphrase in quoting the blue swan theory. Because all of the swans we have discovered are white, therefore all swans are white is a shortage of information and discovery. The same can be applied to some physics. How did I get so far into defending my point? Oh yeah, freewill.
[edit on 27-4-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by humilisunus
 


I have to say, your comment brought up something I wrote on another thread. That strict technical language is either written in English or German. It is the only two languages used for such things as technical manuals for aircraft and other such things.

If we as a species want to continue as a free and self willed people, something like you just stated in regards to law needs to be done.

This needs to be an easy and strict language. Something that cannot be changed willy nilly so to speak. As for the priest class, as JPZ likes to say, everyone needs to understand it. We cannot have a priest class protecting our rights. This only perpetuates the class structure of society.

Anyone else wonder WHY THE HELL the government is full of lawyers?

What does a lawyer know about societal needs? What does a lawyer know about infrastructure? What does a lawyer know about economic systems? Etc etc etc. They know the machinations created by the priest class.

Excellent POINT!



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You do have a right to a jury, but you have to jump through hoops to get to the point you have a right to a jury trial.

For starters, to start of your lawsuit you will have to file and serve a complaint. If your complaint or service were defective, the opposing lawyer can move to dismiss your lawsuit and you can lose the case before it gets to a jury.

Between the time you file and serve your complaint, and the time your case goes to a jury, a lawyer can cut you down with things like: motions for summary judgments, motions for directed verdicts, JNOV's, and even appeals.

Once you get to the jury, you are not necessarily going to get everything you want. For starters, you cannot argue anything and everything to a jury. You can get your whole trial restarted if you make impermissible arguments or present inadmissible evidience. The judge may also give the jury instructions which are not favorable to you.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by reeferman
 


Is it always good that everybody should have their day in court? If I decide to sue you for everything you own because I do not like the way you dress....should I get my day in court? Should I be able to drag you into a courthouse in my home town, not yours, and make you pay thousands of dollars in attorneys fees just because I allege your clothes are out of style?

You should be able to throw lawsuits out of court. You should not have to be dragged into a courtroom in some far away place you have never been or ever made a transaction in. This is what the law calls due process. Sometimes, due process requires a case NOT go to a jury.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Visiting ESB
 


Counsel, you may very well be correct that many SCOTUS decisions on the Constitution do not reflect the true intent of the founding fathers. However, we both know that in a court of law SCOTUS precedents have controlling weight. You would be doing your client a disservice if you did not base your Constitutional Law arguments on SCOTUS precedents while the other side did.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


You are right in that there in nobody who knows all the law. That is why lawyers focus on a specialty. That is why lawyers often have to research problems.

There is a trade off that must be made. There is value to simple and easy to understand laws. However, we live in a complex world. We have complex technologies, complex financial instruments, and crafty lawyers who are always trying to find ways to exploit any rule that comes their way. Our society would fall apart unless it had complex rules.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join