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: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


To give everybody a preview of the class, I am going to run it like a law school class and use the Socratic method. That means I am not going to tell anybody anything about the cases or the law. I will certainly ask somebody what these cases mean concerning the constitutionality of health care reform. I am ask somebody why they take any position on health care reform one way or the other based on these cases, but I will not tell them.

If you want someone to spoon feed you information about the law, go somewhere else. In my class it is up to the participants to flush out the law for themselves.




posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
To the OP where do you stand on Common Law vs. Conquest? Does Conquest supercede Common Law in that the Conquestor can define and impose upon the Conquestee their laws(statutes)? This may be the root of all division and arguments in law. Does militarily defeating me give the Conquestor the right to rule over me without my consent? If I bow to military force is that really consent or am I being forced to choose between my life and my freedom?

[edit on 27-4-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I just got a ticket. One cop, one radar, two cars one after the other both radared at the same time by the same cop. Back where I'm from I would fight that ticket as our courts often throw cases out where there is more than one vehicle involved in a radar speed trap. Around here, why even bother. Around here .. judges get paid for their rulings.

Find out about Richard Fine.

baltimorechronicle.com... and sites.google.com...

Not sure what's going on? Here's the simple story, and it's the best place to start
The bottom line: LA County superior court judges have been caught deciding cases in the County's favor in exchange for being paid illegal "bonuses" of $57,000 per year (in addition to their legal state salaries of $178,000 plus apx. $30,000 in benefits), received from corrupt members of LA County's Board of Supervisors. After they were sued, palms were greased and legislation was secretly passed (Senate Bill SBX2-11) to try to protect them and make it seem as if they had been given retroactive immunity from prosecution.

Taxpayer advocate and attorney Richard I. Fine was the first to catch on, and his principled stand has literally cost him everything.

[EVERYTHING = A contempt of court order costing him $$$ and which is why he is being held illegally in LA county jail for more than a year now BY ONE OF THE JUDGES INVOLVED] Meanwhile, the farce has escalated to the point that judges are taking over cases in which they are parties and dismissing those cases against themselves. Surely this tragi-comedy will end soon, as the dike is springing leaks like mad and there aren't nearly enough fingers to plug all the holes.)

Knowing the law is a great idea if you're in a society governed by law. We'd do better if you taught us about real tangible aspects of the law, like who to talk to and bribe.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
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.


Exactly what kind of courtroom are you talking about?

For starters, let's say that someone is involved in a criminal courtroom...

And if said person is charged in a criminal court, then I am a bit lost on your comments concerning a lawsuit and serving a complaint.

Unless, of course, you meant to state that you were referring to a civil (contract) court.

Comparing a jury trial of the two is like comparing apples and oranges.

So... Since you are a supposed "tax attorney", then I will assume that you are addressing this as it relates to a civil court of law.

Let's move onto your other comments.

The motions to which you refer require that some type of PRIMA FASCIE evidence be presented.
It does not matter how "good" the opposing attorney is supposed to be.
They still need to have a case in order to win a judgment on the case before a trial is commenced.

Not a judgment on a motion, but the judgment on the case.
Because the motions that you referenced are ways to have a judgment given if you are the moving party, but that is taking a big leap of faith, because a judge can hand the judgment to the non-moving party based on the evidence that has been presented by the moving party.

A judgment on the case.

A summary judgment is only rendered if some really hard, undeniable PRIMA FASCIE evidence is presented.

And usually, the moving party for summary judgment is not the defendant.

And now as far as the jury trial goes, you are correct that the judge could give the jury instructions that could not be favorable; however, the judge could give instructions to the jury that are favorable.

It is impossible to know without seeing the evidence.
That is why hearings are held regarding evidence before the trial begins.

After seeing these responses from you, I am fairly positive that you are either one of two things:

1) Something other than an attorney.

2) A very poorly educated attorney.

Answer me a question...

What types of courtrooms are acceptable under the US Constitution and how does that relate to a jury trial?


[edit on 4/27/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


I honestly do not think that this person is an attorney.

Whomever said hot pink whatever is supposed to be, said person is making too many amateur mistakes to have actually passed the bar of whatever state they are located.

Your comments are spot on as usual endisnighe.

I will no longer waste my time here, because it is plainly obvious that this person has an extremely limited knowledge of law.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
If a lawyer attempts a Summery Judgement; it can easily be defeated.

1)

"A decision granting summary judgment can be appealed without delay."

2)

"In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party only has to show substantial evidence that a dispute of material facts exists, regardless of the strength of that evidence."


en.wikipedia.org...

Directed Verdicts AKA Judgment as a matter of law JMOL

1)

"In a criminal case in the United States, a judge may only order a directed verdict for acquittal, for the ability to convict is reserved to the jury."



"The phrase arose when judges actually directed a jury to leave the courtroom, deliberate, and return with only the verdict predetermined by the judge"
^^^Proof that this is a Sham and Kangaroo

en.wikipedia.org...

2)

"Timing is very important in making a motion for JMOL; the motion can only be made once the opposing party has presented its case."


3)

"JMOL motions may also be made after the verdict is returned, where they are called "renewed" motions for judgment as a matter of law (RJMOL), but the motion is still commonly known by its former name, judgment notwithstanding verdict, or j.n.o.v. (from the English judgment and the Latin non obstante verdicto). However, in order to move for j.n.o.v., the movant must have moved for a JMOL before the verdict as well. This procedural quirk is necessary because it is considered a violation of the 7th amendment for a judge to overturn a jury verdict."


en.wikipedia.org...

Judgment notwithstanding verdict JNOV
1)

" JNOV, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is ordered at the conclusion of a jury trial."

en.wikipedia.org...

2)

"Because of the guaranteed right against double jeopardy in United States criminal cases, a judge is not allowed to enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal. "



And if they wanna play hard ball. I will play Medicine Ball...

1) Research lawyers and judges' histories and then use said information to create a "Conflict of Interest" argument, and force the Recusal of these individuals. (Judicial disqualification).

This is super easy because everyone is so dirty these days.


"28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge."


en.wikipedia.org...


This is just the type of warfare I can come up with in 15minutes.

Give me a real reason to fight and a month, and I could build the most complex case and file so many motions and appeals you would cry.

Oh and I will force the court to pay all the fees.With a handful of Requests to Waive all the Court Fees.

This will make it super expensive on the court to even deal with me. So they will probably Dismiss the case and leave me alone.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by muzzleflash]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Great Comments all around muzzleflash.

I am definitely friending you.

The OP of this thread obviously has not one iota of a clue about how the law works.

I am no attorney, but someone who can read well could defeat the arguments presented by hotpinkurinailment (if I butchered the name, then I really don't care)

Superb comments. Cheers.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Great points Josephus.

In my post above I was dealing with Criminal rather than Civil.

For civil I would take another course, but use similar tactics. Like actually reading the law books and using them to my advantage.

*Something they are not prepared for*


Edit to add: I have friended you as well buddy.


[edit on 27-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRoadLessTraveled
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]


Apologies. I should have truncated your portion out of that quote, as you didn't refer to gravity at all, and to be honest, I find no fault in your quote mentioned there. The reply was directed to JPZ, and I was somewhat remiss in my quotation of the entire post.

Indeed it's true that the law only applies to those who bind themselves to it and by it, and punishment IS a different matter. I've had ocaission to have that precise discussion with a ticked off ex husband, who maintained that a restraining order was nothing but paper, and a poor shield indeed against bullets directed towards his wife. He further insisted that a law enforcement response was far enough away to preclude interference with his planned action. I had to remind him, somewhat forcefully, that neither could they interfere with my shotgun interdiction of his plans. Checkmate. Bummer.

The point you make is in no way faulty, and gets right to the real point, as opposed to a legally perceived one.

Now, the following is a bit off topic, and properly belongs in another thread, but I'll respond here as this is where you make other points to which response is required.

I assume by 'fly forever', you refer to space travel of some sort. That's the only environment I can conceive of that being in any way possible. That's the only venue where you, or your corpse should you fail in discovering a fount of youth, could continue to 'fly' forever. In that case, you still would not be 'breaking' the law of gravity, or even flaunting it. You would be bound by gravity anywhere in this universe you could go, however weak the force may get, it's still there, and will be obeyed, whether by using it to increase velocity, or fighting it to get further away from the source.

Now the point of that entire exercise, free will, is in no way negated in performing such a feat, anymore than the ex husband I mentioned above had HIS free will negated. He still had the choice to either abandon his plans, or get past me and 'ol Betsy. Similarly, you, I, and everyone else have choices to make every day, and the law alone, or even in combination with consequential punishment, in no way negate those choices. They may influence the choice made, but the choice still has to be made all the same. It can go either way, depending on temperament.

An old saying where I come from is that "locks is fer honest folks". Similarly, so is the law. It may influence a choice in the exercise of free will, but it will NOT negate it. The options are always there.

By the way, although physics was my last collegiate major, I'm not a big fan of Einstein, as perceived by current physics. I believe he's terribly misunderstood, and in some particulars outright wrong. Well, maybe it's just perceptions. In any event, that will be a discussion for another thread, too.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Hotpink, just want to say first. Great idea mate!

Could I possibly bother you to go back to page 3 and look for a post by Canadianinsight and then answer the questions (6 or so) he has asked. I ask because many of these but not all are questions me myself was going to ask. This thread is actually the reason I decided to make an account after months of lurking, but then Canadianinsight beat me to the punch.

Thanks mate!

Lightrule



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Alright everyone, we all love to hate the "supposed" rule of color of law that is our governance at this time.

That being said, as long as we "see" the avenue or venue that is being stated, we have a contextual relationship in which we can judge or infer the given information.

I have only investigated all of the avenues of the current courts over the last 6-9 months. Hell, I did not even know about jurisdiction 9 months ago (kudos JPZ).

Now, I myself feel the reasoning behind the OP seems a little suspicious. Especially since he asked about what we should address in the first "class", so to speak. One could think if conspiratorial or paranoid enough, that one was using us as a research parameter to use in the upcoming Constitutional battle over the Health Care debacle.

How about that for a conspiracy?

But, if we only define our investigation to the parameters of the case law we would be remiss in the overall strategy.

What I am getting at, we have a chance to see into the minds of the "priest class" (JPZ), and evaluate the arguments set forth.

Of course in this instance he is talking about we should read the case law he provides and argue the merits set forth in these cases. I say we look through those cases and look at the inherent flaws of those and find our own to argue the case for the plaintiff. US so to speak. What say you?



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


Great response. I wrestled in my mind over using a word relative to gravity and flying and I settled on breaking, wrongly. Suspending? Circumventing? I had trouble with describing it. Either way the 'laws' of physics are by no means settled or self evident whereas mans laws are somewhat definite depending upon your definition of words and the time you live in and if you choose to obey those laws. I think we are on the same page we just aren't communicating to each other clearly. I realize that you didn't address me in your initial response, nontheless I felt it had a bearing on my argument through the initial response to my first post and felt I needed to clarify to defend my position. I may have even used murder as a poor example because who knows if a body is reincarnated in some way or fashion. Maybe growing marijuana would have been a better example. You are growing marijuana, it is against the law, therefore you go to jail if you get caught. That seems to be a more definitive example eh? I counter my positions in my head to defend against future misinterpretations because I'm terrible at putting my thoughts into words. Only after I write them, post them and see my thoughts out there for everyone to see do I defend my point to it's most finite. Thanx again for the counterpoints. It gives me practice.(I hate paragraphs)

Edit for socializing...I was just talking about your locks quote the other day only around here we say 'locks only keep honest people honest'.
[edit on 27-4-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by TheRoadLessTraveled]



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I am just going from the gut on this, and I can research it later.

But I have a gut instinct that Case Law is not Concrete.

I bet there are a 1000 ways to get such a "precedent" dismissed in the progress of your court case.

You could simply do research, some critical thinking, and prove that particular case was illegitimate in some way.

All you have to do is cast doubt in people's minds about it.

Show how it was decided unfairly due to conflicts of interest. Or show that it was decided upon without legitimate reasons.

Like I said I don't know the "rules" on this particular action, but I am certain that there is some way to have such "case law examples" dismissed due to a plethora of reasons.

Just open your mind there are limitless possibilities here.

There are too many loopholes, there is bound to be a way through.


I'll research it later. I kinda wanna go eat and watch some videos now. hehe

[edit on 27-4-2010 by muzzleflash]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
I like your thread.

As far as I understand the laws as they presently stand. Most of us have no standing when we present contitutional issures before the Court. This according to what I have studied is because we have entered into contracts with the US corp. Contract law trumps constitutional law when there is a contract. IE. Bank signature card is what they use to show a contract when it comes to taxes.

So in trial you have no standing on constituional grounds when it comes to Tax court. The judge is sitting there looking at your contract. signature card. There is no law that says a citizen has to pay income tax except voluntarily or through agreement. Care to comment. thanks.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.


Marbury v. Madison


(1803) First decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review. In 1801 newly elected Pres. Thomas Jefferson ordered Secretary of State James Madison to withhold from William Marbury the commission of his appointment by former Pres. John Adams as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Marbury then requested that the Supreme Court compel Madison to deliver his commission. In denying his request, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction because the section of the Judiciary Act passed by Congress in 1789 that authorized the Court to issue such a writ was unconstitutional and thus invalid. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, declared that the Constitution must always take precedence in any conflict between it and a law passed by Congress.




Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)
Emerges as the Law of the Land
www.law.cornell.edu...

By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be up-held and administered. That's why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedence, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at Large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie R.R. v. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the 1990 Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th edition.

The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952, and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed desirable in the light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966.

The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1930 and 1940, I don't recall, but by the early 40's and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and got it ready to put on the market. The UCC is the law merchant's code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the new law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything; Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts/Agreements, and the whole mess under the UCC. That's where the "Uniform" word comes from. It means it was uniform from state to state as well as being uniform with the District of Columbia. It doesn't mean you didn't have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960's, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt the newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the law of the land. The states fully understood they had to administrate bankruptcy. Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks or so after Kennedy was killed.

source


An Expose On The Legal Fraud Perpetrated On All Americans



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by autowrench
 


I have read what you provided in quotes in your post, but I don't have the time right now to read the links you provided, but hopefully later today can look at them, but since you are still online, and merely reading what you provided in quotes, I am not seeing the connection. What I am suggesting to you is that The Supreme Court couldn't possibly rely upon a reasoning that say's no case law prior to 1939 is admissible, and yet rely on Madison v Marbury in order to strike legislation down as unconstitutional. There is a contradiction in this reasoning.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I would like to know what the OP studied in college.

What was your undergraduate major and what did you obtain a degree in? Prior to law school.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canadianinsight
Hi, I have a couple easy questions for you,

1) What is the legal definition of a statute? Is a statute a law?

1b) Factually what is a statute?

2) What is the legal definition of a "STATE"?

2b) Factually, what is a state?

2c) What is the legal definition of a citizen?

3) In a court case, who does the prosecutor represent? Who does the judge represent? Who does a police officer represent?

3b) Who pays for the prosecutor, judge, and police officers?

4) Can a "STATE" be an injured party?

5) Is the constitution a legal contract?

5b) Factually speaking, all legal opinions set aside, what is the constitution?

and finally,

6) Should services be rendered at the barrel of a gun?

Sorry, I realize thats more than a couple, but they are pretty easy.
Thank you for your consideration.


Gee none of the attorners want a chance to twist this one? Ok, I'll take a stab with a human edge. Although I never graduated high school which means I actually answer the questions.

1. A statute is a rule for employees of a 'state' or anyone who volunteers to be recognized as 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Citizens. A statute is not law.

1b. see answer 1.

2. The body politic or the people are the state. Although etymologically state is derived from 'ESTATE'. The declaration of independence being the WILL.

2b. A state is a person according to UN treaties.

2c. Any person born or naturalized in the united states and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

3. they all work for private companies none of which are the body politic.

3b. the people

4. not in reality but were talking within the four corners of a fiction.

5. I never signed the thing.

5b. the constitution is factually a TRUST. The declaration of Independence was a WILL.

6. depends on your choice of your definition of should? I'd say it 'is'. but I won't say which definition of the word 'is' I am refering to. he he ho ho ha ha haa?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


If you want someone to spoon feed you information about the law, go somewhere else. In my class it is up to the participants to flush out the law for themselves.


Thats why 'I' never went to law school.

wait.......just............a..........second.

Hmmm. It seems irony IS more than just a nicely pressed suit.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
To the OP, while I like this idea, I doubt most everything everyone says anymore.


What type of references do you have to show that you do in fact know what you speak of? Have you passed a bar exam?
Im not trying to be a pain, but if you are in fact a lawyer, youre credibility is already suspect to me. I find your profession filled with useless liars and douchebags who take 1/3rd for their time and do little to no real work.

I realize this is a generalization and not fair to anyone personally, which is why Im open because you are a member here. Which, I assume means you have an open mind about things, a good thing.


Id like to know if you have any experience in Constitutional Law?


If this has already been asked, I apologize.

If you do have some experience in this area, my question is this... How is it constitutional to ban voting for any convicted felon?

Under the Patriot Act, any crime harming or possibly harming others can be defined as an act of terrorism...

If you commit a crime in an election or politics, you should lose your right to vote, as you tried to steal others voices. But, if youve commited any crime, why should you lose your right to vote?

How is that even remotely constitutional? There is nothing in our founding documents about suspending or ending someones rights like this...

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread and answer



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join