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.
Originally posted by kinda kurious
This data seems to support OP's claim:
Source
Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security....
Last quote a hoot!
I am thinking Shakespeare had an idea.
Does anyone know to what I am referring?
Originally posted by kinda kurious
Originally posted by endisnighe
Now, one question needs to ask oneself, who caused all of these problems?
I am thinking Shakespeare had an idea.
Does anyone know to what I am referring?
What is: "A plague on both your houses?"
What did I win?
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297
Yes, that assumption would be true if said lawyers were actually advocates of their clients.
Wait a minute, who are the clients of said lawyers?
We no longer have advocates, we now have the priest class that does not look for justice, they look out for themselves and their own class of charlatans.
Why is it in this day and age, though we have more "lawyers" per unit population, that justice is worse than it has ever been?
Is it because of the lawyers? There is at least a correlary relationship.
Or how about the fact that there are more lawyers representing us as people in government, than ever before?
Perpetuation of a fraud comes to mind.
Law has become so circulatory, that justice is no longer served. If you have the funds to either hire the best of the worst or you use the civil courts to circumnavigate the truth. Goldman Sach's sues for peace from the SEC e.g.
The US of A Constitution states in the Bill of Rights several basic tenets of criminal and civil law. Do we have this now?
Of course not. Now we have the priest class lawyers, that proclaim from on high, the justice that is meted out for us.
The BAR, what does that stand for?
British Accreditation Registry, now where and when did this come about?
Well, one thing going for Obama, at least he had his BAR taken from him.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297
I am still waiting for a state AG to start filing charges against the feds for their outrageous conduct.
Political control over courts, enforcement etc or complicit behavior?
Maybe you didn't notice, but this thread is based upon the Tea Party Movement.
All it takes is one person to begin this. One person. Where are they? Why are they not doing there jobs?
One has to ask themselves, what is the purpose of government in general, if they do not protect victims and the citizenry from criminal behavior, especially in and amongst themselves?
Originally posted by endisnighe
Oh, I have always been a one man army.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by jdub297
Yes, that assumption would be true if said lawyers were actually advocates of their clients.
Wait a minute, who are the clients of said lawyers?
We no longer have advocates, we now have the priest class that does not look for justice, they look out for themselves and their own class of charlatans.
Why is it in this day and age, though we have more "lawyers" per unit population, that justice is worse than it has ever been?
Is it because of the lawyers? There is at least a correlary relationship. Or how about the fact that there are more lawyers representing us as people in government, than ever before?
Perpetuation of a fraud comes to mind.
Law has become so circulatory, that justice is no longer served. If you have the funds to either hire the best of the worst or you use the civil courts to circumnavigate the truth. Goldman Sach's sues for peace from the SEC e.g.
The US of A Constitution states in the Bill of Rights several basic tenets of criminal and civil law. Do we have this now? Of course not. Now we have the priest class lawyers, that proclaim from on high, the justice that is meted out for us.
A person cannot even argue the facts of the case in front of the jury. They are not allowed to encroach on topics the government DOES NOT want aired. I have seen it as a jurist. It is utterly abhorrent to me. At least the person was able to get a trial.
Tell me, who are the ones now arguing that citizenship should be stripped from a person accused of a crime? Who are arguing that rights that are unalienable are no longer relevant?
Yes, I took it out of context, but in who's eyes are the beholder?
In the beginning a defendant was given an advocate. The judge did not decide anything, they were there to set the flow of the trial, that is it.
Now after over 200 years we have judges and lawyers arguing court precedent and other circulatory rhetoric for the very purpose of making law, not law but some damn RELIGION.
There is one law and one law only, to not harm another or to not infringe on their rights of Life, Liberty and Property. Period.
Now we have "color of law" used to control and enslave the citizenry. There is no justice, but what comes from a barrel of a gun.
If the courts want to stop something, come hell or high water the person or persons will be stopped. Even if they have the law or justice on their side.
The juries are instructed to not even consider law. They are told by these worshipers of the the new religion of "color of law" to listen to the judge, he will instruct the jurors on law. BULL#! The juror is the final entity on the LAW! Period.
The priest class is allowed to bold face LIE. See court precedent that our government has no responsibility for the protection of the citizenry. That right there PROVES beyond ANY DOUBT that our government and courts are no longer for justice, they are for tyranny at the end of a gun.
Yes, I know a few lawyers that would not be on the list, ones with honor and integrity. Those that did not sell their soul to the likes that Faust did. One is in a jail cell in California right now, where he has spent over a year for contempt of court!
Contempt of court, what, do these judges think, they are GOD now?
Maybe I have stated something too extensive, maybe I should have stated we bring back the original 13th Amendment and just seize all assets of lawyers and then throw their asses out of the country. Marks of nobility for sure!
The BAR, what does that stand for?
British Accreditation Registry, now where and when did this come about?
Well, one thing going for Obama, at least he had his BAR taken from him.
As a Lawyer, I cannot defend the actions of all the members of my profession. There are lawyers out there doing some bad things. However, it is not fair to blame every problem on lawyers. America is in trouble because bankers were flipping garbage securities, everyday folk were buying houses they could not afford, real estate speculators were trying to make a quick easy buck, everyday folk were running up large credit card bills buying frivolous things, government workers unions are not allowing the government to keep payrolls at reasonable amounts, the military is spending too much money losing wars, etc. etc. etc.
As far as your comments about the law and the "priest class" of the legal profession, you are way off the mark. When I went to law school, sat for the bar, and was sworn in I did not make any oath of allegiance to the Crown or Britain. Perhaps lawyers in the Commonwealth or UK make such oaths, but not American lawyers.
Second, the role of the jury has ALWAYS been that of a fact finder in Anglo-American jurisprudence. It was always the role of judges in our common law system to interpret laws and establish precedents. Juries do not interpret laws. As it is now, litigation is risky and unpredictable. If jurors were allowed to interpret laws and people could not rely on precedents, chaos would break loose. Nobody would know whether the contracts they entered into were valid, whether the securities they held granted them any rights, or what their tax bill was going to be.
Finally, you said the only law was not to harm another or infringe on their rights. This might be a nice way of summarizing much of the laws out there, but the fact of the matter is their are hundreds of pages of statutes, regulations, and court cases that apply to any American in any given state. Even if we were to argue that all those statutes, regulations, and court cases were somehow invalid, how could your principle be of any guidance to someone engaging in the many complex transactions people engage in.
For example, if I want to start a corporation and issue stock, does your principle require me to make any disclosures to the people who want to buy my stock? Will I get into trouble if I make false disclosures or omit material facts? If do get into trouble, what remedy should the stock buyers have?
Under your principle, am I allowed to make a will and leave property to my loved ones when I die? If so, what is going to happen if two or more people claim to have my one true will? What will happen if my will leaves "my car" to "my son" but I sold my car and used the money to get a boat? Does my son get the boat? What if I have no son or my son dies? What if I have two sons? How does your principle instruct me.
I could go on and on about how your principle is deficient and why we need statutes, regulations, and court cases to give us guidance. But I will leave you to your simple conceptions on how the world works.