To Certain Nameless Posters on this Board!

Dear nameless posters:

Despite being told that you are mistaken as to the law, you continue to argue the same points over and over and over. Despite ever seeming to understand that the American Legal System is built upon case law, you look only to the words of the Amendments. Even still, you fail to understand the entire context of the law. Despite having people who know the law, and have given you their credentials, you insist you know more. Despite your lack of experience enforcing the law, despite your lack studying the law, despite your lack of years practicing law (whatever your occupation may be). It is MADDENING! How are you supposed to argue with someone when they are making up their own law? How are you supposed to engage in discourse when someone refuses to see things from the other side? AHHH!!!! It's FRUSTRATING!

Thanks!

A person that truely understands disclosure has an open mind to any and all infromation not just selected snipit's. Doesent mean you have to agree with them just acknowldge that statements backuped by facts means its the truth.

You cant argue with some people. If they dont acknowledge fact from fiction then they are beyond help and you should stop wasting your breath on them as in every population there needs to be cattle ready for the slaughter.

I agree with that... Just let it go...

Im sure I know atleast 1 of the people you are talking about...

The beauty of our system is that it molds people into believing the govt/media is always right, there is no other answer except what they put out there...No questioning anything, It came from them, it must be right, no research needed...

Even it it crosses normal human boundaries or morals...

Seriously, if the media put out that the color of the sky was purple, 90% of america would walk around... Hey did you hear the sky is now purple? Oh yeah? Cool!

Then the people who know how to think would be... Umm its blue, and always has been...

1984 tactics would totally work, and do

another place where ye old quote applies



"you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"

But if you(anyone,not you)are self aware enough to know that you(*)know everything,then how can someone else correct your posts?You(they) know so much that you just cannot be wrong....in their minds at least

reply to post by morder1


reply to michaelmcclen

Sage advice from the both of you. Thanks. I know I should just let it go, but I just wanted to vent.

Morder, just so you know, you are not one of the people I was talking about

Thanks again. And thanks everyone else too!

reply to post by Ryanp5555


Is this about the woman being arrested for filming an officer?

reply to post by Ryanp5555


Please stop ranting about this...it's illegal.

When new laws are made in the future that go against your rights and freedoms, then maybe you'll see the other sides of the coins. Some laws are necessary, some are totally bogus and extremely outdated, but they make people a lot of money so they stay on the books.

i/m lost too i thought this thread was about the understanding of the law and the spirit of the law how did disclosure get mixed in

reply to post by gaurdian2012


Disclosure? What are you talking about? I'm confused now too.

Originally posted by mb2591
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

Is this about the woman being arrested for filming an officer?

It's about more than just that. But yes, some of it has to do with that thread, which I am convinced I just need to stop posting in.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


Why was that lady jailed?

reply to post by mb2591


LOL not to get too into it here, but she was videotaping officers arresting someone. The officers didn't like it too much, there was a back and forth and eventually she lost the good fight.

reply to post by Ryanp5555


It has to frustrating to have good arguments ignored or glossed over. I have done a lot of reading and it seems as if some members try to be obtuse and abrasive just to get a rise from a sincere poster. I hope that some leeway is given to new people and their occasional (I hope not frequent) ignorance is overlooked.

you can't cure stupid. People will defend their beliefs tooth and nail regardless of the truth.

btw weren't supposed to come over and help move this refrigerator? sheesh!
lol

I don't care what you say! I know this post is about me and I still say I'm right.

I am the president...and I DON'T need to be elected to be so!

Thank you.

MM

reply to post by Ryanp5555


You sound like you are a reasonable type of person. Could you please answer the following for me. Refrain from posting your opinion, just the facts.

What is the Law?

What is a legal system?

How are they different, please explain?

Until you can answer those questions in a way that a majority of ATS can understand this thread shouldn't continue... Good luck!

-Lightrule

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by Ryanp5555

 

You sound like you are a reasonable type of person. Could you please answer the following for me. Refrain from posting your opinion, just the facts.

What is the Law?

The law as to the Emily Good case? The law was the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Interestingly, if you notice this Amendment could be broken up into two sections: the right to be secure and no warrants shall issue. However it has been read by the Courts as one, fluid statement. As it pertains to her, the question is: whether or not the cop arresting her was a reasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Reasonable does not mean perfect or best way, it just means that the cop acted reasonably. In order to effectuate a reasonable seizure, an officer must have probable cause. Probable cause is defined as: a substantial probability that the crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested committed the crime. This means if an officer witnesses a crime being broken they have probable cause to arrest. An arrest supported by probable cause is reasonable.

The Fourth Amendment also allows cops to make requests for the officers safety. I've listed a whole LIST of exceptions that an officer has been deemed capable of doing in the other thread, and I'm not going to do that here. So, an officer can request that someone back up or move if they feel that their safety could possibly be threatened. Failure to do so, or obey the officers commands, depending on statute, could be deemed illegal. Thus, probable cause to arrest would ensue.

If you want a general description of laws I provided one at the end.

What is a legal system?

The legal system is the system in which we adjudicate cases.Article III of the Constitution creates the United States Supreme Court and gives them original jurisdiction over a limited number of cases. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to create lower federal Courts. The Tenth Amendment gives the States the right to create their own courts. As to the Federal Courts:

The United States Supreme Court is the Supreme Court, and thus issues Supreme rulings, on federal law issues. All federal issues arise out of the Constitution (otherwise, there would be no power to create a Federal Statute) It cannot issue a binding decision on a state court when the state court decides the case on independent and adequate state grounds (meaning its own state law which is clearly separate from the US Constitution). Below the United States Supreme Court, starting at the lowest courts, are the United States District Courts. The United States is broken into 11 district courts. Jurisdiction depends on which State you reside in. You can only bring a case into the District Court (and I'm going to keep this Civil Procedure lesson short) if there is (1) subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) personal jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction occurs where either: (1) there is a federal statute or federal question; or (2) there is diversity of citizenship. A Federal question arises where what is at issue is a substantial question about the constitution. Diversity of citizenship arises where the individual plaintiffs and the individual defendants reside in different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. So, if you do not have that then you cannot be brought into a federal court. Personal jurisdiction is (and I'm going to keep this SUPER short) essentially any place where the courts have power over your person or property. Meaning if you own land, they have personal jurisdiction. So, unless you can show both personal and subject matter jurisdiction you are not getting into federal court.

Further, for any case to be heard you must have standing. This means that you must have suffered some sort of injury that a court hearing the case would be able to say that your injury was caused by the defendant and a ruling for you would redress your injuries. And really quickly, there are two types of actions: civil actions and criminal actions. Civil actions include and breach of contract claims or tort claims (a tort is any other civil action other than a contract dispute --- personal injury actions; non-criminal copyright infringement; defamation etc.). Criminal actions include any action that is defined as a crime in the statutes or relevant laws.

Okay, after that, if you want to appeal a judgment you go to the Appellate court. This will be the appellate court for the district you are in (i.e. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). Then, you can appeal to the US Supreme Court and they can choose to hear your case. If they want to hear your case they will issue a writ of certiorari.

As to the State Courts, they differ. However, at the very least you will have a lower state court and a higher state court. The lower state court will be able to hear almost any case. And the appeal process works the same.

Finally, Congress has the power to enact federal laws pursuant to Article I. Every state reserves the power to create laws with their legislature as well. These laws are the laws that must be followed but can be challenged in federal court as to their constitutionality.

EDIT: I forgot to include enforcement of the laws. Legislative branch creates laws, judicial branch interprets and makes rulings on laws, executive branch enforces laws. Law Enforcement Officials are considered part of the executive branch. Thus they are tasked with enforcing the laws. Thus, for a criminal matter, they can arrest you and jurisdiction is proper than for a criminal matter. Much simpler than civil procedure.

So, in other words, the legal system is the way in which we adjudicate cases. First, by determining whether Congress enacted a relevant law. Then, if a civil case, we determine whether you have standing to sue (if a civil issue) based on that law, or if criminal, whether you are guilty of said crime. Then we determine what court you need to go to (federal or state -- was this a non-criminal copyright infringement civil suit? Go to federal court. Was this a state breach of contract action? Go to state court. Was this a criminal matter in which you violated federal law? Go to federal court? Was this a violation of state law in a criminal matter (murder of a state citizen)? Go to state court). Then we adjudicate the case in that court based on that relevant law. And upon a final decision, you can appeal until you reach the highest court. If the highest Court hears the case, and makes a decision, that decision is final and binding over every one.

How are they different, please explain?

Well the law in general, is simply the Constitution, Statutes, State Constitutions, State Statutes, or Common Law. Common Law is simply the laws that the US had when the US was still colonies under British control, that we incorporated into our legal system (i.e. common law burglary was kept b/c people would commit the crime, and at the time we had no relevant statute, so we incorporated some laws as common law in which the British kept). The legal system is the procedures and ways in which we adjudicate cases.

I hope this makes sense.

Well thanks for all the effort, my praise for your post ends here...

You didn't answer a single question with all that blabbering, at least not in a way anyone with a common background would understand, so thanks for proving my point.

My point is this: How can ignorance of the law be no excuse? Sure those of us who have went to law school can sit here understand the words you have used, maybe even a few people that haven't had any formal law training. But for the most part a regular Joe has no idea what the words you have used mean.

The law is pretty simple:
The Law -- Frédéric Bastiat

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

In the Emily Good case the officer broke the law, end of story. I'd take this case Pro-Bono in order to sue the city if I could.

The legal system is something complete different and infinitely more complex.

Here is how the scam works. In the City of London, there are four Inns of Court. These Inns are private country clubs of the rich and have been around for 1000 years, so they certainly have perfected their techniques.

Their trade is deceit. There is a difference between 'lawful' and 'legal'. Lawful contemplates the spirit of the law and is embodied in the moral and ethical consideration of rendering unto each man his due. Legal is the 'form of the law' and merely means that it is written down someplace. It is quite possible for something to be "legal" and still be totally unlawful.

Just because the government has written down a "law" stating a police officer can order you to take off your left shoe, stuff your hat in your mouth, bend over and kiss your own arse while singing yankee doodle dandy doesn't make it lawful.

In my opinion government cannot be trusted any longer to frame our legal system as they are no longer using the law as the basis in which to write it. I'm clearly not alone in this regard. Many people on ATS seem to feel that same way.-

Which leads us too...

A Confusion of Terms:

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Sorry did I shoot your "You are just an anarchist." argument down before you could use it?

-Lightrule