[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Druwdeadeng

Ok. Perhaps that choice of wording was a bit sloppy. I can certainly see that it's a bit of a throwaway turn of phrase. Let me see if I can better explain what I meant.

"Otherwise just not going to work," as I intended the phrase, is really a combination of the first two points on the outdated laws and procedural incorrectness. But, more closely, I suppose I should have stated that it would more properly refer to the incorrect application of existing law and procedure.

Cherry picking portions of statutes/regulations outside of context, incorporation of common law theories when the common law has been superceded by a properly passed statute, etc.

Again, I have no animus toward any of the posters on this board, and I will certainly attempt to be productive in my posts. I'll happily try to offer further detail if I can, and will gladly say that I don't when I don't.

I'm a lawyer, I don't know everything about the law, and I'm pretty sure that no one else does either. Sometimes I'm wrong, sometimes I'm not. Hopefully, you all can appreciate my input and take it into account when you're processing your options for progressing through some legal proceeding.

Cheers.
DD

The above statements are Accepted for Value with stipulation. STIPULATION: I will not accept any statement from a lawyer that is contrary to the teachings of God; I acknowledge no other master than King Jesus; and that my rights are a derivative privilege for serving only one Master. As long as the laws of man (secular law) are in accord with the Laws of God, then I will adhere to those secular laws, otherwise, there is no room for secular law. See signature lines.

Jerry Carlos