Legal advice and whatnor?! are you sure

It has come to my attention by way of Jerseee post in the motion to dismiss hearing thread where he says
Quote "Well I can tell you this much. No one here (that I know of) can give legal advice or would dare to (someone might)." End Quote.

Here is some little known info, legal advice is something that everyone can give, it is a common law right and in so can not be violated. The rich Lawerys have foold the populace into beleiving such. in fact i have the laws stating that any individual may give legal advice and coucil.

However, representing someone else and you are not a Lawyer is a different story. Now that is something that you can get into trouble as, but you can be kept as council for that person being charged or dealing with teh courts. . which is why i give out advice for free. It seems a shame that lawyers make you pay for adivce... besides that point. i dont have my forked tongue yet, not finished with school.... Pity. i will have a forked tongue and sharp fangs.. fangs i will enjoy sinking into the corrupt judicial officers, rear end.. hehehehe.
Down with tyranny...

[idknow]

Originally Posted by handofdespair

It has come to my attention by way of Jerseee post in the motion to dismiss hearing thread where he says
Quote "Well I can tell you this much. No one here (that I know of) can give legal advice or would dare to (someone might)." End Quote.

Here is some little known info, legal advice is something that everyone can give, it is a common law right and in so can not be violated. The rich Lawerys have foold the populace into beleiving such. in fact i have the laws stating that any individual may give legal advice and coucil.

However, representing someone else and you are not a Lawyer is a different story. Now that is something that you can get into trouble as, but you can be kept as council for that person being charged or dealing with teh courts. . which is why i give out advice for free. It seems a shame that lawyers make you pay for adivce... besides that point. i dont have my forked tongue yet, not finished with school.... Pity. i will have a forked tongue and sharp fangs.. fangs i will enjoy sinking into the corrupt judicial officers, rear end.. hehehehe.
Down with tyranny...

Welcome to the Forum, Hand.

Well said and exactly: the act of legislatures which prohibits legal_practice applies only to
PERSONS who are subject to Legislatures :- CORPORATIONS!

I've wanted to post something here in response to all of the disclaimers which aver "not legal advice"
but I delayed because some members here might believe it to be either necessary to warn unknown
or un-educated visitors.

[joseph sugarman]

Here is some little known info, legal advice is something that everyone can give, it is a common law right and in so can not be violated. The rich Lawerys have foold the populace into beleiving such. in fact i have the laws stating that any individual may give legal advice and coucil.

This is a misstatement at law. There are no common law rights. There are rights, many recognized as inalienable, that are protected by the Common Law. The right to peaceably assemble and talk to one another about anything is an example of rights, so protected.

I make this point because at law the correct meaning and correct use of words is eminently important. Believe it or not, boys and girls, it was even more important in the preparation for and appearance in a Common Law court than it is, today, in a Statutory Court. There is far more leeway in the misuse of words, preparation and presentation in courts today than would have ever been tolerated in a Common Law Court.

Please, in the future, spend more time in the preparation of your submissions to this forum, to make sure you are presenting them correctly. Additionally, please provide us with the court cites, you say you have, to support your position. Thank you.

Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

Here is some little known info, legal advice is something that everyone can give, it is a common law right and in so can not be violated. The rich Lawerys have foold the populace into beleiving such. in fact i have the laws stating that any individual may give legal advice and coucil.

This is a misstatement at law. There are no common law rights. There are rights, many recognized as inalienable, that are protected by the Common Law. The right to peaceably assemble and talk to one another about anything is an example of rights, so protected.

I make this point because at law the correct meaning and correct use of words is eminently important. Believe it or not, boys and girls, it was even more important in the preparation for and appearance in a Common Law court than it is, today, in a Statutory Court. There is far more leeway in the misuse of words, preparation and presentation in courts today than would have ever been tolerated in a Common Law Court.

Please, in the future, spend more time in the preparation of your submissions to this forum, to make sure you are presenting them correctly. Additionally, please provide us with the court cites, you say you have, to support your position. Thank you.

Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com

Good advice indeed!

[mrg]

Preparation before going to one of these courts would seem to be very well advised indeed!

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

I make this point because at law the correct meaning and correct use of words is eminently important.

(mrg comments in bold) It should be important to use words correctly, but I am finding that words, especially as used in constructing statutes seem deliberately to be misused in order to render "laws" intentionally vague.


Believe it or not, boys and girls, it was even more important in the preparation for and appearance in a Common Law court than it is, today, in a Statutory Court.

And well it should have been!! Amen.

And well it would be to so be returned to the state in which a law, (and its application) must say what it means and mean what it says, and that the meanings be those of ordinary usage understandable to intelligent people of general knowledge without having to resort to "legal translators."

That is sadly, not the case, unless I am reading the 2,000 pages of Internal Revenue Codes, and their 10,000 pages of implementing Regulations wrong.

(I still do not understand the concept of "Statutory Courts" in the context of the Constitution.

I still see only "Law, and Equity...admiralty and maritime," I keep looking though.)


There is far more leeway in the misuse of words, preparation and presentation in courts today than would have ever been tolerated in a Common Law Court.

As well as the "laws" which the courts often are called upon to apply.

And both of these situations are a big problem as far as I can tell.