Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mnchicago
Take my response personally if you want, but I do not
know you. I have chosen it only because it serves as
a typical example of how unwarranted slams are made
as though justified as a routine matter.
Just my point of view,
mn
|
First of all, this isn't court, and I don't have to "qualify" a request to a question. Besides that there was no need to "qualify" it because it is on briefing. I challenge you to find ANY article on "briefing" and see what the "few" fundamental elements are to briefing a case and then tell me it's some big undertaking that needs some sort of qualification for responses. They were simple questions that ANY student of law are faced with under study while learning how to read and understand how the courts interpret facts to law and law to facts. In law school future prospective attorneys read tons of case law that are from ALL OVER the union. So to pull one case (especially one that is not complex) is not too much to ask. And the particular case that I cited is not long or involved (complex issues).
Second, he could have just avoided the post altogether. The questions didn't appear one after the other without warning or after the first answer "popped-up," they were all presented at once.
Third, I didn't "slam" anybody. I made a statement of my "observation" that I found "interesting." At no time did I make a personal attack on Lawdog, or direct statements to Lawdog, therefore YOUR observation is misplaced and stating facts not present.
And as far as your take on the "sorry," an appearance of courtesy while being an ass doesn't take away from someone being an ass. Under your logic, one can commit assault and battery on you while saying "sorry" and apparently that makes it okay.
Fourth, you know what they say about when you assume, which again you make apparent by your comment "Take my response personally if you want. . . ." If comments are off-point, misread, and misrepresented what would make me take it "personally." In addition, in the one thing we do agree upon, you don't know me so why would I care?
Just like I find interesting some of the following comments such as yours and conststate. Yours are more replys to your own assumptions. Conststate, at a plain language reading, seems to be saying that he finds "liberation-fighters" who have a strong belief in what they were taught less honest and less sane than the judges and attorneys he's known. While it is commendable that he helped them out, I find it interesting that he believes those people have to "find [their] way back to civilized society]."
That to me is insane thinking (not that conststate's insane). What is "civilized" society but ones "belief system" as to how "they" feel someone "else" should act and behave.
IMHO the only true "laws" are the laws of nature. I.e. what's done that has the same universal effect no matter who says or what happens. E.g. A murder, an assault, a battery, a theft, a perceived insult, will all generate the same emotional feeling universally. Therefore those are natural laws. And therefore must be respected as such. The rest are just rules and regulations that are agreed to amongst participants.
What I also find interesting is how attorneys and judges know full well the "rules" of interpretation, and of "construction," but when others learn for themselves and use rationale and reasoning and ask questions that these same "sane" judges and attorneys refuse to answer, or answer in direct contradiction to their OWN rules, ignore the laws of property, the laws of contract, constitutional law, then all of a sudden everyone but them needs a psych-eval. Sell to each other and the "public" the "how-to" books and when your "how-to" excels then it becomes "your interpretation."
I've known some honest and sane attorney's myself, they're not attorney's anymore. I've met some judges that if you play by the rules with respect to court procedure and application of law and facts, they have decided within the confines of their authority (stare decisis, constitutional power, etc.). But that doesn't make them honest if they know something is being misapplied. ESPECIALLY against the oaths to the constitution that THEY take and THEY proclaim is the "law of the land."
I also find it interesting how you attempt to rebuff me for a perceived "slam" with a covert "slam" of your own, but fail to realize that those whom conststate and (maybe) you perceive as crazies and out of line are only attempting to stand up on the principles that you are able to not only think but "say" on a forum such as this. The very principles that are mocked.
I have no need or desire to "slam" anyone. It was merely to "expose." As well it has. Because no matter WHAT anyone believes, FACTS stand on their own. No need to add, distort, or subtract from.
It is a FACT that NO service or product should be provided at the barrel of a gun.
It is a FACT that "loyalty [to the principle of law] is no longer the currency of the realm. . .currency is the currency of the realm." As so eloquently put in a recent film.
And the ONLY
FACT of the matter is that "civilized" society is nothing more than about the bottom line.
"THE" bottom line--Do you understand that phrase? In case you don't: The bottom line is in reference to the line at the bottom of a financial statement that reveals how a business has done over a course of time.
So everyone can bitch and moan, insult and accuse, on the grand "scheme" of things it means nothing when looked at "factually." It is indisputable.
Cheers to all.
[END TRANSMISSION - END POST(ING)]
![How to tell when a attorney is Lying [Part I - Can they speak truth?]](http://www.suijuris.net/forum/iconimages/court/how-tell-when-attorney-lying-part-i-can-they-speak-truth.gif)
