Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shoonra
MRG: You ask so many questions that it would be very tough to answer them all in a compact way. Statutes are legislative acts; Law is a broader term that includes statutes, but also interpretations and elaborations made by court decision or administrative regulation.
Statutes create courts. The US Constitution itself created the US Supreme Court, but Congress designated (and occasionally changed), by statute, how many justices would comprise the Supreme Court and when the Court would begin its annual term. In this past century statutes have created the Tax Court, eliminating the Board of Tax Appeals which had been a creation of the Dept of Treasury administrative regulations, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears appeals from such courts as the Federal Claims Court (previously known as the US Court of Claims, and then the US Claims Court), and the Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims, which was created to hear appeals from the departmental Board of Veterans Appeals.
By law, the US Supreme Court supervises the drafting and fine-tuning of the rules of procedure for the US District (trial) and Circuit (appeals) courts, using the Federal Rules ... of Civil Procedure, ... of Criminal Procedure, ... of Appeals, ... of Evidence.
In another message you ask about "pleading innocent". Rule 11 of the Fed Rules of Criminal Procedure cover this. If the defendant refuses to enter a plea, the court is required to enter a Not Guilty plea for him; this practice goes back to a very very old (circa 1790) federal statute. Although this is sometimes misrepresented by the media and showbiz, the plea is "Not Guilty" -- it isn't Innocent, which is more of a theological than a legal concept -- but the newspapers frequently say it's a plea of Innocent to avoid the risk of a mistaken omission of the Not from "Not Guilty".
|
Are the questions perhaps not but difficult only to the considered extent one might or must feel compelled but to rely upon vague, convoluted, twisted, concatenations of labyrinthine constructions subjugated upon a people inclined to suffer such patent nonsense while it is sufferable, by idolotrous opportunists operating the same age-old confidence game which is also a "theological" concept?
If the "court" "pleads" for me, then is not the court "practicing" "law" from the "bench" (or "bank" upon which the robed one sits) by "representing" a "defendant"?
Or is "law" separate from that which is "legal?"
Is the court not "representing" me by "pleading" for me?
As "I" "am" why do "I" need to be "represented" anyway?
Since "I" "am," (I am, am I not?) what is the "representation," and what would such representation signify?
Perhaps I may "legally" and/or "lawfully" be admitted standing upon certain published Semitic "theological" concepts?
Might the creed of such require that I "plead" only to one "lawful" "Author"?
And what about the "praying" after the "pleading?"
To whom am I "pleading," and to whom am I "praying?"
Might the creed of the aforementioned require that I "pray" only to one "lawful" "Author"?
Are you enunciating or describing an atheistic "legal" process?
Would this not be a logical conclusion to draw?
If "Innocenct" is a theological concept rather than a "legal" concept, and thus, accordingly, needs be separated from or considered apart from "legal" concepts, then should, perhaps, the "law" and the "legal" need also separate
all such "theological" concepts from the "legal" process, and/or the "law?"
(Or is it a process?)
(Or is it a construct?)
(Or is it a "concept?")
So, accordingly, "legally" one cannot "legally" be "Innocent," but only "guilty" or "not guilty?"
If I am not mistaken, is not "guilt" a "theological" concept?
Is not "law" also a "theological" "concept?
You are perhaps stating then, that the apparently
faux maxim, "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is a misrepresentation on the part of the media and "showbiz," and that the whole popular concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is a misconception arising, significantly, from the newspapers substituting the word "innocent" for the phrase "not guilty" in case there might be a typograhical error occur in which the qualifier "not" is omitted?
In admission of "no guilt," is not "guilt" already presumed, if not substantiated by the presence of the term "guilt"?
If one must "legally" deny guilt, rather than declare innocence, then upon whom does the burden of proof rest?
Must the "not guilty" prove the not guiltiness, or must the accuser prove the "not-ness" away from the guilt?
If the accuser must prove guilt, then why must the accused legally be required to admit the qualified term "guilty"
ab initio into a defense?
If the accused must prove "not guiltiness," then it must follow that the accused "defends" from the understanding of presumed guilt evidenced by the legal requirement of admitting the term "guilt" in the initiating act of the ensuing proceedings.
(In begging the man in the black robe for the state of not contesting, does one pray to him for his mercy? Is the man in the black robe a man or is the man in the black robe a representative or personification of an artificial construct or entity?)
Why would one want to beg of, and pray to some "statutorially" proclaimed authority by making any mention of guilt, when one stands upon a condition of innocence?
If one is innocent, is not the forced or subsequently enforced act of pleading and praying to an idol, thus compelled under threat, duress, coercion?
If one stands innocent of an allegation, can one be "not guilty," since innocence, is absent of guilt, and "not guilty" is inclusive of guilt?
If one cannot in truth admit of guilt, and another represents one, and presumes to put words into one's mouth, and instructs a "legal" construct to accept the representation, is this not coercion?
(Is coercion not facilitated by duress, instigated by threat, and ultimately compelled by armed force?)
So where exactly might such a truth come into the "legal?"
But then again, "What is Truth?"
Shall we wash up now?
)
