Dismissed! 2 Counts of NO Lic, Reg, Tags, Insp. Sticker

[netwrkranger]

Lawdog wrote:
Society as a whole needs to be governed by religiously neutral and secular law. God's law is what should guide your church or synagogue. But you have no right to impose what you believe to be God's law on people whose beliefs are different from your own.

Isn't "the law" in fact opinions, customs, or rules of how a group of people choose to handle their public affairs among their body politic?

It was "law" that certain groups of people weren't human, were civilliter mortuus, or en rem property. Tell me, where was the neutrality of secular law in my previous statement ???

Secular law is anything but neutral with various groups competing to use "the law" as their personal gravyboat for extracting (extorting?) money, labor, and property from others such as the BAR.

What about an individual who believes that pot is healthy for them, but the State outlaws pot? Isn't that an imposition of beliefs? How come cigarettes and alcohol are legal but pot is not?

Isn't perhaps your espousal of "the law" your opinion which you are always seeking to promulgate to us despite no one inviting or accepting your advice?

I can imagine if this were about 230 years ago, you would be arguing the positions of King George III of England.

[Friendsplacect]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Nope. They were passed with all the requisite formalities, and codified according to the direction of the legislature.

But you said Nope meaning that they are not laws without the requisite formalities.

[moishanb]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Nope. They were passed with all the requisite formalities, and codified according to the direction of the legislature.

And, of course you have done the research and have proof that the above is more than speculation, right?

I will need to see the proof that "they were passed with all the requisite formalities, and codified according to the direction of the legislature."

That cool-aid is really starting to effect your limited thougt process.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I can imagine if this were about 230 years ago, you would be arguing the positions of King George III of England.

He still is.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by freebeme

Like not competent to write a working remedy for the foreclosure of Henry Bowman's house, not competent to get a scooter out of impound, not competent to keep a lawsuit going longer than a week (The criteria for throwing out a complaint is that there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that the plaintiff could prove ANY CAUSE OF ACTION.)

Dark Mental Void Person truly is an idiot.

That's pretty amusing; Welcome Back Freebeme.


Regards,

David Merrill.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

That's pretty amusing; Welcome Back Freebeme.


Regards,

David Merrill.

P.S. It took a moment to sink in Freebeme - I apologize for not giving it more thought. You noticed the date stamp on that scooter, huh? Today.

That's what's got your undies in a bunch!

The people I know are a lot more interesting than the people you know. That's why you are such a nasty little fellow.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The people I know are a lot more interesting than the people you know.

That's why you are such a nasty little fellow.

ROFLMFAO!!!

For real, big time.

I love the wording!!

Very classy.

I may have to put it in my signature line.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Friendsplacect

But you said Nope meaning that they are not laws without the requisite formalities.

Numbskull, the way your question was worded, I took it to mean that you were saying that I was implying that they were statutory laws even though the "requisite formalities" had not been complied with.

Many of you are so obtuse and write so poorly, it's often hard to tell what you mean.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by moishanb

And, of course you have done the research and have proof that the above is more than speculation, right?

I will need to see the proof that "they were passed with all the requisite formalities, and codified according to the direction of the legislature."

That cool-aid is really starting to effect your limited thougt process.

You have it bass-ackwards, boychik.

Anything that appears in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, now published by LexisNexis under contract with the State of Georgia, is prima facie evidence of the law as passed by the legislature, and that it was done with all the requisite formalities.

If you or any other party were to argue that something in the O.C.G.A. books was NOT passed with the requisite formalities, or that the law which actually was passed differs in some way from what appears in the O.C.G.A. books, then you would bear the burden of proof.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You have it bass-ackwards, boychik.

Anything that appears in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, now published by LexisNexis under contract with the State of Georgia, is prima facie evidence of the law as passed by the legislature, and that it was done with all the requisite formalities.

If you or any other party were to argue that something in the O.C.G.A. books was NOT passed with the requisite formalities, or that the law which actually was passed differs in some way from what appears in the O.C.G.A. books, then you would bear the burden of proof.

Annotated statutes are not the law that is passed by the legislature. It's the interpretation of the statutes via various holdings of the court , in very selectively published cases.

It's the readers digest version of the Statutes at large. Having read through annotated statutes, they very selectively choose the cites so as to narrow the range of acceptable legal interpretation as it relates to common law. The common law is superimposed over the statutory law.
In effect , the annotated statutes are decisions
filtered for the benefit of the BAR. It's been held that corporations and governments can publicly lie and not be liable. It's a Given fact that someone has no cause of action for a corporation lying if it is not under some obligation to due so. The BAR could print blatant lies and misrepresentations, just as long as it's in the best financial interests of the corporation and is intended to lead to profits. Then everything is A-OK.

Annotated statutes are filtered crap.