Quote:
|
Originally Posted by weishaupt1776
Watch The Bogus Case Cites, guys. You will look like a complete ass if you put those things in your papers  |
Possibly. Perhaps the agents of the statutory courts would experience what we encounter when we look at their legislation and case precedants, which are "en-acted" and decided at, accordingly, a few strokes of a pen or words from a seasoned attorney not in law. When only the form of law (legislation, and legality) is observed, these fictional laws and decisions carry about as much inherent validity as its forms: penstrokes and utterances. In case decisions, token obesiance is made to precedant, but they're not compelled (by their chosen venue, at least) to take it into consideration. It often becomes something equivalent to false piety, observed when practiced for the same reasons that someone building a house of cards takes the formation of previously-placed cards into account when determining how to place the next. Nothing compels them so to do, but if they didn't, the house of cards would self-destruct due to inherent instability sooner rather than later.
Incidentally, as the determinations of legal fictions are themselves legal fictions, I primarily use case cites to explain specific matters to someone simply without going into the actual basis. They're also good in that they're commentary from those in positions of socially-accepted authority; getting them to comment on anything more than a legalistic basis is rare, so we are left to interpret the legalistic comments they do leave us. Which, incidentally, is probably embezzlement on their part; they're suppsed to be in law, not at law. Regardless, believing they're intrinsically valid or binding would be like believing that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money; commonly-practiced, but not accurate.
Additionally, the law does not require that which is impossible. This is what happens when statutory legislation becomes proprietary and not freely available to all to whom it attempts to apply. It's a fundamentally untenable concept; consider its logical extreme: Statutes for which everyone is considered liable for violating, but the actual court case precedants and statutes themselves are only available to the rich... so just to be on the safe side, everyone else had better ingratiate themselves to them in every way imaginable.
Bringing the courts into commerce defeats their standing in the administration of justice.
- Satori
