Laws, Laws, Everyday More Laws...

[Hermie]

2533

[osoab]

Nice chemtrails in the background.

[palani]

See that border on the sign. That means the enclosed text is advisory only. There is no authority posted either, as in "BE IT ENACTED BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE OF THE STATE OF ____".

Why would you think there is a Law where there is none?

[sirgonzo420]

See that border on the sign. That means the enclosed text is advisory only. There is no authority posted either, as in "BE IT ENACTED BY THE HOUSE AND SENATE OF THE STATE OF ____".

Why would you think there is a Law where there is none?

Yep, just like the white border on stop signs!

[D sciple]

So this border thing isn't even sarcastic? I mean, it's legit?

[palani]

So this border thing isn't even sarcastic? I mean, it's legit?

This is the rule on contracts. You could draw a border around the area where your signature appears, write your signature in and later make the claim that the signature is separate from the rest of the doc.

There are a lot of things possible but you have to know them and articulate them. For example, in law a court consists of two or more judges, at least one of them being of the quorum (trained). You may accept less if you don't raise the issue. It is your call.

[mick silver]

i am a outlaw i know no laws

[Serpo]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.....hahahaha......spend your whole life studying them so you are not in ignorance,,,,,hahahaha

[mick silver]

i am in the silver gang i know no laws

[Hatha Sunahara]

That sign should be posted everywhere and promoted as Amerika's new 'constitution'.


Hatha

[Libertytree]

2537

[Carl]

Nice chemtrails in the background.

Or maybe power/telephone lines....

The law is what they say it is and it is amenable to whim, making the study of it with the hopes of finagling it to your favor, pointless.

"Excuse me officer but that stop sign has a white border on it"

Yep, that'll work...

[palani]

The law is what they say it is...
THIS is your argument that Law must be SPOKEN?

[Carl]

THIS is your argument that Law must be SPOKEN?

No, it is not my argument, it is your argument, and if that is the meaning you wish to apply, have at it.

[palani]

No, it is not my argument, it is your argument, and if that is the meaning you wish to apply, have at it.


what they say

Actually I was going to congratulate you on an accurate observation. Law these days is nothing more than due process. Due process starts with NOTICE and NOTICE may be spoken or it might be delivered in the mail. Due process ends with hearing but first you are given the opportunity to INQUIRE. That means you may ask questions. Once you have made a single statement your INQUIRY is done and it is off to hearing with you where you will lose.

Was that what you were going to say or did you have a problem with your brain synapses misfiring again?

[Shami-Amourae]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_gcA0ZuKGkI8/TPFKlaHy-pI/AAAAAAAAJT4/aE1T6VnY75w/s1600/nanny-state.jpg

[Carl]

Actually I was going to congratulate you on an accurate observation. Law these days is nothing more than due process. Due process starts with NOTICE and NOTICE may be spoken or it might be delivered in the mail. Due process ends with hearing but first you are given the opportunity to INQUIRE. That means you may ask questions. Once you have made a single statement your INQUIRY is done and it is off to hearing with you where you will lose.

Was that what you were going to say or did you have a problem with your brain synapses misfiring again?

No, but if it is your desire to extrapolate the inference, have at it, but you might want to ask your mommy first to see if it's ok.

[osoab]

No, but if it is your desire to extrapolate the inference, have at it, but you might want to ask your mommy first to see if it's ok.

Carl, wtf? I'm glad you got back to the forum. Lively discussion is necessary. Crap like the above,though, is low brow. Bad form.

[Carl]

Carl, wtf? I'm glad you got back to the forum. Lively discussion is necessary. Crap like the above,though, is low brow. Bad form. Really ???

So tell me, what do you believe this remark directed at me by palini qualifies as:

"Was that what you were going to say or did you have a problem with your brain synapses misfiring again?"

I consider it a juvenile personal attack, hence my remark to him.

Now, if I'm wrong then please let me know and I will stand corrected.

[osoab]

Really ???

So tell me, what do you believe this remark directed at me by palini qualifies as:

"Was that what you were going to say or did you have a problem with your brain synapses misfiring again?"

I consider it a juvenile personal attack, hence my remark to him.

Now, if I'm wrong then please let me know and I will stand corrected.

Much lower brow than asking if your synapses are all firing.

I went through the the posts again. Maybe better words could have been chosen by palani, but they were not infantile.

The reason I give more leeway with palani is because he didn't cut and run for a year from the forum. So I may be biased.

You have been back two days and have been getting into the law stuff with just about everyone. I'm not saying group think is a good thing, but have you explored any of the thoughts these individuals propose prior to your rebuttals?

Why post just to get a one up on a guy or to always say "I'm right, they are wrong"? It's the impression I am getting.