Quote:
Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour
Once again Tower, you don't get to define what the law is, the legal system does that (as I've told you before). You don't get to decide what a Notary is liable for or is not liable for and your opinion in that regard carries no weight whatsoever.
By the way, this crap about understand vs. stand under, and stand under being a more legal concept is such utter crap I don't even know how to reply. You seem to be just making s*** up now. I've never even heard that kind of nonsense from the other nutters that make this kind of thing their life's work. Does it actually make sense to you when you write gibberish like that?
|
What a Lawyer says regarding Law
Toronto lawyer David Sherman, an authority on tax law, has little patience for detaxer theories. "Detaxers say that because of such and such an analysis going back to the Magna Carta or something, the government can't impose taxes and therefore the income tax is voluntary. That's like telling someone that you can cure AIDS by boiling toads under a full moon and inhaling the steam while you stand on one foot reciting Hamlet's soliloquy backwards. The idea is any medical professional would recognize that as nonsense, though someone desperate enough might try it if [he doesn't] know what's going on. These detaxers think they can know law without having any legal training. They read something that looks like it is written in English, but it's not, it's actually law and they think they understand it."
http://www.camagazine.com/index.cfm/...print/true.htm
"If you can't understand the words how can they be applied to you as if they have the force of law? Additionally, there are only two official languages English and French. This language called 'law' is not an official language is it? Of course lawyers make their money by ensuring the statutes are so convoluted and ambiguous that you need them to understand what is expressed within. This is exactly what Jesus railed against 2000 years ago; the Pharisees and Sadducee and Scribes who claimed exclusive right to understand the Law and then demanded rich payment to have the words deciphered."
If they aren't my words, they can't be my law and if you can't understand these words, they are not mine and thus should not be applied against me.