My optometrist is withholding information from me...

[Tower]

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.

[fredr123]

How dare you post on the internet, Tower! Don't you know that html is not one of the official languages of Canada? Luckily, Bingo is not demanding rich payment to have these words deciphered so I guess he escapes the wrath of you and Jesus.

[Tower]

<

Originally Posted by fredr123

How dare you post on the internet, Tower! Don't you know that html is not one of the official languages of Canada? Luckily, Bingo is not demanding rich payment to have these words deciphered so I guess he escapes the wrath of you and Jesus.

Well Bingo can charge everyone for using CP. That is his choice as being his internet sight. Html is not even a language, it's a digital text format silly fredr123. As for Jesus if you believe in him or his teachings (Which is a subject that is very touchy here) you would be afraid of wrath... But My religion is not so conveluted as Catholic and Christanity... It's probably the most common on this board.

IMO how dare your <removed> FACTION use encrypted language disguised as English to control and charge outrageous fee's.

<removed> - Lacking in genuineness; spurious; false; adulterate; -- applied to things which resemble those which are genuine, but are really not so.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Tower

Html is not even a language, it's a digital text format silly fredr123.

What? Yes it is, you putz.
HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language



unless you're just a troll... in which case i give you 9/10

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

What? Yes it is, you putz.
HTML stands for HyperText Markup Language



unless you're just a troll... in which case i give you 9/10

It provides a means to describe the structure of text-based information in a document for web pages... Which is more to what it does not it's name.

And calling some one a putz is pretty funny.

[HOOT]

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Tower

It provides a means to describe the structure of text-based information in a document for web pages... Which is more to what it does not it's name.

And calling some one a putz is pretty funny.

The funny part, you could transpose the above post into the dictionary definition of the word language.

lan·guage (lnggwj)
n.
1.
a. Communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. (Barnes: or markup)
b. Such a system including its rules for combining its components, such as words. (Barnes: or markup)
c. Such a system as used by a nation, people, or other distinct community; often contrasted with dialect.


I know I was disappointed when I met Troutman that he didn't look like Johnny Cash.

[FurnaceFace]

Wow, from optometry, to law, a drive by at religion, and on to geek talk all in less than 50 posts. A couple more subject changes and this is hall of fame worthy. Can we try and get the merits of bears and the whereabouts of extension cords into this next? Oh, and a conspiracy theory too...that would tip it over the edge of sure.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Wow, from optometry, to law, a drive by at religion, and on to geek talk all in less than 50 posts. A couple more subject changes and this is hall of fame worthy. Can we try and get the merits of bears and the whereabouts of extension cords into this next? Oh, and a conspiracy theory too...that would tip it over the edge of sure.

There was also a picture of a motorcycle.

[ricosuave]

I, for one, welcome our topic-changing overlords...

[onetwo_threefour]

Just because the average person doesn't understand the nuances of the English language well enough to understand the different interpretations of the words that lead lawyers to be wordy and perhaps even convoluted, doesn't mean that legal documents aren't drafted in English.
Law is one of the few areas of human endeavour that hasn't been significantly dumbed down so the layperson can feel like an expert by reading on the internet (except apparently for people like you Tower), but it's still English even if YOU don't understand it.

If we could use a language more precise than English to mediate our agreements and disputes, then perhaps lawyers would be far fewer, but the largest part of my job seems to be translating peoples needs into precise English that accomplishes those goals with as little variance as possible.

Wait a minute, didn't I say I was done with this thread? It just keeps sucking me back in...

[atb]

Originally Posted by FurnaceFace

Wow, from optometry, to law, a drive by at religion, and on to geek talk all in less than 50 posts. A couple more subject changes and this is hall of fame worthy. Can we try and get the merits of bears and the whereabouts of extension cords into this next? Oh, and a conspiracy theory too...that would tip it over the edge of sure.

Question, what kind of bear is best?

[FurnaceFace]

A dead bear?

[GGG]

I just want to know what happened at the optomitrist.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by atb

Question, what kind of bear is best?

I loved that episode!

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Tower

Does not the Blacks Law Dictonary, Oxford Law Dictionary and others define LAW for everyone within the LAW society?

Most of the other stuff has been covered, but I'd like to add that. . . .

NO, Blacks Law Dictonary, Oxford Law Dictionary and others DO NOT define LAW for everyone within the LAW society.

Law dictionaries can be a useful aid when doing interpretation, but the only thing that defines a law is the statute governing that law (which is why most start with a definitions section) and (outside of Quebec) the court rulings that have interpreted and applied the statute.

The most eye-rolling thing about the Freeman movement, to me, is their insistence that PERSON (and you can substitute many other terms there) means X in the law, that the word PERSON in every statute must then have that meaning, and therefore the result of reading a statute with that meaning of PERSON must be THE LAW, like it or not!

It's just plain wrong.

When interpreting a provision of a statute (and therefore THE LAW) you do have to consider the text (i.e. the words used), but then you have to go beyond that and consider the context (i.e. how that provision relates to those in the relevant portion of the statute and the entire statute itself) as well as the purpose of the law (i.e. what the legislature was trying to accomplish when enacting that law).

If a given definition of a word like PERSON makes no sense given the context of the statute and the purpose it was intended to serve, the that's NOT the meaning of PERSON, regardless of what Black's Law Dictionary says.

So please stop saying "this is what PERSON means IN LAW", or "this is what UNDERSTAND means IN LAW", or "I deconstructed this statute using a legal dictionary and this is what THE LAW is" because it just makes no sense.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Most of the other stuff has been covered, but I'd like to add that. . . .

NO, Blacks Law Dictonary, Oxford Law Dictionary and others DO NOT define LAW for everyone within the LAW society.

Law dictionaries can be a useful aid when doing interpretation, but the only thing that defines a law is the statute governing that law (which is why most start with a definitions section) and (outside of Quebec) the court rulings that have interpreted and applied the statute.

The most eye-rolling thing about the Freeman movement, to me, is their insistence that PERSON (and you can substitute many other terms there) means X in the law, that the word PERSON in every statute must then have that meaning, and therefore the result of reading a statute with that meaning of PERSON must be THE LAW, like it or not!

It's just plain wrong.

When interpreting a provision of a statute (and therefore THE LAW) you do have to consider the text (i.e. the words used), but then you have to go beyond that and consider the context (i.e. how that provision relates to those in the relevant portion of the statute and the entire statute itself) as well as the purpose of the law (i.e. what the legislature was trying to accomplish when enacting that law).

If a given definition of a word like PERSON makes no sense given the context of the statute and the purpose it was intended to serve, the that's NOT the meaning of PERSON, regardless of what Black's Law Dictionary says.

So please stop saying "this is what PERSON means IN LAW", or "this is what UNDERSTAND means IN LAW", or "I deconstructed this statute using a legal dictionary and this is what THE LAW is" because it just makes no sense.

Well your right. It makes no sense. Soooo I guess you lawyers should just get an oxford dictionary to define your laws then eh! Then you'll be just like the rest of us!

[fredr123]

Yah, the topic changes are pretty bad and unfair to the original poster. I too would like to know what happened at the optometrist after our initial discussion here.

I'm all for talking about the Freeman-on-the-land stuff further, but it should probably be constrained to its own logic-defying thread.

And honestly, it's nothing personal against you Tower. I'm sure you are a decent enough guy.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tower

Well your right. It makes no sense. Soooo I guess you lawyers should just get an oxford dictionary to define your laws then eh! Then you'll be just like the rest of us!

Well I guess if you want an inflexible and largely inoperative body of law then that would be the way to go.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well I guess if you want an inflexible and largely inoperative body of law then that would be the way to go.

You mean equal and honest approach to public??? I think this is more the point.