New Attorney General: What can we expect?
- Thread starter vito
- Start date
- Status
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Not to mention that the gold fringe on the flag means it was all an Admiralty court and therefore not binding on sovereign citizen types, right 405boy?
Just for my edification, would you point me towards any part of the Bill of Rights that is not regulated?
Protocol? Your own link that you provided for a definition of "fiat law" says essentially that there is no protocol. Fiat law is not any legal concept or procedure that can be followed to invalidate the Constitution. It is what the author was using to describe a situation where there are numerous laws on the books but nobody follows or respects them because the underlying culture does not accept them. That doesn't seem to be a good comparison to what you are trying to describe.
Bartholomew
Good catch on the gold fringe. Not to mention our court system is based on maritime law, the law of the sea. Look it up, but I am sure you already are familiar with this.
As far as pointing you to an area of BOR that are not regulated, sorry my friend, never claimed to be an attorney, but by your vernacular, I could assume you are an attorney.
Good catch on the gold fringe. Not to mention our court system is based on maritime law, the law of the sea. Look it up, but I am sure you already are familiar with this.
As far as pointing you to an area of BOR that are not regulated, sorry my friend, never claimed to be an attorney, but by your vernacular, I could assume you are an attorney.
Our courts are mostly based on the British system, exept we combined our courts of law and equity sooner and except for Louisiana (Napolionic Code, awesome).
Maritime law is a whole 'nuther bag of turnips. Being a seafaring nation we have always had use for it, but it was not a basis for our courts as far as I know (and I have read more of this stuff than is healthy).
Maritime law is a whole 'nuther bag of turnips. Being a seafaring nation we have always had use for it, but it was not a basis for our courts as far as I know (and I have read more of this stuff than is healthy).
Let me introduce you to the art of debate.405boy said:
You made a statement. You stated that "fiat law" could change the 2A right.
I asked you to explain what "fiat law" was. You replied with a link that doesn't explain what you think it means.
I asked you to cite the portion of Heller that backs up your argument. To this you respond with a link to a blog!! ??? Dated 3 months before the decision!
No, no, and no.
When you make a statement, as you did, and someone asks you to back it up, it is upon you to make good the argument. It is not mine, nor anyones elses job to make you argument for you.
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong. All rights are regulated to one extent or another. The founders themselves never believed that rights are absolute, why is it that you (and several others) seem to think that all of a sudden they are?405boy said:
And then there was the "gold fringe...." **sigh** ....405boy, don't answer any of the above, it was all rhetorical.
OK, everyone. Enough with the side bar. Let's get back to the OP.
Mostly got that from the reading for my classes last year. We read British cases in Criminal Law (stranded sailors chose and shot a cabin boy in the head and ate him instead of drawing lots and eating him, this was deemed murderous), and Property Law (something about chasing foxes), and Contracts (something about a mill driveshaft, early consiquential damages case). All those cases are still cited, and I've had a few professors go on long winded rants about the history of the British and American legal traditions.
Didn't read any maritime law cases until this semester and have never heard it referenced as a source of American law.
Read a few French cases when I did a semester at Loyola New Orleans. Fun stuff.
Didn't read any maritime law cases until this semester and have never heard it referenced as a source of American law.
Read a few French cases when I did a semester at Loyola New Orleans. Fun stuff.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
That is because by and large it isn't. The "gold fringe on the flag" thing is a popular argument among certain tiny segments of the population who have very unique and unsupported beliefs regarding how our legal system works.
It is basically a case of the gullible being led by the legally savvy. Kind of like if I took a lighter to start a fire when you were using flint and stone and when you asked me how I did it, I explained that tiny fire spirits were trapped by my powerful magic and if you did what I told you, you could trap the tiny spirits too. You end up doing a lot of what I tell you to do; but strangely enough it never works as well for you as it does for me.
An excellent example is a recent tax-protestor case. The "sovereign citizen" in question was a real attorney and so knew the actual law. He was charged with several tax crimes. He managed to get the prosecutor to drop all of them but "Failure to file" and then successfully convinced the jury that he did not know he had to file taxes in that particular circumstance. From a legal maneuvering standpoint, very innovative... though of course, he still has to pay the taxes and will likely be disbarred. However, when he gets interviewed after the case, he claims that as a sovereign citizen he doesn't have to pay taxes and the jury couldn't find anything saying he had to pay taxes and basically completely misstates how he won his case. The people who follow this guy only know that he got off - they don't know or understand the legal maneuvering that got him off - and here he is telling them that what he is teaching them will help them avoid taxes too. It won't though - they will go to jail because they don't know crap about the real legal system. They will stand there flicking their thumb and wondering why the fire spirits don't appear and then they'll just go to jail (after this guy fleeces them like sheep).
- Status