Legalese - English reversed!!!

[britishnick]

Just started reading "Adventures in Legal Land" by Marc Stevens (which I HIGHLY RECOMMEND!!!!!)
Amazon.com: Marc Stevens' Adventures in Legal Land (9780615122991): Marc Stevens, Moses Antonio: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51R4YQMH0KL.@@AMEPARAM@@51R4YQMH0KL
What an awesome read so far. Question question question and VERY quickly the tangled web of lies unwraps itself, and the courts are looking like ever so slightly corrupt, deceptive, mobsters!

I checked out what a bunch of crokks lawyers are by comparing 2 simple but VERY important words as defined by an oxford ENGLISH dictionary and Blacks LAW dictionary:

"Fact"
As defined by Oxford ENGLISH DICITONARY - "A thing that is known to be true"
As re-defined by Blacks LAW dictionary "1. Something that actually exsists in reality. 2. An actual or alledged event or circumstance"

"opinion"
As defined by Oxford ENGLISH DICITONARY - "A personal viewpoint not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."
As re-defined by Blacks LAW dictionary "A courts written statement explaining it's decision in a given case, usu. including the statement of facts, points of law, rationale and dicta"

So if you're a lawyer/judge a fact can be an opinion and an opinion a fact... I guess depending on whether you like it or not!!!!

I'd certainly recommend asking the 'judge' which definition he is refeing to if it comes up.

[krakhead]

:eek:

good thread :)

[angelthecat]

the truth is it is the English language that has been reversed over time by the introdution of a copywritten dictionary known as the oxford english dictionary

Here are other examples of "archaic" definitions. Notice how the original definitions of these words mean the exact opposite of how they are used today. The following two definitions are from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Corpse: "A living body." Page 311. (Today it means, "a dead body").

Awful: "Highly impressive. Reverential." Page 96. (Today it means, "very bad, ugly, unpleasant, etc.").

And here are some definitions from a law dictionary. These are from A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893:

Bank: "A judge's seat; also, a court sitting for the decision of matters of law." Page 104. (Today it means, "An institution for the deposit, discount, or circulation of money").

Caucus: "See BRIBERY." Page 155. (Today it means, "a meeting of a committee of a political party or faction to decide on policy, pick candidates, etc., without bribery").

Elopement: "The act in a wife of voluntarily leaving her husband to live with another man." Page 398. (Today it means, "the act of one who is unmarried running away secretly in order to get married").

Lobbying: "Seeking to influence the vote of a member of the legislature by bribery, promise of reward, intimidation, or other dishonest means. Lobbying is a felony, by the constitution of California and Georgia." Page 636. (Today it means, "Seeking to influence the introduction of or voting on legislation or the decisions of government administrators, by honest means, and it is not a crime").

Permanent: "Does not always embrace the idea of absolute perpetuity." Page 769. (Today it means, "Lasting indefinitely without change").

Sea-worthy: "Not capable of going to sea or being navigated on the sea." Page 926. (Today it means, "Fit to travel on the open sea; sturdy").

Surcharge: "Overcharge; an excessive or unlawful charge." Page 995. (Today it means, "An additional amount added to the usual charge, lawfully).

Willful; willfully: "In common parlance "willful" means intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary; in penal statutes it means with evil intent, with legal malice, without ground for believing the act to be lawful. The ordinary meaning of "willful" in statutes, is not merely "voluntary," but with a bad purpose. Sometimes it means little more than "intentional" or "designed." But that is not its ordinary signification in criminal and penal statutes; in them it most frequently conveys the idea of legal malice in greater or less degree – implies an evil intent without justifiable excuse." Pages 1114-1115. (Today it means, "Said or done deliberately or intentionally, without an evil intent").
source
the power of words (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/words.html)

sorry if it seems like a religous site but I can assure you it has NOTHING to do with ANY church, in truth it is anti church and government of any description

[bones]

the truth is it is the English language that has been reversed over time by the introdution of a copywritten dictionary known as the oxford english dictionary

Here are other examples of "archaic" definitions. Notice how the original definitions of these words mean the exact opposite of how they are used today. The following two definitions are from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Corpse: "A living body." Page 311. (Today it means, "a dead body").

Awful: "Highly impressive. Reverential." Page 96. (Today it means, "very bad, ugly, unpleasant, etc.").

And here are some definitions from a law dictionary. These are from A Dictionary of Law, by William C. Anderson, 1893:

Bank: "A judge's seat; also, a court sitting for the decision of matters of law." Page 104. (Today it means, "An institution for the deposit, discount, or circulation of money").

Caucus: "See BRIBERY." Page 155. (Today it means, "a meeting of a committee of a political party or faction to decide on policy, pick candidates, etc., without bribery").

Elopement: "The act in a wife of voluntarily leaving her husband to live with another man." Page 398. (Today it means, "the act of one who is unmarried running away secretly in order to get married").

Lobbying: "Seeking to influence the vote of a member of the legislature by bribery, promise of reward, intimidation, or other dishonest means. Lobbying is a felony, by the constitution of California and Georgia." Page 636. (Today it means, "Seeking to influence the introduction of or voting on legislation or the decisions of government administrators, by honest means, and it is not a crime").

Permanent: "Does not always embrace the idea of absolute perpetuity." Page 769. (Today it means, "Lasting indefinitely without change").

Sea-worthy: "Not capable of going to sea or being navigated on the sea." Page 926. (Today it means, "Fit to travel on the open sea; sturdy").

Surcharge: "Overcharge; an excessive or unlawful charge." Page 995. (Today it means, "An additional amount added to the usual charge, lawfully).

Willful; willfully: "In common parlance "willful" means intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary; in penal statutes it means with evil intent, with legal malice, without ground for believing the act to be lawful. The ordinary meaning of "willful" in statutes, is not merely "voluntary," but with a bad purpose. Sometimes it means little more than "intentional" or "designed." But that is not its ordinary signification in criminal and penal statutes; in them it most frequently conveys the idea of legal malice in greater or less degree – implies an evil intent without justifiable excuse." Pages 1114-1115. (Today it means, "Said or done deliberately or intentionally, without an evil intent").
source
the power of words (http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/words.html)

sorry if it seems like a religous site but I can assure you it has NOTHING to do with ANY church, in truth it is anti church and government of any description


smoke and mirrors...

[theoneandonly]

Wow this is pretty interesting... why would the words have been changed to mean the opposite.. what would be the point?

[brianthebrain]

Wow this is pretty interesting... why would the words have been changed to mean the opposite.. what would be the point?

they havent, he is using a english, english dictionary and an american legal dictionary

he should use webster and things would be clearer

words do change over time, like using bad to mean good

and cool to mean HIP, and hip to mean fashionable, but that people who do that, not the dictionary writers

[yozhik]

'Include' ...

Is it a limiting word or an expanding word?


Example;
'animals' includes black cats


Please define, firstly in plain English, secondly in legal context [legalese].

[bones]

'Include' ...

Is it a limiting word or an expanding word?


Example;
'animals' includes black cats


Please define, firstly in plain English, secondly in legal context [legalese].


did i hear a door slam yoz?? hehhehehe

[bornfree]

Marc Stevens is an intuitive and knowledgable man.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Great sense of humour too.

Best Movie One-liner Ever - YouTube

[micklemus]

Shame that once again an American legal dictionary is regarded as a reference point for English law, but never mind.

How does a judge establish what is fact in a given case? By reference to evidence.

Not exactly controversial surely.

[micklemus]

...and opinion is relevant where expert evidence is required.

If a judge needs an answer on something outside his expertise, let's say civil engineering for example, where does he get answers from? Civil engineers. They have opinions on matters within their expertise. Judge weighs up those opinions to draw factual inferences.

Again, surely not controversial.

[britishnick]

he is using a english, english dictionary and an american legal dictionary


I didn't realise that Blacks was strictly American? Is that the case? Nor have I head that the meaning of fact and opinion could be so different in the UK Vs America. If that is trues, it's also quite a shock, they are quite fundamental words!


Anyone have a websters handy to check the terms?

[britishnick]

...and opinion is relevant where expert evidence is required.

If a judge needs an answer on something outside his expertise, let's say civil engineering for example, where does he get answers from? Civil engineers. They have opinions on matters within their expertise. Judge weighs up those opinions to draw factual inferences.

Again, surely not controversial.

Now we need to ask, for example, whether or not factual inference is inescapably ensnared in personal preferences, prejudices, "values," and the like; and, if so, whether there are or can be methods or procedures for "cleansing" inference of such "impure"(?) elements.

Is a fact the same as a factual inference? I would say not so.

Expert opinion are very useful, no question.

The controversy is in the IP and the re-defining of FACT to include an "alledged event or circumstance". i.e. something that is not verified as fact can be a fact.

There is the controversy!

[prajna]

I didn't realise that Blacks was strictly American? Is that the case? Nor have I head that the meaning of fact and opinion could be so different in the UK Vs America. If that is trues, it's also quite a shock, they are quite fundamental words!


Anyone have a websters handy to check the terms?

I usually resort to Chambers:

opinion 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true, but which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about something) what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given by an expert : medical opinion. 4 estimation or application : has a high opinion of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which people have differing opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or believe that ... 13c: from Latin opinio belief, from opinari to believe.

[micklemus]

Now we need to ask, for example, whether or not factual inference is inescapably ensnared in personal preferences, prejudices, "values," and the like; and, if so, whether there are or can be methods or procedures for "cleansing" inference of such "impure"(?) elements.

Is a fact the same as a factual inference? I would say not so.

Expert opinion are very useful, no question.

The controversy is in the IP and the re-defining of FACT to include an "alledged event or circumstance". i.e. something that is not verified as fact can be a fact.

There is the controversy!


I follow that.

However, judges cannot act arbitrarily. In civil cases they must decide on a balance of probabilities. In criminal cases they must be beyond reasonable doubt.

If a judge "misdirects" himself, there are rights of appeal.

I take your point about fact, but where do you draw the line? Nothing is fact, everything is perception. I'm not talking law here, I'm talking about everything. How does the law set a benchmark for what can be treated as fact? By rules of evidence.

I don't see how else it can be done fairly. There is no point of reference in the world for what is fact. We only regard the sky as blue because there is a consensus on that being the colour (evidence), yet if we saw in infra red or gamma the sky would have a different appearance and that would then become fact.

The only alternative to rules of evidence upon which inferences of fact can be drawn would result in kangaroo courts - i.e. I say something, that's treated as gospel, end of story.

The rules of evidence help us prevent abuses of the law. It's only one part of it, admittedly, but an important part nevertheless.

Difficult to engage in this sort of discussion without getting into much broader and more interesting points of philosophy.

[yozhik]

'Include' ...

Is it a limiting word or an expanding word?


Example;
'animals' includes black cats


Please define, firstly in plain English, secondly in legal context [legalese].

Still waiting ...

[micklemus]

It's a rhetorical question. There is no legal definition.

[yozhik]

It's a rhetorical question. There is no legal definition.

You will find similar "definitions" in most, if not all, "Interpretations" found in Statute. Would you not?


So I ask again - not rhetorically - please define in your own words, or if you would prefer, please express in your own words the following;

'animals' includes black cats

Give the meaning in;
1. plain English
2. legal context [legalese]

Its neither a difficult question/task nor a rhetorical question/task.
It is a specific question/task, for demonstration and discussion purposes, as per the thread topic.

[micklemus]

No.

You know there is no legal definition, I know there is no legal definition, I am not going to waste my time trying to invent a legal definition. Complete waste of time. The fact that statutes define some terms but not others is, I would have thought, accepted on all sides of the debate.

As britishnick has highlighted, the issue here is one of understanding how points of fact are determined. Are you saying that evidence doesn't have a role to play after all?

[yozhik]

"express in your own words the meaning of ..."


I haven't asked for a "legal definition".


"express in your own words the meaning of ..."

'animals' includes black cats

1. in plain English
2. in a legal context [legalese]


It is a very simple task that surely doesn't warrant such a reaction as you have felt committed to giving.

[micklemus]

Yoz, what are you on about? This is completely off topic and I'm not interested.

Britishnick has opened a thread about how to determine facts. I've really no interest in trying to create my own dictionary, but thank you just the same.

[yozhik]

Yoz, what are you on about? This is completely off topic and I'm not interested.

Errrr ... respectfully - go reread the OP.

britishnick was highlighting how a single word seems to have a mirrored meaning, depending on whether it is viewed in a plain English light, or a legalese light.

Thread title: Legalese - English reversed!!!


My posts have been completely on topic.


Britishnick has opened a thread about how to determine facts. I've really no interest in trying to create my own dictionary, but thank you just the same.

Here are the words of britishnick;


I checked out what a bunch of crokks lawyers are by comparing 2 simple but VERY important words as defined by an oxford ENGLISH dictionary and Blacks LAW dictionary:

[...]

So if you're a lawyer/judge a fact can be an opinion and an opinion a fact... I guess depending on whether you like it or not!!!!

I'd certainly recommend asking the 'judge' which definition he is refeing to if it comes up.

He would appear to be focusing on the dual definition of words ... and was merely using "fact" and "opinion" as examples.
The topic was not determining "fact" or "opinion".

Post #3 [by angelthecat] on this thread would also seem to be focused on the dual meaning or a single word.

[micklemus]

Yes...

....and you then asked for plain English and legal definitions of animals and black cats, which takes us completely off topic for the reasons given. Could we not just get back on topic?

I thought this topic raised some interesting philosophical issues actually. Looking forward to hearing your alternative to evidence.

[bones]

I didn't realise that Blacks was strictly American? Is that the case? Nor have I head that the meaning of fact and opinion could be so different in the UK Vs America. If that is trues, it's also quite a shock, they are quite fundamental words!


Anyone have a websters handy to check the terms?


blacks is used in the uk, ive confirmed it with a solicitor last year!

[micklemus]

Give me his name and I'll contact him to check what he said. If that was his advice and it wasn't in the context of "it's used to understand American legal terms" then your solicitor gives very dodgy advice.

[bones]

Give me his name and I'll contact him to check what he said. If that was his advice and it wasn't in the context of "it's used to understand American legal terms" then your solicitor gives very dodgy advice.


it wasnt in a professional context! i was working for his wife and i asked if blacks law was used in the uk?

he said yes!

he is called mick! dont know his last name.

will ask next time if i meet im...

[micklemus]

Aha! Cheers

I'll wait to hear and will drop him a line.

Not trying to be controversial here, but I would encourage everyone to check for themselves. It's definitely for US law.

[yozhik]

Yes...

....and you then asked for plain English and legal definitions of animals and black cats, which takes us completely off topic for the reasons given. Could we not just get back on topic?

It is absolutely, completely and irrefutably on topic.


I have asked for the plain English meaning and the meaning in a legal context of the following;

'animals' includes black cats


I even posed the question whether 'includes' is expanding or limiting.
The simple example given [includes black cats] was just that; a way of demonstrating the difference in an easily comprehended format.

How and why you would even attempt to label this as off topic is quite extraordinary.
:confused:

[britishnick]

I usually resort to Chambers:

opinion 1 a belief or judgement which seems likely to be true, but which is not based on proof. 2 (usually opinion on or about something) what one thinks about it. 3 a professional judgement given by an expert : medical opinion. 4 estimation or application : has a high opinion of himself. a matter of opinion a matter about which people have differing opinions. be of the opinion that ... to think or believe that ... 13c: from Latin opinio belief, from opinari to believe.

Thanks. makes good sense. Does it have anything on 'fact' whcih could be double-thinking it as opinion?

[britishnick]

'Include' ...
Is it a limiting word or an expanding word?
Example;
'animals' includes black cats
Please define, firstly in plain English, secondly in legal context [legalese].
I looked up ‘include’ in the law dictionary but couldn’t find it.
My definition of ‘include’ means to take in or contain as part of something larger. Include often implies an incomplete listing.
However I’ve heard a rumour (I’ve seen no evidence yet) that in legalese you’d need to write “including but not limited to”, otherwise if you just say “including” then whatever follows is the COMPLETE LIST – if anyone has any definitions on this one I’d be interested to see a reference.

[prajna]

Thanks. makes good sense. Does it have anything on 'fact' whcih could be double-thinking it as opinion?

fact 1 a thing known to be true, to exist or to have happened. 2 truth or reality, as distinct from mere statement of belief. 3 a piece of information | after or before the fact after, or before, a crime is committed | as a matter of fact or in point of fact in reality; actually. | for a fact with complete certainty. | the fact of the matter the plain truth about a subject in question. 16c from Latin factum something done, from facere to do.

[micklemus]

Thanks. makes good sense. Does it have anything on 'fact' whcih could be double-thinking it as opinion?

Is there anything that is not based on opinion or consensus of opinion? I can't think of a single example in law, science or life generally come to that.

"Fact" is nothing more than a consensus view, surely?

[britishnick]

Looking forward to hearing your alternative to evidence.

Do you have anything on the English Legal definition of ‘fact’ that contradicts or confirms the OP where a legalese fact can include an alleged event?

[micklemus]

Do you have anything on the English Legal definition of ‘fact’ that contradicts or confirms the OP where a legalese fact can include an alleged event?

No I don't for the simple reason that facts are determined by evidence as per my previous posts.

Unless both parties to a dispute agree certain facts (in which case there is then a consensus as to what those facts are for the purpose of the case) they have to be proved through evidence and the court tests and assesses the evidence. The level of proof varies between civil and criminal cases as mentioned before.

As I say, it's an interesting point philosophically. In so far as we're looking at the determination of "fact" in a court environment, however, I struggle to see how it can be done better than it is already but I'm very interested to watch and see what people come up with.

[joe white]

Is there anything that is not based on opinion or consensus of opinion?your question, you, life

[britishnick]

"Fact" is nothing more than a consensus view, surely?

I know where you are coming from but there's 2 seperate things:

A fact - is something which is true.

Then there's proving the fact. proving a fact is largely based on opinion. And then you get in to arguments about who's opinion counts the most to 'prove' which facts are true! lol all gets messy then. Proof can also come from experimantal results, tests etc - not reliant on opinion.

physics largely doesn't rey on opinion. The basics rely on repeatable experiments.

[micklemus]

I know where you are coming from but there's 2 seperate things:

A fact - is something which is true.

Then there's proving the fact. proving a fact is largely based on opinion. And then you get in to arguments about who's opinion counts the most to 'prove' which facts are true! lol all gets messy then. Proof can also come from experimantal results, tests etc - not reliant on opinion.

physics largely doesn't rey on opinion. The basics rely on repeatable experiments.

Indeed. You see where I'm coming from.

No one can say anything is true, because what is true? What is a fact? Only our perception of something. When the overwhelming majority have a particular view on something then it is considered incontrovertible fact. Yet it's still only a viewpoint.

Physics is a very good example. Theories are generated through the testing of hypotheses. But as much as science would like to regard itself as watertight, a quick review of history shows that it isn't. For example, our understanding of the universe has completely changed over the past 500 years and in the past 100 years quantum physics has turned established 'laws' of physics on their head. So science has no absolute truths either.

That being the case, it would be a counsel of perfection to expect the law to come up with something better. We can only really test the evidence to decide in percentage terms what "facts" and "truth" actually are. There can never be absolutes in anything though, surely?

This is a real good work out for the head and one for deep conversation in a darkened room!

[yozhik]

Is there anything that is not based on opinion or consensus of opinion? I can't think of a single example in law, science or life generally come to that.

"Fact" is nothing more than a consensus view, surely?

Interesting point raised ...

Re: consensus view ... does this not strengthen the argument for trial by jury, where a consensus of your peers can weigh the probability/evidence of the specifically outlined events?

A judicial decision is the decision [usually] of one, after comparing arguments presented with arguments past that are SIMILAR to those being presented, but not necessarily exact in detail to those being decided.

The arguments are usually an exercise in finding past decisions that come close to fitting those being decided on, but as with most things in life, seldom do you find a perfect match.

So if it is a consensus of opinion that or a consensus view that is the basis of fact, then why would we move further away from fact based decisions by diminishing the number of trials by jury, and move even closer to judicial decisions, which place judgement in the hands of one [not strictly a consensus] with the judgement based on past arguments [not facts] which are close approximations of what is being decided on?

Seems to me that judicial decisions are exponentially increasing the possibility of errors, or at the very least, compounding slight differences in the precedents cited and risking bias by being wholly dependent on the views and decision making of one.

[micklemus]

Interesting point raised ...

Re: consensus view ... does this not strengthen the argument for trial by jury, where a consensus of your peers can weigh the probability/evidence of the specifically outlined events?

A judicial decision is the decision [usually] of one, after comparing arguments presented with arguments past that are SIMILAR to those being presented, but not necessarily exact in detail to those being decided.

The arguments are usually an exercise in finding past decisions that come close to fitting those being decided on, but as with most things in life, seldom do you find a perfect match.

So if it is a consensus of opinion that or a consensus view that is the basis of fact, then why would we move further away from fact based decisions by diminishing the number of trials by jury, and move even closer to judicial decisions, which place judgement in the hands of one [not strictly a consensus] with the judgement based on past arguments [not facts] which are close approximations of what is being decided on?

Seems to me that judicial decisions are exponentially increasing the possibility of errors, or at the very least, compounding slight differences in the precedents cited and risking bias by being wholly dependent on the views and decision making of one.

I wouldn't dream of arguing against you there. I share your discomfort about the movement away from jury trials for some criminal cases. I can follow the practical justifications, in particular that super-complex trials cause jurers enormous inconvenience due to their duration, also that there are some cases which are so heavily based on points of law that jurers have less significance. However, the fundamental point in criminal cases is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. What better way of establishing whether there is reasonable doubt than to have 12 lay people to assess the facts?

My personal view is that the need to preserve justice overrides the practical considerations. Agreed with you.

I really enjoy the philosophy behind this though. It can be a real mind bender. Joe white suggested that my earlier question ("Is there anything that is not based on opinion or consensus of opinion?") can be answered in absolute terms, i.e. my question, me, my life. However, I don't see how my question can be viewed in absolute terms, otherwise apart from anything else it wouldn't be a question. Also, I don't for one moment consider myself, my flesh and blood, as certainty, nor therefore my (physical) life. The latter points are WAY off topic and definitely not for FOTL stuff. I truly see no absolutes though. Would really like to see someone identify something that can truly, absolutely, incontrovertibly, be regarded as complete fact/truth.

Keeping it on topic, it seems to me that the law has to, in effect, work with probabilities based on the evidence and I agree with you that we need to preserve it.

[yozhik]

... and we haven't even factored in the fact that - regardless of the baseless protests to the contrary - judicial decisions are highly politicised.

Oh of course the system itself will wax lyrical about judicial independence ... butclose inspection will show that the scope of exercising that independence is extremely limited, rendering it ineffective and worthless.

Nothing more than a token gesture and a flag for the spin doctors to wave ...

[britishnick]

Would really like to see someone identify something that can truly, absolutely, incontrovertibly, be regarded as complete fact/truth.

Got it -

I think, therefore I am.

;o)

[micklemus]

Ha ha! Think that's about where I got to! :)

Blimey, Black's Law Dictionary to the meaning of life, or not! How did that happen?!

[micklemus]

... and we haven't even factored in the fact that - regardless of the baseless protests to the contrary - judicial decisions are highly politicised.

Oh of course the system itself will wax lyrical about judicial independence ... butclose inspection will show that the scope of exercising that independence is extremely limited, rendering it ineffective and worthless.

Nothing more than a token gesture and a flag for the spin doctors to wave ...

O most definitely they can be politically led. I agree with you again. It's very difficult for judges to not go in certain directions if laws are framed in ways that give them very little lattitude.

Lord Denning was the last master of finding judicial curved balls in his attempts to do justice. From a legal perspective he was a complete loose cannon at times and politicians couldn't stand him. This no doubt explains why he was demoted from the House of Lords to the Court of Appeal. However, if he was around now he would find that the straightjacket had tightened considerably in many areas and that his powers of escape were somewhat diminished.

[asdffdsa]

Thing is that courts very rarely deal with the happenings itself.
If a murder occured for example, It won't have happened in court. The Judge and Jury isn't even going to see the body, they will get a coroners report. And see it as evidence that the victim is dead. The fact that the victim is dead is therefore alleged by the coroner, and by the witnesses of the crime.

Science on the other hand often can and does look at the body (figuratively)! Experiments are performed, and repeated, and results compared. But truth isn't a democracy. If 99 scientists use a wrong model, even if they get decent results with it, only one person with a better model needs to come along, with better results, and he will overturn the theories of the 99s.

Same with evidence: a heap of circumstantial evidence, no matter how large, can not defeat a single piece of physical evidence.

[joe white]

I really enjoy the philosophy behind this though. It can be a real mind bender. Joe white suggested that my earlier question ("Is there anything that is not based on opinion or consensus of opinion?") can be answered in absolute terms, i.e. my question, me, my life. However, I don't see how my question can be viewed in absolute terms, otherwise apart from anything else it wouldn't be a question. Also, I don't for one moment consider myself, my flesh and blood, as certainty, nor therefore my (physical) life. The latter points are WAY off topic and definitely not for FOTL stuff. I truly see no absolutes though. Would really like to see someone identify something that can truly, absolutely, incontrovertibly, be regarded as complete fact/truth.
if the question is not asked, there is no consciousness, no life. if the question is asked in ignorance of existence, there is "partial" consciousness.

in reference to "i doubt, therefore i think, therefore i am". the things that cannot be doubted are the doubter and the doubting, which was the point of that idea.

[micklemus]

Thing is that courts very rarely deal with the happenings itself.
If a murder occured for example, It won't have happened in court. The Judge and Jury isn't even going to see the body, they will get a coroners report. And see it as evidence that the victim is dead. The fact that the victim is dead is therefore alleged by the coroner, and by the witnesses of the crime.

Science on the other hand often can and does look at the body (figuratively)! Experiments are performed, and repeated, and results compared. But truth isn't a democracy. If 99 scientists use a wrong model, even if they get decent results with it, only one person with a better model needs to come along, with better results, and he will overturn the theories of the 99s.

Same with evidence: a heap of circumstantial evidence, no matter how large, can not defeat a single piece of physical evidence.



I agree. Which is why it is important to be able to weigh up evidence and have rules of evidence.

It still comes down to probabilities though doesn't it? Rubbish example, but take your murder situation. If a body is found with massive damage to the skull and a blood spattered brick beside it, it might be reasonable to infer that the victim had sustained a crushing skull injury - physical evidence suggesting that very fact. However, if the autopsy revealed that the victim had already sustained a fatal heart attack prior to the blow being committed is it murder? Where do the facts take us? Could be murder, could be another violent act committed towards an already deceased person.

Evidence is vital. Some evidence is more persuasive than others and from that we determine what we believe the facts to be.

I don't see how we can do anything else than make informed decisions on evidence on order to arrive at what is 'truth' for us. It might not be perfect but nothing is certain anyway, so I don't see what else we can do.

Fascinating stuff.

[micklemus]

if the question is not asked, there is no consciousness, no life. if the question is asked in ignorance of existence, there is "partial" consciousness.

in reference to "i doubt, therefore i think, therefore i am". the things that cannot be doubted are the doubter and the doubting, which was the point of that idea.

Maybe that takes us to britishnick's conclusion therefore?

[angelthecat]

all law dictionarys use the least corrupted language for the basis of the words. latin this so called dead language has not changed in over 2000 years and is the basis for many words we still use, except our language has been corrupted and not the law dictionary. It happens all the time compare the word GAY what does it mean now. I used to work with an EX-BOXER now it is someone who wastes their life chasing pixels round a tv screen, Habeas corpus's definition does not mention the body MUST be dead. its bait and switch mentality they have made it easy for you to talk but hard for you to listen :rolleyes:

[asdffdsa]

Wouldn't call it corruption.
The world changes, and so do the terms to describe it. Seems a rather natural thing to me. We made a thing out of a job (computer) because the original meaning is obsolete, and it is nice to have a name for that box under the desk. Less people are hunting, so if you tell a friend that you spent the last weekend stalking, you better add it wasn't a woman. :)
Oh, and the exboxer is a homophone. Can't blame the plane for it's lack of grass :)

[angelthecat]

Wouldn't call it corruption.
The world changes, and so do the terms to describe it. Seems a rather natural thing to me. We made a thing out of a job (computer) because the original meaning is obsolete, and it is nice to have a name for that box under the desk. Less people are hunting, so if you tell a friend that you spent the last weekend stalking, you better add it wasn't a woman. :)
Oh, and the exboxer is a homophone. Can't blame the plane for it's lack of grass :)

I think it is corrupt if they are talking to you and giving you the impression they are saying one thing and they mean another, it makes it impossible to do business with these people in an honest and open fashion. therefore it must be corrupt,
but to be honest we must realise that it just is. and forget which languge has been bastasized [made illegitimate] and just know that it has happened and learn how to deal with it.

get a copy of The Language of Law … © 2005 by Frederick Graves, JD

and before anyone says {no not another freeman book his Florida Bar No. is 558583}

[prajna]

Descartes actually made a fundamental error in concluding 'cogito ergo sum'. If he had stopped thinking long enough he would have discovered that he existed entirely independently from thought; often expressed as "I think, therefore I am. I don't think... [poof]"

And this leads on to the one and only certainty: in some form or fashion, I AM. Consciousness is the sole absolute.

You see, even in philosophy things often reverse themselves.

One of my favourite examples of etiological entropy is the word 'heresy', which originates from the Greek hairetikos, choice or able to choose.

[rumpole]

If Judges are basically the lackeys of 'running dog' politicians can someone explain why this happened:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/56.html

Read the last paragraph of Lord Hoffman's Judgement in particular..

[micklemus]

Descartes actually made a fundamental error in concluding 'cogito ergo sum'. If he had stopped thinking long enough he would have discovered that he existed entirely independently from thought; often expressed as "I think, therefore I am. I don't think... [poof]"

And this leads on to the one and only certainty: in some form or fashion, I AM. Consciousness is the sole absolute.

You see, even in philosophy things often reverse themselves.

One of my favourite examples of etiological entropy is the word 'heresy', which originates from the Greek hairetikos, choice or able to choose.

I'm absolutely on board with that. Enlightenment may be found in the space between thoughts.

Think I may need to move across to another section of this forum at this point.

[micklemus]

If Judges are basically the lackeys of 'running dog' politicians can someone explain why this happened:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/56.html

Read the last paragraph of Lord Hoffman's Judgement in particular..

Indeed

Didn't realise my comment (if that's what you're referring to) was to be read in absolute terms. The point I was driving at is that judges at times have less room than they did before, not that they don't have any.

[rumpole]

Indeed

Didn't realise my comment (if that's what you're referring to) was to be read in absolute terms. The point I was driving at is that judges at times have less room than they did before, not that they don't have any.


It wasn't directed at any of your posts.

[yozhik]

If Judges are basically the lackeys of 'running dog' politicians can someone explain why this happened:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/56.html

Read the last paragraph of Lord Hoffman's Judgement in particular..

There are always exceptions to the general rule ... as in "i" before "e" except after "c".

The opinion still stands; judicial independence is merely clever marketing and a slogan for the spin doctors.
The legal system is simply a branch of government ... ergo ... politicised; the judges are on the payroll.

Careers hinge on keeping the political body satisfied.

Simple recent example ... [very simply paraphrased and summarised]

English law allowed for Joe Citizen to bring action against a war criminal.
Lippi - ot whatever her name is - from Israel ... planning a visit to the UK.
Rumour has it if she had landed in this country, she would have been arrested for war crimes.

What happens?

Political cogs go into action ... judicial system is quickly amended to save political embarrassment.

Milliband and the other Zionist sychophants jump on the Apology Express Train to ensure they caught their connecting link to the Gravy Train ... apologies left right and centre.

So ... an English law was changed, to save 'political embarrassment' and WE apologised ... to satisfy the demands of a state whose leader was an alleged war criminal.

Errrr ... sorrry ... what the fuck?!?!?!

We change our laws, to save political embarrassment and apologise to a nation's politician who is an alleged war criminal????

But of course ... its all kosher ... because we have 'judicial independence' and the law system is not a 'lackey' of the politicians.

Right ...
:rolleyes:


EDIT
Name not Lippi ... it was Livni

[brianthebrain]

There are always exceptions to the general rule ... as in "i" before "e" except after "c".

The opinion still stands; judicial independence is merely clever marketing and a slogan for the spin doctors.
The legal system is simply a branch of government ... ergo ... politicised; the judges are on the payroll.

Careers hinge on keeping the political body satisfied.

Simple recent example ... [very simply paraphrased and summarised]

English law allowed for Joe Citizen to bring action against a war criminal.
Lippi - ot whatever her name is - from Israel ... planning a visit to the UK.
Rumour has it if she had landed in this country, she would have been arrested for war crimes.

What happens?

Political cogs go into action ... judicial system is quickly amended to save political embarrassment.

Milliband and the other Zionist sychophants jump on the Apology Express Train to ensure they caught their connecting link to the Gravy Train ... apologies left right and centre.

So ... an English law was changed, to save 'political embarrassment' and WE apologised ... to satisfy the demands of a state whose leader was an alleged war criminal.

Errrr ... sorrry ... what the fuck?!?!?!

We change our laws, to save political embarrassment and apologise to a nation's politician who is an alleged war criminal????

But of course ... its all kosher ... because we have 'judicial independence' and the law system is not a 'lackey' of the politicians.

Right ...
:rolleyes:

can you show me where they changed this law ?

in fact id be impressed oif you even new what law it is your talking about

[yozhik]

can you show me where they changed this law ?

in fact id be impressed oif you even new what law it is your talking about

Seriously ... your schoolyard bullying and childlike taunts are incredibly tiring.

As I pre-qualified the info ... it was a very simplistic and summarised version.
You can confirm I did pre-qualify the post ... yes?


Are you denying this "political incident" happened?

[rumpole]

You can't blame the judiciary for the Lippi thing - it never got anywhere near a Law Court.

Look through the law reports & you'll find 100's of instances of lickspittle Judges finding against the Government. The fact is we do have an independent judiciary.

[brianthebrain]

Seriously ... your schoolyard bullying and childlike taunts are incredibly tiring.

As I pre-qualified the info ... it was a very simplistic and summarised version.
You can confirm I did pre-qualify the post ... yes?


Are you denying this "political incident" happened?

you make an absolute statement that this law has been changed

its quite interesting that you dont even know which law you think might have been changed, so presumably you have no way of checking if its been changed or not

what do you use as a reliable source of info, a crystal ball or tea leafs

its uninformed opinions l;ike your which are so damaging to the movement

show mw the changed law and il believe you

[yozhik]

Did the 'incident' happen?

Did members of government apologise to Israel due to concerns that Livni may have been arrested or charged as a suspected war criminal?

Are you going to deny this was a very real, reported, political event?

Citing the specific law off the cuff is highly irrelevant; a trophy sized red herring.
What difference does it make to whether it happened or not?
None.

Let's call it the "International Accountability Act" ... oh wait ... what about the "Anyone Can Report a War Criminal Act" ...

No?
Neither of those?
Does it change the fact that this political hiccup took place?
Nope ... not in the most minute of details.

Red herring ... yummy yummy ...


I don't need you to believe me; believe what you want.
Deny the event happened; it makes no difference to me.

Re: the law being changed ... you may be right - maybe it hasn't been changed ... yet.
But you and I both know that amendments HAVE been mooted ... publicly ... so the "embarrassing political situation" will not happen in the future.

I ask again ... did the event happen?
Yes or no?

[brianthebrain]

I don't need you to believe me; believe what you want.
Deny the event happened; it makes no difference to me.

Re: the law being changed ... you may be right - maybe it hasn't been changed ... yet.
But you and I both know that amendments HAVE been mooted ... publicly ... so the "embarrassing political situation" will not happen in the future.



right so you accept it might not have been changed, that ok then at least we are back in reality

no your quit right the indecent happened and they said they would look into changing the law

its your embellishments, i took exception too

sorry but i just like accuracy, not a bad thing , is it ?, to want the full truth and not just allow someone to make things up with no evidence what so ever

[yozhik]

Dec 14 2009

British court issued Gaza arrest warrant for former Israeli minister Tzipi Livni

Warrant issued over war crimes accusations was withdrawn when it emerged former minister had cancelled plan to visit

[...]

It is the second time in less than three months that lawyers have gone to Westminster magistrates court asking for a warrant for the arrest of an Israeli politician. In September the court was asked to issue one for the arrest of Ehud Barak, Israel's defence minister, under the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, which gives courts in England and Wales universal jurisdiction in war crimes cases.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/14/tzipi-livni-israel-gaza-arrest

Dec 16 2009


Gordon Brown today told Tzipi Livni, Israel's former foreign minister, that he was "completely opposed" to the warrant issued by a British court for her arrest for war crimes and pledged to work to change the law that allowed it.

[...]

The prime minister's remarks, made in a telephone conversation with Livni and reported on Israeli news websites, followed a statement by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, that the government was "looking urgently" at ways to change the UK legal system. Miliband reportedly rang his Israeli counterpart, Avigdor Lieberman, to apologise for the episode.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/16/tzipi-livni-israel-arrest-warrant

Took all of 3 minutes to Google for these examples.

Need more?

Still want to deny the event took place and play the "name the specific law or it didn't happen" game?

[brianthebrain]

Dec 14 2009



Dec 16 2009



Took all of 3 minutes to Google for these examples.

Need more?

Still want to deny the event took place and play the "name the specific law or it didn't happen" game?

thanks save me time to prove you were wrong

so the laws NOT been changed then

[yozhik]

thanks save me time to prove you were wrong

so the laws NOT been changed then

Now you're taking the piss :D

We had already agreed that the law may not have "already been changed".
That little detail was not key to the point I was making, so I am more than happy to concede ... it doesn't diminish the main thrust of the argument regarding the legal system being highly politicised, which maes a mockery of the highly publicised claims by the spin doctors of the legal system having judicial independence.

You want to see the agreed amendment of a tiny, insignificant detail as a victory?
Go ahead ... feast on it til your heart is content.

Both brown and Miliband publicly stated, with much pomp and ceremony, puffing of chests and appropriate indignation that they would vehemently support and seek changes to the law!

They duly apologised for the embarrassment the law had brought to Israel ... and humbly begged forgiveness ...

I would suggest that counts as public declaration of intent.
I would also suggest that even if the aw hasn't been changed ... yet ... it would be an even more disastrous u-turn in political terms if they didn't 'honour' their selling out on behalf of English law and the people of the land, for the sake of Israel's [alleged] war criminals.

[brianthebrain]

Now you're taking the piss :D

We had already agreed that the law may not have "already been changed".
That little detail was not key to the point I was making, so I am more than happy to concede ... it doesn't diminish the main thrust of the argument regarding the legal system being highly politicised, which maes a mockery of the highly publicised claims by the spin doctors of the legal system having judicial independence.

You want to see the agreed amendment of a tiny, insignificant detail as a victory?
Go ahead ... feast on it til your heart is content.

Both brown and Miliband publicly stated, with much pomp and ceremony, puffing of chests and appropriate indignation that they would vehemently support and seek changes to the law!

They duly apologised for the embarrassment the law had brought to Israel ... and humbly begged forgiveness ...

I would suggest that counts as public declaration of intent.
I would also suggest that even if the aw hasn't been changed ... yet ... it would be an even more disastrous u-turn in political terms if they didn't 'honour' their selling out on behalf of English law and the people of the land, for the sake of Israel's [alleged] war criminals.

It says nothing about judicial independence AT all

the government write the laws, the judiciary interpret them, FREE from any government interference. the high court has ruled against the government on many many occasions

The example you give has no reliance coz the minister in question cancelled the visit, it never came any where near a judge and its the government prerogative to change laws if they want to

so just not reliant at ALL

[yozhik]

It says nothing about judicial independence AT all

the government write the laws, the judiciary interpret them, FREE from any government interference. the high court has ruled against the government on many many occasions

The example you give has no reliance coz the minister in question cancelled the visit, it never came any where near a judge and its the government prerogative to change laws if they want to

so just not reliant at ALL

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttt tttt.

:D

If that helps you sleep at night ... go for it ...

[micklemus]

Don't want to interfere with a private argument and I don't want to take this (further) off track, but doesn't the Livni example reflect the fact that the judiciary is independent and it's the politicians who don't like it and want to keep them under control?

I don't see the judiciary being complicit in this. Those quotes show political pressure being brought to bear on the legal system. This is the same kind of tactic that I was highlighting when I mentioned Lord Denning yesterday.

Just my point of view anyway and not my argument.

[rumpole]

For the past 2 generations the senior judiciary have been developing the jurisprudence of Judicial Review. What is Judicial Review? It's a process / body of law that allows the Courts to oversee & interfere with administrative decisions made by public bodies (including central government & government agencies). Hardly the actions of legal robots controlled by politicians.

[britishnick]

So the judges are 'independant' in that they can interpret the rules given to them as they see fit. but they are not truely indepndant becuase the government makes the (statutes) rules for them to interpret.

If the government doesnt like judges excersising their independance, the government can change the rules which they operate in.

So in conclusion the judges are at the mercy of government, so the judiciary system is politicied. justice for all!! unless the government like you in which case you can get away with murder, woohoo!

[rumpole]

So the judges are 'independant' in that they can interpret the rules given to them as they see fit. but they are not truely indepndant becuase the government makes the (statutes) rules for them to interpret.

If the government doesnt like judges excersising their independance, the government can change the rules which they operate in.

So in conclusion the judges are at the mercy of government, so the judiciary system is politicied. justice for all!! unless the government like you in which case you can get away with murder, woohoo!

It's a checks & balances thing isn't it? It wouldn't be desirable to allow unelected Judges unfettered power to create law as they saw fit.

[britishnick]

It's a checks & balances thing isn't it? It wouldn't be desirable to allow unelected Judges unfettered power to create law as they saw fit.

Yeah we totally need 'checks and balances' to make sure that murderes can walk free. Yup, you sold me on that one!

'Next case!'
'This is the people Vs some murdering Dictator'
'Objection your honour, this contravenes the embarracing public relations act, so this murdering scum bag go go right ahead and kill whoever he likes.
'Ah yes, good for those checks and balances, case dismissed'

It would be terrible if judges stuck some simple rules like uuum don't cause harm or loss to anyone, huh. sounds a bit complex though really. We should totally let people who love power to make up the rules as they see fit, especially if they want to help their rich friends out. sod the people, they don't earn enough.

[britishnick]

It's a checks & balances thing isn't it? It wouldn't be desirable to allow unelected Judges unfettered power to create law as they saw fit.

oh, also WHO elected Gordon BRrown as priminister?
Who voted for GB? anyone? huh? anyone? oh no?

Pretty lucky there wasnt a vote otherwise he'd have never been able to give even more power away to unelected EU commission, phew.

[rumpole]

Yeah we totally need 'checks and balances' to make sure that murderes can walk free. Yup, you sold me on that one!

'Next case!'
'This is the people Vs some murdering Dictator'
'Objection your honour, this contravenes the embarracing public relations act, so this murdering scum bag go go right ahead and kill whoever he likes.
'Ah yes, good for those checks and balances, case dismissed'

It would be terrible if judges stuck some simple rules like uuum don't cause harm or loss to anyone, huh. sounds a bit complex though really. We should totally let people who love power to make up the rules as they see fit, especially if they want to help their rich friends out. sod the people, they don't earn enough.

Maybe you should go along to a Crown Court or the High Court & watch some Judges at work? In my experience your vision of Judges doesn't has any basis in reality.

[yozhik]

Don't want to interfere with a private argument and I don't want to take this (further) off track, but doesn't the Livni example reflect the fact that the judiciary is independent and it's the politicians who don't like it and want to keep them under control?

I don't see the judiciary being complicit in this. Those quotes show political pressure being brought to bear on the legal system. This is the same kind of tactic that I was highlighting when I mentioned Lord Denning yesterday.

Just my point of view anyway and not my argument.

Whether its the politicians who are responsible or the judiciary matters not; what is being questioned is the notion [and claims] of 'judicial independence'.

If it is politicised, its not independent.

The fact that if 'the politicians don't like it', they can 'keep it under control', means it is politicised and becomes a plaything of the politicians, meaning any claims of having 'judicial independence' is a nonsense.

They are hamstrung ... and the scope of the 'independence' in tiny and diminishing with every Livni type incident.

As you quite rightly have highlighted, the Lord Denning incident is another example.
The judges themselves [some of them] might personally strive for 'judicial independence', but if the system does not allow it and the politicians obstruct it and remove it, step by step, then as soon as those judges then operate within the new set parameters of the politicians and, in effect, give their consent by their actions to the newly tightended boundaries, then it [judicial independence] doesn't exist.

But I fear we're actually debating about agreeing ... again :D

[angelthecat]

they havent, he is using a english, english dictionary and an american legal dictionary

he should use webster and things would be clearer

words do change over time, like using bad to mean good

and cool to mean HIP, and hip to mean fashionable, but that people who do that, not the dictionary writers

are you suggesting that different dictionary's and law dictionary's have different meaning for the same words. If so "congratulations" this is probably the first time that you have agreed with the freeman concept that there is a massive deception going on with the use of common words having different meaning :D:D

[angelthecat]

Cant use websters dictionary it's words and definitions are all copywritten because they are private and not common use :D


Full terms of Use



So, if you intend to harvest, copy or mine this site for its content, definitions or translations, know that you are violating the terms of this site and performing an illegal act that puts the site at risk. All pages are protected by international copyright laws. By using this site you agree to (exception: the only terms that apply to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, articles are the ones specified in the GNU FREE DOCUMENTATION LICENSE):
NOT ELECTRONICALLY COPY ANY PAGES with the intent of creating new commercial or non-commercial Internet sites or publications or products & NOT ANALYZE OR COPY THE SOURCE CODE with the intent of creating new commercial or non-commercial Internet sites or publications or products & NOT DOWNLOAD PAGES with the intent of creating new commercial or non-commercial Internet sites or publications or products.

Note: "The penalties for infringement are very harsh: the court can award up to $150,000 for each separate act of willful infringement. Willful infringement means that you knew you were infringing and you did it anyway. Ignorance of the law, though, is no excuse. If you don't know that you are infringing, you still will be liable for damages - only the amount of the award will be affected. Then there are attorneys' fees..... "

[britishnick]

Maybe you should go along to a Crown Court or the High Court & watch some Judges at work? In my experience your vision of Judges doesn't has any basis in reality.

I was under the impressin that judges were forced to follow statute law? and if there was no precident they could set one.

So IF there was a 'stop people wanting to arrest murdering dictators to save political embarracement act' then the judge would be FORCED to enforce it if someone wanted to get a summons to arrest a 'murdering dictator'.

Please do enlighten me if this is not how it works?

Judicary independance only exsists until the government at the time decides to make up new rules to stop the judge independance being used in a particular direction.

peace

[karl j]

Becoming a Useless discussion guys... the whole point about FMOL is that it is about following natural or common laws and not statutes designed to generate revenue, if you want to discuss legalese, fine, but we all know it's used to keep lawyers in a special position and more so that you cannot become a good politician and law maker without legal training because how could you understand what you were doing without legal training.
We all also know that they have run out of ideas for any more statutes that make real sense so now they come out with the ridiculous. They can't be lawmakers if they don't make laws so now they are justifying their jobs. Further if you join a larger Union (EU) it gives the opportunity to redefine existing laws and make new laws that encompass the new EU thereby prolonging their jobs..

Just my 2 cents anyway.

[hadabusa]

in defense of fotl community....


parliament sovereignity.


independent judicary my balls.

theres no ifs/whens.

parliament sovereignity says all.

[carl0599]

blacks is used in the uk, ive confirmed it with a solicitor last year!

Bones this is true I used the black's law dictionarys definitions against a group of solicitors for some reason they no longer write to me !!

[carl0599]

Is there anything that is not based on opinion or consensus of opinion? I can't think of a single example in law, science or life generally come to that.

"Fact" is nothing more than a consensus view, surely?

Then the earth used to be flat but somehow changed to spherical thats a FACT if fact is only a consensus view
only a thought when or how did it change??

[politicallycorrect]

Then the earth used to be flat but somehow changed to spherical thats a FACT if fact is only a consensus view
only a thought when or how did it change??

I agree brother.

[angelthecat]

I agree
Im glad you said the earth was once flat because the world still is

[bones]

Bones this is true I used the black's law dictionarys definitions against a group of solicitors for some reason they no longer write to me !!


true i used it for notices with the council then phillips collection agency over a parking notice...

worked for me too...

depends who you deal with i suppose.

[angelthecat]

true i used it for notices with the council then phillips collection agency over a parking notice...

worked for me too...

depends who you deal with i suppose.

I dont think it is anything to do with any country because the truth is the same everywhere and it is only a problem with certain men/women who have a difficulty dealing with the truth, you find they have (in)vested interest in the false scenario and would hate to think all their reseach, education and possible livelyhood is completely false and about to fall apart. you see they can build no-thing with their own hands and that is were real worldly possesions come from so they make a living through the deciept that their paper work and legal fictions or real and sponge off the back of the labourers. If a politician produces 1 ton of paperwork in a year then his real value is that of 1 ton of scrap paper. last time I looked [been a while] that was a gross wage of about £8.00 a year.

[carl0599]

true i used it for notices with the council then phillips collection agency over a parking notice...

worked for me too...

depends who you deal with i suppose.

Thats what they want you to believe maybe both you and i just got LUCKY somehow i believe that we got behind their defences and they didn't know how to handle it. we took the fight to their level and spoke in their words/terms and we know what the meaning of the words are ( i used to worry at the SPELLing of words in correspondence which i received now i comprehend the words its not quite so .... education is the key i guess)

[angelthecat]

Thats what they want you to believe maybe both you and i just got LUCKY somehow i believe that we got behind their defences and they didn't know how to handle it. we took the fight to their level and spoke in their words/terms and we know what the meaning of the words are ( i used to worry at the SPELLing of words in correspondence which i received now i comprehend the words its not quite so .... education is the key i guess)

good post no.2
I know your words to be true and I affirm ;)

[off topic; by the way we have an agreement from no.1]

[angelthecat]

they havent, he is using a english, english dictionary and an american legal dictionary

he should use webster and things would be clearer

words do change over time, like using bad to mean good

and cool to mean HIP, and hip to mean fashionable, but that people who do that, not the dictionary writers

Here are other examples of "archaic" definitions. Notice how the original definitions of these words mean the exact opposite of how they are used today. The following two definitions are from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Corpse: "A living body." Page 311. (Today it means, "a dead body").

Awful: "Highly impressive. Reverential." Page 96. (Today it means, "very bad, ugly, unpleasant, etc.").


Person: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.


When you say you're a resident, you are calling yourself a 'thing'. In A Dictionary Of Law, William C. Anderson, 1893, page 886, Res is defined as "a thing, or things", and identifying the thing is something that's of the world.

Nice: "Srange, lazy, foolish, stupid, ignorant, not knowing, to be ignorant, difficult to please, fastidious, discriminative." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 914.

[swiftex]

The fact is we do have an independent judiciary.




Absolutely impossible!!!

...............

.............:)

[angelthecat]

Absolutely impossible!!!

...............

.............:)

no its not impossible they could be an independant corperation ran for self generating profit from unsuspecting men and women, the term would be barratry (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/barratry)

[dolores1]

Here are other examples of "archaic" definitions. Notice how the original definitions of these words mean the exact opposite of how they are used today. The following two definitions are from Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988:

Corpse: "A living body." Page 311. (Today it means, "a dead body").

Awful: "Highly impressive. Reverential." Page 96. (Today it means, "very bad, ugly, unpleasant, etc.").


Person: "In law, man and person are not exactly-synonymous terms." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856, 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.


When you say you're a resident, you are calling yourself a 'thing'. In A Dictionary Of Law, William C. Anderson, 1893, page 886, Res is defined as "a thing, or things", and identifying the thing is something that's of the world.

Nice: "Srange, lazy, foolish, stupid, ignorant, not knowing, to be ignorant, difficult to please, fastidious, discriminative." Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition, 1988, page 914.


Webster wrote his dictionary because he was committed to truth and hated the way the truth was being corrupted in the legal system. Check him out!


Not the Law. The legal system.


This is also why it was copyrighted by him; to try protect the real meanings of words and to prevent other editions being issued with different/opposite meanings to the same words.


But it was altered when he was dead and unable to do this, try to get a copy of the original dictionary.


Webster stood for truth.

[alisa2]

Webster wrote his dictionary because he was committed to truth and hated the way the truth was being corrupted in the legal system. Check him out!


Not the Law. The legal system.


This is also why it was copyrighted by him; to try protect the real meanings of words and to prevent other editions being issued with different/opposite meanings to the same words.


But it was altered when he was dead and unable to do this, try to get a copy of the original dictionary.


Webster stood for truth.



Uh... If only YOU knew the truth.

No, Webster did not stand for truth. It's too bad the website that exposed the real Noah Webster (Websters-ruse.com) is gone. I saved a word or two from that website that might help to explain what I mean:


"The Constitution is laughing stock of the word because all it took to trash it was one man's desire [Noah Webster] to become No. 1 Lexicographer among the status quo:

Four years before Webster's death he wrote an essay in which he summed up his entire life's work in linguistics, philosophy, etymology, and lexicography:

It was obvious to my mind that popular errors proceeding from a misunderstanding of words are among the efficient causes of our political disorders.

'No' article of amendment (or Amendment, if you will) to the Constitution was to the contrary until after Webster's dictionaries of 1828 were introduced to Congress.

Note: Every English dictionary, especially after, albeit all after, Noah Webster's dictionaries, have deleted the words, "and espied before judgment," after the 1828 Vols. I and II were published. Then and now, accepted by the Congress of the United States of America (a legislative democracy). "


In short, since Webster wanted to become the No. 1 Lexicographer among the status quo, he had to create a dictionary the status quo would agreed with even if that meant adding or subtracting words from the original meaning. He took a lot of definitions from Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (1755) and then added some of his own words which, in some cases, added confusion not clarity to the word's meaning. You should see his definition of religion. Yikes!

As John Locke once said:

"All light truth has, or can have, is from the clearness and validity of those proofs upon which it is received: to talk of any other light is to put ourselves in the dark, or in the power of the prince of darkness." Locke


In other words, just because Webster is the No. 1 Lexicographer doesn't mean his definitions are flawless. Don't accept anything on face value. Verify verify verify. You can prove the validity of Webster's word definitions by comparing it to the original definition. I use Samuel Johnson's simply because I've compared the two dictionaries. I've found Johnson's definitions more reliable (honest).

[dolores1]

Thanks for that Alisa.
D

[mfrey0118]

they havent, he is using a english, english dictionary and an american legal dictionary

he should use webster and things would be clearer

words do change over time, like using bad to mean good

and cool to mean HIP, and hip to mean fashionable, but that people who do that, not the dictionary writers

Perhaps the morphing of "bad" to mean "good" was a result of social engineering. Companies do it all the time, pay students to wear their new products so peer pressure will compel the rest to buy...so why not start a trend of reversing the meaning of specific words? It breaks down the mind's moral compass, allowing for easier future programming of more extreme ideologies, in my opinion.
There are much more acute examples of this in things like Project Monarch and MK-Ultra. A traumatizing of the mind follows an intentional breakdown of its thought processes by portraying things in a certain manner that are not consistent with reality.