Emergency services - Time for...Understanding Law!

Author

Time for...Understanding Law!

United Slaves of America

2004-11-01, 10:08 pm

"Steve Furbish" <sfurbish@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<EoydneVywtRhyB_cRVn-iQ@comcast.com>...
> "United Slaves of America" <law_ref@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:6cf4a789.0410280922.1c998d35@posting.google.com...
> news:<R_-dnbz02N3uT-LcRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> for
> her
> who
> choices
> is
> $1000
>
> No, the "whole point" is to acheive a level of compliance with existing law.

It's awfully convenient how "existing law" has increased so
dramatically over time then, isn't it?

> It's a coincidental side effect that makes it "fun" for some and not so
> "fun" for others. Surely you don't expect cops, DAs, defense lawyers or the
> judiciary to work without compensation?

I expect them to be compensated for serving the people.

>
> Like anything else it's supply and demand, but even you must realize that
> many more ordinary people still manage to avoid criminal courtrooms than get
> pulled into them.

You make "many more" sound like something we should all be proud of.
Just because many manage to avoid court, doesn't mean they're not
criminals by the standards you uphold (more below).

Besides, I'm in court frequently, and it's *always* packed, with rare
exception.

>
> That's beyond exaggeration and into the realms of pure fantasy. You spout it
> here for it's inflamitory effects, but that doesn't make it so.

There's a whole lot of people in a lot of states engaged in all sorts
of very normal sexual behavior (oral sex as one example) that is on
the books as a felony. I guess I just have sex on the brain, hence
the "pure fantasy" mentioned above, but it makes for a fun example.

Someplace in Kansas it's illegal to wash your false teeth in a
drinking fountain.

I could go on and on and on and entertain the hell outta the readers,
but I don't have time.

Have you actually read all the laws on the books? Or do you just
fantasize that your beloved legislators haven't actually outlawed just
about everything imaginable? (Yes, a *little* exaggeration on my part
again...my bad). Do you know how many legislators are employed
thru-out the US? Count the state ones alone! They have to do
*something* to earn their pay, don't they?

>
> Gibberish! Let's hear your proposal of how to build this "non-conflicting
> venue" in a way that would be better than what we already have today.

Oh goodness, all it requires is going back to some constitutional
basics of sizing government WAY back down, putting the power of the
people in juries back in place and out of the hands of judges,
prosecutors, and cops for starters. Stop electing attorneys into
offices for another thing. Stop appointing supreme court judges for
another. Goodness, don't get me started. It all boils down to "da
gubment beees waaaaayyyyy toooo BIG!"

As an interesting side note, an attorney recently assured me that "all
judges, prosecutors, and cops lie, period." He's a good, expensive
attorney too, and he of course got little disagreement from me (except
for his insensitive use of that darn "ALL" word; he musta' got it from
me).

But if what I say above is "gibberish," please show us all how it is.
What I cite above is extremely self-evident. If things aren't
actually working that way, tell us how they ARE working instead of
just saying it's gibber. I'm open minded.

>
> A jury trial is usually at the election of an accused. Due process is simply
> the application of fairness in principle within legal proceedings, both
> criminal and civil.

Another poster made a neat remark on this "fairness" you mention. And
if it's "simply fairness," to you, you should agree that only a jury
of peers can possibly see the circumstances from a fair angle and
determine the injury, that does not include the benefit of monetary
reward on the part of every other player in the game; the legislator,
the cop, prosecutor/attorney and judge.

The jury trial is at the election of the accused who is very often
scared to death into plea bargaining. (Funny word, "bargain," like in
money; some bargain, as we'll soon see). PBS did a cool show on that
whole game a while back and showed how horrible a mess that bargaining
game is. The intimidation used by judges to scare people into bench
trials is remarkable, citing increased sentences if the accused is
found guilty by a jury if they don't accept the bench trial. Even tho
law has limits on jail terms. We have judges around here (in NY) that
have sentenced people to jail terms that go beyond what the law
allows.

> Juries were created or invented as a fair means to arbitrate factual
> disputes. There's nothing magical about them and in most instances they
> adhere to the law as it exists. Jury nullification (which seems to be the
> underlying argument that you are trying to support) is merely a concept
> embraced by those who lack the initiative or influence to change laws that
> they do not like through proper channels.

Please tell everyone about these "proper channels," so that those of
us in disagreement with the way "yes" votes are counted even in
absentee voting legislation can actively do something about it! It
would be hugely helpful.

Plus, I need to be able to wash my dentures in a water fountain for
convenience' sake...I don't have running water at home.

Unless you're referring to a repeal process...in which case I'd have
to say that jury nullification is far more productive, efficient, and
American. It was always intended that the people be vigilant. I
think the government as it stands today in nearly every facet, is
example enough about what the people have NOT done, and allowed to
happen.

>
> Actually there are some things I do agree with you about, but I certainly
> wouldn't characterize mine as "complete" agreement. I'm not even sure that
> you understand half the terms that you use in your arguments.

I wouldn't expect you to.

For the record, I'm not here to make an enemy. I am not
anti-government, in fact I'm very pro-government just at a much much
smaller size. I've seen enough abuse on all levels of govt that I'm
actively doing something about it, and if you're a cop or an attorney,
or even a judge, I'd rather be on your side.

But I have a low tolerance for assholes, esp those who think they know
it all and/or attempt to put words in people's mouths, AND work for
the govt. And some of the posts I've read of yours come across that
way, and are even on occasion inaccurate and/or misinformed.

So we can either have productive debate, or if you want to attempt to
insult the way you often seem to, or misrepresent, I can slam you
every now and then when your ignorance shows thru; and I'm pretty
good. But it's the holiday season now for cheeze-it's sake, so maybe
you can tone down the really cheezy usenet front and opt for
constructive opinion instead? Or am I wasting my time..........

poboxdc@ix.netcom.com

2004-11-02, 2:09 am

United Slaves of America wrote:
>
>
> So we can either have productive debate, or if you want to attempt to
> insult the way you often seem to, or misrepresent, I can slam you
> every now and then when your ignorance shows thru .......

And you will determine that, too? You sound like Superman!

(KM)