Well, no, because the law, practically speaking, is what the body of lawyers wind up doing. It's an activity. You can claim that every single lawyer in the United States is implementing the wrong legal system, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a legal system in effect, which is not the legal system you're describing.
What it is for a legal system to be in effect is for it to be upheld by the courts, etc.
Bingo. To me things could be fixed tonight or not for 50+ years (if ever). Things have become so corrupt and perverted that anything is possible with enough people drinking the same kool aid.
OK, but theoretically ... they wake up one day and realize that they are being foreclosed on the $30trillion, that we are liberated from, they wont be practicing that law anymore
I can only assume this is a reference to the national debt. If the United States wants to default on its debt, it can of course do so. That doesn't require the existing system of law to be thrown out. Nor are any of these eccentric claims about admiralty law, etc. necessary.
Not eccentric bro. Look it the fuck up. People have been discussing admiralty law for decades and every time it gets traction there’s a ton of numbnuts that say the same thing you just did.
Yes, it's eccentric. It's a strange theory that has nothing to do with how the courts actually operate, as sovereign citizens find out to their dismay every time they attempt to invoke this nonsense in court.
Not eccentric bro.
I'm actually decently familiar with actual admiralty law - you know, the sort that is operative in maritime contexts. You, on the other hand, have presumably never cracked open a law review in your life.
The general courts in the United States do not operate under admiralty law; they operate under the standard system, which incorporates the inherited common law with statute law and the Constitution. This 'admiralty law' nonsense is uniformly rejected by the courts. You can believe it, but you'll be frustrated time and time again when the things you think should happen don't happen, because our legal system dismisses your sentiments as fringe nonsense.
No, there are many things I am, but dense certainly isn't one of them.
the "lawyers" you speak of are a part of a satanic guild and are sworn to uphold whatever the fuck their masters say to uphold? there is no law in this country - it's defunct. the "law" is whatever the fuck "lawyers" say it is because we are a "lawless" country based on a set of "laws for thee but not for me"
Well, that's patently silly. We have a fairly predictable system of law emerging from the interaction of the common law with statute law, with the broad fines of the constitution and its accepted jurisprudence.
you're arguing semantics when you can trace back maritime law
No, the history of American law doesn't even remotely resemble whatever you think has happened. Maritime law isn't in effect in standard US courts; the system I describe above is. Maritime law is a body of law, but it's largely irrelevant. The claim that the common law was usurped early in the twentieth century doesn't even begin to make sense; we still share the same original body of common law with the UK and other Commonwealth countries whose common law derives from older English common law.
since the beginning of time there has always been a separate class of laws for peasants (aka YOU) and a set for the elite (aka THEM)
Well, by any reasonable (or unreasonable) definition of 'elite', I qualify; you might be a "peasant", but I'm certainly not one. None of that, however, bears upon the fact that your legal claims are misfounded.
You mean the same "body of lawyers" and judges that so conveniently refused to even listen to any lawsuits in the past 2 months? Those "lawyers in the know"? Entire legal system was shown as wrong, all the way up to SCOTUS. Entire legal system today is what DS says it is.
It's not an invalid argument; it's a straightforward claim that a system of law that is not recognized by the courts of a nation is, ipso facto, not the system of law in effect in that nation.
Well, no, because the law, practically speaking, is what the body of lawyers wind up doing. It's an activity. You can claim that every single lawyer in the United States is implementing the wrong legal system, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a legal system in effect, which is not the legal system you're describing.
What it is for a legal system to be in effect is for it to be upheld by the courts, etc.
Bingo. To me things could be fixed tonight or not for 50+ years (if ever). Things have become so corrupt and perverted that anything is possible with enough people drinking the same kool aid.
OK, but theoretically ... they wake up one day and realize that they are being foreclosed on the $30trillion, that we are liberated from, they wont be practicing that law anymore
I can only assume this is a reference to the national debt. If the United States wants to default on its debt, it can of course do so. That doesn't require the existing system of law to be thrown out. Nor are any of these eccentric claims about admiralty law, etc. necessary.
Not eccentric bro. Look it the fuck up. People have been discussing admiralty law for decades and every time it gets traction there’s a ton of numbnuts that say the same thing you just did.
Yes, it's eccentric. It's a strange theory that has nothing to do with how the courts actually operate, as sovereign citizens find out to their dismay every time they attempt to invoke this nonsense in court.
I'm actually decently familiar with actual admiralty law - you know, the sort that is operative in maritime contexts. You, on the other hand, have presumably never cracked open a law review in your life.
The general courts in the United States do not operate under admiralty law; they operate under the standard system, which incorporates the inherited common law with statute law and the Constitution. This 'admiralty law' nonsense is uniformly rejected by the courts. You can believe it, but you'll be frustrated time and time again when the things you think should happen don't happen, because our legal system dismisses your sentiments as fringe nonsense.
No, there are many things I am, but dense certainly isn't one of them.
Well, that's patently silly. We have a fairly predictable system of law emerging from the interaction of the common law with statute law, with the broad fines of the constitution and its accepted jurisprudence.
No, the history of American law doesn't even remotely resemble whatever you think has happened. Maritime law isn't in effect in standard US courts; the system I describe above is. Maritime law is a body of law, but it's largely irrelevant. The claim that the common law was usurped early in the twentieth century doesn't even begin to make sense; we still share the same original body of common law with the UK and other Commonwealth countries whose common law derives from older English common law.
Well, by any reasonable (or unreasonable) definition of 'elite', I qualify; you might be a "peasant", but I'm certainly not one. None of that, however, bears upon the fact that your legal claims are misfounded.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
There are many things I am not particularly well-versed in, but law and my own standing in the world are two exceptions.
It so happens that the legal system in effect in the United States, and those who operate, oversee, and participate in it, all share my views.
I noticed that Judge Roy Bean no longer practices.
Yeah but one of my favorite roller coasters ever, Judge Roy Scream, is still running!
He was called the “Hanging Judge” and the “Law West of the Pecos”. Been to Langtry, TX a few times. ?
Black or Pinto?
(Sorry. Dumb.)
Why did that body forget the constitution during election tho?
You mean the same "body of lawyers" and judges that so conveniently refused to even listen to any lawsuits in the past 2 months? Those "lawyers in the know"? Entire legal system was shown as wrong, all the way up to SCOTUS. Entire legal system today is what DS says it is.
Invalid argument. Thanks for a good laugh.
It's not an invalid argument; it's a straightforward claim that a system of law that is not recognized by the courts of a nation is, ipso facto, not the system of law in effect in that nation.