Posted by Patrick on January 28, 1998 at 17:46:21:
In Reply to: Re: Legal definition of driving to/from work. posted by Common Right Group on January 27, 1998 at 06:05:51:
CRG ... the following is for clarification, not to
My point had nothing to do with code vs statute.
My point was merely that it's difficult to defend
against these wordsmiths who distort the meanings
of the simplest of terms. After all, how much
simpler could you get than AND or OR?
And since I was referring to a constitutional
provision, code vs statute also would not apply.
There is a "law" known as the "law of first use,"
which says, roughly paraphrased, that the meaning
of a word in its first use remains the same throughout
the entire writing, unless specifically indicated
otherwise. Therefore, the constitutional provision
I previously referred to, if read the way the AZ
Religious Order of Black Frocks has ruled, would
say the following:
"In all criminal procedings, the accused shall have
the right to appear OR defend in person OR by
Now contrast what it said, and note the tremendous
difference in meaning as ACTUALLY WRITTEN:
"In all criminal proceedings,the accused shall have
the right to appear AND defend in person AND by
The law of first use DOES NOT ALLOW those Black
Frocked charlatans to change the meaning of the
second AND in that sentence! Either they both mean
OR, or they both mean AND. And I believe that
the original intent was as written. In other words,
when an accused appears in court to defend, he is
not totally bound by the incompentence of his
counsel, but has the right to ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE
in his own defense.
The catch-22 in today's injustice system is the
presumption that anyone who appears by counsel is
incompent to appear without counsel, and thus is
precluded from acting, in essence, as co/joint
counsel in his/her own defense. Just another legal
fiction to promulgate the monoply of the Liar,
excuse me, Bar Association.
Post a Followup