Re: Legal definition of driving to/from work.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Common Right Group on January 30, 1998 at 04:41:42:

In Reply to: Re: Legal definition of driving to/from work. posted by Patrick on January 28, 1998 at 17:46:21:

: CRG ... the following is for clarification, not to
: argue.

: 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
: counsel."

: 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
: counsel."

: 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.

You are dead right. The law of first use has been stated over and again by the Supreme Courts of several states and the united States of America. It seems a no-brainer to understand that when a law is written, such as a constitution, the intent must remain the same regardless of any changes or evolution of idiom.
This is the reason, so we are informed, why the law and medicine use Latin as a base language. Latin is a dead language and does not change as to ou living languages that are still in general use and undergoing changes with every generation of teenagers. I'm a "gay" guy, or was when I was a kid because that meant I was having wholesome fun without any form of perversion or sexual conotation. Since then, it has gotten to where a "gay" guy is what, when I was a youngster, was a "queer" fellow. Sigh....
The courts are not given legislative powers. That is reserved to the legislatures. Has anyone tried getting the courts to take judicial notice of this constitutional provision in you state's constitution? If the lower court doesn't, the appelate courts almost certainly will grant a writ of error or writ of review or otherwise overturn the action of the lower court. One has to make every move at every level of a proceeding with one eye on the requirements of the Supreme Court. Don't argue constitutional issues in a Municipal court, for example, as that is a court of commerce or contract, and if they grant you the courtesy of listening to your irrelevant arguments, you have exhausted your right to be heard on the constitutional issue(s).
Little things like that last are what are biting the tails off of the Patriots, right beehind the ears.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]