Posted by Common Right Group on February 02, 1998 at 08:02:13:
In Reply to: Re: AND means OR posted by Patrick on January 30, 1998 at 21:23:54:
: Sigh. Unfortunately, this opinion about AND meaning
: OR came from the appellate courts of California,
: and since Arizona modeled that constitutional
: provision after California, the Arizona appellate
: court adopted the California appellate court's
: unsound reasoning. The Arizona Supreme Court
: declined to review, so we're stuck with it.
No, we're not "stuck with it." What most people don't realize is that, even in the supreme courts, any case adjudicated has applicability only to the case presented under its own set of circumstances. The adjudication also only applies to the question asked of the court, with the dicta being just that, reasoning that led to the decision.
Even if the dicta does apply solid principle of law, thus becoming a matter of adjudication on its own merit, the OR being discussed is an INCLUSIVE OR, not an EXCLUSIVE OR, which means that any party not judged to be mentally incompetent has the right of self-[re]presentation. An attorney hired for the purpose of arguing a case in a court may be hired as an advocate as an extension of one's right of self re-presentation, but the court must know in advance that such is the case. These are the rules under the common law. The adjudication you are discussing was made under the rules of the "Ship of State." Selah.
To deny one his right of self-[re]presentation is to deny one due process. Of course, the court may determine anytime prior to final adjudication that one is not mentally competent, which means he can not stand trial. Sort of a catch-22 for the courts, if you know how to play your status.
By the way, who is CRG? We never introduced anybody with that appelation.