Its so people dont realize 99% of modern laws are there to protect criminals from justices and incriminate the just.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
24 comments:
23
9 days ago
23 points
(+0
/
-0
/
+23Score on mirror
)
Permalink
Reply
Mirrored from scored.co
It's so kikes can legally do whatever they want because the text is "interpretable" both ways
Sure, but kikes never do just *one* thing.
It also puts access to the law outside the hands of regular people. If you don't understand the law, your choices are:
a) spend money you don't have on a (((lawyer)))
b) embrace a life of criminality and be divorced from the system
c) let people who *can* afford lawyers push you around
A year or so ago, my corporate landlord sent out a notice to all their tennants (probably in the 10s of thousands) asking for a top up on the last months rent deposit. Most people paid it (it was generally less than $50) but I looked into it and it turns out they were clearly calculating the amount incorrectly, based on the law as written. I told them this and they basically replied "nuh uh". I reported it to the Landlord Tennent Board (which governs stuff like this) and they just said "If you don't owe them, don't pay". Nobody cares if the law is broken so scumbags can use incomprehensible laws to scam people with impunity.
I tried to tell my neighbours not to pay but, unfortunately, many already had. Now I just refuse anything my landlord asks of me on principal.
It also puts access to the law outside the hands of regular people. If you don't understand the law, your choices are:
a) spend money you don't have on a (((lawyer)))
b) embrace a life of criminality and be divorced from the system
c) let people who *can* afford lawyers push you around
A year or so ago, my corporate landlord sent out a notice to all their tennants (probably in the 10s of thousands) asking for a top up on the last months rent deposit. Most people paid it (it was generally less than $50) but I looked into it and it turns out they were clearly calculating the amount incorrectly, based on the law as written. I told them this and they basically replied "nuh uh". I reported it to the Landlord Tennent Board (which governs stuff like this) and they just said "If you don't owe them, don't pay". Nobody cares if the law is broken so scumbags can use incomprehensible laws to scam people with impunity.
I tried to tell my neighbours not to pay but, unfortunately, many already had. Now I just refuse anything my landlord asks of me on principal.
This is utterly ridiculous.
Laws are written the way they are so that they have legal effect. Meaning, the legislators are aware of how the law will be interpreted and applied, and use certain phrasing and language to achieve the intended result.
The legal language of the US has been pretty static for the past 250 years or so. It's been static because it has to be. As long as the courts decide that the laws mean what they mean at the time they were written, they will always be static.
What we could do, if we had sanity at any government level (and we don't) is periodically review the language and update the laws to match the language. This would require producing a book that documents the current state of the language in an unambiguous way -- likely defining modern words in terms of ancient words. Then we could re-write the laws to the modern language, or "translate" it so-to-speak. But since this would be a monumental effort, only to have to do it over again every 20 years or so, we just tell people who want to learn what the law actually says to learn the language they were written in.
There was a sane proposal at the time of our founding to write all legal documents in ancient Greek. Why? No one is updating ancient Greek. We all know what the words mean, and the meanings have not changed for 2,000 years. So if we wrote our laws and contracts in that language, we'd be able to read them 2,000 years from now just as well as we can now.
If anything, it's the jews who are ruining our legal foundation by intentionally changing our language and convincing people that the laws we have on the book mean the opposite of what they originally meant. They treat words like magic spells. We treat them as tools of the trade.
Laws are written the way they are so that they have legal effect. Meaning, the legislators are aware of how the law will be interpreted and applied, and use certain phrasing and language to achieve the intended result.
The legal language of the US has been pretty static for the past 250 years or so. It's been static because it has to be. As long as the courts decide that the laws mean what they mean at the time they were written, they will always be static.
What we could do, if we had sanity at any government level (and we don't) is periodically review the language and update the laws to match the language. This would require producing a book that documents the current state of the language in an unambiguous way -- likely defining modern words in terms of ancient words. Then we could re-write the laws to the modern language, or "translate" it so-to-speak. But since this would be a monumental effort, only to have to do it over again every 20 years or so, we just tell people who want to learn what the law actually says to learn the language they were written in.
There was a sane proposal at the time of our founding to write all legal documents in ancient Greek. Why? No one is updating ancient Greek. We all know what the words mean, and the meanings have not changed for 2,000 years. So if we wrote our laws and contracts in that language, we'd be able to read them 2,000 years from now just as well as we can now.
If anything, it's the jews who are ruining our legal foundation by intentionally changing our language and convincing people that the laws we have on the book mean the opposite of what they originally meant. They treat words like magic spells. We treat them as tools of the trade.
>Laws are written the way they are so that they have legal effect.
Words aren’t magic.
>The legal language of the US has been pretty static for the past 250 years or so.
Then why has it completely inverted from what the Founders wrote? Oh, right; jews say words mean whatever they want them to mean.
>It's been static because it has to be.
Translation: It’s not static; anything someone says magically becomes reality, irrespective of what the words say.
>As long as the courts decide that the laws mean what they mean at the time they were written, they will always be static.
Translation: THE LITERAL OPPOSITE OF WHAT ’STATIC’ MEANS, BECAUSE IT’S PEOPLE SAYING WHATEVER THEY WANT.
>What we could do, if we had sanity at any government level (and we don't) is periodically review the language and update the laws to match the language.
Why? The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago. Words aren’t magic. No one obeys them. That’s the only problem.
>a book that documents the current state of the language in an unambiguous way
Translation: “Make communism illegal.” Then you don’t need the book.
Words aren’t magic.
>The legal language of the US has been pretty static for the past 250 years or so.
Then why has it completely inverted from what the Founders wrote? Oh, right; jews say words mean whatever they want them to mean.
>It's been static because it has to be.
Translation: It’s not static; anything someone says magically becomes reality, irrespective of what the words say.
>As long as the courts decide that the laws mean what they mean at the time they were written, they will always be static.
Translation: THE LITERAL OPPOSITE OF WHAT ’STATIC’ MEANS, BECAUSE IT’S PEOPLE SAYING WHATEVER THEY WANT.
>What we could do, if we had sanity at any government level (and we don't) is periodically review the language and update the laws to match the language.
Why? The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago. Words aren’t magic. No one obeys them. That’s the only problem.
>a book that documents the current state of the language in an unambiguous way
Translation: “Make communism illegal.” Then you don’t need the book.
> Then why has it completely inverted from what the Founders wrote?
If you haven't noticed, we're actually moving BACK to the original intention of the laws as written. They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written. But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him so it is working.
If you're wondering how we got so far off the path, it's pretty simple. When things arose that were outside the consideration of the original intention, people had to make things up. They SHOULD'VE amended the constitution, but since they couldn't get the 60% support to do so, they didn't, and just fudged it all up.
We were supposed to have a revolution every 50 years or so BY INTENTION. The Roman System worked that way: For a period of time, laws are binding, as long as people don't get too silly. Once they do, then they appoint a dictator who cracks skulls until law and order is restored, and then the laws go back in effect. We needed that in the US, and the founders intended the PEOPLE to do the skull cracking, but they didn't.
> “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago
No it doesn't, not even close.
The word "shall" is now interpreted as some kind of moral imperative, versus a legal imperative. The word "infringed" doesn't even have the same sense today as it did 250 years ago. Heck, the word "right" is completely inverted as well. Most people think something more like "liberty" or "freedom" when they hear "right", which is not what a right was nor meant to be.
If you haven't noticed, we're actually moving BACK to the original intention of the laws as written. They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written. But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him so it is working.
If you're wondering how we got so far off the path, it's pretty simple. When things arose that were outside the consideration of the original intention, people had to make things up. They SHOULD'VE amended the constitution, but since they couldn't get the 60% support to do so, they didn't, and just fudged it all up.
We were supposed to have a revolution every 50 years or so BY INTENTION. The Roman System worked that way: For a period of time, laws are binding, as long as people don't get too silly. Once they do, then they appoint a dictator who cracks skulls until law and order is restored, and then the laws go back in effect. We needed that in the US, and the founders intended the PEOPLE to do the skull cracking, but they didn't.
> “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago
No it doesn't, not even close.
The word "shall" is now interpreted as some kind of moral imperative, versus a legal imperative. The word "infringed" doesn't even have the same sense today as it did 250 years ago. Heck, the word "right" is completely inverted as well. Most people think something more like "liberty" or "freedom" when they hear "right", which is not what a right was nor meant to be.
> If you haven't noticed, we're actually moving BACK to the original intention of the laws as written.
I haven’t noticed that, no. Do you have even a single example of it, because nothing in the last 80 years has been anything like that.
>They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written.
He’s not, though. They’re complaining because they’re reading from a script. His performative acts are also in the script. If he was enforcing the laws as written, there would be more deportations than the annual illegal birth rate. The illegal population is still increasing. There aren’t any actual deportations happening.
Why aren’t all the illegal gun laws being annulled by Trump? Why does the Federal Reserve still exist? Why do the FBI and CIA still exist? Why does the DoE still exist when it can literally just be handed off to each respective state DoE and shut down? Don’t get me started on taxes. Why is he still committing extralegal military action? Constitution says none of this can happen without a declaration.
>But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
>No it doesn't, not even close.
It does, yeah. Exact words, exact meaning.
>The word "shall" is now **interpreted**
I don’t give a shit. The word means the same as it always has. Communist “interpretations” are meaningless. By *allowing* someone to say, “I say what the word means now,” you concede the very concept of law. Words either have defined meanings or they don’t exist. That’s what ‘definition’ means.
The problems we have today come from our lack of willingness to literally kill traitors. That’s it. “We were supposed to destroy the system regularly!” “We should have cycled our political structure!” Doesn’t matter. Steady state politics works just fine as long as ***you actually defend it.***
There’s not a damned thing in the Constitution Trump is defending.
I haven’t noticed that, no. Do you have even a single example of it, because nothing in the last 80 years has been anything like that.
>They are complaining because Trump is actually enforcing the laws as written.
He’s not, though. They’re complaining because they’re reading from a script. His performative acts are also in the script. If he was enforcing the laws as written, there would be more deportations than the annual illegal birth rate. The illegal population is still increasing. There aren’t any actual deportations happening.
Why aren’t all the illegal gun laws being annulled by Trump? Why does the Federal Reserve still exist? Why do the FBI and CIA still exist? Why does the DoE still exist when it can literally just be handed off to each respective state DoE and shut down? Don’t get me started on taxes. Why is he still committing extralegal military action? Constitution says none of this can happen without a declaration.
>But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
>No it doesn't, not even close.
It does, yeah. Exact words, exact meaning.
>The word "shall" is now **interpreted**
I don’t give a shit. The word means the same as it always has. Communist “interpretations” are meaningless. By *allowing* someone to say, “I say what the word means now,” you concede the very concept of law. Words either have defined meanings or they don’t exist. That’s what ‘definition’ means.
The problems we have today come from our lack of willingness to literally kill traitors. That’s it. “We were supposed to destroy the system regularly!” “We should have cycled our political structure!” Doesn’t matter. Steady state politics works just fine as long as ***you actually defend it.***
There’s not a damned thing in the Constitution Trump is defending.
> Do you have even a single example of it, because nothing in the last 80 years has been anything like that.
Lots of examples. A good set of examples is President Trump firing people that were supposed to be untouchable. Congress wrote laws creating certain groups that had administrative roles but weren't subject to the president (like the Fed.) Trump fired some of them, they sued saying that they couldn't be fired, Trump's team said that ALL executive power is in the president per the constitution, and the Supreme Court recently held a hearing on the case. If Trump gets his way, then he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
More examples: Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
More examples: Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years and even announced that birthright citizenship was never law and never part of the constitution. He was sued (obviously) and it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
Those of us who care about the constitution recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit -- he's restoring the original intent, and at the same time, he's demonstrating where congress made a fool of themselves for giving the executive too much power rather than tackle the hard issues themselves (and put their seats at risk of losing "elections".) All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
> > But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
> Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
Exactly. Trump is reversing a bunch of really bad decisions by previous courts by bringing challenges to the Supreme Court. This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions. Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison, one of the worst decisions ever.
> I don’t give a shit.
You said, and I quote: "The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago."
I said that it doesn't.
You don't care? Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
Lots of examples. A good set of examples is President Trump firing people that were supposed to be untouchable. Congress wrote laws creating certain groups that had administrative roles but weren't subject to the president (like the Fed.) Trump fired some of them, they sued saying that they couldn't be fired, Trump's team said that ALL executive power is in the president per the constitution, and the Supreme Court recently held a hearing on the case. If Trump gets his way, then he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
More examples: Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
More examples: Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years and even announced that birthright citizenship was never law and never part of the constitution. He was sued (obviously) and it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
Those of us who care about the constitution recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit -- he's restoring the original intent, and at the same time, he's demonstrating where congress made a fool of themselves for giving the executive too much power rather than tackle the hard issues themselves (and put their seats at risk of losing "elections".) All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
> > But the (supreme) courts are standing behind him
> Five people don’t get to say the opposite of the law and demand everyone obey.
Exactly. Trump is reversing a bunch of really bad decisions by previous courts by bringing challenges to the Supreme Court. This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions. Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison, one of the worst decisions ever.
> I don’t give a shit.
You said, and I quote: "The language hasn’t changed. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it meant 250 years ago."
I said that it doesn't.
You don't care? Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
> If Trump gets his way
Call me when it happens.
> he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
Translation: “anyone who doesn’t worship jews.”
> Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
And when the SCOTUS rules against him? Say, how about he uses the old law that says only gold and silver are money in the United States? You know, that little chestnut called the Constitution?
> Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years
And you believe even his pathetic reported numbers… because? Nothing in the economy or society would lead you to believe they’re actually going away.
>it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
# THEY ARE THE ONES WHO INVENTED THIS HOAX IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT HAPPENED ONLY 40 YEARS AGO.
Good god, wake the fuck up.
> Those of us who care about the constitution
“Whites only, no federal reserve.” Where’s that in Trump’s messaging?
>recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit
Solidifying jewish rule?
>giving the executive too much power
Shame he’s not using it.
> All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
Well, yeah. He’s part of it and doesn’t bother hiding how they work anymore. That’s one way to expose.
# This isn’t The_Donald. We don’t worship your ZOG emperor here.
> This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions.
You’re just not paying attention at all.
>Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison,
Oh yes, and next the government will arrest the government. And the military will downsize itself because the pentagon keeps failing its audits. That will definitely happen. Oh, and the jews will all convert to Christianity!
>you don’t care?
About your incorrect opinions, yes. Your personal beliefs that don’t align in any way with reality. I don’t care about them. Your feelings got hurt by truth? Good. Be in pain. You’ll never get better otherwise.
> Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
God, the irony.
Call me when it happens.
> he will be able to fire practically anyone who ever does anything in the federal government resembling executive action.
Translation: “anyone who doesn’t worship jews.”
> Trump is imposing tariffs using old laws that allow the president to do so in emergency circumstances.
And when the SCOTUS rules against him? Say, how about he uses the old law that says only gold and silver are money in the United States? You know, that little chestnut called the Constitution?
> Trump is enforcing immigration laws that haven't been enforced for over fifty years
And you believe even his pathetic reported numbers… because? Nothing in the economy or society would lead you to believe they’re actually going away.
>it's going to the Supreme Court, which will likely side with Trump.
# THEY ARE THE ONES WHO INVENTED THIS HOAX IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT HAPPENED ONLY 40 YEARS AGO.
Good god, wake the fuck up.
> Those of us who care about the constitution
“Whites only, no federal reserve.” Where’s that in Trump’s messaging?
>recognized what Trump has been doing bit by bit
Solidifying jewish rule?
>giving the executive too much power
Shame he’s not using it.
> All the while he's all but exposed how the cabal works that manipulates the government and our society. It's plain as day now.
Well, yeah. He’s part of it and doesn’t bother hiding how they work anymore. That’s one way to expose.
# This isn’t The_Donald. We don’t worship your ZOG emperor here.
> This supreme court is reversing really old bad decisions.
You’re just not paying attention at all.
>Heck, they might even reverse Marbury v. Madison,
Oh yes, and next the government will arrest the government. And the military will downsize itself because the pentagon keeps failing its audits. That will definitely happen. Oh, and the jews will all convert to Christianity!
>you don’t care?
About your incorrect opinions, yes. Your personal beliefs that don’t align in any way with reality. I don’t care about them. Your feelings got hurt by truth? Good. Be in pain. You’ll never get better otherwise.
> Or you just get upset and flip tables when you lose an argument you didn't even realize you were making?
God, the irony.
In the early 1990's I attended a participants' workshop for a Renaissance Faire in Southern California. This particular class was the basics of Elizabethan speech taught by a lawyer who compared legalese was very formulaic and contained a lot of centuries-old verbiage that just carried over each time it was used. The thinking by lawyers was "well it worked last time, so just go with whatever works". It had nothing to do with exactitude in meaning and was more like a magic spell that had to be recited exactly or else it wouldn't work.
I think he was on to something there. It's a valid observation. Very often, submissions to a judge have less to do with actual reasoning and more to do with the language they use. If the language strays too much from what is familiar, it will be rejected.
One should keep in mind that jews were not involved in English law until the 1700, so English law and its legal language were developed well before the influence by jews.
English law and English courts are largely ceremony and the projection of authority and power over a population who are subjects of the crown and only have rights that are given to them by the crown or parliament.
I think he was on to something there. It's a valid observation. Very often, submissions to a judge have less to do with actual reasoning and more to do with the language they use. If the language strays too much from what is familiar, it will be rejected.
One should keep in mind that jews were not involved in English law until the 1700, so English law and its legal language were developed well before the influence by jews.
English law and English courts are largely ceremony and the projection of authority and power over a population who are subjects of the crown and only have rights that are given to them by the crown or parliament.
Yeah, no. Legalese is the way it is because no one speaks English anymore.
legalese reads like a mythical 110 iq nigger trying to prove he's smarter than Whitey, although really it's just jew-made to make up another part of the deliberately confusing adversarial system. if lifting your pinky in legalese takes 100 paragraphs of jewish pilpul, it's all the easier to hide the fact that really it's just about who is in the good old boys' club and who can pay more lawyers to put in more frivolous motions and ideas forth to exhaust the little guy until he just can't afford to fight, either mentally or financially.
there's nothing about the (in)justice system that's even close to White, not even the language. White justice has always been inquisitorial, one or more wise trusted men judging cases according to implied tradition and common knowledge, written or not. we haven't seen White justice in a long time.
there's nothing about the (in)justice system that's even close to White, not even the language. White justice has always been inquisitorial, one or more wise trusted men judging cases according to implied tradition and common knowledge, written or not. we haven't seen White justice in a long time.
Yes, it's meant to give enough room for lawyers and judges to make decisions either way and bring up rationalizations. It's also a way to restrict the job to people to become well paid bureaucrats even in the private sector.
But don't be mistaken, lawyers are bound to the government and its systems. They are not free and independent, and they are also not productive. You pay them to play the game, which only they can play.
I've noticed this ~15 years ago.
But don't be mistaken, lawyers are bound to the government and its systems. They are not free and independent, and they are also not productive. You pay them to play the game, which only they can play.
I've noticed this ~15 years ago.
Magic isn't real. Satan never shares his power with Men.
This is part of the midwit ritual game. In order to get a stack of people to implement evil you do have to convince the middle segment of them to do it reliably. So you invent magic, and spells, and invocations, and ritual societies to keep them all line.
The people at the top are far more rational than their footsoldiers would lead you to believe.
This is part of the midwit ritual game. In order to get a stack of people to implement evil you do have to convince the middle segment of them to do it reliably. So you invent magic, and spells, and invocations, and ritual societies to keep them all line.
The people at the top are far more rational than their footsoldiers would lead you to believe.
Think about what a magic spell is. You say something, something happens.
That's it.
And the words give a clue to that.
Spell
Incantation
Curse
All those deal with speech.
Spell a word.
Curse words.
So maybe magic doesn't resemble flowing pink embers that sparkle. But make no mistake, "magic" is real and it works. It works too well. Too many people hear a thing and act predictably, reliably.
They know the magic words.
That's it.
And the words give a clue to that.
Spell
Incantation
Curse
All those deal with speech.
Spell a word.
Curse words.
So maybe magic doesn't resemble flowing pink embers that sparkle. But make no mistake, "magic" is real and it works. It works too well. Too many people hear a thing and act predictably, reliably.
They know the magic words.
> But make no mistake, "magic" is real and it works.
Like I said, in any stack, you're going to have people in the middle.
> They know the magic words.
Then why do they have to also spend so much money? The Wizard of Oz isn't real, dude, it's just a guy behind a curtain. He knows nothing more than you do.
Like I said, in any stack, you're going to have people in the middle.
> They know the magic words.
Then why do they have to also spend so much money? The Wizard of Oz isn't real, dude, it's just a guy behind a curtain. He knows nothing more than you do.
Toast message