wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:28 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 07:46:39 +0700, said:
As far as your latin terms they are seldom if ever used in written
contracts. In fact the only non English term I have commonly seen in
contracts is "force majeure" and the term is always followed by a
section describing every possible action that may be considered
force
majeure.
Quite right, Bruce. But you must understand that Neal's perception
of
what
lawyers do is more than a little myopic. It seems to derive almost
entirely
from watching a great deal of Perry Mason and from some rather
pathetic
attempts to act as his own lawyer in traffic court.
Wilbur's perspective, you dolt!
And, if my "pathetic" attempts in traffic court resulted in a
dismissed
case against the chief of police of a local burg then how pathetic was
the chief? One could tell the judge was on the chief's side from the
very beginning of the proceedings (in traffic court you are presumed
guilty and will be judged guilty unless and until you can prove your
innocence) but I proved, using state law itself and legal definitions
within the body of the law, that the statute the chief cited me for
violating [316.2065(6)] did not even apply - could not apply, for that
matter. I proved it so convincingly that the judge had to reluctantly
find in my favor. I gave him no outs, no wiggle room, no place to run
and no place to hide. It all revolved around the definition of
"roadway." Apparently, in all his long years of law enforcement, the
chief did not even know the legal definition of "roadway." ****ing
retard!
Took the smirk right off that chief's face, yes siree! Was worth
showing up in court just to see his crestfallen look. I wonder how
many
times he'd gotten away with that same crap in the past just because no
cyclist was ballsy enough to walk into traffic court and intelligent
enough call his bluff and make it stick.
I'd have made an extraordinary lawyer but I have scruples so that
occupation is not for me.
Wilbur Hubbard
Which pretty much proves that your original post about lawyers using a
private language and foreign terms to befuddle the public was
absolutely wrong as you now state that by reading the (I assume) state
laws you accurately defined the term "roadway" to prove to the Judge's
satisfaction that whatever you were charged with was not a crime.
In other words the state laws (written by lawyers) was perfectly
understandable to a layman, i.e., an individual without legal
training.
Willie-boy I'm beginning to believe that you have some sort of foot
fetish as you seem to have your foot in your mouth so much.
You don't have a clue there, mister. You are the one with the
foot-in-mouth disease. And, that's compounded by your seeming inability
to understand what you read.
The discussion was about lawyer elitism. I wrote that one example of
their elitism is they use Greek (Latin) words when they talk in court
and among themselves. They think this makes them appear superior and
very learned. I said it just proves they are out of touch because
anybody can look up these words if they want to and conclude they are
just full of crap.
It just so happens that the State of Florida traffic statutes were
written in layman's language by edict. Lawyers were not allowed to use
their usual 'legalize' because laymen needed to be able to read and
understand traffic law. Not everybody who drives has an IQ in triple
figures, ya know. Therefore, you've got to ask yourself why is it that a
chief of police is so stupid that after thirty years on the job he still
doesn't know the legal definition of 'roadway' when said definition is
written in the state statutes in plain English?
There are two possible answers to that:
1) the police chief really is stupid
2) the police chief knew the definition of roadway but was counting on
the fact that I was too stupid to figure it out.
I suspect the latter is the correct answer. However, what bothers me is
had I not figured it out and proved it in traffic court, I am positive
the judge (who also knows the legal definition of roadway, most
assuredly) would have found me guilty. This is collusion, conspiracy and
dereliction of duty - something the police and judges seem to have no
problem with when THEY do it while throwing the book at civilians who do
it.
And the unscrupulous lawyers just go along with the program.
I hope this helps your limited understanding of the real world, Bruce.
Hey, why don't you take a nice little airplane trip to Phuket?
Wilbur Hubbard