Rights

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:19 pm

If you want to go to any on line government service, you have to agree to their conditions or you don't qualify for their on line services. The lawyers for the government services want to put words in your mouth. You can't say, "I didn't agree" because you said you did and you can't say that the lawyers put words in your mouth. Are the conditions reasonable? You can't argue that they are not reasonable. There is no way to do that.

Mostly the conditions never come up. But when they do, you are stuck.

The government can state the rules or they can require you to accept the rules. The latter is much to their advantage.

Catch 22.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 3752
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: right here

Post by henry quirk » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:29 pm

Again: you need a shyster...pick up the phone book, find 'attorneys', pick one...most will give you a free intial consultation...bring ALL your paperwork with you.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:39 pm

Perhaps the most dangerous on line service is the IRS.

Need I say more?

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re:

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:41 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:29 pm
Again: you need a shyster...pick up the phone book, find 'attorneys', pick one...most will give you a free intial consultation...bring ALL your paperwork with you.
Not gonna do it Waste of time, Waste of money.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re:

Post by jayjacobus » Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:53 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:29 pm
Again: you need a shyster...pick up the phone book, find 'attorneys', pick one...most will give you a free intial consultation...bring ALL your paperwork with you.
Book a trip to nowhere, Henry. Then tell me what you accomplished.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:09 am

I was on a grand jury once and the evidence was suggestive but not definitive. The suspect could be bound over for trial based on the suggestive evidence but the prosecution would have trouble getting a conviction with any kind of defense. I said that to the prosecutor. He turned bright red and when the grand jury was called back to vote I was not notified.

The suspect was brought to trial and the jury hung (the defense must have been incompetent)

My point is not every case should go to trial but what the prosecutor wants the prosecutor gets.

UNFAIR!
Last edited by jayjacobus on Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:33 am

The prosecutor has some evidence but not enough to convict. What does he do?

He insinuates guilt.

Many circumstantial cases are based on some evidence and some insinuations.

No albi? He must have been at the crime scene.

Motive? He must have committed the crime.

Bull. Those are not facts. Those are insinuations.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:16 am

You can't kill the messenger.

But isn't that what appeals are all about?

You can't attack the law.

You can only attack the judge.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Apr 24, 2018 11:35 am

READ JOB!

Satan was only the messenger.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Apr 24, 2018 4:29 pm

So,if the judge is just the messenger, who is the trickster?

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:30 pm

What's the role of the appeals court?

It is a group of judges gathering to review the work of one of their colleagues.

Gee, I hope they're not too hard on him.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Tue Apr 24, 2018 6:21 pm

It is against the law to use the law for illegal porpoises.

But that's ridiculous because there is no such thing as illegal porpoises.

So my point must be subtle and too subtle for some philosophers to understand.

There are too illegal purposes. That's my point.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Wed Apr 25, 2018 1:41 am

For the time being I have nothing more to say. But because some people are not listening I want to reiterate my point.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Fri Apr 27, 2018 10:21 pm

The supreme court has a purpose to protect people's rights. They do that by ruling on cases brought before them. At times the court has been accused of legislating from the bench. If a president or congress agrees with the ruling nothing will be said but if a president or congress disagrees with the ruling they will scream bloody murder.

The legislature has a supposed purpose of making laws to serve the will of the people (or perhaps 51% of the people). They do that fairly well but not perfectly. If a legislation is found to be against the constitution the legislation will have an opportunity to correct the defect and pass an amended bill. Over many years this can go back and forth between the legislature and the supreme court. So the law may be slow to change. Moreover, the legislators may not want to touch an issue with a ten foot pole.

Two issues which haven't been addressed are banning and bullying. There are no laws for those issues. A person who has been banned must first investigate how and why he was banned. Once he knows he must find a law that fits (remember banning isn't illegal). He needs to make a case, perhaps at great expense and over a long time. Initially the civil court (it is not a criminal issue) may rule against him but when he gets to the supreme court he can make his case to people who want (more than anything else) to protect his rights.

If you see this as ridiculously cumbersome, that's the point. Corporations don't want their employees or ex-employees to have a reasonable recourse.

The same analysis applies to bullying.

jayjacobus
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: Rights

Post by jayjacobus » Sat Apr 28, 2018 7:26 am

They tried to tell me I'm too dumb,
Too dumb to teach the law (anything)
But Senator, you may detect,
I am not too dumb at all

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests