[Waychel]

Addressing the first point of your right-wing drivel:

Lawyers have subsequently taken every measure to obfuscate the law, creating a whole new language, which although it sounds, superficially, like english, the definitions of words may differ tremendously.

In order to be precise, words are frequently defined for particular purposes. Concrete is concrete, but seven bag concrete is stronger than four bag concrete. The word "income" can have many definitions. Restricting it to exclude wages would be as much of a perversion of the common sense meaning as anything.

They have created non-laws outside the scope of the Constitution, and often enforced with more vigor and stiffer penalties than legitimate law.

The law is written by elected legislative bodies or by propositions (such as Proposition 13) which are first approved by the voters. There is no requirement that elected officials be lawyers and many are not lawyers.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" law. If the law is unconstitutional, it can be declared void by the courts. Exactly what unconstitutional laws are you referring to? Those that you don't particularly like or that may cost you money?

They have even conspired to change laws by changing existing legal definitions, without legislation. For this reason, old editions of Black's Law Dictionary from prior to 1930, have become extremely valuable.

Definitions in Black's Law Dictionary from 1930 are hopelessly antiquated and of little practical use. Since the 1930's, nearly every field of activity has undergone radical changes. For example, there were no government welfare programs such as social security, Medicare, un-employment insurance before the Roosevelt administration. There was no federal reserve system and government regulation of the economy was completely non-existent. That is the chaos that brought the Great Depression.

Words like "income", which previously excluded wages ("compensation") now include wages, thereby expanding the scope of tax codes without benefit of legislation.

Why do you think that wages are not income?

We are left with a real dilemma. Because the Bar Association has established a total monopoly over the interpretation and manner of practice of law, they can, as an organization, commit any crimes, perpetuate any scams, upon the american public with total impunity. They need only put a plausible face on it. If anyone sees through it, they are impotent to act, as all avenues of redress and correction are sealed or removed. Is this not high treason against the people and Constitution of the United States? Can It possibly be anything but?

If that is the case, why is it that so many lawyers are disbarred and sent to jail every year? How come malpractice insurance is prohibitibly expensive? Why is it malpractice insurance even necessary, if what you say is true? What would be treasonous is to have two sets of laws: those that you approve of, and all the others.

The fundamental point that you've overlooked is that the court system works on an adversary basis. Each side has it's own lawyers. Very few lawyers are in court representing themselves or even as parties to any kind of litigation. If each side has it's own attorney, how is it that ANYONE has a monopoly on the interpretation of law or control over the outcome of litigation. The fundamental point about legal interpretation is that decisions are published and control subsequent litigation. Once you have written down an interpretation of the law you can't change it by whim. The influence of the courts depends on the quality of the legal analysis that supports a particular decision. If a decision is illogical, grossly unfair or based on prejudice, that fact is glaringly apparent.