Right to travel

[carriew]

Driving is a privledge not a right. he does have access to free travel its called the shoe leather express(walking) or taking public transportation.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Is your dad a Freeman?

Honestly, I am not sure. He tries not to get us involved at all. However, some of the people he contacts are from Toledo, so perhaps it might be someone you know. I'll at least tell him to visit your site.

[Osborn F Enready]

Please do, please do. I hate to see these things happen to good, well intentioned people.

Good luck.

Also, feel free to have him e-mail me here if he wants.

[The Dunedan]

OK, I think I found the problem.

See, my father and I are "those people." Sam Davis, Irwin Schiff, Winston Schroud, etc are all good men with good information. The problem is this:

The Administrative Processes that people like Sam and Erwin discovered DO work. However ( and this is REALLY important ) things have to be done in a VERY specific order, worded in VERY specific ways, and filed with VERY specific offices and officials. Any breakdown in this system invariably results in arrest and conviction for any number of crimes, usually Mail Fraud.

What typically happens to folks like your dad is one of three things;

1: They get so excited over the info that they start filing things, making claims and actions, or disregarding Statues willy-nilly. Things get done out of sequence, paperwork doesn't get filed, and they're screwed. This is what got Irwin Schiff tossed in jail; he went off half-cocked filing a Process and missed a step, essentially.

2: They get their info from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about or doing, or someone who's unscrupulous and just trying to make a buck. This info is sloppily compiled for the sake of sounding good, and is almost 100% gauranteed to be ineffective or fraudulent.

3: They try and extrapolate information on such things as legally not paying the Income Tax ( fairly easy and well-understood ) to something like driving a car without plates or license ( something more esoteric and which they likely don't have any real working information on ) and get snabbled when they have an accident or get stopped at a Gestapo checkpoint. This is especially bad if it's combined with ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) above.


You have to realize that people like Sam and Winston actually -do- drive around without licenses and registration; one of Sam's closer friends hauls around Seattle in a blue Corvette at 120+, BAITING the cops to stop him so that he can rub their faces in his Sovreign status. However, this is as a result of more than a decade of painstaking research and EXTREMELY precise paperwork. Any foulup can still send them to jail in a heartbeat; just ask Irwin Schiff. This is NOT pet project, something to tackle on weekends, or something to be done slapdash and half-assed. The Feds are dead serious about destroying the Patriot Movement, and will quite happily use such things as miswording and absence of correct punctuation to send someone to jail for the rest of their lives.

[Osborn F Enready]

Excellent summation Dunedan. I agree entirely.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: The Dunedan OK, I think I found the problem. See, my father and I are "those people." Sam Davis, Irwin Schiff, Winston Schroud, etc are all good men with good information. The problem is this: The Administrative Processes that people like Sam and Erwin discovered DO work. However ( and this is REALLY important ) things have to be done in a VERY specific order, worded in VERY specific ways, and filed with VERY specific offices and officials. Any breakdown in this system invariably results in arrest and conviction for any number of crimes, usually Mail Fraud. You have to realize that people like Sam and Winston actually -do- drive around without licenses and registration; one of Sam's closer friends hauls around Seattle in a blue Corvette at 120+, BAITING the cops to stop him so that he can rub their faces in his Sovreign status. However, this is as a result of more than a decade of painstaking research and EXTREMELY precise paperwork. Any foulup can still send them to jail in a heartbeat; just ask Irwin Schiff. This is NOT pet project, something to tackle on weekends, or something to be done slapdash and half-assed. The Feds are dead serious about destroying the Patriot Movement, and will quite happily use such things as miswording and absence of correct punctuation to send someone to jail for the rest of their lives.

You've got to be kidding me. PLEASE tell me no one believes these people. The lure of escaping Ben Franklin's two immutable things in life ("Death and Taxes") makes people easy pickings for groups like this. Not paying federal income taxes is a CRIME. Driving around unlicensed, unregistered, and uninsured is a CRIME. These charlatans play on people's dreams to sell books and seminars. They combine a slick presentation and rousing energy, throw in some fed tax buzzwords, and sit back while the money rolls in.
Federal courts do not throw cases out because of miswording and absence of correct punctuation. They throw these cases out because they are nonsense. The FRCP is specifically set up to be generous towards plaintiffs with regards to the form of their court documents.
Check out this website - it would be funny if it weren't so dangerous..
Quatloos! Museum of Financial Scams and Frauds

[Scribbler1]

I found it funny that Irwin Schiff was convicted of tax fraud. The funniest thing was the court was in Las Vegas.

[The Dunedan]

Well then, if it's a crime, why are Sam Davis and such people still out running around? Why are they not in jail, as they would be if they were committing a crime?! People have tried to lock Sam Davis and his associates for years, and no such attempts have succeded. The only reason Irwin Schiff is in jail is because he went off half-cocked and refused to listen to the advice of people who had greater expertise than he did in this given area.

There is no LAW requiring INDIVIDUALS to pay the Income Tax. See IRS vs Vernice Kuglin Show me any such law and I'll eat my hat; three Federal prosecutions of Vernice Kuglin have fallen flat on their faces because no such law exists. Kuglin kept her $90,000, and the IRS are lying murderous thieving thugs.

Are you a lawyer, Tivodan?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: The Dunedan Well then, if it's a crime, why are Sam Davis and such people still out running around? Why are they not in jail, as they would be if they were committing a crime?!

I don't know, but the other side of the coin comes to mind. If this is NOT a crime then why is Schiff IN jail? I believe the fact that nothing about this seems black and white enough is the reason the majority of people don't fall in line. It's not as if people LIKE paying taxes.

[Osborn F Enready]

I have to side with Dunedan here Scrib.

The corruption is now in self protection mode, so any argument that is not executed flawlessly will be made a public example of (Schiff), while those that do file correctly and win, are swept under the rug and not acknowledged.

If forced to review the facts, the court won't hear the case, as in the case of the Petititon for National Redresss of Grievance. That case is solid, so the court simply says it "can't make time for the case".

[The Dunedan]

Irwin Schiff is in jail because, basically, he got a bit excited.

I don't know all the details, but you have to understand that -most- of this stuff is not actually enforced, created, or maintained by Law, rather by Statute: the difference being that Law is debated and passed by a Legislature, Statutes are simply created whole-cloth by regulatory agencies. Income Taxes, by way of example, are created and enforced by a series of interlocking Statutes which have to be dealt with in a specific order and by specific offices; get it out of order or skip a step, and the whole process breaks down. Once this happens, a Statute has been broken ( by not paying the taxes in the first place ) and you can be arrested. This sort of thing is basically what happened to Irwin Schiff.

You'll notice that, Tivodan's protests aside, Winston Schroud, Sam Davis, and thousands of other people are still out running around, living their lives, and in many cases being -extremely- public about what they're doing...and they're not in prison. This should tell you something. The only leaders of the Tax Protest movement to go to jail in the last five years are Schiff and Larkin Rose; Schiff for a paperwork error and Rose because he was stupid enough to let cops "search" his computer and "find" some oddly conveniant kiddy-porn. Odd how nobody pictured Rose as a pedophile, the files were all created within 12 hours of each other ( and within 36 hours of the "search" ) and none can be produced in Court. Hmm...

[tivodan1116]

Well then, if it's a crime, why are Sam Davis and such people still out running around? Why are they not in jail, as they would be if they were committing a crime?!

One of two reasons:
1) The government has not caught up to them yet (Ever watch America's Most Wanted? There's no real-life "Dudley Do-Right" - Law enforcement doesn't always "get their man") Your assertion that if someone commits a crime they are automatically in jail is ridiculous on its face.
2) They in fact are not committing a crime because they don't believe their own line of bullshit, and are paying income taxes. Very common in these circles.

The only reason Irwin Schiff is in jail is because he went off half-cocked and refused to listen to the advice of people who had greater expertise than he did in this given area.

Irwin Schiff's made a plea at (his most recent) trial of not guilty by mental disease or defect - basically that he was dellusional and truly believed against common sense that he was not guilty of a crime. Of course, the court did not buy this.

three Federal prosecutions of Vernice Kuglin have fallen flat on their faces because no such law exists. Kuglin kept her $90,000, and the IRS are lying murderous thieving thugs.

The fact that you do not understand the difference between a criminal and civil trial is not surprising.
Vernice Kuglin was acquitted of criminal charges in her tax evasion trial. This does not mean she gets to "keep" the money. In fact, a civil trial is pending right now in her matter, but tax dodger websites, in the interest of selling books, etc, won't tell you that. She was successful in her criminal trial mainly because the jury felt that the fact that she had sent many coorespondances to the IRS asking for clarification on how to pay her taxes meant that she was not deliberately evading them. This means nothing more than a federal prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she INTENDED to defraud the IRS and evade taxes.

There is no LAW requiring INDIVIDUALS to pay the Income Tax. Show me any such law and I'll eat my hat;

26 U.S.C

s 1 - "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of" (goes on to list several type of individuals, basically married, single, etc, and the tax rates on income for each type of person)
Requiring filing a return:
s 6012 - "Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount" (after which it lists a few exceptions for people who are poor)

s 6653 imposes penalties on individuals for "failure to pay tax"

I could go on at great length...
But, before you make any promises regarding eating your hat, you should read Newman v. Schiff. It is a case in which Mr. Schiff went on TV and offered to pay $100,000 to anyone who could prove that individuals were required to pay taxes. Mr. Newman sent a letter doing so and asked for his money. Of course, Schiff did not pay. The court found that Mr. Schiff's offer expired at the end of the television program and so Mr. Newman did not bring his proof in time. However, the court acknowledged that Mr. Newman was correct in his assertions about the various sections of the tax code in a rather biting indictment of Schiff''s assertion (which mirrors yours):

Newman v. Schiff, 778 F.2d 460 (8th Cir. 1985).
D. Mandatory Nature of the Federal Income Tax System.
Schiff's claim that there is nothing in the Internal Revenue Code that requires an individual to file a federal income tax return demands comment. The kindest thing that can be said about Schiff's promotion of this idea is that he is grossly mistaken or a mere pretender to knowledge in income taxation. We have nothing but praise for Mr. Newman's efforts which have helped bring this to light.
Section 6012 of the Internal Revenue Code is entitled "Persons required to make returns of income," and provides that individuals having a gross income in excess of a certain amount "shall" file tax returns for the taxable year. 26 U.S.C. § 6012. Thus, section 6012 requires certain individuals to file tax returns. United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 942, 104 S.Ct. 359, 78 L.Ed.2d 321 (1983).
The district court stated that Schiff's argument is "blatant nonsense." Schiff did not challenge this ruling in his cross-appeal.
III. CONCLUSION.
We affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons discussed above.
Although Newman has not "won" his lawsuit in the traditional sense of recovering a reward that he sought, he has accomplished an important goal in the public interest of unmasking the "blatant nonsense" dispensed by Schiff. For that he deserves great commendation from the public. Perhaps now CBS and other communication media who have given Schiff's mistaken views widespread publicity, see supra, pp. 461-62, will give John Newman equal time in the public interest.

Are you a lawyer, Tivodan?

The best answer is "sort of". I am a law student. I also work in a private nonprofit firm representing poor people in actions with the IRS, banks, landlords, and other financial cases. I have acheived enough coursework and experience to be granted a practice order in these areas (tax, banking, housing) as of May. There is plenty of case law out there that a layperson can read, if you can sort through the BS these "tax protesters" are selling.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: The Dunedan I don't know all the details, but you have to understand that -most- of this stuff is not actually enforced, created, or maintained by Law, rather by Statute: the difference being that Law is debated and passed by a Legislature, Statutes are simply created whole-cloth by regulatory agencies. Income Taxes, by way of example, are created and enforced by a series of interlocking Statutes which have to be dealt with in a specific order and by specific offices; get it out of order or skip a step, and the whole process breaks down. Once this happens, a Statute has been broken ( by not paying the taxes in the first place ) and you can be arrested. This sort of thing is basically what happened to Irwin Schiff.

This is so wrong, wrong, wrong, I don't even know where to begin, but i'll try:
1) Laws and statutes are the same thing. Synonyms. Identical.
2) Items that are created "whole cloth" by regulatory agencies are administrative laws, and are no less binding than Congressional statutes because their authority comes from Congressional statues.
3) Which is, of course, irrelevant, since the Internal Revenue Code is not an administrative law but a statute passed by Congress and placed in the United States Code.

You'll notice that, Tivodan's protests aside, Winston Schroud, Sam Davis, and thousands of other people are still out running around, living their lives, and in many cases being -extremely- public about what they're doing...and they're not in prison. This should tell you something.

It tells me that speeding is legal... On the way to school this morning I drove 73 mph past a state trooper in a 65mph zone. By your logic, that means that speeding is legal because I broke a law and I was not punished for it even though I did it in a very public way right in front of someone who could arrest me for it. Do you see how stupid this logic is?

The only leaders of the Tax Protest movement to go to jail in the last five years are Schiff and Larkin Rose;

Mostly because in the last 5 years the "movement" has gained recognition as the fraud that it is--- there were many who went to jail before that. Besides, if a "movement" only consists of a handful of people, the fact that two went to jail can be huge.

Schiff for a paperwork error

Yes, the MASSIVE paperwork error of not paying income taxes!!!

and Rose because he was stupid enough to let cops "search" his computer and "find" some oddly conveniant kiddy-porn. Odd how nobody pictured Rose as a pedophile, the files were all created within 12 hours of each other ( and within 36 hours of the "search" ) and none can be produced in Court. Hmm...

Well, Rose's porn aside (since I didn't find any support for your outlandish story), every article that I can find about him says that on August 12th, 2005, he was convicted on 5 counts of tax evasion. "Tax evasion", of course, in the "dellusional moron's dictionary", must be defined as "possession of child pornography." On November 23 he was sentenced to 15 months in jail for "tax evasion". For the sake of Rose's dignity, let's hope all the other cons he now lives with don't find out that strange definition of "tax evasion"!!

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I have to side with Dunedan here Scrib. The corruption is now in self protection mode, so any argument that is not executed flawlessly will be made a public example of (Schiff), while those that do file correctly and win, are swept under the rug and not acknowledged. If forced to review the facts, the court won't hear the case, as in the case of the Petititon for National Redresss of Grievance. That case is solid, so the court simply says it "can't make time for the case".

The courts could be aware of what a huge amount of damage the knowledge that people don't need to pay tax could cause.

My opinion of this whole thing is if the anti tax people could get together and hire some PR people and some strong, well-known legal talent they might win some converts. Why is it so difficult to form a sort of anti taxation "ACLU" and go after the government as a group instead of the occasional protester. I would bet real money that 99% of the American people have never heard of HIM or any of the other names mentioned in this thread.

BTW, how much is Schiff selling his book for? I would bet the fact that he makes money from this turns a lot of people off.

[Chris the Chees]

As a relatively new driver, the idea of driving without a licence annoys me. It took me a lot of effort, time and money to get to the standard of driving that I have now and the standard to pass the test. I do not believe that people who cannot pass this test are fit to drive. If they are not fit to drive then they are a danger, if they are a danger then they are putting me and every other road user at risk. Driving is a privilege, not a right, one which can be and is revoked from time to time.

As for driving without insurance, what do I do if you hit me and you can't pay to fix or replace the car? Why should I have to put up with that?

I fully support nearly all road laws and restrictions, driving is dangerous enough with the pillocks you get on the road, no need to make it worse.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The courts could be aware of what a huge amount of damage the knowledge that people don't need to pay tax could cause.

Nonsense. The courts make rulings all the time that could potentially cause a huge amount of "damage". Why would this stop them? See Brown v. Board, Kelo v. New London, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, etc.

My opinion of this whole thing is if the anti tax people could get together and hire some PR people and some strong, well-known legal talent they might win some converts.

The reason they can't do this is because strong, well-known legal talent will tell them that their argument is complete bullshit, they have no case, and will not take their money.

Why is it so difficult to form a sort of anti taxation "ACLU" and go after the government as a group instead of the occasional protester.

Because Civil Liberties are something we have a right to. Not paying income tax is not (under the current structure of government).

I would bet real money that 99% of the American people have never heard of HIM or any of the other names mentioned in this thread.

Be glad that for once the media has mostly seen a fraud for what it is.

BTW, how much is Schiff selling his book for? I would bet the fact that he makes money from this turns a lot of people off.

If by "turns a lot of people off" you mean "confirms that he is a charlatan", I agree.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Nonsense. The courts make rulings all the time that could potentially cause a huge amount of "damage". Why would this stop them? See Brown v. Board, Kelo v. New London, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, etc.

I was referring to the damage a few dozen million people could cause if they suddenly stopped paying taxes. Before ANYTHING happens the government must stop spending the money. THEN we can address the tax situation.

The reason they can't do this is because strong, well-known legal talent will tell them that their argument is complete bullshit, they have no case, and will not take their money.

Spoken like a lawyer. I'll bet Johnnie Cochran would have taken the case if the money was right.


.

[Osborn F Enready]

Lawyers, being REQUIRED, due to complexity of law, DUE TO STRAYING FROM RIGHTS which was brought on by the adoption of the BAR, and the concept that we outlaw all that is illegal, instead of just setting intelligent, reasonable limitiations on rights.

Lawyers are part of the problem. Even those with the truest citizen intents for well being, don't know THEY are part of the problem.

Court cases should be this simple....

"Did ------ violate your rights Mr. --------?"

"Yes indeed sir, he did by doing ------"

"Is that so defendant?"

"Yes(or no)"

"(If no) Do you have proof of the rights violations Mr. ------?"

"Yes I do."

The trial continues, the sides make their case to THE PEOPLE, and the people decide if rights were violated, whether or not BEYOND reasonable doubt, and then decide on punishment or innocence.

Nothing more than common sense.

Stare Decisis is just a tool for crutching up bad arguments for bad decisions.

As long as rights are untouchable by government, and enforced by the same, all will be well.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Lawyers, being REQUIRED, due to complexity of law, DUE TO STRAYING FROM RIGHTS which was brought on by the adoption of the BAR, and the concept that we outlaw all that is illegal, instead of just setting intelligent, reasonable limitiations on rights. Lawyers are part of the problem. Even those with the truest citizen intents for well being, don't know THEY are part of the problem.

Excuse me, but spoken like a true asshole. Do you even have a scintilla of understanding about what lawyers do? Do you know the history of the legal profession? Lawyers have existed for thousands of years. The adoption of the bar predates the existance of the United States for a long, long time. So are you saying the founding fathers had already strayed from rights? Because they wrote basically a clean sheet government.

Court cases should be this simple.... "Did ------ violate your rights Mr. --------?" "Yes indeed sir, he did by doing ------" "Is that so defendant?" "Yes(or no)" "(If no) Do you have proof of the rights violations Mr. ------?" "Yes I do." The trial continues, the sides make their case to THE PEOPLE, and the people decide if rights were violated, whether or not BEYOND reasonable doubt, and then decide on punishment or innocence.

1) This is how a huge percentage of court cases already proceed (since a large percentage of the cases tried annually are in small claims or other forums without lawyers).
2) Notwithstanding the complexity of cases where the evidence requires people with specialized knowledge to understand or even to know of it's existance (DNA for example), what about corporate cases? Often they have nothing to do with a "violation of rights" because corporations do not have any rights. They are still, however, capable of suing one another.
3) The vast majority of legal work has nothing to do with court cases, let alone criminal court cases. In fact, most lawyers are considered failures if they ever see the inside of a courtroom, because transactional work is designed to prevent lawsuits. Contracts are complex because in a contractual situation there are so many things that can go wrong.

Stare Decisis is just a tool for crutching up bad arguments for bad decisions.

If I thought you even knew what you just said I'd ask you to prove it or at least support it in some way.

As long as rights are untouchable by government, and enforced by the same, all will be well.

Many cases have nothing to do with rights created by or having to do with the government. The entire realm of contracts is about law created between two or more private entities and these "laws" can be as diverse as the parties that create them.

I know I sound demeaning, but I take it personally when someone writes off my entire profession as completely unnecessary and self-serving (the only profession, it should be noted, that requires their members to do unpaid work every year to maintain their membership).
To do so shows an incredible lack of understanding about what lawyers (or any profession you would dismiss so easily) actually do.

End rant. back to original topic.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tivo said: Do you even have a scintilla of understanding about what lawyers do?

I say:
As in like JOB DESCRIPTION? Yes. They take cases, to aid individuals in understanding, and utilizing their rights to the full advantage of the law to aid their client to win their case, regardless of guilt or innocence. They are "supposed" to be the middleman, or "buffer" for the individual in the courts, to assure an individual doesn't incriminate themselves, or break the rules of the court in their presentation and testimony. They also take charge of researching all cases with relevance to the one they are handling, and assemble several arguments and or angles to view the facts and case as is known, to best suit the goals of their client.

Now, what are they REALLY? Well, not all are the same, but out of the hundreds I have seen, talked to, worked for and become friendly with, almost all fit the mold of high priced plea bargain barter boys, except the REALLY good lawyers. Most of those cost more than they are worth, unless of course you are Bill Gates, George Bush, Tom DElay, OJ Simpson. I have gotten some of the worst, heartless definitions of what lawyers are, from lawyers themselves.

IN other words, over-paid (generally, though there are exceptions), over-priced, grease ball hagglers who usually do most of their work before court is in session.

I PHYSICALLY WATCHED an aquaintance BUY themselves out of a accident/injury DUI case, IN COURT.

How? Welllllll, the judge and the lawya go wayyy back. Just a "good time favor" between good old boys.....at least the good old boys who know how to work the system like a 3 penny hooker.

Tivo said: Do you know the history of the legal profession? Lawyers have existed for thousands of years. The adoption of the bar predates the existance of the United States for a long, long time.

I say:
I have seen the history of the U.S. BAR, which is all I care about. Does it matter to me that our BAR association in this nation is supported by corrupt BARS who are aiding constitutonal subversion in other nations? No.

Here is the history of the ABA.

The ABA was founded on August 21, 1878, in Saratoga Springs, New York, by 100 lawyers from 21 states. The legal profession as we know it today barely existed at that time. Lawyers were generally sole practitioners who trained under a system of apprenticeship. There was no national code of ethics; there was no national organization to serve as a forum for discussion of the increasingly intricate issues involved in legal practice. The original ABA constitution, which is still substantially the charter of the Association, defined the purpose of the ABA as being for "the advancement of the science of jurisprudence, the promotion of the administration of justice and a uniformity of legislation throughout the country...." Today, the stated mission of the American Bar Association is "to be the national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect for the law."

Tivo said: So are you saying the founding fathers had already strayed from rights? Because they wrote basically a clean sheet government.

I say:
NO, I am saying that the BAR lawyers are taught that the modern interpretations of the Constitution are valid, legal and ACCEPTED as law. Notice the last sentence in the quote above......

Today, the stated mission of the American Bar Association is "to be the
national representative of the legal profession, serving the public and
the profession by promoting justice, professional excellence and respect
for the law."

It says respect for the law, which is quite vague. I don't have respect for all law, nor should anyone.
I have respect for the only law of this nation that is supreme to all law, which is the Constitution of the United States.

Perhaps we should get some interpreters on that?

Tivo said: 2) Notwithstanding the complexity of cases where the evidence requires people with specialized knowledge to understand or even to know of it's existance (DNA for example), what about corporate cases? Often they have nothing to do with a "violation of rights" because corporations do not have any rights. They are still, however, capable of suing one another.

I say:
And what about the changes in law with regards to corporations? IT is funny that you say corporations have NO rights. Patently funny. Can I quote you at a later date on this?

Can you tell me the difference between the "incorporation" of a company, or the "incorporation" of a city?

Why is a corporate owner, EVEN AN LLC owner, able to obtain a full-auto weapons license with less restrictions than a private citizen, with the main hold-out being the money for the license? According to all police, and lawyers that I have talked to, they say it automatically passes the "necessity" clause, so only fees and basic background checks are required.

Tivo said: 3) The vast majority of legal work has nothing to do with court cases, let alone criminal court cases. In fact, most lawyers are considered failures if they ever see the inside of a courtroom, because transactional work is designed to prevent lawsuits. Contracts are complex because in a contractual situation there are so many things that can go wrong.

I say:
Only because the BAR has helped the nation swing away from actual jury trial, due to the fact they already ignore the BASIC CONTRACT THAT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. So yea, I bet contract cases can be really really sticky.

Tivo said: If I thought you even knew what you just said I'd ask you to prove it or at least support it in some way.

I say:
You are being droll, right? I asked YOU what YOUR definition of Stare Decisis was, remember?

Shall I elaborate?
STARE DECISIS - Latin. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

So, a bad judge makes a bad precedent, that is not challenged or overturned. What happens?
Who bears the burden of being faced with that overturning? Now imagine, or I should say observe instead of imagine, 156 years of corrupt judges filtering into the courts gradually.

In the begginning of the nation, while the forefathers were still alive, law was observed and carried out.
AS time passed by, corrupt, or shall I say "partisan" judges were appointed in year after year.
This trend continued up until what we have now. Not only a majority held Congress, AND Senate, but also a majority held judicial branch, Attourney General, and EXECUTIVE branch, who also happens to have Kings proclamation powers, thanks to the Unconstitutional Executive Order.

Where please, is a check, or a balance. The only CHECK I see is public perception and information, which is lacking. The only balance I see is the rifles on my wall.

What do citizens do when all courts, including the HIGHEST court, refuse to address national petitions for redress of grievance, REPEATEDLY? While at the same time, I can show you where each and every single unalienable (is that word open to interpretation to?) right that is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is violated at several levels in STANDING laws?

OH my.... it seems they have forgotten their fudge, or the interpretation of fudge, that is.

Tivo said: I know I sound demeaning, but I take it personally when someone writes off my entire profession as completely unnecessary and self-serving

I say:
Dude, as a past Limo driver, window cleaner, gas station attendant, engine rebuilder, machinist, Contact Printer, etc. etc. etc. .... I feel your pain. We aren't accused of being self serving, we are accused of being not serving enough, ineffectual, overpaid and occasionally thanked.

Funny how those windows are "not important enough to move their own shit off their desk so I can clean their windows", but when I am dangling from a rope 21 stories above the ground, and I miss one window, well there is HELL TO PAY.

Welcome