Ok, that’s fine.
To extend what fairness one can to the legal crackpots: given that criminal cases are overturned on appeal or new trials granted or any other situation where the bang of the judge’s gavel in fact is not the final word due to technicalities that laymen can only vaguely grasp, it isn’t too far fetched to have the notion that some obscure legal maneuver can accomplish almost anything.
Okay, I can accept the idea that sometimes people win cases because of obscure legal arguments. But I can’t understand the idiots who somehow believe that the law is above the law. Like jtgain pointed out, if there was actually some poorly conceived law that actually made collecting taxes illegal, Congress would simply repeal that law and enact a new law.
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
by John Bouvier
Revised Sixth Edition, 1856
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_s.htm
[CENTER]Scroll down to:
SUI JURIS. One who has all the rights to which a freemen is entitled; one who is not under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like.
- To make a valid contract, a person must, in general, be sui juris. Every one of full age is presumed to be sui juris. Story on Ag. p. 10.
also
Sui Juris
[Latin, Of his or her own right.]
Possessing full social and Civil Rights; not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship. Having the capacity to manage one’s own affairs; not under legal disability to act for one’s self.
West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sui+juris[/CENTER]
When looking for legal definitions it is best to use a legal dictionary…opinions are just that, opinions…and I would never give the ADL any creditability.
Damn it all! Bitten by a zombie again! I started reading the thread until a few posts down someone talked about Wesley Snipes currently residing in the pen. Uh oh! My eyes flicked to the date. 2008!
Exit stage right pursued by a zombie.
I’m surprised, though. Once I saw that the thread was a zombie, I figured that the bump was going to be someone protesting that the law really didn’t have any claim on this rapper because he was an iNDEPENDENT hUMAN, or some such. I wasn’t expecting a cite to a real legal dictionary.
In 2009, Max B began serving a 75-year prison sentence for charges of conspiracy to armed robbery, kidnapping, aggravated assault, and murder. He was only briefly out of jail when claiming “non suri juris”.
One that is long out of date.
The last edition I can find for Bouvier’s is 1914 (cite). Black’s Law Dictionary, on the other hand, was last updated in 2009 (cite).
But a recent edition of Black’s is quite expensive unless one consults it at a law library, while an old edition of Bouvier’s is freely available online to anyone who doesn’t want to leave the comfort of home.
No surprises here. When dealing with these kind of people, the legal community has long been aware of their fondness of out-of-date references, including legal dictionaries. For a full takedown of these types, see Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. In regards to obsolete references, see particularly paragraph 335:
Emphasis added. If a court says that your reference is obsolete, it may be time to find a more up-to-date reference.