It’s a statement of ideals from the U.N. It has no force of law.
His original quote doesn’t make much sense. The court has the power to quench any possible mention of these losses, but doesn’t have the power to say “nuh uh” in the first place?
I once saw a man dragged from a courtroom shouting at the top of his lungs that he was a sovereign citizen, that the indictment and judgment using all capital letters in spelling his name were shams and actually named a strawman, and that because he did not consent the court had no authority over him. The court disagreed and sentenced him to prison for bank robbery, and law enforcement then took him to prison and put him in a cell to serve his sentence.
None of his arguments worked. They didn’t convince the law enforcement officials who arrested and tried him, they didn’t convince the judge who sentenced him, they didn’t convince any of the judges in the higher courts, and they didn’t convince the law enforcement officials who took him to prison and kept him there. If being a sovereign citizen didn’t work for him, what do you think it’s going to do for you?
Then natural law, or one particular conception of it, exists only because, and only insofar as, it is encoded into public law. That is not a “natural law” that exists independently of what people think or do or decide, like the laws of mathematics.
“Natural rights” are human construct that don’t exist outside of human society. Does the grizzly bear respect your natural rights, or doe she eat you when she is hungry? Does the tornado respect your property rights, or does it blow your house to flinders just because you built it in the wrong place?
There are no such thing as natural rights, unless they are created by human society, and enforced by coercion at the end of a gun. You are already the beneficiary of all the natural rights you are entitled to; and in return, we demand you respect the laws that created those natural rights. If you don’t like those terms, then you may leave our domain and see if nature respects your self-defined rights.
yep - making stuff up is what it amounts to. nothing more to read here.
Look, I’m a lawyer and I’ve heard judges talk, in continuing-legal-education classes, about hearing cases involving “sovereign citizens” and such. The consensus is “they speak some kind of language of their own” and their arguments are not to be taken seriously. But nobody mentioned, and I’ve never heard of, any practice of dismissing the court reporter or keeping the case out of the records or anything when such a party comes before the bench. And if such a thing had happened I would have heard of it – everybody would have, because it’s a story with news value and not something that can be done secretly.
never said i was an expert on the matter, thats not my intention get every one of you to get on my wavelength, but i did invite your input which you egotistical rascals were more than willing to expound upon I thank you for your time
you yourself said it, before the bench. are all matters settled before the bench or is the bench the last resort between parties can resolve?
Don’t insult other posters. That goes for you and for everybody else as well. Mocking an argument is fine, but calling name is not.
come back we miss you
never attacked the messenger
peace and love…ya’ll
Now see, here is where a working knowledge of how to type capital letters into a message board would REALLY come in handy. I had to read that post about five times before I recognized that you weren’t just flinging around anti-Mexican slurs.
Let me assist you with an intelligible version of that:
There you go. Free of charge.
Now, may I be the first to extend to you a hearty Oregonian welcome to the SDMB!
Both civil and criminal cases are often settled before trial, if that’s what you mean; and many private disputes are settled without involving the law or lawyers at all, or settled between lawyers with no suit being filed.
Is that anything like a laurel and hearty handshake?
We cool.
My copy says . . .
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers.
It goes on from there, but that seems like a pretty unobjectionable starting point.
So, you’re saying I have merit?:dubious: