Legalese - a foreign language

[Dreamer screamer]

20 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

You love your non-sequiturs.  Have you got your gold with astrology?

You love your use of non-sequitrs   I see why you use it now.    You are really saying, I quit. 

 

[Grey Area]

6 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Two languages exist.  listen to the judge in the video!!     duality exists.   words have meanings and definitions.  

Diglossia:

Diglossia

In linguistics, diglossia is a situation in which two dialects or languages are used by a single language community.

Why do you need a lawyer or solicitor in the first place if you don't understand their language?

No it’s all English.

6 hours ago, Dreamer screamer said:

The family courts are hired by the councils, this has been proved.    As long as the parents enter the legal jurisdiction, then more fool them.   The family courts just use statutes and acts which are just corporate and on the PERSON!  They consented to it.

You are so ignorant of the actual facts, I wonder how you are able to function in society?

[Dreamer screamer]

43 minutes ago, Grey Area said:

No it’s all English.

You are so ignorant of the actual facts, I wonder how you are able to function in society?

It's NOT!!  PROVE THIS ALL CAPS IS ENGLISH!!!   Lets see the facts!!!

can you read the bit where it states : capitals are often obligatory in legal documents.  So they mix up English with legalese, but it all looks like English, but you can't read and why, simple, it's called dog latin, the language of the illiterate.

Dog Latin or cod Latin is a phrase or jargon that imitates Latin,^[1] often by "translating" English words (or those of other languages) into Latin by conjugating or declining them as if they were Latin words. Dog Latin is usually a humorous device mocking scholarly seriousness. It can also mean a poor-quality attempt at writing genuine Latin

DOG-LATIN Definition & Legal Meaning

Definition & Citations:

The Latin of illiterate persons; Latin words put together on the English grammatical system.

Illiterate PERSONS means you don't know the difference between English and sign-language.   Means you just read SIGNS without thought or knowledge or what they truely mean.

Edited September 16, 2022 by Dreamer screamer

[jmccr8]

On 9/15/2022 at 12:38 PM, Dreamer screamer said:

But you are still in a foreign language, they don't speak English.   The judge and the lawyer are speaking legalese - NOT English.    So where did this foreign language come from and why is it in America, Britain, and Australia?    In fact probably in Europe too.   What foreign language is it???

“they were taken to court for breaking the law”
2.  statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present

So if you are in observation and see a law being broken how do you know they have actually broken the law?  If a car drives through a red light, that doesn't make the Driver a criminal.  Why would I need to speak to a lawyer if I get arrested that is going to speak a foreign language if I have to go to court?  

Everyone is affected by the law, in every country now the police are a strong force.  Philosophy teaches why people break the law, but did they know it was a foreign language being used?

If you argue in a court of law the judge can automatically send you down with a psyche evaluation.    But how can you talk to the judge if you don't speak the lingo???   The judge can simply go "I don't understand him and his arguments for and against, he's crazy."  Because the defendant didn't know he had to speak Legalese when he/she was using English. 

Hi Dreamer

Learning a new language is not really that big of a deal and have read/studied a decade of the criminal code and amendments and wasn’t terribly confused at all so not sure what your problem is. If you don’t want to have someone represent you then buck down and study for yourself so that you can effectively communicate in that circle.

Every trade has it’s own language as well and yet everything moves along as it should.

[Dreamer screamer]

license the persons?

[Dreamer screamer]

6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dreamer

Learning a new language is not really that big of a deal and have read/studied a decade of the criminal code and amendments and wasn’t terribly confused at all so not sure what your problem is. If you don’t want to have someone represent you then buck down and study for yourself so that you can effectively communicate in that circle.

Every trade has it’s own language as well and yet everything moves along as it should.

You my friend have missed the point completely!!

Halsburys Admin law states - All defacto courts are illegal.   Why?    Tell me why if you are so clued up.

[Dreamer screamer]

Found this: The PERSON!

https://creationism.org/BibleUKJV/59Jam02.htm

James in the bible.   Why would 'PERSONS' be in the bible? Why would you being a PERSON mean one commits a sin?

2:9 But if all of you have respect to persons, all of you commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Etymoogy  https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=sin

sin (n.)

Old English synn "moral wrongdoing, injury, mischief, enmity, feud, guilt, crime, offense against God, misdeed," from Proto-Germanic *sundiō "sin" (source also of Old Saxon sundia, Old Frisian sende, Middle Dutch sonde, Dutch zonde, German Sünde "sin, transgression, trespass, offense," extended forms), probably ultimately "it is true," i.e. "the sin is real" (compare Gothic sonjis, Old Norse sannr "true"), from PIE *snt-ya-, a collective form from *es-ont- "becoming," present participle of root *es- "to be."

The semantic development is via notion of "to be truly the one (who is guilty)," as in Old Norse phrase verð sannr at "be found guilty of," and the use of the phrase "it is being" in Hittite confessional formula. The same process probably yielded the Latin word sons (genitive sontis) "guilty, criminal" from present participle of sum, esse "to be, that which is." Some etymologists believe the Germanic word was an early borrowing directly from the Latin genitive. Also see

Why would being a PERSON be an offence against God??   Anyone?

Trangression meaning :

transgression (n.)

late 14c., from Old French transgression "transgression," particularly that relating to Adam and the Fall (12c.), from Late Latin transgressionem (nominative transgressio) "a transgression of the law," in classical Latin, "a going over, a going across," noun of action from transgressus, past participle of transgredi "step across, step over; climb over, pass, go beyond," from trans "across, beyond" (see trans-) + gradi (past participle gressus) "to walk, go" (from PIE root *ghredh- "to walk, go"). Geological sense is from 1882.

 

Reminds me of the indiana film where the cup of christ couldn't go beyond the boundaries of the floor with the symbol on it.   Are there boundaries we were never taught about??????

 

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=adam+and+the+fall

Quote

Adam and the Fall

  "come suddenly to the ground" is from late Old English. Of darkness, night, from c.

So we are in darkness when we transgress into PERSONS??  

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Dreamer screamer said:

You my friend have missed the point completely!!

Halsburys Admin law states - All defacto courts are illegal.   Why?    Tell me why if you are so clued up.

Hi Dreamer

You have a spin on law all the time, personally I don’t have a problem with how laws are written or courts I pay them to do their job

[Dreamer screamer]

8 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dreamer

You have a spin on law all the time, personally I don’t have a problem with how laws are written or courts I pay them to do their job

How laws are written???   Acts and statutes in England are written on PERSON, so you have to contract for the written laws; which are not laws but RULES to apply.

If I went through a red light and the police pull me over for this, how can they deal with this?   An act in a dictionary is -

a person or group that performs a short piece in a show, or the piece that they perform:

So when I get pulled by the police for breaking a rule, what they do is give the PERSON a fine.  Now for that to be enforced that has to be consented to, but why would anyone consent to it when there was no harm loss or injury? 

A contract is a legally binding promise (written or oral) by one party to fulfil an obligation to another party in return for consideration. A basic binding contract must comprise four key elements: offer, acceptance, consideration and intent to create legal relations.

Going through a red light is not a criminal offence, just a broken rule, an act in the highway code. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

promises of fines and forfeitures before conviction are illegal and void;

Our forefathers knew what they were doing years ago.   So no fines can be imposed on anyone if one doesn't want to pay a fine to get out of going to court.   Only in a court and being found guilty can then a fine be imposed. 

The rules from the magna carta 1217

(32) No free-man shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed, of his free tenement, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the land.

Now the police will not take anyone to court because the law courts are only administers in trust law  (long story)   So anyone with a fine imposed have a chance to go to court and have their say, but if there is no injured party, then they won't bother as they know civil cases are nothing more than on PERSON where the human being consents to be PERSON and caught up in the legalese, which is NOT English.   

Seems the police are just an organized criminal racket system, highway robbers working for their boss which goes way back to Rome.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dreamer screamer]

27 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dreamer

You have a spin on law all the time, personally I don’t have a problem with how laws are written or courts I pay them to do their job

You don't pay the judges anything, except when you lose a case, then you pay them.  All those costs are paid twice believe it or not.  Once by you and once by your PERSON.  Ever wondered how much your PERSON is worth?  I checked out my PERSON, I was worth 2 trillion pounds.

[jmccr8]

5 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

You don't pay the judges anything, except when you lose a case, then you pay them.  All those costs are paid twice believe it or not.  Once by you and once by your PERSON.  Ever wondered how much your PERSON is worth?  I checked out my PERSON, I was worth 2 trillion pounds.

Hi Dreamer

My taxes pay for judges prosecutors and cops.

When I got sentenced to 3 months for a half a pound of bud I didn’t pay the judge anything. In fact when I got out he paid me to do some work on his house because I have a reputation for being fair and doing a good job.

[Dreamer screamer]

18 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Dreamer

My taxes pay for judges prosecutors and cops.

When I got sentenced to 3 months for a half a pound of bud I didn’t pay the judge anything. In fact when I got out he paid me to do some work on his house because I have a reputation for being fair and doing a good job.

You're in America, so I am not clued up on your rules.  In England the poll tax riots caused them to rethink a new tax on the people, so it was the council tax which pays for the police.  As there are no rules to pay tax then alot of people refuse to pay.   Now this doesn't stop the police from attending a scene if you are being abused by others.  Under the common law the police are contracted to the queen?????  as constables and to protect subjects no matter what, as the police work for the queen?????  The power sadly has gone to their heads, so we got tyranny which is what is happening in America if you have eyes to see.

The judges get paid, but are you paying them through your taxes???  Can you show a law that says you have to pay your taxes??

That's capitalism for you...

Now the queen is dead, are the police acting out of their contract?  interesting question only for the ones that question life.

[jmccr8]

4 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

You're in America, so I am not clued up on your rules.  In England the poll tax riots caused them to rethink a new tax on the people, so it was the council tax which pays for the police.  As there are no rules to pay tax then alot of people refuse to pay.   Now this doesn't stop the police from attending a scene if you are being abused by others.  Under the common law the police are contracted to the queen?????  as constables and to protect subjects no matter what, as the police work for the queen?????  The power sadly has gone to their heads, so we got tyranny which is what is happening in America if you have eyes to see.

The judges get paid, but are you paying them through your taxes???  Can you show a law that says you have to pay your taxes??

That's capitalism for you...

Now the queen is dead, are the police acting out of their contract?  interesting question only for the ones that question life.

Hi Dreamer

I am Canadian and not American to start with and judges, prosecutors and cops are civil servants that work for one level or another be it federal or provincial or civil from which they are paid from. I am not going to get into a discussion about the legality of taxes they exist like it or not and each individual is free to contest it at their own expense.

I have fought with the government for several decades about a couple of things and if you pay attention you can learn a lot of things about how to deal with them, after fighting with a government lawyer in Ottawa and having successfully stymied his play I thanked him for being my mentor because he had taught me everything I needed to know and used his tactics to lead him where I wanted him.

I did that just because he said if I was smart enough I would have his job, meaning he thought I wasn’t smart enough to and I said you never know maybe I am smart enough and don’t want your job.

[Dreamer screamer]

Quote

I did that just because he said if I was smart enough I would have his job, meaning he thought I wasn’t smart enough to and I said you never know maybe I am smart enough and don’t want your job.

Only criminals do that job.  Learn trust law, this explains the entire legal system.

[jmccr8]

6 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Only criminals do that job.  Learn trust law, this explains the entire legal system.

Hi Dreamer

Not really I know quite a few people in the justice system that are good fair people and would not call them criminal by any means.

I have always known who I am and for me if I were so inclined to be a lawyer I would only involve myself in civil litigation as if it was criminal law I have no interest in helping guilty people go free.

I like building things as it gives my body something to do while I am thinking and being behind a desk was never going to happen.

[Golden Duck]

On 9/16/2022 at 5:57 AM, Dreamer screamer said:

"As you know council, i really don't speak English, we speak another language it's legalese."

This quote doesn't appear genuine.  Where is it from?

[Golden Duck]

On 9/16/2022 at 10:11 PM, Dreamer screamer said:

NOPE!!!       Legalese if you go back to the video where the judge admits legalese is NOT English!!!    What is so difficult about listening to the judge state this? 

Take the ear buds out and listen to what the judge states!!!!  Another language called legalese, It's NOT English!!

Provide the court transcript please.

[Dreamer screamer]

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

This quote doesn't appear genuine.  Where is it from?

Well if you go back to the begining, you will hear it from a judges mouth and mind.    A mind has to be taught what to think before it does what it does in the supposed real world.   What I mean by that is if I created something on paper, what makes that piece of paper real???

[Dreamer screamer]

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Provide the court transcript please.

OF course it didn't happen. The judge never made this comment.  We never heard this because it was never on paper, as the typist would never type this up on to paper.    So we know that legalese is all about what you put onto paper and what you can read as in a court not even a judge can do hearsay.   What comes out of a judges mouth, no point in listening to it then.  

page 666  <  Bit weird.  Chicago manual of styles 17 th edition.    So there is no one to one from written to spoke languages....

So anything in a court room unless written down didn't happen.  

Word :

word noun (ORDER)

an order

 

order noun (INSTRUCTION)

something that someone tells you you must do

 

So only when contracted can anyone tell you what to do.   So do we work for the courts and judges??

 

Do we the people pay for the police to tell use what to do?  

 

sign verb (BODY MOVEMENT)

[ T or I ]

to give an order or information, or make a request, using hand and body movements

 

So why is anyone speaking in a court room when one simply doesn't have to.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by Dreamer screamer

[Dreamer screamer]

4 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Provide the court transcript please.

transcript

noun

uk

an exact written copy of something:

 

But the rules state there is no one to one with what is written down and spoken.  

 

So the judge has so much power where they can have anything written down as fact, or decide not to have anything brought in as fact. 

Reminds me of the ghostbusters 2 scene in the court rooom where the judge states that he belives in none of this rubbish the ghostbusters represents.  

 

 

 

[Golden Duck]

24 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

Well if you go back to the begining, you will hear it from a judges mouth and mind.    A mind has to be taught what to think before it does what it does in the supposed real world.   What I mean by that is if I created something on paper, what makes that piece of paper real???

That is not what the judge said in the video. 

You are hardly one to be giving any sort of worthy linguistic or etymological analysis if you don't know the difference between council and counsel.

[Golden Duck]

14 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

OF course it didn't happen. The judge never made this comment.  We never heard this because it was never on paper, as the typist would never type this up on to paper.    So we know that legalese is all about what you put onto paper and what you can read as in a court not even a judge can do hearsay.   What comes out of a judges mouth, no point in listening to it then.

Context is important.  You've provided a cherry-picked clip and derived nonsense.

[Golden Duck]

4 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

transcript

noun

uk

an exact written copy of something:

 

But the rules state there is no one to one with what is written down and spoken.  

 

So the judge has so much power where they can have anything written down as fact, or decide not to have anything brought in as fact. 

Reminds me of the ghostbusters 2 scene in the court rooom where the judge states that he belives in none of this rubbish the ghostbusters represents.  

 

 

 

I'll admit you are making a good case that gibberish is not English.

[Dreamer screamer]

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That is not what the judge said in the video. 

We've established this, it didn't happen.   We never heard anything coming from the judges mouth.

6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

You are hardly one to be giving any sort of worthy linguistic or etymological analysis if you don't know the difference between council and counsel.

This was never the argument.

True, The word spoken as council and counsel are spoken the same, however, there is clear evidence they

council

all

ecclesiastical

noun

noun: council; plural noun: councils

1. an advisory, deliberative, or administrative body of people formally constituted and meeting regularly.

   Counsel

   A counsel or a counsellor at law is a person who gives advice and deals with various issues, particularly in legal matters. It is a title often used interchangeably with the title of lawyer. The word counsel can also mean advice given outside of the context of the legal profession.

    

   So there is a clear distiction between these words that sound the same but have completely different meaning.     

    

   Must and may.  These two words don't sound the same but in a legal dictionary are synonymous and means the same.

    

    

[Golden Duck]

5 minutes ago, Dreamer screamer said:

We've established this, it didn't happen.   We never heard anything coming from the judges mouth.

This was never the argument.

True, The word spoken as council and counsel are spoken the same, however, there is clear evidence they

council

all

ecclesiastical

noun

noun: council; plural noun: councils

1. an advisory, deliberative, or administrative body of people formally constituted and meeting regularly.

   Counsel

   A counsel or a counsellor at law is a person who gives advice and deals with various issues, particularly in legal matters. It is a title often used interchangeably with the title of lawyer. The word counsel can also mean advice given outside of the context of the legal profession.

    

   So there is a clear distiction between these words that sound the same but have completely different meaning.     

    

   Must and may.  These two words don't sound the same but in a legal dictionary are synonymous and means the same.

    

    

So you can't even quote your own video accurately.  You can't even be trusted to get simple details correct.

No matter how much you spam these forums, you neither understand what, nor why, you are cutting-and-pasting.