Posted by Adask on October 21, 2014 in American Independence Hour, Definitions, Radio
Tags: American Independence Hour, Definitions, reading is guessing
October 21, 2014 at 9:30 PM
Judge: “Do you understand the charges?”
Victim: “Gag me with a spoon yet I groc ye not.”
October 21, 2014 at 10:24 PM
Of all the mysteries of legalism discussed on this blog, this one seems the easiest to solve:
Q: Do you understand the charges against you?
A: I’d be glad to answer that question, judge, but first a bit of clarification is necessary. What do you mean by “understand”?
Asking for a definition is totally legitimate under these conditions. Mostly likely, the judge will say “understand” means “to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend” or similar.
Otherwise, if the definition ends up being something sinister or weird, or if the judge’s reply seems evasive, then you will have reasonable grounds for suspicion.
pop de adam
October 25, 2014 at 1:39 AM
Pink Floyd – Careful With That Axe Eugene
October 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM
Stop looking for solutions. Emphasize your victimhood.
Consider all the reasons to fear and hate.
October 22, 2014 at 6:09 AM
The British understanding of motorcars is that the larger the engine is the faster they will go. An English friend visiting Florida one time with his Scottish wife got stopped for speeding and hauled into court. The previous case (a German tourist with no understanding of English) was just finishing with the judge letting the German off on the same charge because he couldn’t communicate with him. The way my friend tells it his Scottish wife got up and berated the judge suggesting that he was willing to punish them for speaking English while letting the non-English speaker pass. Case dismissed. [Few arguments hold water against a Scottish wife when money is involved]
October 22, 2014 at 8:15 AM
how do the American people define hypocrisy ?
October 22, 2014 at 9:00 AM
Robert Fox….was deported to Occupied Canada….perhaps his treatment
will improve, only the Almighty knows his destiny with Justice
and the IRS
October 27, 2014 at 4:58 AM
Is there any difference from flouting a “law” and “treason”, the results might vary, but the sentiment remains. The “law” must be stoic, solid and unyielding. Every man must be lesser than this law, yet man made this law. We are told laws will not yield though every prosecution is evidence they do. We are constantly warned against taking matters into our own hands, as this would be unjust. Are we not doing this anyhow? A politician might sign any thing, I might sign any thing, who hurts longer for such an indiscretion?
from Bastiats, The Law:
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)