Greetings!! Is this your first visit? If so, please consider registering. It enables downloads and removal of adverts. Use the 'facebook connect' for quick access.
+ Have your say...
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Legalese

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Feb 2006

    Chapter 3: Legalese

    I'm going to discuss the English version of Legalese. Every nation on the planet will have its own version. (For reasons which, I hope, will become obvious). The same discussion and comments will apply. Because there is no other way.

    Legalese is the language of Statutes. It is assumed that Statutes are 'the Law'. They are not, as you will see if you keep reading. Statutes are discussed within their own Chapter.

    For now, I simply want to confine the discussion to Legalese itself. To show that it is an illusion. Another arm of the Grand Deception.

    There is an old Roman Law maxim that states: "Let he who will be deceived, be deceived".

    That is so, so true.

    What, exactly, is Legalese? Well, first of all it is a language. It looks like English (in the British Isles), but it is no more 'English' than is any Foreign Language. French, for example. Or German. Or Croatian.

    It is written by those who draw up Bills for Parliament (and Congress). It is assessed by Committees. It is voted on by Members of Parliament (or Congress). If agreed it becomes an Act of Parliament (or Congress). It becomes so-called 'law' when it receives the Royal (or Presidential) Assent.

    At that point it becomes a Statute. A Statute written in Legalese. A Statute written in a Foreign Language.

    Now, you may be forgiven for asking: "How can I be expected to obey a rule written in a Foreign Language? How can I even be expected to understand what I am supposed to obey as an upright, law-abiding, citizen?"

    I, personally, would forgive you for asking that. Those who won't, are Members of your Government, the Judiciary - in terms of Judges, Clerks, Solicitors, Lawyers, Barristers, and Policemen. And the vast majority of your fellow Countrymen, quite probably including your own family & friends. And also including the Media.

    But I would forgive you, because you would be exactly right. And so, I think, would any other sane, rational, honest, honourable and decent Human Being. Really anyone still capable of using even just a grain of Common Sense.

    Apart from being a Foreign Language (I'll explain why), it also comprises a number of fictions. As we all know 'fiction' is not the truth. 'Fiction' is not the reality (I'll explain this, as well)

    Legalese is a Foreign Language because it re-defines or expands the meanings of certain words. English words. It does this for its own convenience (not yours, that's for sure!). One good example (I'll give you a better example in a minute) is the word 'understand'. Legalese expands this to mean 'stand under' - specifically (as we will see): "Stand under, i.e. consent to, Legalese". So what does this mean? It means that if a Policeman, or anyone in a Court, asks you: "Do you understand?", and you say: "Yes", then you are agreeing to consent to the application of Statutes drafted in a Foreign Language. (Legalese is nothing if not thoroughly incestuous!).

    Here's the real dooley: In Legalese the word 'person' is re-defined by expansion. The word 'person' still means what you and I would expect it to mean viz: a Human Being; But in Legalese it is expanded to mean: '... any grouping of people, any Partnership, any Company/Corporation'.

    (I think those who drafted this standard for their own convenience, were assuming that they could move a word defining a singular, into a plural … taking their cue from the fact that some English words are like that. 'Sheep' and 'fish' are obvious examples. However, I'm only guessing, and why they thought they could get away with it doesn't matter anyway).

    The idea was, of course, to give Corporations, Companies & Societies the same or similar 'rights & duties' as a Human Being. An utterly stupid idea, as I hope you will appreciate, by the time you have read and fully-comprehended this book.

    So, let's use some Common Sense to look into the sanity of expanding the definition of the word 'person'.

    A Human Being has a head within which there is a brain, within which there is - what we would call - a Mind. And a Human Being is 'aware', is conscious, and has a soul. A Human Being also has eyes, and ears, and limbs. And so on.

    A group of people, taken as a group, has none of these things. The individuals that form the group do (of course), but not the group - of itself i.e. when taken as a ‘legal entity’ in it’s own right. It does not matter how much Legalese would like to grow arms & legs on a group, it cannot happen.

    It is physically impossible.

    A simple example is 'deciding to do something'. A Human Being can work out what to do (using the brain), and do it, using its limbs. A Corporation has to firstly, go through the motions of making a collective decision, and then get/persuade/task a Human Being (e.g. an Authorised Company Representative) to actually do whatever has been decided.

    More specifically, signing a document. A Human Being has limbs with which to grasp a pen, and a brain to control the necessary hand movements, in order to make his or her unique 'mark'. A Company has to fall back on tasking a representative to make a 'mark' … on behalf of the Company.

    When it comes to liability for actions taken, a Human Being can be fairly and squarely placed in the frame. In the case of a Company, buck-passing is the order of the day. Don't expect any Human Being, who is a part of any Company, to own up to anything!

    Consequently, by no stretch, would any sane individual consider a single Human Being to be equivalent to a Group.

    And that's where Legalese starts. It starts with insanity and irrationality … and then steadily gets worse. It layers fiction (calling a Company as 'person') upon fiction. It creates what is known as a Legal Fiction Person from each and every Human Being. It does this in order to be able to fictionally equate a Human Being to a ‘single-individual-partnership-or-CORPORATION’ for ‘legal purposes’.

    This is done so that any adjudication in a Court de facto (what that means is explained later) is One CORPORATION .vs. Another CORPORATION. Very simply because it is perfectly obvious that no adjudication is possible between the reality of a Human being and the fiction of a CORPORATION.

    How can anyone ever adjudicate between a reality & and an illusion? The reality, the Truth, would always win against the fiction, the Untruth, hands down!

    A Chapter in this book is devoted to Legal Fiction Persons.

    It is also interesting to note that there is an excellent video available, called The Corporation. This video not only explains how and why CORPORATIONs all came about, but goes further to compare the actions of any CORPORATION to that of the real Human Being it purports to impersonate.

    The video goes into massive detail in order to explore this concept. And, for that reason, it is highly recommended viewing. And what does it conclude? It concludes that, if a CORPORATION (any CORPORATION) were a real person, it would be a psychopath.

    And, furthermore, the definitions change from time to time. That's why Black's Law Dictionary is now in its 8th Edition (at the time of writing).
    Its 8th Edition of pure fantasy and absurdity.

    You want some more? I’m reliably informed that if you look up ‘Human Being’ the 4th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary, it says: "See ‘monster’". Not so, by the time we get to the 8th Edition, of course. It’s a moving carpet.

    Of course it is perfectly possible to step back and use a bit of Common Sense. The very fact that Law Dictionaries are necessary, gives the biggest hint. In English we already have dictionaries to define our language, in terms of normal parlance. The Oxford English is probably the best known, but there are many others. They do not define the word 'person' as a Corporation.

    Because Legalese is a Foreign Language it needs its own dictionary. If it were not a Foreign Language it would not. Languages always need a dictionary. If we could always rely on Oxford English then we would, would we not? What would be the point of Oxford English otherwise?

    Legalese is an illusion. A fictional world created for the benefit of mind control and enslavement. It is an English look-alike, and no more than that.

    Because it 'looks like English', no-one complains.

    But we should. We should all complain. We should all say: "This is bloody ridiculous! How dare you impose rules to be obeyed when they are written in a Foreign language? Get outta here!" As you will see later, in the Chapter discussing Promises & Contracts, the vast majority of the so-called 'Legal Profession' have not the slightest clue about all this. Which means that if you understand the illusion of Legalese, then you can run rings around them.

    I’ve got an idea! Let’s dump Legalese on the Rubbish Tip of History, and stick to Oxford English, shall we? Then we’d all know where we stood, wouldn’t we?

    I have seen many examples of letters from Solicitors, Lawyers, and so-called 'Legal Scholars', which are a complete mass of double-think. Under careful and critical scrutiny just about anything they write can be shown to be totally contradictory, and thoroughly irrational. The reason for this is because they live in a fictional world, and are always attempting to replace Common Sense with fiction. They achieve little other than disappearing up their own hindquarters.

    The benefit to you is that you can write plain commonsense, and they will not understand! They will not understand because Common Sense does not compute in their fictional, illusory, world.

    Because they do not understand they will resort to ignoring what you said, and reply to the-question-they-wanted-you-to-ask. And they will reply in their own way. (How often do Politicians do that? How about like: "Always"? It's the same old smoke & mirrors). What this means is that they have 'not responded in substance' to the points you made. They could not 'respond in substance' because that would not compute with their illusion.

    Since they have 'not responded in substance', they have dishonoured, and you have not. In Law: "He who dishonours, loses".

    Generally speaking, when it comes down to brass tacks, we have found that - for all their huffing & puffing - they never actually go to Court. Primarily (we think) this is because - at the end of the day - they know, deep down, that your Common Sense trumps their Legalese. Hands down.

    One of the biggest questions to arise is: "What’s the difference between ‘legal’ and ‘lawful’?" Well here is one big clue. 'Legal' refers to the illusory world of Legalese.

    'Lawful' means truly bound by Law (long established customs & traditions), in the real, Common Sense, world. The Law established over centuries, by consent (Consensus facit legem in Latin – Consent makes Law in English). There is much more about this later.

    "Let he who will be deceived, be deceived". Don't be deceived.
    Blacks' Law 1-8 Complete Library
    4shared - Law Dictionaries - shared folder - free file sharing and storage
    Last edited by Celtic Druid; 12th-March-2011 at 10:53 PM.
    The wicked flee when none pursueth. Proverbs 28:1

    'Rise like Lions after slumber In unvanquishable number - Shake your chains to earth like dew Which in sleep had fallen on you - Ye are many - they are few.'

    Percy Bysshe Shelley

    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
    Thomas Jefferson

    The internet has been a lifeboat for men's opposition to the floodings of feminism.
    Celtic Druid

  2. #2
    omegaflux's Avatar
    omegaflux is offline Established Member
    Member Since
    Sep 2009

    Re: Legalese

    Legalese is a Foreign Language because it re-defines or expands the meanings of certain words. English words. It does this for its own convenience (not yours, that's for sure!). One good example (I'll give you a better example in a minute) is the word 'understand'. Legalese expands this to mean 'stand under' - specifically (as we will see): "Stand under, i.e. consent to, Legalese". So what does this mean? It means that if a Policeman, or anyone in a Court, asks you: "Do you understand?", and you say: "Yes", then you are agreeing to consent to the application of Statutes drafted in a Foreign Language. (Legalese is nothing if not thoroughly incestuous!).
    That reminds me of something I learned about called 'standing mute.' Apparently, it has different consequences on out respective sides of the pond.

    MUTE, STANDING MUTE When a prisoner upon his arraignment totally refuses to answer, insists upon mere frivolous pretences, or refuses to put himself upon the country, after pleading not guilty, he is said to stand mute.In the case of the United States v. Hare, et al., Circuit Court, Maryland Dist. May 1818, the prisoner standing mute was considered as if he had pleaded not guilty.The act of congress of March 3, 1825, has since provided as follows; That if any person, upon his or her arraignment upon any indictment before any court of the United States for any offence, not capital, shall stand mute, or will not answer or plead to such indictment, the court shall, notwithstanding, proceed to the trial of the person, so standing mute, or refusing to answer or pleas, as if he or she had pleaded not guilty; and upon a verdict being returned by the jury, may proceed to render judgment accordingly. A similar provision is to be found in the laws of Pennsylvania.The barbarous punishment of peine forte et dure which till lately disgraced the criminal code of England, was never known in the United States.When a prisoner stands mute, the laws of England arrive at the forced conclusion that he is guilty, and punish him accordingly. By the old French law, when a person accused was mute, or stood mute, it was the duty of the judge to appoint him a curator, whose duty it was to defend him, in the best manner he could; and for this purpose, he was allowed to communicate with him privately.
    Now, I'm no lawyer, but I found the implications about what this site said about standing mute quite interesting. Even though that only speaks to the law in Michigan, I will continue as if it was standard US law (which it may or may not be).
    "Mute" plea: In Michigan, you may "stand mute" instead of making a plea. The court will then enter a plea of not guilty. By standing mute, you avoid silently admitting to the correctness of the proceedings against you until that point. You are then free to attack all previous proceedings that may have been irregular.
    This is what reminded me of the consent you spoke of. It appears that by even answering not guilty when asked for your plea means you acknowledge the authority of the court and their proceedings. By answering not guilty, one is essentially consenting to the authority of the court and their proceedings. It seems as though standing mute is the proper way to show that you are in court under duress and do not agree to either the law and/or the court's authority and the previous proceedings.

    Your post was about the English system, but I just wanted to point out that parallel (if it can be called that) I saw.

  3. #3
    Marx's Avatar
    Marx is offline Administrator
    Member Since
    Nov 2005
    My Blog Entries:

    Re: Legalese

    So... I am now a transformer.

    One moment I am a monster, the next a moving carpet. I shall call myself, mobile-monster-rug!
    The most offensive thing you can do to a feminist is treat her with FULL equality.
    --Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.--

    Antimisandry now offers it's members personal sub-forums
    (click here to register yours)

    ►A Decade of Investment in YOUR Future. ►


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Donate to AntiMisandry

Donate to AntiMisandry

1e2 Forum