This post (all typos and such in original) was made in my “Tao of Law” legal discussion group on Fecalbook (not a typo):
“About the Law called Right to travel where it’s saying on here you do not have to have drivers license and tags insurance and registration.Well ive talked to five attorneys this week and they laughed about that.With that being said why do everybody have license and tags on there cars if it was easy to get dismissed in a court.My guess is you can’t get it dismissed in court.Can anybody enlighten me on how I can beat it?? Thanks”
My Response went thusly…
“Let me try to understand your logic:
You asked a series of known habitual liars about an area and matter of law from which they stand to hugely profit under the status quo, about a non-legal solution to that same issue that would serve to deprive them of that profit, and you expected the answers you got to be truthful and correct by being in actual compliance with the actual law, as well as respectful of the constitutionally protected rights of the individual and generally in the best interest of the public?
Have you actually LIVED on Earth long? lol
Your post reminds me of the old riddle of the fork in the road;
You stand at a fork in the road. Next to each of the two forks, there stands a guard. You know only the following things in order to choose the correct path and continue forward, as you cannot go back the way you came:
1) one path leads to Paradise, the other leads to Death;
2) you cannot distinguish any references or differences between the two paths to help you choose;
3) you also know that one of the two guards (“TRUTH”) always tells the truth and the other guard (“LIAR”) always lies (guess which one that is in your question…), but you don’t know which is which anymore than you know the correct path at this point;
4) you are allowed to ask only one of the guards one question to try and discover which path leads to Paradise;
5) once you choose and start down whichever path, there is no turning back or changing your mind.
So, the riddle is “what is the one question you can ask either of the two guards in order to properly apply the answer and guarantee that you choose the correct path to Paradise?”
Answer: The correct question AND application of the answer is:
Question: Ask either guard “What path will the other guard say is the path to Paradise?”
Application of answer: Take the OPPOSITE path from that which the guard pointed to.
Now, IF TRUTH ALWAYS tells the truth, and LIAR ALWAYS lies, then the logic is:
If you asked TRUTH which path LIAR will say is the path to Paradise, then TRUTH will point to the path to Death, because TRUTH is telling the truth about what LIAR will say.
If you asked LIAR which path TRUTH will say is the path to Paradise, then LIAR will point to the path to Death, because LIAR is lying about what TRUTH will say.
Therefore, no matter WHICH guard you ask the question to, you ALWAYS take the opposite path from the one that is pointed to. This also illustrates the point of asking the question the CORRECT way, as you can quickly learn by simply changing the question from asking one of the guards about the road to Paradise to asking instead about the road to Death and then doing the same analysis.
The moral of the story is, generally speaking, attorneys are notorious liars and thieves that control our society with their own private criminal cabal utilizing a system of legalized slavery and theft through regulatory codes that are wholly unconstitutional when applied to the People in their private lives and activities, and, who are, in my humble opinion, totally worthless and a ruinous festering rot upon a truly civilized and moral society. They do this by utilizing knowing and willful misrepresentations of not only the law, but also of legal facts, evidence, and general principles relating to individual rights, truth, and moral and ethical justice.
The rule of law is nonexistent wherever and whenever it may by twisted and perverted by attorneys more interested in a victory or a fee more than in right, wrong, and justice.
And even though I would not expect an attorney to theoretically have enough moral substance and actual guts to even physically slow down or stop a bullet, I am sure that there would be many who would be more than willing to stack them ten deep and conduct such experiments with a variety of weapons and calibers to determine the validity of that theory for as long as is necessary to fully exhaust the supply of attorneys required to conduct such a study and reach a final conclusion.