|
I only need to cite one source to prove my point, and my source is you. You already admitted you have no legal training. Thus, you should immediately stop posting with such absolute certainty about legal matters.
Without a foundation of legal training, you lack the ability to accurately comprehend what you are citing. That's the problem. You don't fully grasp what you are reading, and so you don't know what parts are truly relevant and which parts are most important to the courts. That doesn't mean you can't talk about the issue. But it does mean you need to be a lot less sure of yourself and dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you.
Smart people often pose the greatest risk to themselves when it comes to legal issues. They think "Hey, I'm smart. I can figure this out." and pretty soon after, they're screwed. Do you think you're smart enough to take out your own appendix? No? Well don't think you're smart enough to analyze the law if you aren't trained.
Here is a little hint: you can't walk into a court and use web sites as your basis. You need case law. You need statutes. You need appellate court decisions. You need stuff much headier than the garbage you've been citing.
I have two motives:
The first is to get you stop holding yourself out as a legal expert when you have absolutely no training in legal analysis. Bad legal advice is dangerous. Legal advice from clueless, untrained, laypeople is extremely dangerous and irresponsible.
<moderator edited stuff out>
I agreed with you on substance 5+ years ago. Now I just think you've lost it. You need an intervention, and you really just need to stop.
|