so what you are saying is...

New Message Alert

Author: OP Date: 4/7/2021 10:52:35 AM +3/-0 Show Orig. Msg (this window) Or In New Window

An attorney interpreting the law is useless. A team of attorneys interpretating the law is still useless.

A case taken before a judge depends on the judge's interpretation of the law, therefore you are bound to the decision of judges with political agendas?

Rulr of law is a misnomor.

i.e. 2 plus 2 is not necessarily 4 ....could be 2 tacos and 2 apples, therefore 1 taco salad?

Reply Return-To-Index Display Full Msg Thread Rules of Engagement Terms of Use

If, as stated below "attorneys know what law says" (NT) +4/-0 Why do two always argue case? 4/7/2021 8:05:11 AM

If, as stated below "attorneys know what law says" +7/-0 They 4/7/2021 9:40:33 AM

so what you are saying is... +3/-0 OP 4/7/2021 10:52:35 AM

so what you are saying is... +1/-1 Guardhouse Lawyer 4/7/2021 1:25:20 PM

so what you are saying is... +0/-0 oldNtired 4/7/2021 1:51:25 PM

"contracts definitive"? Depends on what your (NT) +0/-0 definition of is, is. 4/7/2021 2:25:13 PM

so what you are saying is... +0/-1 Guardhouse Lawyer 4/8/2021 7:45:52 PM

so what you are saying is... +0/-0 Aren’t worth the paper 4/8/2021 11:42:43 PM

If, as stated below "attorneys know what law says" +1/-0 AKA 4/7/2021 8:48:47 PM

And why do half lose lawsuits? (NT) +0/-0 Anonymous 4/7/2021 2:44:33 PM

And why do half lose lawsuits? +0/-0 Uh, because ... 4/7/2021 2:52:49 PM

But, aren't both attorneys (who are experts at knowing the law)? (NT) +0/-0 Anonymous 4/8/2021 11:03:10 AM

But, aren't both attorneys (who are experts at knowing the law)? +1/-0 oldNtired 4/9/2021 12:14:37 AM

But, aren't both attorneys (who are experts at knowing the law)? +1/-0 philofthenorth 4/9/2021 12:37:22 AM