Theoretical marijuana transfer, question??? Any lawyers in the house?
- Thread starter Tophead
- Start date
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
so you want to see thousand's of gardens worth of meds in my family's face, but other than that the only response I can have to this is 'huh???'
Dr. Bob
NEEDMMASAP
Well-Known Member
I like that , The Man can have the money , I just want the MM and the truth is that before my wife got cancer and before I started getting sick and in pain all the time I would have cared less about MM , but I never knew the truth about MM until my world started to fall apart and then I find out most of the shit the Man was telling me was a lie , it sucks to find out the truth so late in life . I was even to stupid to see that pain meds were going to make things far worse instead of better .
Dr. Bob
Well-Known Member
I prefer this over narcotics for that reason. I too was taught marijuana wasn't medicine. Took a long time to realize that wasn't the case, had to listen to many patients and have an open mind.
Dr. Bob
NEEDMMASAP
Well-Known Member
This may sound crazy but I think if there were MM growers back in JC's time , JC and the boys would have all been part of it and if there was a RIU in those days JC and the boys would have been posting just like the posters are doing today . Then again I just took the pain meds awhile ago so who knows . I like your advice
djwimbo
Well-Known Member
Depending on the literature you read, or can find, JC smoked the ganja.
NEEDMMASAP
Well-Known Member
His Dad told him it was for food but I would think smoking it would be fine to , did you ever notice how many times God said he loved the smoke ( I am being serious )
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
I have a news flash for you Dr. Bob, most Americans cannot afford to pay $300 an hour so they do not. If I could afford to hire two lawyers and get two separate opinions at $600 per hour, who's the fool? How does one decide which is more confident than correct and which actually "know what they are talking about"? How did the justice one receives in this country become directly related to what one can afford? We have the worlds leading population of lawyers and incarceration, does one beget the other?!?
[video=youtube;Bebw9dIFU4c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bebw9dIFU4c[/video]
... a 10k retainer guarantees NOTHING more than an outrageous one percenter income NOT your freedom and/or justice.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
It guarantees you (in theory) that a person who knows the law is representing you. Unless you have nothing else to apply your time towards, a specialist in a field is always going to have an edge in regards to knowledge in that field. There's a reason custom shops, legal firms, marketing consultants, etc. exist; it's because you're paying for a specialist. I'll tell you something I've learned from most of the six-figure income people I have met: You get what you pay for when it comes to technical specialists. There's a reason O.J. hired Johhnie Cochran and didn't represent himself instead. In a free market; the criminal defense lawyer charging a 20k retainer had better be significantly better than a 1k retainer lawyer, otherwise the 20k retainer lawyer would run out of business quickly.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
So freedom and justice are for sale in this country and the freedom and justice one receives is directly proportionate to what one takes from society? If we are to be a just country ruled by laws there MUST be equality under said law, hence the Bill of Rights and Constitution written intentionally in simplicity. Is there any question as to our forefathers expectation of the people understanding the laws in which rule their lives themselves? If the only citizens that can now understand these laws as manufactured by this industry, must be a trade in this same industry and demand a minimum wage 41 times that of every other American we have a problem IMO. Today 1 in 300 Americans are now lawyers, is this sustainable in a civil society?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
If you were facing the death penalty; would you rather have a court-appointed public defender, or a private attorney you pay for (Assuming you have the income to swing either.)? Given the fact that the 6th amendment guarantees you a right to an attorney: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.". I would say that strongly implies that they didn't expect everyone to be up to date on all laws. While we may have a shortage of lawyers, it does not mean that we were all meant to act as our own attorney. (The bold was only meant to apply to the quote for emphasis, but it won't turn off: so you know.)
FIGUinUSA
Member
You know it doesn't make sense they allow so much suffering in the world. How do they allow it. It is all our responsibility. They/we supress technology that could solve basically all our problems except violence amongst each other. How are their still brothels and crack houses?? It is mind control from the secret government in any way involving drug sales, and people sales also. It is absurd human trafficking is still occurring today. We know where everyone is on earth and what they are thinking RIGHT NOW. The laws are obviously moving towards more responsibility and cheaper pot, eventually legal. People have to be responsible enough to handle that tho. How much that is going on right now is alot to bare to some people. It just takes time. When you realize the truth you need nothing but it. Billy Meier's spirit teachings are it. Did you scratch just now? How far of an angle was it at and in what direction. This is all mind control to see how you will approach future circumstances and situations. I believe we are ready for recreational pot. In Colorado you can go buy an oz at a dispensary if your over 21. Its a plant. It should be gifted freely amongst friends and if someone can't grow themselves then an understandable price can be reached. You shouldn't even give bad pot away and there is no price for a good friendship or good pot. Point being we need to accept responsibility and stop overpopulating the planet. There is room for 529 million people to have 18 tillable hectares. There is currently over 8 billion people on earth. If pot were legal today the population would obviously grow. We have all been told since we were mature enough we are under complete mind observance and attempted control. If there were no lies and stress their would be no cancer or tumors and people wouldn't even need pot. What part of peace would you ever want to escape from?? In reality we are just fresh off the boat and we all need to see that we are responsible. The DEA protects all the drug kingpins and czars, people. They don't care about you helping other people with pot. IT CURES CANCER. If they watch a rich and wealthy drug czar molest numerous children daily and live in near-death drug unduced comatose , do you REALLLLY think they give a FLYING SHIT about how much pot you grow?? This is reality and we live on a ball floating in space. Eventually all the actions come back around. And we all die. Everyone of us. There will never be a technology that stops that as it is a transition into the purely spiritual aspects of creation. They are ending their madness since they were under mind control from scientists from Atlantis until 1980. That is why things are and still are messed up. It just takes we as human in this moment clearing up all the hate from our ancestors and the fraternal organizations to be able to dissolve all the negativity. We are in the process now. All we can do is work towards a peaceful transition into the future completely free of human suffering. We need to reach peace amongst ourselves. Neutral postivity cures all cancer and unnecessary pains. It is a transition into the future and we are all present. Use the spiritual part of your mind and you will see we are now free from real tyranny. It is just a matter of time until pot is legal, let alone till we don't even need it. It is recommended ,in the spirit teachings, to wait 18 months of complete soberity before having children. Zero harmful substances. It will be most beneficial to the future generations, as anything I'll, including negative thinkingand all chemical substances effect our DNA , and our offspring. The future , our children , need the spirit teachings brought from a galaxy far away thanks to Billy Meier. If you have kids please don't let them ever watch tv. It is artificial intelligence in a supercomputer slowing us down. Propaganda machine is all. theyfly.com and billyforkids.info are great sites for younger folks.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure I get your point here. If the gov't drags me into court the 5th Amendment would not make much sense without the 6th Amendment you chose to quote here brother. Today the "Assistance of Council" has become a racket and cancer within our society IMO. Just look the the America Civil Liberties Union. How has this group went from championing equal rights for women and minorities under the law at their founding to defending MBLA (Man Boy Love Association) raping our children today? Does it depend on the what the definition of "is" is? This absurdity has an end point in reality I'm sure
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
The 5th amendment primarily deals with how your case may be pursued against you; whereas, the 6th deals primarily with your particular rights in court. The 5th deals with things such as self incrimination and double jeopardy (The prosecution.); while the 6th guarantees your rights in court as the defendant. The fact that some lawyers represent the mbla does not change the fact that our constitution was written with a guarantee for the average man to have someone who specializes in the law on his/her side. You may feel as you wish about our current legal counsel as a whole; it does not change my right to one of them in my defense. To be fair though, you are misrepresenting the ACLU in regards to their defense of the mbla; they didn't defend their (mbla's) right to have sex with children, they defended their right to talk about it. No matter how much a bunch of people talking about having sex with boys disgusts you (Or me, for that matter); it is still their right to talk about it under the 1st amendment. The way the ACLU prevents encroachment of the liberties that are popular, is by stopping them from taking away the ones that aren't popular.I'm not sure I get your point here. If the gov't drags me into court the 5th Amendment would not make much sense without the 6th Amendment you chose to quote here brother. Today the "Assistance of Council" has become a racket and cancer within our society IMO. Just look the the America Civil Liberties Union. How has this group went from championing equal rights for women and minorities under the law at their founding to defending MBLA (Man Boy Love Association) raping our children today? Does it depend on the what the definition of "is" is? This absurdity has an end point in reality I'm sure
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
I'm hearing ya brother, but you are missing my point completely. We live under the rule of law because we know the outcome of living under rule of man. It was at this time in human history we call "The Enlightenment Era" that our Bill of Rights and Constitution were written and in turn changed the course and history of human rights. If we must now pay man (lawyers) to understand the law that rules us, we become ruled by man, NOT law, once again. Are you picking up what I am putting down here?
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I think I'm following you here, but I also think I'm seeing a fundamental flaw in your chain of logic. Judicial law (As opposed to religious law.) is dictated by man; ergo, if you are ruled by law, you are ruled by man. There is not an intangible second party involved in the makeup of our laws; they are created by men, for men to abide by. If I'm still not getting you, at least we are narrowing it down to the root of your issue.
TheMan13
Well-Known Member
But the problem here is that we the people have now been removed from this fundamental equation. We now have laws created by lawyers, for lawyers to peddle while accumulating undue wealth and power. As if a current general population of 1 in 300 being lawyers is not disturbing enough, check Washington DC and our state capitals. How about the executive offices of every corporation. Do you see any societal ills caused by the grey area this service industry has manufactured and lives off within this country.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
That's the byproduct of having a country's judicial system rooted in common law. When you have a couple hundred years of case law to wade through, things get heavy. Not to mention that we have property laws, contract laws, import laws, family courts, tax laws... the list goes on. For every major legal specialization, there is ridiculous amounts of prior cases to dig through; there's so many complexities to one particular field that it's impractical to specialize in a bunch of unrelated legal matters. From the numbers I can find, according to the BLS, the number of employed lawyers in the US was 728,200. As of the 2010 census, the US pop. was 308,745,538. With a bit of math; I can determine the number of lawyers per 100 people as of 2010 ---> 728,200/308,745,538 = 0.0023585766, and then 0.0023585766*100~0.24 (Rounded to the nearest hundredth.). This means that 0.24% of the population are employed lawyers; so for every 100 folks, there is a little under 1/4 of a lawyer, meaning there would, in fact, be 3/4 of a lawyer for every 300 people. 0.75 of a lawyer per 300 in the general population is a very significant decrease compared to your 1 in 300 that you stated. An instant 25% decrease in currently employed lawyers is not too shabby. While there are many times through our history that laws have been manipulated for personal gain, that is not the direct fault of the lawyer's profession any more than it is the fault of a fast-food cook that you have become fat by eating at McDonalds. While both professions may have facilitated those respective occurrences; the profession itself cannot commit a wrong, only the practitioner of said profession can. The sway of special interest groups is ultimately what it seems like you object to.