Denver ?Ghost Gun? law

[FoxtArt]

Everyone who reads laws like this and think there are "get out of jail loopholes" fundamentally don't understand the legal system.

IF the Denver DA did want to charge you, you would be successfully prosecuted whether or not your receiver was blank or had "FJB2021" engraved on it.

Laws only provide justification for the courts to attack you (the citizen), they do not, in truth, restrain the courts in any fashion, way, or kind. There's more than 1,000 ways a court can dynamically edit and even rewrite or create legislation and regulation to suit their whims, and it happens every day.

[crays]

There's more than 1,000 ways a court can dynamically edit and even rewrite or create legislation and regulation to suit their whims, and it happens every day.

Just for kicks, and since it's the weekend, how about citing several actual examples of legislation being rewritten or created in the middle of, and due to, litigation procedures, by the court?

Creative interpretation of existing laws/regulations don't count, as per your fairly specific declaration above.



Sent from somewhere

[FoxtArt]

Just for kicks, and since it's the weekend, how about citing several actual examples of legislation being rewritten or created in the middle of, and due to, litigation procedures, by the court?

Creative interpretation of existing laws/regulations don't count, as per your fairly specific declaration above.



Sent from somewhere

It was designed that way. Judges go so far as to rewrite not just legislation, but the constitution itself.

Example:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/134/1/
PS: You might have to read the plaintext eleventh amendment as I'm not going out of my way to explain this.

Now you might say "that's SCOTUS" but have to understand, any judge can "interpret" the law at any stage, jurisdiction, or level. The lower and local shit is never published but just as binding against the parties. Case law is a myriad mess of contradictory garbage that lets a judge pick and choose whatever they agree with to justify any decision they want to make. A ton of opinions are published on "congressional intent" as well on state and federal levels, or basically, a law does not have to be clearly written at all, they can justify any opinion on the premise that it was congresses intent to have it that way even if the law doesn't say so, or even if it contradicts the plaintext. The cited case above takes it to the extreme where judges covertly rewrote the US constitution itself (and that change still stands to this day)

Say for instance, a bankruptcy trustee is in cahoots with an IRS agent and wants to force the sale of someones home and undercut their homestead exemption, leaving them homeless and cashless.

A judge could cite in re Bird to strongly condemn it: Jubber v. Bird (In re Bird), 577 B.R. 365 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2017)
Or they could cite to Pettigrew v. Consultants United, Inc. (In re SpecialCare, Inc.), 209 B.R. 13 (Bankr N.D. GA.1997) and In re Gill, 574 B.R. 709, 716 (9th Cir. BAP 2017) to condone the practice.

For these reasons, when you walk into a courtroom, NOTHING is predictable. No case is 100% foolproof. If the judge is not indifferent and favors a result, they'll damn well make sure it happens.

Now, insofar as you want me to make you a detailed thesis and a list, I am paid by the hour. You want me to do free work for you before Christmas, to satisfy your uneducated inferences? LOL. There are millions upon millions of these contradictions, still each one requires reading dozens upon dozens of pages of case law.

If this was not true, opposing attorneys would be unable to argue contrary points and attorneys would guarantee your result. Go ahead, find an attorney that promises you an outcome.

ETA: Judges in all courts write legal opinions, ad hoc, in total, hundreds every day, most of them wholly ignorant of what the standing law even is. If you go through all the costs of appealing at the end, the judge has zero consequence even if you prevail at everything. There is no consequence for judges who are wildly incorrect on the law. A judgeship is usually considered a "cush" job and consider that there is no man alive that knows even 10% of US law, and an appalling proportion of attorneys are incompetent on top of that, and you'll start to realize a courtroom operates more at an uncontrolled whim with the appearance of procedure than it does based on any law or regulation. Usually the parties know more about their respective law(s) than the judge does, and they are usually to care, or quite often, don't give a shit to get it right, as it takes immense effort to "get it right", and they get paid the same either way.