What is Mr. Magoo Legal Research?

Shortlink this blog  http://wp.me/p3nYC8-Bt

Because I often challenge sovereign citizens and others with some pretty crazy ideas, I get a lot of responses to my challenges. And they will often include “information” that poses as legal research.

Hey I am ready to be shown where I have misunderstood or missed something. I’ll change my mind if you can show me reliable information that contradicts me in a significant way.

But usually what I get is Mr Magoo legal research.

I do not accept Mr Magoo research, don’t cite a case you have not personally read all the way through and understood. No more quotes out of context from an opinion. No cut and paste of long lists of ‘cases’ from some site you have not verified.

Here are key characteristics of Mr Magoo legal research:

Offense against Humanity:
these tactics disrespect your opponent and are inhumane.

  • Ignoring clear, simple and direct expressions and substituting obtuse, inferential expressions. If you are trying to make it more complicated it’s probably because the clear and simple expressions you don’t like are right.
  • Telling the person your position and then placing the burden on them to find support for it (“go look it up”). If you don’t have the link find it, saying it is so without support is meaningless. Invariably it means you don’t actually have any proof.
  • Finding a site that agrees with you then cut and paste wholesale pages that you have not read or not examined to know that they are actually correct.
    Often this text will include one or more of the other offenses. If you haven’t studied your support material you don’t really know what it says and you don’t support your argument anyway. Odds are I’ll make you look the fool for doing it too.
  • The PERSON crime: trying to say that ‘person’ or ‘natural person’ is not a human being. Many courts have debunked this and sometimes laws directly refute it through definitions.

Offense Against Cases:

  • Failing to actually read a case before using it, to see if it truly supports your position
  • Citing a case that is really not on point, that deals with a different matter or whose principles don’t really apply to the matter at hand.
  • Citing a case that you cannot link (full decision)
    After all, I should be able to read it and see that you got it right!
    And one paragraph out of a decision could totally misrepresent the opinion.
  • Misquoting a case — fabricating a quote that is not actually in the decision
    Amazingly common it often happens when using copy and paste from sites you like that have perpetuated fake quotes. READ your cases and see if the part you like is actually there!
  • Quoting the part of a case that supports you and ignoring the parts that contradict you.
  • Misreading a case or Reading  law or case out of context;
    you must have some legal knowledge to understand cases, or you may misrepresent the actual opinion. OTOH sometimes the law or case is actually quite clear in plain English.
  • Screwing up the details such as calling it a SCOTUS decision when it is not, getting the citation wrong, getting the date wrong or ignoring the date of a decision
  • Citing a case that has been overruled.
  • Providing a list of dozens of cases and quotes from each and pretending that that is an argument. You use cases to support your argument, in and of itself a list like that means nothing. You must make an argument then show how each case supports your argument.

Offense by Definition

  • The ALICE IN WONDERLAND OFFENSE:
    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
    Well that’s great but I can make any law or opinion mean anything I want that way. Don’t do it.
  • Ignoring the definitions provided in a law.
  • Using definitions specifically provided in one law with a different one
  • Ignoring the plain meaning of words — courts start with the natural reading of language before they dig into ambiguous wording.
  • Finding the exact usage of a word you like and ignoring others that are more appropriate.
  • Insisting that a definition in a law dictionary such as Black’s is the only interpretation — in fact courts start with the regular dictionary. And any dictionary simply documents how words are commonly used, it is not law but meaning.
  • Using a very out of date Black’s law definition. Words change their meaning over time, and words in legal context are no different.
  • Insisting on a definition of a word that produces an absurdity.
    Courts specifically say they will not do this in interpreting a word. Neither can you.
  • Choosing the wrong law for the situation because you can also use an incorrect definition.
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Sovereign Citizen Crackpot Theories. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s