Growing up includes memories of playing with other children. Some kids made up rules as they go along. They controlled the terms of the game by their making their opinion a rule to follow. The consequence was they were effective at winning if they had your confidence.
Let's say you were much younger and therefore naive. Perhaps they owned the football and could leave, ruining the playing for everyone. Also maybe you had the strong desire to be included so you would put up with that BS long term. If you had a sense of fair play it was just for fun starting out and then you merged into competition. Perhaps you had talent and ability that the leader with experience did not have. Naturally some arguments followed.
The unequal distribution of rules was a way to control how things end. Knowing rules by reading the instructions and watching the repeated patterns identified the cheaters. This scenario isn't much different in the grown-up world of government. Playing the citizens like a deck of marked cards is often the outcome in our political system.
As a matter of truth I wish to remind the readers about the obligation of those we elect to abide by their oath of office. These are the rules; namely to uphold the constitution(s) with "fidelity", in particular, the 26th Article of the The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Elected politicians swear to it. It's not an incidental detail. It's a pillar supporting equality. The 26th is tied to the 25th and says that "rights cannot be denied to a citizen. And the laws must be distributed equally among its subdivisions".
There are so many laws to choose from nowadays. They include the outdated and wrong laws. Because of contradiction in principle some laws are clearly illegal! Unfortunately they can still be enforced because the public does not know better. This is the status quo because of a conflict of interest.
The socialist government of the United States is making money off fines rather then protecting people from their government. The irony is that many of the things we get jailed for, fined for, and dispossessed for are neither wrong nor bad. (This is so in matters both over and under $20 dollars.) The need for continual increased funding to satisfy the increasingly bureaucratic appetite of government initiatives in collecting on enforced illegal laws is a method used to raise funds.
The Legislature votes to make legitimate laws. They are different from federal or state agency policy or municipal code books. But they are enforced none the less. Some laws are even treason on purpose because they undermine our nation's sovereignty. An example of that would be installed aspects of Agenda 21 of the United Nations. It is popping up all around us on the county level.
This is not a high falootin political theory but unfortunate down to earth practical reality of life for us taxpayers. There are "opinions" and there are convictions. The difference between the two originated from someone other then me. "You hold opinions and convictions hold you." Please understand that this poster recreated above is an example of UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF LAW. I say that as a matter of conviction. My basis for this is a plain language reading of the constitution and a matter of good law. A written opinion often is a way of communicating what someone else wants you to do for them.
Here is the contradiction which makes it illegal. It is inconsistent and untrue. You or I may and can file a document with the highest court in our state called The Superior Court and also argue for ones self without a lawyer in the Supreme Court of the United States. But locally they are saying that it is a Criminal Offense for you or me to defend oneself to an appeal board on the county level.
If you believe it then I guess it is so as a matter of what is practiced. But if you believe something does that make it true? I argue that believing in something does not make it true. If a unconstitutional agency such as the Bar Association says it and the county administration posts it; Is it then necessarily true?
Protocol is not true if it goes contrary to state charter!
This "Formal Opinion" stuff from the Bar is interesting. A County level Common Pleas Judge writes Memorandum Opinions. It's a different kind of opinion but still only an "opinion." It is a summary of his or her thought process about how he reached a decision regarding a court case. Sometimes there are illegal ideas in cases going against the flow of freedom in the category of constitutional civil rights. A judge will do wrong and take a deflected focus to avoid doing their job which is to uphold justice. This category of guaranteed civil law is good law and a form which will trump all other categories, if a judge will honestly review the facts and the law.
A bad judge may want to distance themself from review in a decision they have made. A judge may first choose not to register the case so it cannot be researched. They did this for a while in Robert Dages versus Carbon County in Court Docket 1415 two years ago. I never brought up Article 26 when I sued the county for information based on a "redress of grievance" with statutory law support for sunshine in the use of tax money at Packerton Yards. They did this to me for six months to let things cool down and hopefully be forgotten after a decision was rendered. I did not need Article 26 for additional muster. In my lawsuit all I needed then was a judge to honor his oath of office and uphold state and federal charter. I couldn't find one.
For the record these "opinions" can be overturned, upheld and not registered or rewritten and bypassed and effectively ignored. OPINIONS ARE NOT LAW! Opinions are case support. Attorneys and those representing themselves in their own arguments use opinions. This "Formal Opinion " business stated in the poster is real and might be in fact important to a lawyer who wants to keep in good status with the Bar. But there is no authority there for me or you as someone who is not an attorney nor member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. It is equivalent to a "boo" at Halloween. Unless of course you choose to believe in a bad idea.
Robert Dages, Jim Thorpe Pa.
January 2013 A.D.