Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Nicky

Pages: [1] 2 3 4

You must understand that the debt is not yours personally. Since you began doing money transactions, you've functioned as a voluntary fiduciary representative for a trust account, paying its bills with your own energy. When you set up your first checking account, you accepted this relationship with the trust the government had set up in your name. You have not had control of this trust because you never claimed it and your parents didn't know.
One way to see this in action is notice how the "System" maintains the illusion by artifice and deception. Look at your checkbook. How did they present your name? ALL CAPS. Odd, isn't it? Then try to have them CHANGE that to normal capitalization of the first letters of your name. They CAN'T do it because their data input will not permit that. Bank personnel are not unaware of why. Do they insist on ALL CAPS because they would like to be very clear and allow no mistakes? The clue to that answer is the line on which you sign your name. It's not a line. It's nearly microscopic words, some of the finest fine print you might ever encounter. It generally says something like "ONLY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE" or "AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE." So you the human being has been given authority to sign the checks of your trust, which is an incorporated entity, a fiction.

Wow, this is definitely smth to look into!

Current Law Students / Re: The Terrorist Attack On America
« on: April 13, 2007, 02:56:58 AM »

Particle-Wave Conversion. In a similar fashion, astrology has always viewed particles as wave forms and vice versa. For example, the cycle of a planet, viewed over spacetime, is really a wave form (where these wave forms intersect, we have points of contact called aspects). Whether light or a unit of energy called the electron was really a particle or a wave was one of the first questions that quantum physics had to address, and it discovered that they really are both, behaving different ways in different situations. It was a shock to scientists to see a photon behave as a particle in one experiment and as a wave in another (for example, a single thing manifesting in 'two places at once'). But Astrology has always recognized this, treating planets at different times as particles (for example, in the natal chart) and as wave forms (in transit or progression). But they are the same planet.

The Mandlebrot set is a mathematical equation composed of real and imaginary numbers developed by the Polish mathmetician bearing its name. The set originated as the bug-like image at the center. Zooming in on any portion of the image will produce a repetition of the original set. What appears to be chaos is really a highly ordered matthematical pattern, much like the rest of reality.

Benoît B. Mandelbrot is best known as the "father of fractal geometry." Although Mandelbrot invented the word fractal, some objects featured in The Fractal Geometry of Nature had been previously described by other mathematicians. However, they had been regarded as isolated curiosities with unnatural and non-intuitive properties. Mandelbrot brought these objects together for the first time and turned them around into essential tools for the long-stalled effort of extending the scope of science to non-smooth parts of the real world. He highlighted their common properties, such as self-similarity (linear, non-linear, or statistical), scale invariance and (usually) non-integer Hausdorff dimension.

He also emphasized the use of fractals as realistic and useful models of many phenomena in the real world that can be viewed as rough. Natural fractals include the shapes of mountains, coastlines and river basins; the structure of plants, blood vessels and lungs; the clustering of galaxies; Brownian motion. Man-made fractals include stock market prices but also music, painting and architecture. Far from being unnatural, Mandelbrot held the view that fractals were, in many ways, more intuitive and natural than the artificially smooth objects of traditional Euclidean geometry.

The boundary of the Mandelbrot set is a famous example of a fractal.

Current Law Students / Re: Legal Reasoning
« on: April 13, 2007, 02:27:13 AM »

Well I guess one of the most curious aspects of socially constructed entities is that many of them are the sorts of artifacts that can perform the social work they are supposed to accomplish only if we ignore or forget their artificial nature. A classic example of this is the socially necessary assumption that value inheres in what we call "money." As a matter of practical psychology money can fucntion as a medium of exchange only to the extent that we manage to treat it as valuable in itself. We don't "believe" money is valuable: we know it is. Yet what is that knowledge other than our unconscious confidence that, in this case, knowledge and belief are not merely compatible, but actually identical? We believe we know money is valuable becuase we know we believe it is. In such cases, the psychology of appropriate social belief requires that we maintain an involuted state of mind in which we both know and don't know that various artifacts in whose existence we believe exist precisely because we believe they do.

Films, and to a lesser extent currencies, are examples of where our knowledge of the fictional, context-specific nature of our belief remains fairly close to the surface of conscious thought. But many other psychological artifacts of contemporary life are much more cognitively complicated. To what extent do we, or should we, recognize that a concept like "the government" or "the court" is also a pragmatic and mimetic fiction? One thing is certain: given the socially constructed nature of so much of our daily experience, the structure of modern life ensures that a great deal of what we think of as "reality" will be product of a kind of mass hypnosis, which requires that we maintain ourselves in delicately balanced, psychologically complex states of knowing ignorance and skeptical credulity. (To paraphrase Thomas Szasz: if you believe in the United States of America that's called "patriotism"; if you believe in the Republic of Texas that's called "schizophrenia.")

Which brings us to what is called "the law." In what sense does law exist? As a historical matter, it is fairly clear that at one time the lawyers and judges of the English common law thought of their law as rather more like a horse than a unicorn; that is, to the extent they considered the question at all, they believed "the law" was an objective, metaphysically robust entity. They also appeared to believe the law had existed from time immemorial and that therefore it certainly was not a product of, or dependent on, human beliefs and desires. This particular metaphysical vision -- what Oliver Wendell Holmes famously called "the brooding omnipresence of the law" -- cannot be maintained as a matter of self-conscious belief in a thoroughly secular, aggressively materialist public culture such as our own. In our legal culture, one can no longer assert openly the proposition that law is not an artifact of human will without running the risk of being told that anyone who could believe such a thing must be deeply confused, if not actually deluded.

Nevertheless contrary to the explicit claims of rationalizers, technocrats, and utiliatarians of every stipe the implicit belief in law as a brooding omnipresence is far from dead. Indeed, given what we require of law, it may be that some degree of belief that it is "really" there -- that the unicorn that you dear poster mention still inhabits some hidden hollow of the forest --  remains a necessary component of the legal form of thought.

Law, like the number zero, is simply a construct of the human mind. There is nothing in the universe that constitutes a physical representation of zero.

Zero has simple job, zero. All it needs to do is connect the positive and negative integers into one, straight line of numbers. But while the integers stretch out into infinity, zero itself has properties which no other number can match.

Zero is a troublemaker in the world of mathematics. But it has not always existed -- the concept of zero was not born until only a few millennia ago.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: I am so stuck at 150, so...?
« on: April 09, 2004, 05:09:51 PM »
I did the same thing bascially--took several months and did 1-20 practice tests and stayed steady at about 157, thinking I would learn by doing. After taking the Feb. test and canceling knowing I bombed the logic games I registered for Testmasters.  Althoug I only came up to 162-due to being nervous the day of the test and making some dumb mistakes--if I hadnt done those I would of got probabally 165-167.  Studying on my own helped with giving me the layout of the test but I didnt really know what I was looking at in terms of types of questions and how to work through types.  I would definetly recomned waiting and taking the Testmasters coarse and doing all of the homework solidly, it prepares you for the concepts.  Good luck!

Its too bad you didnt apply Choson, I think you would of had a super good shot.  I remember a post of yours back when saying you didnt think you could get into a top tier school with your LSAT and GPA, later I looked at their chart from 2002-2003 and 15 of 20 people got accepted with your numbers.  They seem to absolutely love 165's and thats their almost automatic linchpin number.  Im at 162 and a little bit nervous, really wish I would of scored 165.  Augh---

Jas9999, if you dont mind me asking, why are you so disgruntled toward Tucson, besides its hot? Im under the impression its not as bad as Phoenix for all out nastiness and has plenty of mountain ranges to escape to.  Also, not as hot as Phoenix.  If you could shed any insight of why I shouldt go there Id appreciate it, esp. if Im not accepted anyways.  8) Thanks.

And if not, and you are applying there as well could you PLEASE tell me why I admitted my app in Nov. and have not heard Jack? Thanks.

Studying for the LSAT / Re: June or October, 2004?
« on: April 07, 2004, 07:59:32 PM »
Id say go for the Oct test.  Unless you can really devote some time between now and then (and it dosnt sound like it with your work) take more time to study.  They say your score drops a few point from your diags in the real thing--I found was unfortunately true--so plan for a little below what you are scoring--definetly not above.  Take a prep class, LSAT is key.  Cheers. 

 ;D ;D
Yeah Revenant, not only are you rejecting the waitlist but you are doing it with conservation in mind---Nice twist.  Cheers.

Choosing the Right Law School / Re: Arizona State VS U San Diego
« on: April 04, 2004, 12:53:39 PM »
Hi thechoson,
I turned down ASU after somewhat researching my options.  Im interested in enviorn. law espeically water resources and I was accepted to Lewis and Clark at that point.  After reading about University of Arizonas library with lots of resources on water law and Lewis and Clarks rep for enviornmental law I thought one of those two schools would be better. Ive paid my deposit for Lewis and Clark, and like I said well probabally pay San Diego although I dont think their enviorn. law is anything special, I can see myself living in San Diego.  Im really really hoping for University of Arizona. (Oh yeah I dont want to live anywhere without mountain biking possibilities close by)-- of coarse this makes me concerned about Lewis and Clark.  If you dont mind the locale though, Id say go with ASU, they are a lot cheaper--and now looks like they raised in their rankings.  I didnt get money from anyone except 9 thou a year from Lewis and Clark.
As a side note I had read somewhere-perhaps on this board- that ASU perviously was a tier 3 school and had only recently moved up to teir 2 with the possibility of moving back down--but this may have been wrong when you look at this years ratings.  For me locale is more important than ratings though-except when one jumps tiers.  Anyways--good luck in chooosing thechoson!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4