bmxninja357 wrote:
this is something i have said previously in that i dont bother to remember or cite cases <snip>
That's too bad. I presume you're not remembering or citing because you don't even bother to review.
If you were reviewing the cases, you could understand better how individuals (such as Manard) is representing their perspective. Or perhaps a more appropriate term is: misrepresenting.
I'm not saying you should stop being his friend - that's your decision to make.
I have a friend who's a habitual liar, it's just who he is. There's even been situations where one minute he says one thing and a few minutes later the exact opposite. Knowing that he lies constantly, I'm able to take what he says with a grain of salt instead of relying on it as the truth. Such knowledge helps avoid all manner of negative drama on myself.
It's my humble opinion that - at best - Manard is seriously delusional on the Law. At worst, he's deliberately misrepresenting it.
Perhaps if you reviewed the cases Manard cites relative to the opinion he's expressing... you'd have a much clearer understanding of whether or not you could trust his legal reasoning even if you don't understand why he says what he says.
And I've found it certainly helps to keep notes on ones observations in such conflicts for quick and easy reference.
dont bother to remember or cite cases
That really is too bad.... knowledge is power and if you're not willing to build a base of what you believe to be factual knowledge it'll be far easier for others to mislead you - whether or not they're doing it consciously.
