Language is huge, and how we use it is also a major factor in our lives. Redefining words during conversation and discussion is paramount if a meeting of the minds is to take place; I have been using this technique for at least 10 years and more in ernest of late. Especially with respect to any legal matter. If all of us simply asked questions and sought the truth in these matters the system would be hard pressed to maintain its control. We usually just accept things at face value with out deep contemplation. The greater the seeking the greater our ability to limit undesired effects in our lives.
It only really becomes clear to most of us when we go to sign a contract: there is another language in America. It’s called “legalese” and is used by corporate government and court professionals to manage the people. This language is foreign to most of us and so we need the services of a trained interpreter to understand it. The interpreters are British Esquires, signified by “Esq.” after their names, and are registered in the British Aristocratic (some say Accredited) Registry as attorneys. This is why they are called “B. A. R.” attorneys. Their dictionary is called Black’s Law Dictionary.
There are “legal” words that are common to both languages but have very different meanings. And this can be very confusing. Meanings, in many cases, have been adjusted so we believe we’re saying one thing but are really saying something else. This causes us to agree to things we aren’t aware of agreeing to and what gives the “interpreters” of so-called law power over us.
For this reason, some of us have opted to use Merriam-Webster or some other general dictionary when communicating regarding Common Law issues. Common Law, in my opinion, should use common language — from the same dictionary as everyone else. Enough of this divide-and-conquer nonsense.
What do you think?