An important part of the course is the definitions used.

(one of my pet hates is when people abuse the term 'proof', or even 'evidence'... certain medications that had been around for decades and shown to be safe were said to have "no evidence" of effectiveness in treating a recent 'virus'... there was lots of evidence. Now, was that 'good' evidence? Were there holes in the studies? Were there issues which complicated findings? Sure... but, that still means there is 'evidence'!

And, thus comes the next question - how much evidence is required before one can claim 'proof'??)

BTW, there are other important concepts as well - like 'objectivity'... can there ever really be any?

"If counter-arguments do not refer to your point and argumentation, but are getting personal, dismissive (why do you even talk, write this or that) or are insults. You can be reassured that you are probably VERY RIGHT."

I don't agree with this idea. However, I will suggest that when people do that, it means they don't actually HAVE any counter-arguments or evidence against. Doesn't mean you're right - just that they don't have what it takes to refute you. (but... there's also another aspect to this... insults and being dismissive can also come around after trying to have a rational, logical argument, and getting frustrated by the lack of intellectual capacity being given in response. I've done that when arguing against some people who choose to believe some things in spite of lots of evidence against that they refuse to accept. (Flat Earthers, for example)

I also taught Logical Fallacies.. fun, especially when actually using them in debates and arguments... (a good debate uses both logic and emotion - even if that's a logical fallacy :D)

After retrospection on my answer and your comment on "count-arguments" I concede on its incorrectness.
2 sides of the discussion can be wrong and going personal on it, and it happens often. And other scenarios you mentioned are not only possible, but do happen too.

If he did that in my class, I'd fail him!

He doesn't adequately disambiguate between 'knowledge' and 'belief', nor how knowledge of certain types is seen in different ways. Personal knowledge is one thing (ie, personal experience), but he fails to take into consideration 'interpretation', nor how personal experience leading to personal knowledge is based upon previously accepted beliefs (and, occasionally, personal knowledge).

He says that 'teachers' can only teach knowledge - and later contradicts himself by saying they only teach beliefs...(dare I accuse him of cherry-picking his position? Does he equate all teachers in all fields? Is the physics teacher teaching the law of gravity, and the mathematics of motion (mechanics) teaching beliefs as much as, say, language teachers? Or anatomy teachers? Or PE? (versus, of course, Art or Music???)

Basically, he's expressing his *belief* about the topic, rather than any actual *knowledge* about it.

(and yes, I do want someone fully conversant with the law to talk about lawful subjects - especially with what he's about to go on about).

I'll just quickly answer the first...

"fully qualified"... no. I don't have a law degree. (However, that pre-supposes that having a law degree would be the sufficient and necessary requirements in determining one's competence... I don't think it does. Experience would probably be an important criterion)

However, I find it interesting that you deem those qualifications irrelevant when a person with those qualifications claims something you don't agree with... You've made it quite clear that those who disagree with your interpretations of the law (or you constitution) to be either corrupt or incompetent... That really doesn't help the argument (ad hominem rarely does).

I don't really need to know the definitions of the rest of those...

What *IS* necessary is the ability to read court transcripts, and to research cases that are referred to, and to understand the opinions and how the referred cases may be relevant. When a judge says "there is a difference between travelling and driving, and thus I rule X" - I therefore don't need to see if s/he is "right"... I only need to see if that judgement has been overturned.

What's also necessary is the ability to take salient points of an argument, (including the evidence) and see if there is at least some merit in them. That is, the ability to *unbiasedly* evaluate evidence (interestingly enough (perhaps), I *do* have relevant qualifications in that!)

So, let me now throw your question back onto you - are YOU "fully qualified" to determine another's competence of what is called the «law» and things that are deemed to be «lawful subjects» ? And, if so, why/how?

And, thus, in other threads, I have linked those court opinions (whether corrupt or incompetent - or not!)

I think you should watch & listen to that whole video first for a better-informed response.

When did I disagree with anything ? And why does it seem like you apparently have a different definition of «corrupt» ? Note : For Semantics-Alignment, Corrupt is what I equate with the Legal-Definition of Bad Faith, for which many of them do in fact, act in Bad Faith. There are plenty of cases and instances of cops indeed acting in Bad Faith (a.k.a. : corrupt), even lawyers, judges, hell, anybody in literally any and every industry, but, if you don't accept the definition of the actions of what happened with cases like that of Enron, then we simply need to dis-engage as we would never be able to come to an agreement as to what is considered to be corrupt (or fraudulent).

«A judgment may be collaterally attacked on ground of fraud, where fraud goes to the jurisdiction of the court.» Hoverstad v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 1955, 76 S.D. 119, 74 N.W.2d 48, 56 A.L.R.2d 938.

«when any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the Constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it.»
State v. Sutton, 63 Minn. 147, 65 N.W. 262, 30 LRA 630, AM ST 459.

«Once a fraud, always a fraud.» 13 Vin.Abr. 539.

«Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act.»
Trayner, Max. 482. Maxims of Law, Black’s Law Dic., 9th Edition, p. 1862.

«fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270»
Bouvier’s Maxims of Law 1856.

And why do you think you do not need to know the definitions of words if you are claiming that you «know» how to «read court-transcripts» ? Are you saying that you actually know what you are reading, and, thus, actually know the meanings behind the words that you are reading ?

And there are plenty of «judgements» that have been «over-turned» via Writs of Mandamus; In the first place there are always invalid judgements by «lower-courts» that then later on do in fact get over-turned by the Supreme-Court(s) and/or superiour-courts or High-Court(s).

«without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers.» Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340 (1828).

«When a judge does not follow the law, i.e., they are a trespasser of the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect.»
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 1687 (1974).

«Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.» U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980).

«Judgments entered where courts lack either subject-matter jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside.»
Jaffe v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)

Sigh... please do tell me if you know about the «Rules of Evidence» as it pertains to LAW;
I am very much aware that you take the «Scientific» Approach, the approach that I do believe should be taken to arrive at Objective-Truth, but, the Legal-Systems do not entirely work that way.

Re : Qualifications
I also cannot claim that I am «fully» qualified to know EVERYTHING that there is to know about those 8 million+ lines of legislations, BUT, I DO have /experience/ in putting «Law» into /practice/ and, not only that, whether they are willing to provide their statements, opinions, facts, evidence, etc., or not, several lawyers, /with/ «Law» degrees DO exist who do consider me to be Sui Juris in the Law. I can probably get one of the local Attorneys to provide you with the acknowledgement if we're willing to actually go that far; said Attorney was the State-Attorney until he decided to step down from office the next day due to a bit of a mis-understanding of a document/note that I dropped off at the local police-station, who, yes, did in fact, both state and considered me to be both Sui Juris and highly competent in Law in the court-rooms. Take it for what you will, but, ANY time I file or submit documents into the Court-Systems, the local lawyers/attorneys ALWAYS end up looking at my documents closely as study materials for them to use.

There are also indeed cases and, for as difficult as they will probably be to find, even videos of lawyers who learn about things involved with, and, related to Law, who themselves admit and state that there are things about Law from sources that I have looked at before where they say that they learned more in six months than their whole entire 20 or 30 years of practicing Law; whether you accept it as evidence or not, I have also taken Legal-Competency Tests, literally scoring in the 80s and 90s (percentage-wise) for just about every Legal-Category of Law in those tests, not that I have a very high opinion of those tests or how they're administered (I don't; in many cases, even if done via the Legal-System, the tests are often given by non-lawyers, which is literally as absurd as having a Native French-Speaker who does not speak any other language to Test someone as to whether they're capable of Speaking Japanese, even though the Frenchman himself does not know a Lick of Japanese, in order to determine if a Subject actually knows how to speak Japanese, according to the Frenchman). And it should be mentioned that Law is more like an Adult-Version of an IQ-Test, and, a GOOD I-Q Test requires an absolute minimum of 200 hours or even six months worth of testing and evaluation, and, even be absolute ass-busters (not necessarily literally) to demonstrate the adult's capability to be able to not «fall for traps» (like in chess) and go beyond mere surface-logic.

I might not be a «Master» at this «game» called «Law» but I do currently know enough about said game to be able to deal with and personally handle matters, even in the court-rooms, without needing to be assigned nor to hire any lawyers or attorneys, and, for that matter, one of the Lawyers I spoke with from a Legal-Team on a past day during an investigation I was conducting, did discuss matters pertaining to Law and the Legal-System over at least a couple of days, and, she, herself, admitted and confided to me that what actually happens in the practice of law, and, within the court-rooms, was definitely not what she expected nor believed to be the case or WAS TAUGHT IN SCHOOL, but, that the REALITY of the «Law» being practiced in the Court-Rooms was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than what she had learned all throughout her «schooling» to obtain her Law-Degree; now, a «piece of paper» certainly does say one thing, and, I do not have such «pieces of paper» BUT, I have found, that in PRACTICE, I can actually GET a LOT of those people with such «pieces of paper» onto MY «side» (if we want to call it that) and even be willing and want to back up and support me.

P.S. : Do you know who has the authority to «change the law» ? What do «lobbyists» do ? Exactly !