all this debate over jargon..i guess i feel compelled to put in my 2 cents worth as well?
Lets see how should i start?Hmm..
Law jargon is basically a rip off of Latin words and phrases, adopted by lawyers, judges,legal-savvy people, and drummed into over-studying-caffeinated-law students to confuse the average laymen and sound smarter.
I lament, why can't case judgements be written in straightfoward simple english and have a quota of a max of 500 words? We need more Lord Dennings in the world and 'i concur with my brother.." type judgements!! and why can't laws be defined in the uncomplex nouns and verbs instead of labelling them under useless latin terms like "mens rea" or "actus reus"? It is mind-boggling, the law is clearly meant to be for the benifit of the bloke down the street, and yet, chances that Mr. John Doe has ever heard of the "nemo dat quod" quad rule is like next to nil?!
As if this is not enough, ever tried to make sense out of legislation?? The drafters of legislation must have all taken courses that taught them how to confuse everyone under the guise of english text. *sheesh*.
OK..tired and worn out...been doing research on legislation and bills and the constitution(*arrrgghhhhhh*). I guess the only excuse i have for using law jargon with the rest of the world is because the terms have been drummed into my head; memorised so well that the atcual english equivilent has been erased...i blame all the coffee and the endless hours of lectures everyweek!!
***Anyone has a proper defination of "representative goverment"? - i is willing to share my Milky Way bars for a 500 word answer.....