As part of my CLE, I decided to review all the law texts and subjects we were taught in school and consider this.

By Jamb, our course of study is "Law" right?

Then we entered school and we saw "Legal Method" (of course, by our secondary school mind legal and law mean the same thing, right?)

Hence "legal method" will by our secondary school mind mean "Law method", right?

But look at all the explanation/definition of "Legal Method" now that one is a lawyer, it is not "Law Method".

It is about "SOMETHING CONNECTED OR A RELATION (PAPA, MAMA, ENEMY, FRIEND, PIKIN, NEIGHBOUR ETC) OF LAW.

BUT NOT THE LAW ITSELF.

Eg Google LawLane, you would see it saying

"The phrase ‘’legal method’’ contains two words – ‘’Legal’’ and ’’method’’. The word ‘’legal’’ means something relating to law.

A.O Sanni of Unilag also said

"The phrase 'legal method' is made up of two words -'legal' and 'method.' The word "method," in ordinary parlance, means a way of doing something or the quality of being well planned and organized. The word "legal," which is an adjective, connotes something connected with the law.

Same is seen in various law texts "Something Connected" or "Something Related".

So I humbly ask, did they teach "Law Method"?

For clearly, it can be seen that by the definitions/explanations, "Legal" is not "Law!

Or am I wrong?

So lawyers, help me do justice to it. Sophritebenitez, and others whose names I do not remember at the moment, what do you think.

Even you, the ordinary reasonable man on the street, you are welcome to comment.

Cc: ibechris, jmoor could you let me have your thoughts and opinions on this?

Folake4u, and other fresh law graduates your inputs are needed most especially as you can still remember the eye and heart with which you used to approach the Law Course.

Still no comments! Is that how shocking it is? Well, there is more.

In the absence of objections and comments therefore continue.

Now, it is very noticeable that immediately after that trick of "Legal.. something" which is not "The Law" Method or something which we all came to learn, the law texts then divert and somersaulted to "What is Law/Meaning of Law"!!!

How can they do this?

Is the course not "Legal Method" again? (and they have clearly explained to us that "legal" is not the same as Law"? For "legal" IS ONLY AN ATTACHMENT, like a virus to a file and the File is Law, which we came to study but they are making us study the virus)

Therefore, should the next topic not be "What is Legal/Meaning of Legal?" and not "What is Law/Meaning of Law".

Why did they switch over to Law when they did not start with Law?

And the focus was not on Law but on the Attachment called "legal"!

Am I the only one sees and who smells a fraud and deceit here?

sophirebenitez:
I figure you're a year one student trying to grapple with the concept of "law" as introduced in your only law course.

Sophire, it's Me! You know me and you know that year 1 students can not know of CLE (Continuing Legal Education).

Can a year 1 be bold and confident to attack A Course he is yet to know? Common the presence and Names of Law Text books strikes fear, is it then he shall be able to query it?

sophirebenitez:
I
Well firstly, legal methods should not be a 100 level course because it's a course which touches on all the areas of undergraduate law and attempts to make you understand these concepts as a whole. How can a fresh jambite understand these? It's difficult. The best you can do is cram and pass.

That is not True. As the name generally says "An Introduction to Legal Method", it is meant to be "An Introduction", and no one has difficulty understanding "Introductions".

Thus, some of us had no need for cramming and it is by this reason which gave rise to these questions I wanted to ask then but could not, for I thought further studies will clear it up.

And it did clear up but now I have new questions to ask, hence my research and query, so I do hope to see you give a reasonable and valid answer to them, if you have it.

sophirebenitez:
I
Rather the course should be a final year course because after going through the different degrees of undergraduate law, it is easier to understand these legal concepts and how they relate to one another.

Have you tried slamming a secondary school graduate with The Laws of Tort, Jurisprudence, Sale of Goods, Equity and Trust and see if their eyes will not roll? They are thinking thought instead of torts, Equality instead of Equity, Juris Kini or Jury-wetin?

It is very proper to start with "Law" and "What is Law" and How do we identify A Law and how does the Law operate before we start learning to see The Law in Action, (Labour, Contract, Tort etc)

sophirebenitez:
I
Now, to your question. Legal method is not law method. The term law is jurisprudential and you'll get to know what law is in 500 level.

See, grammar! "Jurisprudence" like you expect a secondary school student to immediately know what is jurisprudence since it is an everyday language like government.

Sorry, it does not fly!

sophirebenitez:
I
Legal method simply has to do with the different rules whether statutory, doctrine based etc which guide the application of man made rules within Nigeria's legal jurisdiction.

The definition and explanation has already told us what "they said" "legal method" is

And it did not say "has to do with the different rules".

It clearly said and says "The Methods of Something Connected" or "Something Related to Law".

And my question is "I came to Study Law and it's Methods, therefore, why are we made to study things or things that are not Law"?

I humbly thank you for your submission, but as you can see, you did not address the question posed.

I require an answer which dispells all the reasonable questions I have posed and could pose, such that even an ordinary reasonable secondary student will understand that your answer in deed and in Truth removes every reasonable doubt I have.

Also, a colleague just pointed me to another fact which proves that it is not Law that we were being trained to study.

This is seen in the fact that supposed lawyers mostly call themselves "Legal Practitioners" instead of "Law Practitioners"

"Law" texts mostly read eg "Nigerian Institute of Advanced LEGAL Studies" (not law studies)

Legal Education, NOT LAW EDUCATION.

Legal ethics, NOT LAW ETHICS etc.

Yet they say they are "Lawyers" instead of "Legallers"!

My People check it, is it kwarect? Help me see, if you can find someone out there who can validy clear out these discrepancies and misrepresentations.

Now,I have also just observed that the word "Truth" is quite scarce and almost absent in all their "Legal Texts".

Meanwhile, Law and Truth are Friends are constantly work together.

Take for example, in the Topic Examination in Chief, it is said "A party proves his case by presentation of evidence to establish the facts which makes up his case"

Here is what Google presents:
What is the purpose of the examination-in-chief?
The Key goals of examination-in-chief include: (1) to prove the elements to support the cause of action through the facts as deposed to by a witness; (2)

SEE, NO TRUTH!

Meanwhile, Law would say "Tell me The Truth, what happened?"

So obviously the legal maxim (oh I just noticed, "legal" no wonder) "Give me the facts and I will give you the law" is a gross misrepresentation of Truth.

For The Law is there just waiting to do it's work.

So therefore, it should be "Give me the Truth then I'll give you Just is."

And this fraud is also protected by the course called Logic in which it is clearly stated in a certain Logic teaching text that LOGIC IS NOT CONCERNED WITH TRUTH BUT ABOUT ARGUMENTS.

Whereas, Logic is the Customs and Immigrations Officer Standing by to block and deport every statement or argument which is a Lie as proven by all the examples of Lies which make people FALL!

Called FALL-ables (Ables which cause Falls) deceptively altered to "Fall-acies"!

So, Legallers, (for you are not Lawyers) can you validly bring down this presentation, using your legal skills?

P.Os (Preliminary Objections) and Statements of Defence are very much encouraged.

And My Reply shall of course be on Points of Law!

Continued!

So after failing or rather refusing to disclose the True meaning of "Legal" or definition of "Legal", it was rather COMPLETELY ABANDONED-...

AND WHAT DOES THE LAW (YOU SEE, LAW, NOT LEGAL) SAY ABOUT ABANDONED STATEMENTS?

ANSWER: IT CAN NOT BE ACTED OR RELIED UPON!

Thus by Rules of Pleadings, the concept of "legal" can not be acted upon for its proponent did abandon it and did not plead any Truth or Evidence on which any Court or person can rely on.

Thus, on this ground, the words "legal" has no place and relevance in Law and in Judicial Systems.

It is a farce, a misnomer and an unknown thing in Law and Law Practice.

Mujtahida:
...Pease let's remove this discussion from the domain of religion and talk law.

Please, I would like to see you challenge this observation.

Then they made us study the Courses called Religion, Philosophy and Logic.

To think in hindsight, that the Lecturers of these courses were Anti-God (Atheists)!

To think that these courses along with the fake legal method hits you in year 1, whilst you still do not know what is happening

whilst you still remember that you know some Law, so you expect to be learning some more Law in Addition to the ones already known.

Whilst you are still trying to find ground for your feet.

All wickedly placed when you are most unstable and a Russian invasion style assault takes place.

So, as I earlier said, Mr. Legal via his texts then diverts and somersaults to "What is Law/Meaning of Law" Instead of "what is legal/ Meaning of legal!"

And tilll today, he does not tell us the meaning of legal nor where did it come from nor how did it come to be

Yet, he skips over from his "Legal" to Break into Law and to plant his disease.

For example, having not commenced with the Methods of Law, we are deprived of the opportunity of examining his view on it and of checking The Natural Truth of his presentation.

We are also deprived of the opportunity of obtaining and appreciating The History of Law, Where it first came from (The True Source of Law) and how it holds us tight in its Power.

Therefore, we see only what Mr. Legal is saying having been deprived of the opportunity of checking whether what he says IS TRUE.

And, lo, it is not wholly True! For Mr. Legal is a professional at using The Truth to Lie and Mislead!

Thus, bearing in mind that you do not Truly know
1) The Origin Story of Law.
2) It's True Source and Origin.
3) The extent and limits of its great Power.

Mr. Legal skips all these to tell us that Laws is

"rules of conduct of a community that are recognized as binding by the community." (The usual description)

And today, even more brazenly and blatantly as obtained from "LawLane"

"Law has been defined by A.O Sanni as
’a set of rules made by individuals, body or persons vested with the power to make such rules which are binding and enforced on members of a given society or state.’’

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT! -"rules made by individuals".

IN THE PAST, IT WAS KNOWN THAT LAW COMES FROM GOD, THE CREATOR AND OWNER OF THIS WORLD, EVEN WHERE MOST PEOPLE WERE NOT FULLY CONSCIOUS OF IT, BUT IF PRESSED, THEY READILY DID CONFESS THE TRUTH OF IT.

HENCE THE RIGHTNESS AND ACCURACY OF THE USUAL AND MORE POPULAR DESCRIPTION/DEFINITION OF LAW TO WIT

"rules of conduct of a community that are recognized as binding by the community."

WHICH NO ONE TRULY FAULTED BECAUSE, IT APPEARED TRUE, GOING BY WHAT THE ORDINARY FOLK KNEW OF LAW AND HOW THEY HAVE SEEN IN IT NATURALLY OPERATE.

However, A.O Sanni's definition, is not a description of Law.

That clearly is the description for the fabrication called "legal"!

For by his definition, he says law is man-made.

Whereas, man did not make The Law of Pregnancy, Gravity, Day and Night.

He did not even make The Law of making himself man and woman, so how can he possibly be said to have made The Law?

And this is even besides the Fact that he was not Authorised by Law, to make Law.

Therefore, it is most untrue, for Anyone anywhere to say that man made The Law.

Just saw my legal method second semester examination question paper and see, it is all about legal and not about The Law which we thought we would learn.

Question 1is about research planning. (How can jambito know about research planning when we still don't know what is going on?)

Question 2: a) What is "interpretation of statutes" (not interpretation of Law) 5 marks

b) what are the main principles of interpretation of statutes. 12.5 marks.

3) how are judicial decisions arrived at and what is the role of logic in the exercise?

4) The process of drafting and promulgation of legislation demands a lot of rationalisation. Discuss.

5) Explain source of Law (now legal has disappeared) and discuss the different categories of sources.

6) write notes on
a) minor principles of interpretation of statutes
b) open texture of law (legal has disappeared)
c) semantics of law (legal has disappeared).

As you see, they do not teach Law, it is legal and statutes (man's attempt to make law) that is being taught and emphasized in School.

begoniaa:

Yep! That is the face I carried for the first 2 years in the University.

And now, I am happy to have changed that face to one of .

Now I understand, the Truth from the Lies and the difference between them.

It is not Law that is being taught in the university, it is the soul destroying Lie that men should bow and submit their substance and souls to their fellow men.

They are not really teaching freedom but teaching slavery.