RE: Common Law and rights (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 4:23:39 PM)

And I already showed you that Iowa didn't require auto insurance until the early 90's long after Ohio did. Why you expect anyone to believe your assertion when they can easily look up teh facts themselves is beyond me.

I love how you claim to be right but have now completely abandoned your position. Your original claim was to 'challenge jurisdiction' to get out of any legal trouble. Now you're reduced to incorrectly arguing issues of reciprocity. BTW yes, if you are driving somewhere on an IDP and do something to get your license suspended or evoked it will be revoked here in the US. The countries that accept US IDP's have reciprocal agreements with the US. That's why you can't use an IDP everywhere. The same goes for a foreign national driving on an IDP here. You are of course welcome to get an IDP and fly to Europe and drive drunk or run others of the road or do something else to draw the attention of the local police and see how you fare. I'm sure they won't laugh at you too hard when you 'challenge jurisdiction.'

BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere. Why don't you lend your expertise to getting them out?



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 4:30:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere. Why don't you lend your expertise to getting them out?


foreign national = US citizen?   I know peeps you better not say that to their face



DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 5:15:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere. Why don't you lend your expertise to getting them out?


foreign national = US citizen?   I know peeps you better not say that to their face


You need to learn to read.



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 5:45:07 PM)

"BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere"

I don't recall making that claim. I will state now that if I did it was in error.

You are a Man of specifics, not of intent nor spirit. What you don't see is that the shell of law, meaning stautory, codified ordinances and such are a shell. What lies beneath is the core law. This is the principle. You dismiss this principle for whatever reason, and are adamant in your summary dismissal of the whole subject. Again, why are you here then ? Why do you have to refute everything everyone says absolutely and consistently without even considering the possibility that there is something beyond the great Ken sphere of knowledge. You Sir are in effect claiming that you know everything, and you are fixated on legal issues. Any first year psych student would say that you are rigid and inflexible, ala Colonel Flagg in the show M.A.S.H. This is somewhat of an enigma because although that portrayal is that of an ignorant, strait laced slave to "the book", he was quite diligent in his job.

You have gone so far in this minor picking point that it is obvious that you are similar in nature to that character. Actually what you don't know about me is that this is fine with me if it is the style of life you choose. But to just come out and say it I am really getting sick of your nitpicking, it is getting tiresome. But rest assured that I will never put anyone on ignore because I want to hear it all. After all, a few more posts and I'll have you pretty much psychoanalysed. Why would I give that up ?

Be aware that the only thing I took any offense to was being called a liar and a bigot. I called you no such things. Bear in mind that I believe you and your supposed sources as much as you believe me, but you didn't notice me insulting you. The worst I said is that you were full of shit, which is something different. I think you are misguided, and over confident, like a youngster, and even now I did not assert that you are immature. There is nothing wrong with having a second or third childhood, in fact I learned alot during both myself.

But you do lack tact and restraint. I don't even have a problem with that, the only thing I have problems with are two things. One is that you think you know everything (or think can find it on the net) and the other is that you make the assumption that if someone is in error (even if only in your own mind) that they are either crazy or stupid.

I haven't called people stupid (generally) since grade school. The kid I called stupid was actually stupid and knew damnwell that I was not. That little guilt trip was enlightening, but it is only available to those with high intelligence and the ability to see things objectively.

Put it to rest. I recommend it highly.

T



jlf1961 -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/20/2010 10:37:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere. Why don't you lend your expertise to getting them out?


foreign national = US citizen?   I know peeps you better not say that to their face


You need to learn to read.


Ken, it is not his reading that is the problem, it is the fact that he misinterprets what he reads. Like putting a military office in the civilian court system.



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 1:12:44 AM)

jlf, I am now responding to you. I don't know to whom you refer in that post, but whatever.

It matters not, because people do have a tendency to interpret things no matter how crystal clear or vague they may be. I think this is fundamental to the problem but that is not the point right now.

You see I can say "You are wrong" without addending it with an insult such as idiot, moron, liar or anything else. I have developed that apparently rare skill for some reason. I have explained my background on this board and I have no shame. I also have the ability to reject anger. I can explain how it is done and prove that it can be done. There are no cites or quotes because very few can even fathom it. I am what would be described in the old day as not short on temper. But know this, I have a long fuse but it is connected to a very big bomb. And the burnt part of the fuse regrows if I have a chance to chill out.

The thing is I don't claim to know everything, and the last time I went to a lawyer he had to call a lawyer, and this guy is pretty sharp. It's just that my question was out of his perview, and I respect that he admitted it. No matter how professional you are, if you are working for me I want you to know your limitations.

Some people think they have no limitations. They do not see beyond what they know or can find out, via whatever media. The words are clear, the meaning is clear but some don't see the spirit of the words. They will "read between the lines" and lose sight of the lines.

What's more I am not a tinfoiler, I do not read between lines. Some read the lines and conclude that they can do whatever they want. Others read the lines and reduce it to simpler terms, like the notion that jurisdiction is determined solely by lines on a map. Neither conclusion is right, and of all people, Charlie Manson put it quite well in his interview with Joel Rose. You see the world through a filter.

They way I see it is that really higher learning not only cleans this filter, but clears it. Manson described it as a photo negative in front of people's eyes, or minds. This is not a bad analogy. Remember that I have been studying psychology from before Manson met the media. The fact that I say this, but do also know the guy was crazy, indicates to any logical mind that I judge the facts, not the source. This is essential to really understanding WTF is going on.

I am trying to convey this to othes. For one, if I owned CM I might possibly throw a shitload of people off, because we don't need to discuss this here. That would be my decision in this case. For the maximum bang for the buck, Real and Hunky would be outta here and Ken would stay despite the disagreements. Why ? Because we have an image to maintain, to show people that we are not sociopathic maniacs. But it is not my decision and really these people do bring up some valid points, topics that rightly should not be suppressed.

Ken's Kounterpoints are a component of this whole mess. In fact he serves a useful purpose for the movement in contradicting it. People can bone up and get a bit of practice before they put their neck on the chopping block.

As much as I might appreciate the sparring, eventually the majority of blood in the parking lot will not be mine. I will not just lay down and take it, and I respect other who also will not. But be aware, you are never going to convince me of certain things, and of course the same is true of others. We all have different backgrounds and life experiences and I understand why I am not believed all the time. My background differs greatly from the norm. It is hard to believe some of the the things I have experienced, actually even survived. Some things I say are personal experiences, and (lucky for me) in most cases there is no documentation.

But one poster told of a story of him shooting a burglar and some people wanted online proof. What do you want the fucking address to go look for bulletholes? Why the fuck make that shit up ?

My standards for belief are different, and first and foremost is the main thing, what does someone gain by lying ?

I apply this same reasoning everywhere, even at dot gov sites, snopes and whatever. Snopes has been wrong, but they are pretty diligent keeping the errors down. Wiki is getting better, you see how they sometimes have "cite needed" and things like that. They are trying to improve.

I think for some, the printed word at certain sites carries the weight of gold bullion, while personal accounts on the web do not, for no other reason than the souce. That is a trap into which I shall not fall.

But I got some dandy shovels for sale.

T



DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 7:27:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere"

I don't recall making that claim. I will state now that if I did it was in error.

You claimed the US could not arrest a foreign national who violated a US law in the US. If that was true then the reverse would have to be true as well.

quote:

Be aware that the only thing I took any offense to was being called a liar and a bigot. I called you no such things. Bear in mind that I believe you and your supposed sources as much as you believe me, but you didn't notice me insulting you. The worst I said is that you were full of shit, which is something different. I think you are misguided, and over confident, like a youngster, and even now I did not assert that you are immature. There is nothing wrong with having a second or third childhood, in fact I learned alot during both myself.

You lied and you have made bigoted comments. That is why I called you a liar and a bigot. If you don't like being called a liar and a bigot stop posting made up bullshit and stop posting bigoted material.

quote:

But you do lack tact and restraint. I don't even have a problem with that, the only thing I have problems with are two things. One is that you think you know everything (or think can find it on the net) and the other is that you make the assumption that if someone is in error (even if only in your own mind) that they are either crazy or stupid.

No. I know I don't know everything but I can do research on anything and have a very good bullshit detector.

I will point out that I keep slamming you because you keep posting comments not in response to my posts where you attack me by name.

Now one more time how precisely is "challenge jurisdiction' the magic bullet that allows people to break the law with impunity or do you finally retract that claim?



pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 8:03:51 AM)

Whose law?

Yours or mine?



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 8:47:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere. Why don't you lend your expertise to getting them out?


foreign national = US citizen?   I know peeps you better not say that to their face


You need to learn to read.


Ken, it is not his reading that is the problem, it is the fact that he misinterprets what he reads. Like putting a military office in the civilian court system.


a civilian court system that flies a military flag?  Like is there a bottom somewhere to the shit you throw at the wall in hope to get something to stick or is your 8 cylinder firing on 1 cylinder?

Do you realize how obviously bankrupt your statement is?



LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 8:51:04 AM)

You know, with the thousands of law students in the US, not to mention the thousands spewed from the education and training system that either dont have work at all or are underemployed, each one of them desperate to make their name and perhaps fortune, its somewhat odd that if there is anything at all to this nonsense that it hasnt already been resolved.

E



pahunkboy -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 8:53:16 AM)

This from an agent of the Federal Reserve. 



LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 8:55:10 AM)

Do I get minimum wage, or is it just grab what you can?

Your ideas are becoming, dare I say it, more deluded day by day

E



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 9:04:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

You know, with the thousands of law students in the US, not to mention the thousands spewed from the education and training system that either dont have work at all or are underemployed, each one of them desperate to make their name and perhaps fortune, its somewhat odd that if there is anything at all to this nonsense that it hasnt already been resolved.

E



thats ridiculous

thats like saying all questions proposed that have basis have already been answered.

hardly the case



DomKen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 10:03:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
BTW if your claims were true no nation could imprison foreign nationals but its easy to find stories of US citizens doing hard time somewhere. Why don't you lend your expertise to getting them out?


foreign national = US citizen?   I know peeps you better not say that to their face


You need to learn to read.


Ken, it is not his reading that is the problem, it is the fact that he misinterprets what he reads. Like putting a military office in the civilian court system.


a civilian court system that flies a military flag?  Like is there a bottom somewhere to the shit you throw at the wall in hope to get something to stick or is your 8 cylinder firing on 1 cylinder?

Do you realize how obviously bankrupt your statement is?


What precisely makes a flag a military one? Is this more gold fringe BS?



Real0ne -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 10:12:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
What precisely makes a flag a military one? Is this more gold fringe BS?


the law of flags, um... usc 4 something like that.  want to give me that bad court ruling that is so popular?  You know the one where the defendant did not know how ot defend his position and was ruled against?  LMAO

Does that change the law of the flag?



mnottertail -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 10:20:15 AM)

US title 4 neither prescribes nor proscribes gold fringe, and does not differentiate military colors from US flags in any respect.

So, thats fucked for you.



Dubbelganger -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 10:43:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Do I get minimum wage, or is it just grab what you can?

Your ideas are becoming, dare I say it, more deluded day by day

E
It's a Prion or something, do you understand what I mean?



LadyEllen -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 11:10:17 AM)

Believe so HK - its really quite worrying

E



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 11:21:07 AM)

"You claimed the US could not arrest a foreign national who violated a US law in the US"

No I claimed the my Father was not arrested out of state due to the intervention of a state trooper in that state. You called me a liar. The FACT is that he went to Michigan right after that, that does not sound like arrested to me.

"You lied and you have made bigoted comments"

I have made a few mistakes and have no problem admitting them. That is if proof to my satisfaction is presented that changes my mind, and believe it or not I appreciate that. But all you have are cites and quotes. As far as the bigotry, I have tried to explain that but ala Capt. Dunsel the book says racist and bigot are one and the same, like engine and motor. I KNOW they are not the same. YOU are the one who judged my comments to prove that I am a bigot, mainly because I recongnoze differences in peoples of different ethnicity. Maybe I should take a poll and see what everyone else thinks, because I don't hear many others making that accusation.

"attack me by name. "

What goes around comes around.

T



Termyn8or -> RE: Common Law and rights (4/21/2010 11:37:10 AM)

"You know, with the thousands of law students in the US, not to mention the thousands spewed from the education and training system that either dont have work at all or are underemployed, each one of them desperate to make their name and perhaps fortune, its somewhat odd that if there is anything at all to this nonsense that it hasnt already been resolved. "

One would think except for one thing. They aspire to be or remain members of the bar. The bar has exclusive authority to "bar someone form the bar" :-). Their first and foremost directive is not to embarrass the court. Believe me I have known enough lawyers to know this is true. When people go against the system in this manner the main tool is the threat of embarassment to the court, otherwise the court would alway win, no matter what. A member of the bar is sworn not to do this. Of course they can be demoted to becoming an LPA, but that is not what they want. They would be operating against their own best interests and it is difficult, and frequently impossible to get them to do so, for obvious reasons.

T



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875