RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message


Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:16:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Never was there a place so fitting for this thread...P&RS!


It appears to be an exercise in trolling. Its hard to believe the OP genuinely believes this would fly in Court.


well then be my guest and explain how the court completely disregarded the legislature putting their own definitions OVER the legislative definitions in the above case.

meaing this case:

quote:

Here is a supreme court fight one that is easier because abrahamson tells you what is wrong with it

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8540609463452326520&q=hempel+v+baraboo&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50

meaning what an abortion they turned the law into.


tell us how shit like that happens in your everyone is honest joe johnson world?

you ability to believe has nothing to do with reality.









mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:17:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Never was there a place so fitting for this thread...P&RS!


It appears to be an exercise in trolling. Its hard to believe the OP genuinely believes this would fly in Court.


Oh, no the idea was to get to 'right to travel' from the outset.  There are three areas in which he specializes in youtube law, the right to travel, the magna carta, and real estate taxation.




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:17:45 AM)

one major reason according to jefferson that the revolution was fought was du to corporation take over of the government.

well here you go!


A corporation is a quasi-governmental corporation for purposes of the public records law “if, based on the totality of circumstances, it resembles a governmental corporation in function, effect, or status.” State v. Beaver Dam Area Dev. Corp., 2008 WI 90, ¶ 9, 312 Wis. 2d 84, ¶ 9, 752 N.W.2d 295, ¶ 9.

b. Quasi-governmental corporations are not limited to corporations created by acts of government. Beaver Dam Area Dev. Corp., 2008 WI 90, ¶ 44, 312 Wis. 2d 84, ¶ 44, 752 N.W.2d 295, ¶ 44.  [where did this authority come from?]

c. Determining whether a corporation is a quasi-governmental corporation requires a case by case analysis. [ and you pay for it out of pocket ] Beaver Dam Area Dev. Corp., 2008 WI 90, ¶¶ 8-9, 312 Wis. 2d 84, ¶¶ 8-9, 752 N.W.2d 295, ¶¶ 8-9. No one factor is conclusive. The non-exclusive list of factors considered in Beaver Dam Area Dev. Corp. fall into five basic categories:

i. The extent to which the private corporation is supported by public funds;

ii. Whether the private corporation serves a public function and, if so, whether it also has other, private functions;

- 5 -
iii. Whether the private corporation appears in its public presentations to be a governmental entity;

iv. The extent to which the private corporation is subject to governmental control; and

v. The degree of access that government bodies have to the private corporation’s records. [ who is regulating who here?] OAG I-02-09 (Mar. 19, 2009)


Private corporations acting as gubafia that they government may not have established but thats ok that do not necessarily have to answer to the rigors of government but protected under the corporate veil.

They set themselves up to insure a plentiful business for the next 1000 years.






Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:29:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Never was there a place so fitting for this thread...P&RS!


It appears to be an exercise in trolling. Its hard to believe the OP genuinely believes this would fly in Court.


Oh, no the idea was to get to 'right to travel' from the outset.  There are three areas in which he specializes in youtube law, the right to travel, the magna carta, and real estate taxation.


it went there only as a side note.  The whole Idea was to point out how the government defrauds us using syntax terrorism.

It never got that far because you derailed the thread from the onset where I realized how foolish it was to bring anything on this board in law that was more complex than 1 + 1 = 2.




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:34:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Never was there a place so fitting for this thread...P&RS!



right along with those who jeer and ignore its intent




mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:43:24 AM)

well the intent is good, but the tinfoil and dishonesty and frankly, lack of knowledge which its been presented to us here for these 151 or some ungodly number of times ain't going to get any win place or show here.

I am not happy with what I see as a perversion of the law and far more importantly the rightness and fariness of  doctrines or policies regarding corporations in America.  I understand and have understood from the get go, our opinions align here and there on the issue, but you tinfoil it and chase the cat, and speak without any grounding in some of these matters that, hey your voice is lost as a madman.   




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:47:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

Sanctions prevent inane semantic Arguments at Trial.

Yes gagging someone is part of the american way of shoving shit the courts do not want to deal with out of sight!  Especially that deemed frivolous as a result of some previous corrupt ruling.  Those are top shelf!


You won't see these discussions in a real Court because the Judge will mock and deride the offending Attorney for the balance of the Trial if not jail him or her for Contempt.

Yep because attorneys work for the COURT FIRST and YOU LAST.  That is why over 60% of those in the fed hotel that are released early are released because they prosecuted their own cases pro se!


A Bar Grievance would also likely ensue as the Trial Judge would be obligated to report the Attorney to his or her State Bar for a competency review and possible Psychological testing.

Are you kidding?  That only happens for attorneys who support tax protestors! imagine that!


Only non Lawyers (or Lawyers headed for disbarment) try this type of argument at trial.

Which type is that?


Appearing to be a fool is not going to win any respect from the finder of facts.

facts speak for themselves, the interpretation of the facts are yet another story.


"Transporter" and "transported" are different terms btw.



I know they are, one is a title.

I was making a different point.




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:53:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

well the intent is good, but the tinfoil and dishonesty and frankly, lack of knowledge which its been presented to us here for these 151 or some ungodly number of times ain't going to get any win place or show here.

I am not happy with what I see as a perversion of the law and far more importantly the rightness and fariness of  doctrines or policies regarding corporations in America.  I understand and have understood from the get go, our opinions align here and there on the issue, but you tinfoil it and chase the cat, and speak without any grounding in some of these matters that, hey your voice is lost as a madman.   


Hardly!

Many of those who are advanced in studies are treated with the same disdain.  I have no problem what so ever discussing these matters in pag forums and with legislative staff attorneys and the ag.  (which is not to say we agree on everything we certainly do not)

The most difficult place in the world to discuss anything of this nature is here.

Your constant derailment like most of your arguments only serves to shoot both your feet off.  There is nothing tin foil about it.  








mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 8:58:07 AM)

Yeah, thats why your arguments are so polished, credibly cited,  and you have made such astounding legal changes in this country.  Why I bet you're famous in your own mind.

You are a prisonplanet guy, there is no more to it than that. 




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:03:42 AM)

see the only thing you can do is fabricate ASSumptions.

yes I have made significant changes in certain areas.

I dont quote alex jones, that was hunk, posting as usual for you, any fucking thing you can puke out to try and discredit even though its total bullshit







mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:06:35 AM)

oh, you had lots and lots of prison planet links in your fine 9/11 babblings.

Yeah, no assumptions, you clearly have done nothing.




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:11:19 AM)

I have not done any substantial arguing of 911 in years on this board.  When I did argue the matter here unfortunately was no other place to find 911 data. I no longer need to quote anyone on 911 matters and if I ever do need to quote data regarding 911 there are many credible sources and studies outside of alex jones today.

again and as usual you mischaracterize me and the points I make.  Anyone can see your trash debate methods.




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:14:32 AM)

you do intend to respond to this right?



quote:

ORIGINAL: isoLadyOwner

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

Never was there a place so fitting for this thread...P&RS!


It appears to be an exercise in trolling. Its hard to believe the OP genuinely believes this would fly in Court.


well then be my guest and explain how the court completely disregarded the legislature putting their own definitions OVER the legislative definitions in the above case.

meaing this case:

quote:

Here is a supreme court fight one that is easier because abrahamson tells you what is wrong with it

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8540609463452326520&q=hempel+v+baraboo&hl=en&as_sdt=4,50

meaning what an abortion they turned the law into.


tell us how shit like that happens in your everyone is honest joe johnson world?

you ability to believe has nothing to do with reality.









Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:33:29 AM)

you want alex jones?

Interestingly the original links I used are no longer working and tada the only place that I can find this interview is on alex jones.

Why is this not in the news!

Attorney Jailed Denied Rights for Exposing Judicial Corruption, Richard Fine California

This will shock anyone!

there is our honest joe government!

The whole country should be rallying behind fine and anyone who thinks it different in your state is delusional.


quote:


Egads! Gov Appoints Felon as Calif. Chief Justice!


Immediately upon the heels of the "retirement" of California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed Tani Cantil-Sakauye to replace him.

[image]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_WILsSKysMWg/TE8IqOe_csI/AAAAAAAAAV0/DH_SeJ7fT5A/s320/Tani+Cantil-Sakauye.jpg[/image]
Ms. Cantil-Sakauye, as a former superior court judge, was a recipient of the illegal payments to judges by county supervisors and parties appearing in lawsuits before her.

[image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WILsSKysMWg/TE8I4Gll6kI/AAAAAAAAAV8/raK_mNXC94Y/s200/bribing+scales.jpg[/image]
Ms. Cantil-Sakauye and her colleagues were confirmed by the Judicial Council and the State Legislature to be felons who required immunity from criminal prosecution for their receipt of the bribes and their commission of (literally) ten million felonies, thus Senate Bill SBx2-11 was drafted and passed (with the considerable assistance of Ronald George, another former recipient of the payments).




mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:33:47 AM)

wouldnt you be be better off creating lawsuits and changing the law rather than tinfoiling us great unwashed with frivolous lawsuits and readings of law?




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:42:47 AM)

are you incapable of comprehending what is going on here?



quote:

!! RICHARD FINE FREED !! Right Trumps Might ... Again ! In a stunning new development, whistle-blowing attorney Richard I. Fine was released from Men's Central Jail late last evening (Sept. 17th) by L.A. Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe, whom Fine had forced to reveal had perpetuated fraud on the court in continually trying to defend himself by relying on what turned out to be a non-existent court order.

[image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WILsSKysMWg/TJNMjYsERvI/AAAAAAAAAYk/eyXUUFIbAHA/s320/Fine+Richard.jpg[/image]
Full Disclosure Network, headed by tireless Emmy winner Leslie Dutton (and aided by the equally indefatigable T.J. Johnston), was first (as usual) to learn of Fine's impending release.  Although Fine was the sole author of all legal briefs filed in his case, his freedom could never have been obtained without Full Disclosure's regular and relentless exposure of the corruption as each element was uncovered.  California citizens ... indeed all Americans ... owe a huge debt of gratitude for Full Disclosure's determination.  (UPDATE:  View Dr. Fine's first post-incarceration video interview HERE.)

[image]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WILsSKysMWg/TJNUpknL0sI/AAAAAAAAAYs/trWvZ8q9mMM/s320/Dutton+Leslie.jpg[/image]
Judge Yaffe announced his "retirement", effective November 1st, after Fine's legal maneuvering forced him to reveal his false statements made to numerous courts over the past three years as he scrambled to hide his corrupt acts which furthered the illegal activities of a local developer, aided by L.A. County Supervisors Michael D. Antonovich and Don Knabe.  But rather than disappear into obscurity as a result of the shame he brought upon himself, his family, and California's judiciary, Yaffe is instead rumored to be planning to immediately return to the bench as a retired assigned judge, positions staffed by the Administrative Office of the Courts ... an entity so rife with corruption the Legislature was recently compelled to pass a bill protecting whistle-blowers whose complaints had repeatedly been thwarted by the AOC (headed by, surprise, Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who was also recently forced to "retire" as allegations of his own corrupt acts began to snowball).  Judge Yaffe should instead experience the future he so richly deserves: he should be forced to swap places with Dr. Fine:



you live in a tinfoil dream world that was created for you.








mnottertail -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:45:44 AM)

NO, you are having a conniption, that's plain enough.




Real0ne -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 9:50:15 AM)

NO I am showing you exactly where the bear shits in the buckwheat and you pretend its not there.

~ The American Dream





Politesub53 -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 10:39:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

you missed the other part where it does



If so, you would have been quick to pinpoint my error. Instead you switch to your usual trick of just saying I missed it.






stellauk -> RE: Ok Law Dawgs! Who wants to take a shot at this? (1/8/2012 11:46:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Well you see you are not applying legal principles.



Really?

quote:



340.01.(74) “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except railroad trains.



Now please go back and read what I posted.

Or better still, explain how a shoe can possibly fit the above definition in plain English in terms accessible to common logical understanding.




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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