No Knock Warrants... Cop = Judge, Jury & Executioner by 6ixStringJack

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

If they look at it and all disagree with you then that's a pretty good indication that you are probably wrong. they are your peer group.

Who's "they"? We got Geezer, Fletch, Hero and Finn--mostly conservatives who I would hardly call my peer group.

Let's clarify something. For most rational people a peer group does not mean "only the people that agree with me" it means people of a similar age, social position and life experience. The regular posters here have probably the widest range of positions it's possible to have and hardly ever agree on anything. Seriously, the fact that such a wide cross section of them see it different to you probably does mean that you are wrong on this.

Just consider the possibility, ok?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 17, 2008 6:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

For the record, after posing the question and reading the answers (and actually learning something), I was politely hinting that it was within the judge's authority to offer the deal. I also said the 'coercive' situation was entirely due to your friend - and it was a situation he invited by 1) breaking the law, 2) inviting arrest and 3) acting as his own lawyer. Further, that your friend TOOK the deal indicates to me the deal was something of value to him and, and therefore, the judge did him a favor.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 17, 2008 9:06 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

~ Excerpt from Dale Caraniges' lesser known follow up book "How NOT To Win Friends and Influence People"

Just playin' signy. I just don't see you go into troll mode all that much.

And I know you posted that yesterday before my last post canttakethesky, but I hope you know now that I'm not trying to downplay the situation at all. I don't agree with it at all, and quite resent how this kind of thing is done all the time, having been close to someone who got it much much worse than your friend did. I've spoken about it before in here, but don't wish to elaborate at this juncture.

Government is supposed to serve the people. It would serve them well if there were safeguards to ensure position can't be abused. As it is now, I don't feel that the judge did anything outside of the law.

I don't necessarily subscribe to a lawless society as I haven't been sold on that concept, although I do quite frequently entertain the notion. But there is many positive things to say about Government and the benefits that we're fortunate enough to have one of the more benevolent ones for the last 200 years and what it has provided us. For example, our technology would likely have never gotten to the point where we can post to each other had we never pooled resources as we have today. I can and do say a lot of negative things about centralization, but it does have it's occasional perk. That being said, I'm not really against the system itself, but the way it is abused by those within it today.

Incidentally, anybody who lives in America and for whatever reason finds themselves in financial debt or on Government assistance I put in that category as well. I'm not calling them bad people at all. I'm just saying that when your back is against the wall and you have no resources left to draw from, you're in a position where you have to just grab your ankles and take it, oftentimes without even the ability to even risk talking shit under your breath as you sulk off having been defeated. I work with people who badmouth superiors behind their back and then kiss their ass in person... prolly a lot of us do. That's what this guy really is doing now, and maybe he's not doing it. Maybe he doesn't walk around with a soapbox and it just comes off that way in this thread.

All I'm saying is that he's not powerless. We're not powerless. And even if at times it seems like we have nothing, we do have the pleasure and comfort of knowing that there are others who are displeased with the status quo and that, unlike in 1984, we're still able to meet and talk with each other.

Good luck to your friend. I'm very happy with anyone spreading the message he is and I hope he becomes stable enough where he can position himself to piss them off without them having recourse to discard him like a soiled tissue next time.

Hell, even Hero said he doesn't agree with tax law. He has a heart, who knew?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, May 17, 2008 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm in agreement with Hero and Finn

The world as I know it is ended.

*searches for gun*

lostisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2008 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
but at the same time I'm sure they cut him a hell of a deal if he didn't pay fines

He did pay fines, lots of it. And back taxes too. The deal didn't include that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jack:
Quote:
I said:
... and 2) the judge took advantage of a man facing prison to leverage the voluntary termination of a website he personally did not like.

I agree with you 100% here....

Quote:
(Edited to change: ...termination of a website he had no legal authority to terminate.)

Then you go and lose me again. The judge did not terminate it.

That is just a misunderstanding. The edited sentence should read:

... the judge took advantage of a man facing prison to leverage the voluntary termination of a website he had no legal authority to terminate.

Are we ok again?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 6:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You appear to be bound and determined to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your view, all the while claiming: I HAVE AN OPEN MIND I HAVE AN OPEN MIND! Whatever. I'm not seeing material substantiation of that...

First of all, did I make that claim? I don't remember.

I am open to new evidence. I am not so open to opinions, with no substantiation, that contain little to no logic. All I've heard here are misinformed opinions on why the website might be illegal, with no evidence to back up the accusations. Hero presents what might be considered "expert" opinion, which does carry slightly more weight--but he has been inconsistent and goes off on irrelevant tangents.

Let's recap, shall we? First Hero said:

Quote:
Never happened. Either you made it all up to make a point or your friend lied to you to make himself look like a victim.

Simply put, there is no law against speaking out against the income tax. Millions do it every year. Your friend 'failed to file' and that is a crime. The two issues are not related.

and

Quote:
What case? What judge?

Didn't happen. Lie, ebellishment...whatever. What you say did not happen. No judge would do it, no judge would allow it as part of a deal.

Then when he found out the judge DID do it, and it wasn't a lie, all sorts of speculations on why the judge offered the deal sprang up. These speculations all centered around one premise: the website MUST have been illegal. But WHY it was illegal bounced around whenever I made an argument.

Speculation #1: Criminal Enterprise. (From Hero) The website speech was legal. The website became illegal because of Criminal Enterprise. Just like a hammer is legal, but becomes illegal because of Possession of Criminal Tools, when used to commit a crime.

(a) Hero made fun of me when I asked if someone needs to be charged, tried, and convicted of Possession of Criminal Tools. Of course, he says. If Criminal Enterprise is just like Criminal Tools, why is the judge allowed to determine guilt unilaterally without a trial and conviction for Criminal Enterprise?
(b) According to Hero, Criminal Enterprise is about a business for which one fails to pay taxes. In this case, he had 3 "businesses": (1) tax protester website (no income, only outgoing costs), (2) the video website and the video (some income), and (3) the medical transcription business (main source of income). If the accusation of Criminal Enterprise were truly involved, why were the no-income protester website and the some-income video website shut down, while the main-income transcription business allowed to continue? It is not logical that the main-income business was not considered Criminal Enterprise, while the no-income business was.

Speculation #2: Legal Speech Used in Illegal Activity(Also from Hero.) The website speech was legal. This argument bypasses the requirement Criminal Enterprise had for a trial and conviction. If you use legal speech in an illegal activity, you only need to prove the activity was illegal--the speech doesn't matter.

(a) So let's look at the illegal activity with the legal speech. Activity: Operating a website. Speech: Protesting taxes. Oh wait, operating a website is legal, and protesting taxes is legal.
(b) Actual illegal activity: Failing to file tax returns. Speech: None (cause you know, his crime was actually saying nothing when he should have said something). So this speculation fails the logic test as well.

Speculation #3: Violation of 7206(2) of the IRC for Tax Fraud Scheme(From Geezer.)The website speech is illegal. The website "promotes tax avoidance." There are years of case law supporting this interpretation that explaining and advocating the 861 position is illegal.

(a)The 7206 law and similar laws say: (1) you can neither help nor advise (2) the presentation or preparation of (3) any tax document under (4) the Internal Revenue Code. The key word here is TAX DOCUMENT. There is no logic on how presentation of a general belief translates into help/advice for preparing tax affidavits, claims, and returns.
(b) If indeed statements of belief can be construed as help/advice for preparing tax documents, then most tax protester speech challenging the authority of the 16th Amendment would be illegal by violating 7206. I see no evidence that this is the case.
(c)He was never charge, tried, or convicted for this crime. In 7206 was the reason for shutting down the website, the judge unilaterally decided the speech was criminal and bypassed trial by jury. Clearly this would be outside the judge's authority.
(d) Despite the alleged years of case law supporting this interpretation, I have yet to see one citation. "Because I said so" is not very convincing.

Speculation #4: Advertising a Criminal Enterprise. (From Fletch.)The website speech is legal. But the website advertised a product (video) for which taxes were not paid.

(a) See arguments against Speculation #1.
(b) If the advertising is illegal, why not just take down the advertisement? Must the whole legal website with legal speech be shut down? Is that exceed the authority to shut down only what is illegal?
(c) It smacks of Speculation #5, see below.

Speculation #5: Talking While Not Filing.(From Hero.) The website speech was legal. But as soon as the defendant stopped filing tax returns, his speech was no longer protected and any and all operations he engaged in are at the mercy of the demi-god powers of the judge.

(a) This sounds like "You get to have free speech only if you file tax returns. If you don't, we can take anything we want from you without due process." I may be wrong, but I understood Constitutional rights could not be lost with a misdemeanor conviction.
(b) No one else sees the problem with a judge with demi-god powers, not constrained by due process, to stop whatever activity he sees fit?
(c) This would provide quite a convenient shortcut for censorship. If you don't like what someone says, catch them in a misdemeanor, any misdemeanor, and make them stop saying it.

Speculation #6: The Website SHOULD Be Illegal.(Implied by multiple posters.) This speech promotes falsehood and should be illegal, if it is not already. The judge saved taxpayers lots of money from going through all that legal legwork to connect these lies to a crime. He just skipped to the end and shut down what should be illegal, even if it can't be or hasn't yet been proven to be illegal in court.

(a) If the government has, or should have, authority to protect people from lies, free speech is a moot issue.
(b) If the judge has, or should have, the legal authority to make trial by jury optional at his discretion, the 6th Amendment is a moot issue.

Consensus Opinion (of those who posted): There was no coercion involved when someone voluntarily agrees to do X to make his prison sentence more lenient. The judge took away consequences that was due to him and did him a favor.

(a) It's called blackmail. Are blackmail payments voluntary or coerced? Apparently, people here think it is voluntary. I think blackmail is coercive myself, but that is a matter of opinion and not evidence.
(b) There was no set consequences like losing a game of poker. Here, there was a range of options that the judge could have picked from. He could be lenient from the outset, in which case nothing would be gained from the compromise. He could be intractably harsh from the outset. But he chose to be influenced, depending on whether the defendant pays the blackmail or not. To me, no matter what X was, coercion was used to get X. Now in many criminal cases, I think that coercion is justified, but it is coercion nonetheless.
(c) What if X, the blackmail payment, is in the form of sex? Would you say the sex was voluntary or coerced? Sex happens to have a very clear standard in distinguishing between coercion and consent, so it is a good benchmark.

---------------------

Anyway, as you can see, most of this dispute is a function of opinion, personal values, and definition--not evidence. I find most of the speculations illogical and/or unsupported by facts and/or contrary to the values represented by the Constitution of the United States. Therefore I remain unconvinced. Call me close-minded if you want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:08 AM

Bottom line- the Judge had his way, legalities notwithstanding. Another 'gray' area bumped into the black. Yea status quo.

Dreddisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
It calls to mind the 9/11 conspiracy thread where you asked for scientific discussion, and when you got it you said "But I'm not a scientist so I don't have to accept this", and when you were called on that BS you disappeared from the thread... to do your own research you claimed. Hey - how's that going?

First of all, I did not say that. I said I distinguished between personal political opinions and technical ones, and I don't need technical justification for political opinions. Secondly, I said I would address the technical opinions after I've done some technical research. I did and fully intended on starting a new thread on the WTC Collapse soon.

However, I just got an epiphany this morning, as I was writing that long-ass summary to you: I waste way too much time on this board. Nothing I say hasn't been said before, by people much more articulate than I. If they didn't convince people here, why would I? Who do I think I am, that I have anything to offer besides ideological target practice? Why do I even come here?

I appreciate the challenges and ideas certain RWED members have shared over the years. I have learned a GREAT deal from Frem, 6ix, Sergeant, HK, Causal, Antimason etc. I have even learned things from people I largely don't agree with, like Sig, Rue, Cit, Hero, Auraptor, Geezer, etc. But these nuggets of insight are few and far in between. Cost-benefit wise, are they worth my time? Couldn't I get more insights from reading established authors?

I appreciate the interaction and small family RWED has become. But it is a highly dysfunctional family in which members routinely abuse each other verbally. Don't I have more positive places to be, more positive things to do? Don't I have three children who are dying to spend more time with me?

So the short end of my epiphany is that I am not going to post that thread after all. I've posted the links to both pilots and architects/engineers who doubt the official 911 story. At most I would be parroting their arguments. So let those sites stand in for my thread.

In fact, I am going to go do more positive things with my life from now on. If anyone wants to contact me, my email is canttakesky@att.net. Please feel free to vilify me in my absence.

--------------------------
Nullius in verba (Take no one's word.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:22 AM

Whatever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:23 AM

Larken Rose asked me to post this for him. He will not come back and check responses, I am not coming back to check responses, so it is solely being tossed out for consideration.

Quote:
Suppose, if you will, that after a careful a study of the tax code, I concluded that the government was LYING about the proper application of the law, and demanding money from lots of people who did NOT legally owe it. (I know that's what I believe, but you'll have to "suppose" it.) So I believe I see evidence of a huge financial fraud--the biggest in history, in fact. My question is this: is it a crime for me to SAY SO? Apparently some people think it is. Apparently they reason (if "reason" is the right word) that because the stating of my opinion might lead others to look into the issue and agree with me, which might result in them not filing or paying (because they conclude they don't owe it), therefore the mere EXPRESSION of my belief about the correct application of the law, and the deception related to it, is a CRIME.

So I'd like some of those arguing with Canttakesky to answer, yes or no, is it a CRIME for me to say that I think the government has committed a massive fraud? (The bonus question is, does my right to say what I think depend upon whether you, or anyone else, thinks my beliefs are correct?)

Larken Rose

(P.S. Before saying, "Well, the government told you you were wrong!"--which was the government's entire argument at trial--keep it mind that people who commit fraud generally don't admit it. No, they say "that's nonsense!" to the one who accuses them.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:27 AM

Chris,

I can't believe I left your name out of the list of people I learned from. Your humor and balance keep this place going. I really believe that.

Bighugisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"(a) It's called blackmail."

Uhmm - the guy broke the law and was found guilty. He was being sentenced for his crime.

On top of that he took the deal he was offered.

As I have said (several times), he created - actually invited - the coercive circumstance by his own actions of his own free will. And that's one point you continually ignore. If the judge had yanked him off the street and threatened him with jail time for no good reason unless he took down the site you might have an argument. But it didn't happen that way.

And (yet once again) your friend took the deal. He could have said no. But it was obviously of value to him to take down his website rather than spend all his legally-earned time in prison.

Until you can factor those two vital facts into your argument it's not going to fly.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
he created - actually invited - the coercive circumstance by his own actions of his own free will.

Rue, what if you went to fight a speeding ticket, and the judge said that he'd waive the points on you license if you took your anti-Bush bumper sticker off your vehicle?

Just askin'isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Being as the bumper sticker is unrelated to the speeding it wouldn't happen.

Now if he made me take that anti-radar coating off my license plates I'd say it was a fair deal.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:46 AM

CITIZEN

I just learned that some people are close minded enough to only want to hear affirmation of their opinion.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Now if he made me take that anti-radar coating off my license plates I'd say it was a fair deal.

What if he made you take down your "The Thrills Of Speed" website??

More preciseisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

If it promoted street racing I'd say it was a good deal as well.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If it promoted street racing I'd say it was a good deal as well.

What if it called for speed limits to be raised on interstates and cops to be deployed in zones where the majority of accidents happen? What if it accused the government of intentionally putting lives at risk by focusing on easy highway speeding ticket money?

Even more precise Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:00 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What if he made you take down your "The Thrills Of Speed" website??

Had that case last summer. I didn't make them take the site down.

I did use it against them (as an admission) when I convicted them of street racing and used it to justify asking for a jail term (no remorse).

They did three days. Kinda funny. I suggested they go to the county next door...more open roads and the Deputies don't chase as often.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:05 AM

Chris, really, it's not helping. You can find a point where "they" stepped over the line. Mr Rose could have told them what to do with their offer and done his time like a true believer. As it was he was given a break and took it.

What is NOT happening here is that they were adding on more time because of his website. What IS happening here is that he was offered a reduction if he took it down.

I think that was WRONG I dont think he should have been offered any deal, in fact I think he should have done the max, not because of RWA tendencies towards harsher sentencing but because it would at least give CTS something justified to whine about.

The image that CTS pops into my mind these days (and I appologise for this CTS, it's to do with associative imagery) is of Gollem with his hands over his ears shaking his head and saying "Not listening, I'm not listening.."

Bored now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

What is NOT happening here is that they were adding on more time because of his website. What IS happening here is that he was offered a reduction if he took it down.

I don't understand- if the website was illegal, why not just bust him for that? And if it wasn't illegal, it's clearly suppression of an idea (sort of a free-speech thing as I see it).

Petulant Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:19 AM

If the idea is inciting others to break the law then yeah.

He broke the law, which means that he doesn't have the same rights that other folks do. The second ammendment is in the Constitution the highest law in the land. Yet a fellon cannot buy a weapon in some states. You have a constitutional right of free association, but a fellon may not be allowed to associate with other criminals. You have a constitutional right to the use of your property, but if you own a house across from a school and then get convicted for a sex crime you may not be allowed to live there.

You don't have a right to have a website, but given that even constitionally garenteed rights do not nescessarily apply to fellons it is not outside the power of the court to offer the deal.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I don't understand- if the website was illegal, why not just bust him for that?

Read the copies of the search warrant affidavit at the bottom of this page, http://www.quatlosers.com/larken_rose.htm and you'll see that his site and video figure strongly in the rationale for the warrant. His fellow 861 proponent, Thurston Bell, has been injoined from running a similar site. http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/BellFinalOrder.pdf

Google Larkin Rose and Thurston Bell and you'll find that they run in the same circles as others also either convicted of tax avoidence or injoined from promoting the 861 tax scheme.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

given that even constitionally garenteed rights do not nescessarily apply to fellons it is not outside the power of the court to offer the deal.

Thanks Fletch, that clears up the legal part of it for me.

Now, I just had 3 molars extracted since my last post- I'm no good for any more brainworking....oxycodone? what is this stuff? It still hurts.

GRRRRRRisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:20 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"What if it called for speed limits to be raised on interstates and cops to be deployed in zones where the majority of accidents happen? What if it accused the government of intentionally putting lives at risk by focusing on easy highway speeding ticket money?"

I wasn't ignoring you, Chris,isall, I had some stuff to do.

Let's make it even more applicable -

Let's say the website claims if you read a particular section of the legal code you'll see that NO traffic postings are legal - speed limits, parking restrictions, stop signs, crosswalks etc. The website says it's b/c of a loophole in the law - that since it's a mere agency that is determining these things rather than the appropriate representative body (town council, county legislature etc) the rules and regulations don't have the force of law. (This is a real argument that's been made elsewhere - but before anyone says whoopppee !! I need to point out the rebuttal - when the law-making body creates these agencies it also confers on them the authority to make rules and regulations, codify them into law, and enforce them.) Let's say that that is the argument the street-racer/ speeder makes before the judge - and loses, is found guilty, and comes up for sentencing.

Should the judge have the discretion to reduce the sentence if the speeder takes down the website ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Should the judge have the discretion to reduce the sentence if the speeder takes down the website ?

I suppose....

or is this the oxycodone talkin'?

*Hates to admit he wasn't taking all sides into considerationisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:32 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You appear to be bound and determined to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your view, all the while claiming: I HAVE AN OPEN MIND I HAVE AN OPEN MIND!
First of all, did I make that claim? I don't remember.

On the other thread you said: "Of course, I am always open to hearing more opinions on the topic." Is that not a claim to open-mindedness? OK, so maybe you somehow didn't mean it that way...

Quote:
I am open to new evidence.

So you're open to new evidence, but aren't ready to own up to claiming you have an open mind. Which means... *scratches head*

So, are you open-minded? What's the difference between being open-minded and open to new evidence?

Quote:
Quote:
...you said "But I'm not a scientist so I don't have to accept this"...
First of all, I did not say that.

Hmm. Let's review...

You called for a discussion based in fact and evidence, and asked specific questions as to the engineering and collapse of the buildings. I quote: "It behooves us to investigate if these official stories hold water" and you said things like:"That is, a building designed to take impact from an aluminum plane can take impact from a larger aluminum plane, you see?"

This was technical talk that YOU started, but after the resulting discussion didn't support your suppositions, you abruptly distanced yourself: "I'm speaking as a citizen, not as a scientist. As a citizen, I can say "I'm not buying it" if I want to."

(So... "That is, a building designed to take impact from an aluminum plane can take impact from a larger aluminum plane, you see?" was speaking as a citizen?)

My interpretation: you were happy to talk science as long as it appeared to support you. When it didn't, you rejected it on the grounds that you're not a scientist and scientific evidence doesn't have to color your opinion.

Should I have interpreted the exchange differently?

Quote:
I said I distinguished between personal political opinions and technical ones, and I don't need technical justification for political opinions.

Wow, Fletch2's image of Gollum comes to mind...

My mind is boggled. Scrambled.

Maybe I'm understanding you wrong - are you really saying that your position in this discussion and the WTC thread are a political opinions needing no technical justification?

Hunh.

Really?

Really?

If so, what about all the evidence you provide to back yourself up - legal jargon here and airplane weight and technical expertise from your pilot friend on the other thread. What is that if not technical justification? If you didn't think this info lent weight to your opinions and might have some effect on mine, why did you take the time to type it all out?

One would think that evidence only counts with you when it's in *support* of your opinions...

OK, all that aside, I do think that taking the guy's site down seems a bit excessive. Which is - I tell you straight up - my purely law-ignorant opinion. Legal jargon makes my brain numb.

But then, I'm of two minds about paying taxes. I think it's a necessary part of an orderly society, (I like that the roads are paved and get plowed in the winter, etc) but I'm pretty pissed about some of the stuff my tax dollars are used for.

Sadly, I haven't found a way to reconcile myself to the situation. I'd withhold paying the portion of my taxes which goes to the war if I could. But then I'm pissed about the troops not getting proper treatment for PTSD because it costs too much, and I'm deadset against other folks ignoring the law as they choose - such as perverts with illusions of religious grandeur brainwashing and raping little girls.

It's a complex world. I've got no answers for much of it.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:33 AM

Oh, and thanks Geezer, for the spadework.

Out of it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 10:54 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Chris,isall

When I had dental work done the stuff did me no good. OTOH when I had shingles it was the only thing that made it bearable over the many weeks it took to get over it. (And DAMN ! my whacked-out immune system for being allergic to anti-virals ...

)

Anyway, I've found different pain-relieving drugs work for different things in the same person. And different pain relievers are needed for the same things in different people. Just don't take aspirin, or you could bleed a lot. And don't drink with any of them, but if you do want to drink instead - ehhh ... I'm not going to touch that.

------------------------
Anyway, you could apply the whole argument to instances great and small - no parking signs and speed traps come to mind as the most manipulated money-making government schemes ever.

By what others have posted, it does seem to me the judge has the discretion during sentencing. It doesn't mean I like it, but that's the way it is. CTS would have gotten a lot further I think by saying - even if it IS legal, isn't it an outrage !!??? What can we do about it to reverse this discretion ??

But -- maybe that's what the ACLU does best.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Should the judge have the discretion to reduce the sentence if the speeder takes down the website ?

I suppose....

or is this the oxycodone talkin'?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

When I had dental work done the stuff did me no good.

My Wife had hydrocodone left over from her wisdom tooth pull, & that's working wonders!!!

Quote:

By what others have posted, it does seem to me the judge has the discretion during sentencing. It doesn't mean I like it, but that's the way it is.

Another thing- the guy's not a felon, it's a misdemeanor, right?
It still seems wrong, especially from a 'Mal' POV.

But that's what governments are forisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 12:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

oops

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 12:11 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Suppose, if you will, that after a careful a study of the tax code, I concluded that the government was LYING about the proper application of the law, and demanding money from lots of people who did NOT legally owe it. (I know that's what I believe, but you'll have to "suppose" it.) So I believe I see evidence of a huge financial fraud--the biggest in history, in fact. My question is this: is it a crime for me to SAY SO? Apparently some people think it is. Apparently they reason (if "reason" is the right word) that because the stating of my opinion might lead others to look into the issue and agree with me, which might result in them not filing or paying (because they conclude they don't owe it), therefore the mere EXPRESSION of my belief about the correct application of the law, and the deception related to it, is a CRIME.

The law has been quoted to Mr Rose time and time again. His problem is that he thinks his OPINION has any meaning in a legal sense. But he doesn't make the law, nor does he interpret it. He can shout from the mountaintops all he wants, but that does not change the fact that THE LAW has been interpreted against him many times already.

It would be far more productive, and...er... SANE on his part instead of flogging his dead horse, if he actually tried to change the law: Appeal to his Congresspeople to change the tax code, or work to elect a candidate closer to his viewpoint.

AFA his website is concerned, my understanding is that it was a business through which he sold videotapes. And of course didn't pay any taxes on his income. I wonder, if he had not sold videotapes but merely expressed his opinion on-line (for free) if the the website would have been an issue.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

By what others have posted, it does seem to me the judge has the discretion during sentencing. It doesn't mean I like it, but that's the way it is. CTS would have gotten a lot further I think by saying - even if it IS legal, isn't it an outrage !!??? What can we do about it to reverse this discretion ??"

We do, they are called manditory sentences. I recall people getting very upset when that kid who had underaged sex with his GF was gong to be locked up for 12 years/ made a sex offender etc. That's what happens with manditory sentences.

Thing that has to be remembered is that this WAS a deal that the defendant didnt have to accept and that reduced his sentence. The only valid alternative if you don't like that is that the defendent gets to serve extra time. You have a right to bear arms, do so while commiting a robbery and it will add a manditory component to your sentence. Despite what CTS may think the contents of the website COULD end up becoming extra charges because it is related to the crime, limiting judicial discression might just have meant that Rose got convicted of extra charges of impeeding the IRS (or whatever they called in in the warrant.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 12:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, yeah, there is that downside, but only if one accepts the idea that mandatory sentences are the only way to limit discretion. I was thinking more along the lines of requiring an automatic review for any sentence which limits constitutional freedoms. Or perhaps taking those kinds of limits off the book through a SCOTUS review, though with the current SCOTUS that would not be something to be done with great haste. Maybe wait for a better SCOTUS.

That other stuff - that's information we're not privy to - maybe they said to him - look, we got you dead to rights on the website, we could charge you and you'd be guilty and it would be even worse - just take it down and we'll go easy. It's context-sensitive and there's a lot we don't know about the context.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 2:57 PM