Quatloos!

My friend beat all charges and walked free. Judgement with prejudice. What do you want? His details. I'll ask him whether or not he will give them you. I bet you cowards don't post this one. I can give you even more of people who are challenging jurisdiction and winning with prejudice in their favour. You are losing guys. Keep posting your drivel. Hang on I'll put up the Skype address of a chat I administrate. Don't piss around there though as it isn't for the faint-hearted and unless you are talking about facts within evidence I'll simply throw you out as I don't care about your legal opinion. That's just fair warning given on my part to you all. Care to join cowards? I think not. Open offer... come over and see what is working. Change your names as I don't care but I don't think when you find these cases getting tossed for real and with prejudice you will want to stick around for long. There are people there who you denigrate here all the time. Come on over Wes or Burnaby49... Notorial Dissent... I won't be as childish though and put people on pathetic moderation. Oh! And before you do come over remind yourselves of this one thing... This is a chat that I administrate alone, so don't go on about anyone else. Fair warning made and given... just waiting for the cowards now. https://join.skype.com/Gbc9jpui4r1S Ready when you cowards wish to start... The floor is yours Wes. How is the barrel of your gun today WSERRA that forces people to have taken what was theirs. You call it tax, I call it theft.

I make a new topic in the Canada sov forum because pigpot chose the latest Dean Clifford thread - apparently at random - for a post I approved. His post has nothing to do with Dean Clifford, but consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

pigpot wrote:My friend beat all charges and walked free. Judgement with prejudice. What do you want? His details. I'll ask him whether or not he will give them you. I bet you cowards don't post this one. I can give you even more of people who are challenging jurisdiction and winning with prejudice in their favour.

So do it, Piggy. Give us the details; or else we have yet another example of you blowing hot air at us.

pigpot wrote:My friend beat all charges and walked free. Judgement with prejudice.

So you say. Even if so, based on what? The cop not showing?

What do you want? His details.

That would be good. Details that show why he won. If he won.

I bet you cowards don't post this one.

You lose. I'm sure you're used to it.

I can give you even more of people who are challenging jurisdiction and winning with prejudice in their favour.

Go right of ahead. Just be sure that the information of you post shows of why they won. Of.

Care to join cowards? I think not.

Care to waste my time on a Skype administered by someone who writes on a third-grade level? I think not.

Change your names

I never change my name. I post here, on Stevens' board, on Sui Juris - wherever - it's always "wserra". Moreover, I make no effort to hide my real name. How about you?

How is the barrel of your gun today WSERRA that forces people to have taken what was theirs. You call it tax, I call it theft.

Call it whatever you want. You should, however, remember Abraham Lincoln's point:

• How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
  Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.

And just don't call it English.

pigpot wrote:I'll simply throw you out as I don't care about your legal opinion.

And that is exactly why there is no point in trying to have a conversation. If you are going to ignore reality, facts, and truth just so that you can pretend you are winning, then this is only a fantasy of a withered mind. It isn't an academic discussion.

Pottapaug1938 wrote:So do it, Piggy. Give us the details; or else we have yet another example of you blowing hot air at us.

Indeed. Just because someone has alternative ideas about how legal cases are won and lost doesn't mean they don't actually deserve to win anyway. While many people turn to the more esoteric approaches after exhausting the conventional arguments some people plough straight in with the weirdness and, occasionally, still manage to win after a judge has managed to disentangle some reason from the gobbledegook. We don't need to know that they won, we need to know why they won, and that needs to be why the court thinks they won, not some random supposition from the individual as to why they think they should have won.

At other times they win not so much because they deserve to win, but because the other side deserves to lose. Failing to turn up in court, producing the wrong paperwork and so on. Many legal professionals run many cases simultaneously and often fail to dedicate appropriate amounts of time to ensuring they actually know what they're doing in each, yet the judge will hold them to a higher standard of performance than a litigant in person (and rightly so - they are getting paid to do this, after all).

There are also a small number of cases where the judge was genuinely convinced (or, at least, confused) by the smoke and mirrors. These are always(?) at the lower courts and I am not aware of any that set a precedent (Credit River being the classic example). Precedent being, of course, the key. If you can't reproduce the trick reliably then it's not law and it's not science it's just magic stories and fairy tales.

This is a benefit of being three hours behind most of you and sleeping in. Pigpot's idiocy is dealt with before I even get to my first coffee. As Wes said, this is as much related to the current flooding in California as it is to Dean Clifford.

Burnaby49 wrote:This is a benefit of being three hours behind most of you and sleeping in. Pigpot's idiocy is dealt with before I even get to my first coffee. As Wes said, this is as much related to the current flooding in California as it is to Dean Clifford.

Is pigpot responsible for the Oroville dam problem in California? Half a cubic km of paperwork got filed in the reservoir so that it overflowed?

Forsyth wrote: There are also a small number of cases where the judge was genuinely convinced (or, at least, confused) by the smoke and mirrors. These are always(?) at the lower courts and I am not aware of any that set a precedent (Credit River being the classic example). Precedent being, of course, the key. If you can't reproduce the trick reliably then it's not law and it's not science it's just magic stories and fairy tales.

If I recall correctly, the Credit River decision was a decision by a trial court, and thus has no precedental value.

If I recall correctly, the Credit River decision was a decision by a trial court, and thus has no precedental value.

Not to mention that it was vacated by the Supreme Court of Minnesota for lack of jurisdiction.

Be a little more exhaustive, Pigpot: give examples. What are you talking about?

Pottapaug1938 wrote:

Forsyth wrote: There are also a small number of cases where the judge was genuinely convinced (or, at least, confused) by the smoke and mirrors. These are always(?) at the lower courts and I am not aware of any that set a precedent (Credit River being the classic example). Precedent being, of course, the key. If you can't reproduce the trick reliably then it's not law and it's not science it's just magic stories and fairy tales.

If I recall correctly, the Credit River decision was a decision by a trial court, and thus has no precedental value.

Actually it was by a Justice of the Peace, a dog pound judge, and it was a true legal rarity, one of the holy grail of the sovict legal illiterati, an honest and true VOID JUDGMENT, for the very simple fact that the JP and his court didn't have the authority to make such a ruling, and the State's Supreme Court swatted it, declared it and his acts null and void I think was the legal term, and the JP down hard as a result. If he hadn't had the good sense to die he would have been publicly removed from the office.

Oh my. Let me see if i have this right. Mr pig, having already been sanctioned for the same thing, among other fuckery came and posted in the wrong catagory. And that post was literally devoid of any rational content. But it was moved and allowed through?

Whats the point in the needing approval at all? Even now its in the wrong place. new Zealand is wherst mr pig is.

If he cant post rationally he should not post here at all. Or are we just here feeding the trolls?

Ninj

Posting rationally? That's a pretty high barrier to entry you're imposing. I've never decided whether Pigpot can't post rational content or he won't post rational content. Hard call. Either way he doesn't. Maybe Wes felt that since Piggy hadn't posted in a few months he'd allow him some leaway.

I'm working on a posting about a Dean Kory court case that was booted without trial. The court in that one stopped him dead in his tracks by requiring that his Statement of Claim;

iii. is not scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious

I have no idea how they expected Dean to meet that clearly impossible standard any more than I can see how Piggy can meet your standard of rationality. It's just totally beyond their capabilites.

Arguing with a fool proves there are two.

Peace
Ninj

bmxninja357 wrote:Arguing with a fool proves there are two.

Peace
Ninj

...and wrestling with a pig gets one all dirty, and the pig likes it.

pigpot wrote:My friend beat all charges and walked free.

Since you are his "friend", you should be able to, here and now, and without further ado, tell us the strategy that beat the charges; I'm sure the good folks here on Quatloos could then tell you what really happened and why.

norrha wrote:

pigpot wrote:My friend beat all charges and walked free.

Since you are his "friend", you should be able to, here and now, and without further ado, tell us the strategy that beat the charges; I'm sure the good folks here on Quatloos could then tell you what really happened and why.

Better yet, give us the name of the Court where this allegedly happened and the name of your friend, so that those with access can look up the court record and see what REALLY transpired in the court.

Why is it the freemen accuse us of not 'doing our own research's and blindly accepting what we've been told by the government, yet get their backs up when asked for details to look into their claims?

Bestow the custom rank of Freeman sheep to this one.