Is consensual sex with minors under 18 always rape; or at what age is consent honestly possible - a discussion [Was: Pedophile Alert]
goo...@rock.com
Response to "bobandcarole" [Was: Pedophile Alert]
On Nov 28, 2:16 am, "ªºªandcarole(R)(tm)" <bobandcarole...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:02?pm, good...@rock.com wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 6:19 pm, bobandcarole(R) <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 5:17?pm, "wonderer" <pir...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > "bobandcarole" <bobandcarole...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> > > What are the consequences of sexual abuse?
> > > Fears, panic attacks, sleeping problems, nightmares, irritability,
> > > outbursts of anger and sudden shock reactions when being touched.
> > > Little confidence, and self-respect and respect for one's own body may
> > > change.
> > >
> > Of course, all of your examples, above and below are concerning
> > victims of abuse and rape. I believe what some pedophile acceptors
> > are pointing to is the ability of a child to consent at a younger
> > age. Certainly as young as 14. Probably as young as 9. And perhaps
> > even at any age.
> >
> > Hurting, restricting, violating, and assaulting someone against their
> > will is always rape. Consensual activity is possibly always
> > consensual activity.
>
> consentual sex with a child is rape and
> will be punished as such.
It's true that's it's been punished as such, but how should it be
"rape" as defined by the law? I'm merely questioning the status quo.
If you can't explain why, then you have no argument for the law. If
you don't care to question, then get out of the discussion.
The greatest number of people committing child abuse must be parents.
No one has a greater opportunity to commit child rape - incest and get
away with it than a parent. Parents need to know, that while they may
have a right to force their children to do many things, such as play
in little league or clean their rooms, they do not have a right to
force them to have sex with them, for that is rape. Parents do not
have a right to have sex with their children. In fact, they do not
have a right to touch their children in any way without their consent,
just as no one has a right to touch anyone else without their consent,
and it should be illegal to spank your children or strike them in any
way, for that is pure assault. Parents should not lord over their
children in any case, and hopefully they don't have to force them to
do very many things to begin with.
But even children younger than 8 can say yes or no. Kids know if they
want cotton candy or green beans.
So perhaps if pedophiles have to ask the kids and not in a suggestive
way, then we would know they are consenting.
Children need to have sex-ed at a young age, be taught about sex, and
how to deal with abusive parents, that they must either get the abuse
to stop, or suffer the abuse, or be orphans and go into a foster
home. The obvious choice is for the child to get the abuse to stop,
and get on with their lives, if it is not flagrant, and if possible.
Next they need to be taught to tell a school counselor or teacher or
principle or call a number, so they can get out of an abusive family
if it's too abusive and it doesn't stop.
Society makes scapegoats out of lesser sex offenders and ruins many
individuals for no reason. Society is doing evil in this regard. The
current sex-offender registry is an abomination that effectively
leaves people in prison for years, with an illusion that they have
been released to the outside. Except for forcible rapists, no one
should be classified as a "sex offender, " if anyone should be
classified as a sex offender at all. in my opinion all these other
sexual offenses are legal, or should at least be worth no more than a
fine. But they seek to make social outcasts of good people, they have
made scapegoats of them, they are nearly the new "niggers" and they
ruin innocent individuals lives, which all the while does nothing
about the real rape and incest which must be going on within homes
behind closed doors of families with tyrants for parents.
> > If sex is consensual then I don't see how it hurts a minor. Having
> > someone touch your genitals does not hurt you. Having someone put
> > their mouths on your genitals does not hurt you. Touching someone
> > else's genitals does not hurt you. Putting your mouth on someone
> > else's genitals does not hurt you, and coitus does not hurt you,
> > unless it does, and in which case you would be saying "stop" and it
> > would be rape, and if a minor is forced or restrained it is rape, just
> > as it is for an adult. If a minor is threatened or coerced it is
> > rape, just as it is for an adult. And nobody wants to be raped.
> > Assault is bad to begin with. Rape is a flagrant violation. Desired
> > hugging is not assault.
> > Even to a baby, what can you do? Touch its genitals? Lick its
> > genitals? Rub your genitals on it?
>
> You're getting off on this, aren't you, shitbag?
No, I'm merely making a point. That even when considering a non-
consenting baby, having sex with it does not hurt it, and what matters
*is* if it's being hurt or not, not whether or not someone is having
sex with it. Have sex with the baby that doesn't hurt it, and that
doesn't matter. Hurt the baby without having sex with it and that
matters. Granted, the baby hasn't consented and it's iffy, but I don't
think a baby cares if someone touches or licks its genitals. And
there's nothing else a pedophile could do besides rub its genitals on
the baby; taking care not to ejaculate in its eyes or something...
Child abuse can occur with or without sex. And that is what matters.
Not someone's sexual attraction to, or activity with a child. I think
people are confused in this regard.
40% of women who breastfeed have had the experience of feeling
aroused, and even having an orgasm, while breastfeeding. See
http://sexuality.about.com/od/anatomyresponse/a/orgasm_breastfe.htm
Rape is rape, and always a crime. It is a crime because it is
assault, and a flagrant violation of someone's will. When
"bobandcarol" made the following comment:
> What are the consequences of sexual abuse?
> Fears, panic attacks, sleeping problems, nightmares, irritability,
> outbursts of anger and sudden shock reactions when being touched.
> Little confidence, and self-respect and respect for one's own body may
> change.
They were relying on examples of child abuse and rape, and not
seemingly consensual sexual activity which should possibly be legal.
James M. Loralee
<goo...@rock.com> wrote in message
news:441e56fc-2236-4830...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Society makes scapegoats out of lesser sex offenders and ruins many
individuals for no reason.
Sex offenders belong in jail. That's the best place for them.
Society is doing evil in this regard. The
current sex-offender registry is an abomination that effectively
leaves people in prison for years, with an illusion that they have
been released to the outside.
They should think of that before committing their disgusting crimes.
Except for forcible rapists, no one
should be classified as a "sex offender, " if anyone should be
classified as a sex offender at all. in my opinion all these other
sexual offenses are legal, or should at least be worth no more than a
fine.
So they can go back out and molest or have sex with more children and ruin
more lives?
But they seek to make social outcasts of good people,
Good people do not have sexual contact with children.
they have
made scapegoats of them, they are nearly the new "niggers" and they
ruin innocent individuals lives, which all the while does nothing
about the real rape and incest which must be going on within homes
behind closed doors of families with tyrants for parents.
So because parents may get away with it that means other people should also
take advantage of children?
No, I'm merely making a point. That even when considering a non-
consenting baby, having sex with it does not hurt it,
Sex with a baby? That adult should be electrocuted! How can something so
sick and perverted not harm or hurt the baby?
and what matters
*is* if it's being hurt or not, not whether or not someone is having
sex with it. Have sex with the baby that doesn't hurt it, and that
doesn't matter. Hurt the baby without having sex with it and that
matters. Granted, the baby hasn't consented and it's iffy, but I don't
think a baby cares if someone touches or licks its genitals.
Why would any normal human being want to do something to sick and perverted?
Such an adult should be confined for life or executed.
And
there's nothing else a pedophile could do besides rub its genitals on
the baby; taking care not to ejaculate in its eyes or something...
If I saw someone do that to one of my children I would cripple him for life.
He wouldn't want to live when I got done with him.
Child abuse can occur with or without sex. And that is what matters.
Not someone's sexual attraction to, or activity with a child. I think
people are confused in this regard.
You sound like a sick bastard to me.
They were relying on examples of child abuse and rape, and not
seemingly consensual sexual activity which should possibly be legal.
Why should it be legal? So fucked up freaks like you can get your rocks off
on someone's kid?
John D. Wentzky
Yes. When they say, "You can do me."
You wanna start calling them liars?
G.B.
> <good...@rock.com> wrote in message
Do you have experience fucking under-aged people?
John D. Wentzky
news:4551b590-34cf-4f20...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Why ask such an irrelevant question?
Been illiterate all your life?
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> "G.B." <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
;-))
Given that you have a history of sexual criminality, I thought it'd be
worth poiting out your hypocrisy, in all of this.
> Been illiterate all your life?
No, have you?
John D. Wentzky
news:82dfea1e-a678-4c90...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I have no history of sexual criminality.
I am neither an abortionist, nor a whore not a whoremonger.
>> Been illiterate all your life?
>
> No, have you?
Didn't start on the path of illiteracy; and, I surely didn't depart from it
by becoming an ally of fraudulent roevwadeist lies.
Ghod
news:4761bfd7$0$1340$834e...@reader.greatnowhere.com...
It's really a pain, reading a response that has no indication of which
words are by a previous poster, and which are the response.
Ghod
news:82dfea1e-a678-4c90...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
wrote:
: > "G.B." <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
: >
: >
news:4551b590-34cf-4f20...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: >
: > > On Dec 14, 3:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
: > >> <good...@rock.com> wrote in message
: >
: >
>>news:441e56fc-2236-4830...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.c
om...
: >
: > >> Yes. When they say, "You can do me."
: > >> You wanna start calling them liars?
: >
: > > Do you have experience fucking under-aged people?
: >
: > Why ask such an irrelevant question?
:
: ;-))
:
: Given that you have a history of sexual criminality, I thought it'd
be
: worth poiting out your hypocrisy, in all of this.
*POIT*
Yup, that's him alright.
: > Been illiterate all your life?
:
: No, have you?
Niiiiifty...people becoming illiterate as adults. *narf*
Ghod
news:7kx8j.17010$Mu4....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
: "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
:
news:82dfea1e-a678-4c90...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: > On Dec 14, 1:36 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
: >> "G.B." <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
: >>
: >>
news:4551b590-34cf-4f20...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: >>
: >> > On Dec 14, 3:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
: >> >> <good...@rock.com> wrote in message
: >>
: >>
>>news:441e56fc-2236-4830...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.c
om...
not?
: >>
: >> >> Yes. When they say, "You can do me."
: >> >> You wanna start calling them liars?
: >>
: >> > Do you have experience fucking under-aged people?
: >>
: >> Why ask such an irrelevant question?
: >
: > ;-))
: >
: > Given that you have a history of sexual criminality, I thought
it'd be
: > worth poiting out your hypocrisy, in all of this.
:
: I have no history of sexual criminality.
"History never repeats,
I tell myself before I go to sleep.
Don't say the words you might regret..."
: I am neither an abortionist, nor a whore not a whoremonger.
Oh? So you're a whoremonger then.
: >> Been illiterate all your life?
: >
: > No, have you?
:
: Didn't start on the path of illiteracy; and, I surely didn't depart
from it
: by becoming an ally of fraudulent roevwadeist lies.
Quit yanking, boy....it seems pretty unlikely that you began as a
literate. Also, considering the extent of your lies, you should
probably avoid accusing anyone else of lies.
Gwyneð Bennetdottir
> "Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82dfea1e-a678-4c90...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 1:36 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> "G.B." <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4551b590-34cf-4f20...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Dec 14, 3:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> <good...@rock.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:441e56fc-2236-4830...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> *Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
>
> >> >> Yes. When they say, "You can do me."
> >> >> You wanna start calling them liars?
>
> >> > Do you have experience fucking under-aged people?
>
> >> Why ask such an irrelevant question?
>
> > ;-))
>
> > Given that you have a history of sexual criminality, I thought it'd be
> > worth poiting out your hypocrisy, in all of this.
>
> I have no history of sexual criminality.
...except for that little mark on your RAP sheet, ten years old.
The Chief Instigator
>"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:82dfea1e-a678-4c90...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Dec 14, 1:36 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> "G.B." <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4551b590-34cf-4f20...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> > On Dec 14, 3:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> >> <good...@rock.com> wrote in message
>>> >>news:441e56fc-2236-4830...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> *Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
>>> >> Yes. When they say, "You can do me."
>>> >> You wanna start calling them liars?
>>> > Do you have experience fucking under-aged people?
>>> Why ask such an irrelevant question?
>> ;-))
>> Given that you have a history of sexual criminality, I thought it'd be
>> worth poiting out your hypocrisy, in all of this.
>I have no history of sexual criminality.
>I am neither an abortionist, nor a whore not a whoremonger.
No, you got busted for indecent exposure in 1996, pled guilty to a plea
bargain, got probation, violated the terms and did a few months in jail (not
to mention paying a fine) for your refusal to obey the court's order. That's
part of your criminal record.
>>> Been illiterate all your life?
>> No, have you?
>Didn't start on the path of illiteracy; and, I surely didn't depart from it
>by becoming an ally of fraudulent roevwadeist lies.
You trumpet your idiocy every time you post (assuming you're still able to do
so, eight weeks after you posted that whine).
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Toronto 1, Houston 0 (February 10)
NEXT GAME: Tuesday, February 12 at Peoria, 7:05
elizabeth
> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
snippity\
> No, you got busted for indecent exposure in 1996,
What? And did he hand out magnifying glasses so people could see his
shortcomings?
> pled guilty to a plea
> bargain, got probation, violated the terms and did a few months in jail (not
> to mention paying a fine) for your refusal to obey the court's order. That's
> part of your criminal record.
Britney Spears got away with it . ..
> >>> Been illiterate all your life?
> >> No, have you?
> >Didn't start on the path of illiteracy; and, I surely didn't depart from it
> >by becoming an ally of fraudulent roevwadeist lies.
>
> You trumpet your idiocy every time you post (assuming you're still able to do
> so, eight weeks after you posted that whine).
He's slowing down a bit.
And Oopsey is MIA .. . it's a good thing.
John D. Wentzky
news:szk1w7k...@eris.io.com...
> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>
>>"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:82dfea1e-a678-4c90...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Dec 14, 1:36 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> "G.B." <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> news:4551b590-34cf-4f20...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> > On Dec 14, 3:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> <good...@rock.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> >>news:441e56fc-2236-4830...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> >> *Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
>
>>>> >> Yes. When they say, "You can do me."
>>>> >> You wanna start calling them liars?
>
>>>> > Do you have experience fucking under-aged people?
>
>>>> Why ask such an irrelevant question?
>
>>> ;-))
>>> Given that you have a history of sexual criminality, I thought it'd be
>>> worth poiting out your hypocrisy, in all of this.
>
>>I have no history of sexual criminality.
>>I am neither an abortionist, nor a whore not a whoremonger.
>
> No, you got busted for indecent exposure in 1996,
Oh, really?
How would you know?
> pled guilty to a plea bargain,
Bullshit!
> got probation,
Really?
> violated the terms
BULLSHIT!
> and did a few months in jail (not
> to mention paying a fine) for your refusal to obey the court's order.
> That's
> part of your criminal record.
Look at the IDIOT SHOWING all of those ANTI-USA EXCESSIVE FINES AND
EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENTS OF A SATANIST CRIMINAL SYSTEM!
LOL!
LOOK AT THE FRAUD AND THE CRIMES OF THE ANTI-CONSTITUTION TREASON ASSHOLES
OF ROEVEWADE LAZY SHITFORBRAINS EXCESSIVE TAXATION ANTI-PRODUCTIVE
UNREPRESENTTIVE FREAKASS LOONS!
YOU ARE WHO GOT BUSTED WITH A STROKE, REMEMBER?
YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU CAN USE TO DEFEAT PEOPLE SUCH AS ME!
YOU NEVER DID AND YOU NEVER WILL!
YOU'RE A DISGRUNTLED UNDERLING LOSER WHO CAN ONLY BARK LIKE THE DOGBRAINED
PEON OF IGNORANCE AND CRIMINAL ALLEGIANCE YOU ARE!
>>>> Been illiterate all your life?
>
>>> No, have you?
>
>>Didn't start on the path of illiteracy; and, I surely didn't depart from
>>literacy
>>by becoming an ally of fraudulent roevwadeist lies.
>
> You trumpet your idiocy every time you post (assuming you're still able to
> do
> so, eight weeks after you posted that whine).
What idiocy, womanly wimpboy?
John D. Wentzky
news:7ba97b0c-20b6-4a93...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 10, 7:32 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
*Britney Spears got away with it . ..
Tell the world of the porno patrols and the blatant expositions they make in
their WHORINGFORDOLLARS CRIME REGIME!
It is like no one in the entire universe respects those losers of crime and
HYPOCRISY and TREASON!
Mark Sebree
> "elizabeth" <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7ba97b0c-20b6-4a93...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 10, 7:32 pm, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>
> *Britney Spears got away with it . ..
>
> Tell the world of the porno patrols and the blatant expositions they make in
> their WHORINGFORDOLLARS CRIME REGIME!
Why should anyone tell the world about your delusions? You do a good
enough job of it as it is.
>
> It is like no one in the entire universe respects those losers of crime and
> HYPOCRISY and TREASON!
That is why nobody respects you. You are a loser of crime and
hypocrisy, and you falsely accuse everyone that disagrees with you of
treason.
Mark Sebree
Gwen Bennet
> And Oopsey is MIA .. . it's a good thing.
On the 18th, I think it'll be a month.
BOB
adb1-282...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 12, 2:35 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And Oopsey is MIA .. . it's a good thing.
>
> On the 18th, I think it'll be a month.
>
Great, another anti-choice loser bites the dust. :o)))
Tom S.
It is a part of your public record, aka rapsheet.
>
>> pled guilty to a plea bargain,
>
>Bullshit!
And true
>
>> got probation,
>
>Really?
really
>
>> violated the terms
>
>BULLSHIT!
By your own admission.
>
>> and did a few months in jail (not
>> to mention paying a fine) for your refusal to obey the court's order.
>> That's
>> part of your criminal record.
>
>Look at the IDIOT SHOWING all of those ANTI-USA EXCESSIVE FINES AND
>EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENTS OF A SATANIST CRIMINAL SYSTEM!
>LOL!
>LOOK AT THE FRAUD AND THE CRIMES OF THE ANTI-CONSTITUTION TREASON ASSHOLES
>OF ROEVEWADE LAZY SHITFORBRAINS EXCESSIVE TAXATION ANTI-PRODUCTIVE
>UNREPRESENTTIVE FREAKASS LOONS!
>YOU ARE WHO GOT BUSTED WITH A STROKE, REMEMBER?
> YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU CAN USE TO DEFEAT PEOPLE SUCH AS ME!
Don't need anything. You defeat yourself without anyone's help.
<snip>
Tom S.
Tom S.
I try to ignore his absence. Wouldn't want him coming back and
crowing about us talking about him the whole time he was gone.
He is Wentsky without the entertainment value. (((^:
Tom S.
John D. Wentzky
news:ffj4r3djlr0bjg25d...@4ax.com...
Really?
My record?
I never made such a DISCLAIMED record.
>>
>>> pled guilty to a plea bargain,
>>
>>Bullshit!
>
> And true
Plea bargain?
Someone was running a bargain day at some courthouse?
Funny how they didn't pay me anything.
Let me see.
They're shopping for a plea, they pay for the bargain, right?
Oh, but that isn't what they do.
They shop for a plea. Then they charge the person they were shopping from
like they go into coffee houses and beg for coffee.
You forgot how criminal they really are?
They even need guns to support their criminal behaviors.
>>
>>> got probation,
>>
>>Really?
>
> really
Got probation?
Is that like "Got MIlk?"?
I don't have probation.
I'm not the governmnent.
Why don't you bitch and moan at the people who actually have all this
bullshit you are talking about?
You know. The peole who DISCLAIMED their own records.
LOL!
>>
>>> violated the terms
>>
>>BULLSHIT!
>
> By your own admission.
Fraud!
It was the government that violated the terms of probation, ASSHOLE!
CRIMINAL system of CRIMINAL frauds and lazy, lpaper-pushing tax-leeches.
Don;t forget about those GUNS they carry.
Oh, yeah.
Those tasers they bought after they were given shares in Taxer Corporation?
What a JOKE OF BRIBERY AND COLLUSION AGAINST THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES!
>>
>>> and did a few months in jail (not
>>> to mention paying a fine) for your refusal to obey the court's order.
>>> That's
>>> part of your criminal record.
>>
>>Look at the IDIOT SHOWING all of those ANTI-USA EXCESSIVE FINES AND
>>EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENTS OF A SATANIST CRIMINAL SYSTEM!
>>LOL!
>>LOOK AT THE FRAUD AND THE CRIMES OF THE ANTI-CONSTITUTION TREASON ASSHOLES
>>OF ROEVEWADE LAZY SHITFORBRAINS EXCESSIVE TAXATION ANTI-PRODUCTIVE
>>UNREPRESENTTIVE FREAKASS LOONS!
>>YOU ARE WHO GOT BUSTED WITH A STROKE, REMEMBER?
>> YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU CAN USE TO DEFEAT PEOPLE SUCH AS ME!
>
> Don't need anything.
You sure?
LOL!
Wanna confirm that in bozo script?
> You defeat yourself without anyone's help.
> <snip>
You gotta be a real FOOL to lie that obviously.
Tom S.
<wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
It obviously is not disclaimed since you have admitted more than once
to its truth and accuracy.
That is impossible, John Boy. The probation contained certain
conditions that YOU had to meet in order to continue walking the
streets as a free man. YOU ignored the conditions. The government
therefore, revoked the probation and threw YOU in jail to serve out
your term.
There is only one person who is responsible for your time spend in the
slammer and that person is YOU.
<snip>
Tom S.
Gwen Bennet
John D. Wentzky
Do what?
I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
Wrong, imagination loon who tries to defend errors on the part of government
and in direct opposition to the words of their disclaimer and thw words of
the citizen who is libelled by their errors.
> The probation contained certain conditions that YOU had to meet in order
> to continue walking the
> streets as a free man.
None of which conditions did I fail to comply with.
> YOU ignored the conditions.
Bullshit.
What condition did I ignore, you fraud?!
> The government therefore, revoked the probation
An illegal act which made the original sentence a lie.
> and threw YOU in jail to serve out
> your term.
Another criminal act performed against me by fraudulent anti-Constitutional
traitors.
> There is only one person who is responsible for your time spend in the
> slammer and that person is YOU.
Another lie.
It was the government itself that violated its own terms and that violated
my constitutional rights to be free of double jeopardy, excessive fines and
excessive punishments.
I wasn't even given a jury trial.
None of my due process rights were honored other than my right to counsel.
I was excessively fined and excessively punished for something I was not
even guilty of.
You're allied with frauds and criminals who are against the USA and its laws
and its Constitution.
John D. Wentzky
news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> You're going to prison, criminal.
To visit you?
Why would I do that?
Mark Sebree
wrote:
> "Tom S." <tscal...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:m2e7r3hsuevaiono9...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:14:27 -0500, "John D. Wentzky"
>
> >>"Tom S." <tscal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ffj4r3djlr0bjg25d...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:07:59 -0500, "John D. Wentzky"
>
> >>>>"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:szk1w7k...@eris.io.com...
> >>>>> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> writes:
>
> >>>>>>"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You have admitted in this forum that the records are accurate.
> I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
No, that is not correct. The government never states that their
records are not truthful. And you have admitted that what is in the
records is accurate.
If the government is really libeling you, then you have the right to
file a civil suit against them. However, you will have to prove that
the on-line records do not match the court records, and that you took
every reasonable step to remedy the errors in your public records.
However, there is no indication that the government has made any
errors, and you do not understand the disclaimer to start with. And
since you are not being libeled by the records, and you have not
presented any words of a citizen that actually is being libeled by
those records, there have been no words from a citizen that is being
libeled by your county's online public records to be saying anything
in opposition to.
>
> > The probation contained certain conditions that YOU had to meet in order
> > to continue walking the streets as a free man.
>
> None of which conditions did I fail to comply with.
More likely you did fail to comply with some of the conditions of your
parole.
>
> > YOU ignored the conditions.
>
> Bullshit.
> What condition did I ignore, you fraud?!
You tell us. What were the conditions of your parole, to start with,
and what did you do or not do that violated them?
>
> > The government therefore, revoked the probation
>
> An illegal act which made the original sentence a lie.
There is nothing illegal about the judge revoking probation, since
probation is ALWAYS extended on your good behavior.
>
> > and threw YOU in jail to serve out your term.
>
> Another criminal act performed against me by fraudulent anti-Constitutional
> traitors.
No, that is your delusions. There was no criminal act performed
against you, and you are the only one that is fraudulent or anti-
Constitutional. It is perfectly legal and expected to incarcerate
someone that violates their probation.
>
> > There is only one person who is responsible for your time spend in the
> > slammer and that person is YOU.
>
> Another lie.
Only by you.
> It was the government itself that violated its own terms and that violated
> my constitutional rights to be free of double jeopardy, excessive fines and
> excessive punishments.
There is no indication that the government violated any terms, and you
were not subjected to double jeopardy since you were not tried for
your original crime again after you were found innocent, or had served
out your sentence. You were also not subjected to excessive fines or
excessive punishment. You were found guilty of violating your
probation, a separate crime, and sentenced according to the law and in
accordance with your original sentence.
> I wasn't even given a jury trial.
Did you demand one at the time? All they would need to do is show
that you violated probation, after all. And they have all the
evidence on their side.
> None of my due process rights were honored other than my right to counsel.
More likely, you do not understand your due process rights, and your
due process rights were honored.
And what did your counsel have to say at the time?
> I was excessively fined and excessively punished for something I was not
> even guilty of.
There is no evidence of anything in your statement being accurate.
You were not excessively punished or excessively fined since the fines
and punishments for your crimes could have been higher according to
your state law.
> You're allied with frauds and criminals who are against the USA and its laws
> and its Constitution.
Why do you think that he is allied with people like you? You are the
fraud, the criminal, and you are the one that presents himself as
being against the USA, its laws, and its Constitution. You also show
that you do not understand the laws or the Constitution as well, nor
the meaning of the terms that make up those laws.
For example, you claimed or implied in this post and in previous ones
that you were subjected to double jeopardy when your probation was
revoked, yet you have never shown that you were tried a second time
for the crime that you originally committed (indecent exposure), or
that you were tried a second time for violating probation. Which
means that you have not shown that you were subjected to double
jeopardy. You have also claimed that your punishment and the fines
that you had to pay were excessive, yet you cannot show that they
were. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that you were
subjected to any of those things.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
wrote:
> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>
> To visit you?
No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
> Why would I do that?
Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
guilty.
Mark Sebree
Bob Officer
Wentzky" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>"Gwen Bennet" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> You're going to prison, criminal.
>
>To visit you?
Gwen isn't indicted and isn't going to stand trial.
However you are going to stand trial for a felony charges & from what
you have said on usenet, the State has a airtight, slam-dunk case.
The Felony with guilt of the assumed consent DUI, will give you about
5-7 years in prison.
>Why would I do that?
You visit will be a more permanent basis.
--
Ak'toh'di
Bob Officer
Wentzky" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
Your record. your rap sheet. You own statement of criminal history.
>I never made such a DISCLAIMED record.
It isn't disclaimed, you idiot.
>>>
>>>> pled guilty to a plea bargain,
>>>
>>>Bullshit!
>>
>> And true
>
>Plea bargain?
>Someone was running a bargain day at some courthouse?
it was a bargain for you. What you did sure have put you in prison
for a while.
>Funny how they didn't pay me anything.
>Let me see.
>They're shopping for a plea, they pay for the bargain, right?
The offer you a deal and you took it.
>Oh, but that isn't what they do.
>They shop for a plea. Then they charge the person they were shopping from
>like they go into coffee houses and beg for coffee.
>You forgot how criminal they really are?
Today you might even end up without the deal for the same crime.
>They even need guns to support their criminal behaviors.
They need the guns because of people like you, Johnny, Criminals.
>>>
>>>> got probation,
>>>
>>>Really?
>>
>> really
>
>Got probation?
>Is that like "Got MIlk?"?
>I don't have probation.
>I'm not the governmnent.
>Why don't you bitch and moan at the people who actually have all this
>bullshit you are talking about?
>You know. The peole who DISCLAIMED their own records.
>LOL!
Idiots laugh?
>>>
>>>> violated the terms
>>>
>>>BULLSHIT!
>>
>> By your own admission.
>
>Fraud!
>It was the government that violated the terms of probation, ASSHOLE!
>CRIMINAL system of CRIMINAL frauds and lazy, lpaper-pushing tax-leeches.
>Don;t forget about those GUNS they carry.
>Oh, yeah.
>Those tasers they bought after they were given shares in Taxer Corporation?
>What a JOKE OF BRIBERY AND COLLUSION AGAINST THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES!
I hope you make a real ass out of yourself in court, Johnny. Impress
the judge.
>>>
>>>> and did a few months in jail (not
>>>> to mention paying a fine) for your refusal to obey the court's order.
>>>> That's
>>>> part of your criminal record.
>>>
>>>Look at the IDIOT SHOWING all of those ANTI-USA EXCESSIVE FINES AND
>>>EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENTS OF A SATANIST CRIMINAL SYSTEM!
>>>LOL!
>>>LOOK AT THE FRAUD AND THE CRIMES OF THE ANTI-CONSTITUTION TREASON ASSHOLES
>>>OF ROEVEWADE LAZY SHITFORBRAINS EXCESSIVE TAXATION ANTI-PRODUCTIVE
>>>UNREPRESENTTIVE FREAKASS LOONS!
>>>YOU ARE WHO GOT BUSTED WITH A STROKE, REMEMBER?
>>> YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU CAN USE TO DEFEAT PEOPLE SUCH AS ME!
>>
>> Don't need anything.
>
>You sure?
>LOL!
>Wanna confirm that in bozo script?
>
>> You defeat yourself without anyone's help.
>> <snip>
>
>You gotta be a real FOOL to lie that obviously.
Since the usual thing is a case finding and a separate date for
sentencing. The DA will have time to make sure you get the maximum
time for your crime. Your guilt is going to be a slam-dunk. partially
because you have admitted to the crime on usenet, a public forum.
--
Ak'toh'di
John D. Wentzky
news:e826f2a8-97f9-49d9...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
*You have admitted in this forum that the records are accurate.
Ridiculous.
You are still acting like an illiterate propagandist who refuses to stand up
to the words that are in print and who refuses to honor the laws and the
Constitutional rights of the citzenry.
> I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
*No, that is not correct.
A total lie on your part.
I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
The government has made the disclaimer and I am affirming it in an entirely
lawful manner.
Your rebellion against such overriding testimony of both the government and
the citizenry is something that can not be sustained in this nation.
*The government never states that their records are not truthful.
Another lie. The government publicly states that their records are not
guaranteed to be reliable or accurate or truthful or fit for any particular
purpose. That means that they are unable to tax or fine the people via such
disclaimed information because they have cast doubt upon all the records
they use to tax and fine the people.
The people are exempt from being taxed and/or fined by governments that do
not guarantee their records.
*And you have admitted that what is in the
*records is accurate.
Another lie.
I have admitted, in cooperation with the government, that their records are
faulty.
And, such can be proven via Constitutional process, if necessary, in a court
of law; however, such a trial is unnecessary since the Constitution itself
requires every piece of information the goverment publishes to be truthful
and accurate beyond a reasonable doubt, which reasonable doubt currently
exists upon all of the information that has been disclaimed via a blanket
disclaimer that attributes reasonable doubt to every piece of information
that the disclaimer precedes.
You have nothing to support your position, because the government, I, and
the Constitution destroy your rebellion against the laws and the truth and
the Constitution itself.
*If the government is really libeling you, then you have the right to
*file a civil suit against them.
A civl suit against criminal acts of government?
A civil suit against obstruction of justice criminals and frauds who rely on
taxes and weapons to sustain their crimes against the people?
Huh?
How about some cooperation from people who have a bit of intelligence and
ability to reason to correct this vastly egregious testament of government
that fails to honor the constitutional rights of the people?
Why is everything a litigous argumentative ploy to you?
Are you still in that pigsty that thinks the peoples' contributions are here
to support your personal lifestyle, and via an unequal measure basis?
I do not support your agenda that is geared to sustain injustices and crimes
against the people of the USA and against their Constitutional rights.
*However, you will have to prove that
*the on-line records do not match the court records,
Totally unnecessary, because the logical effect of the disclaimed
information that has been presented to the public extends to the records
under seal themselves.
The seal of the COUNTY IS ON THE WEBSITE, IDIOT!
PERIOD!
On one hand you act as if the seal can be used to support error and to stamp
a DISCLAIMER; while on the other hand you act as if that same seal that is
affixed to records that the disclaimed information came from can be
supported by contradicting the OVERRIDING and PRECEDING disclaimer that
bears the COUNTY SEAL!
You are without credibility because you speak with a forked tongue.
Also, if it does occur that any of the information that is on file and not
online disagrees with the website information then there is cause to correct
the records that are published online; however, the disclaimer would still
apply with would cast doubt on both the website record and the records that
are on file.
You do NOT understand the effect of the disclaimer.
There is no record, either online or on file, that can be sustained at this
point because the disclaimer casts reasonable doubt upon all those records.
The blanket disclaimer has destroyed the entire plethora of records that
have been presented to the public online and also to the copies of those
records.
Instead if acting like a paranoid psychotic illogical ineptitude advocate
who is too afraId to serve the people, you must understand that their is
much work to be done to aright the wrongs that created the necessity to
publish such a disclaimer.
Your education in CRIMINAL escapist OBSTRUCTION of justice fraud and deceit
and lies and taxation without representation against the Constitutional
rights of the people and in militant state police control, conflict of
interest regime practices is insufficient to govern a nation that is founded
and stands for liberty and justice for all.
*and that you took
*every reasonable step to remedy the errors in your public records.
I took very many reasonable steps to remedy the egregious violations that
are in evidence.
There is no NEGLIGENCE on my part to use against me.
The negligence is on the part of government that has failed to exercise the
laws as they are written for MY BENEFIT!
*However, there is no indication that the government has made any
*errors, and you do not understand the disclaimer to start with.
Bullshit, you ally of ignorance, fraud, deceit, ineptitude, crime and
treason.
*And since you are not being libeled by the records,
Another lie, by a propagandizing fraud, Sebree.
*and you have not presented any words of a citizen that actually is being
libeled by
*those records,
Another lie, by a fraudulent satanist fool Sebree.
*there have been no words from a citizen that is being
*libeled by your county's online public records to be saying anything
*in opposition to.
A lie that is countered by reality itself.
I am a citizen who trounces your fraud.
I must be represented or you lose all your rights to representation.
Your agenda that goes against me, one citizen, is applicable to you.
> > The probation contained certain conditions that YOU had to meet in order
> > to continue walking the streets as a free man.
>
> None of which conditions did I fail to comply with.
*More likely you did fail to comply with some of the conditions of your
*parole.
What parole?
> > YOU ignored the conditions.
>
> Bullshit.
> What condition did I ignore, you fraud?!
*You tell us.
Got alzheimers already?
"None of which conditions did I fail to comply with."
*What were the conditions of your parole, to start with,
*and what did you do or not do that violated them?
Got alzheimers already?
"None of which conditions did I fail to comply with."
> > The government therefore, revoked the probation
>
> An illegal act which made the original sentence a lie.
*There is nothing illegal about the judge revoking probation,
Got alzheimers already?
"None of which conditions did I fail to comply with."
There was nothing to prove any violation on my part of any probationary
condition.
*since
*probation is ALWAYS extended on your good behavior.
The Constitution does not allow double jeopardy, you idiot.
There is no Constitutional method to resentence anyone after their initial
sentencing.
There are Constitutional prohibitions on excessive fines and excessive
punishments.
You're a satanist asshole who hates people.
That is a fact.
I never violated any terms of probation.
I wasn;t even required to be on probation.
I was NOT GUILTY of the crime I was charged with.
You're a freaking loser who uses guns and taxes to attack the people in
violation of their constituitonal rights and in violation of the law itself.
And, those records you rely on are corrupt and DISCLAIMED by the government.
Your blatantly obvious warmongering allegiance is criminal.
> > and threw YOU in jail to serve out your term.
>
> Another criminal act performed against me by fraudulent
> anti-Constitutional
> traitors.
*No, that is your delusions.
None, you anti-love peon.
*There was no criminal act performed
*against you,
Fraud!
There have been MUPLTIPLE CRIMES committed against me by self-serving
criminals who have also conducted fraud against me.
*and you are the only one that is fraudulent or anti-
*Constitutional.
Bullshit, you deceived charlatan of criminal propgandists.
*It is perfectly legal and expected to incarcerate
*someone that violates their probation.
You're illiterate.
At no time did I violate any terms of probation.
You are allied with predatory criminal thieves and frauds who aren't
producing anything for this nation other than burdens and woe.
> > There is only one person who is responsible for your time spend in the
> > slammer and that person is YOU.
>
> Another lie.
*Only by you.
Bullshit, you anti-liberty, anti-justice crime advocate.
> It was the government itself that violated its own terms and that violated
> my constitutional rights to be free of double jeopardy, excessive fines
> and
> excessive punishments.
*There is no indication that the government violated any terms,
Another FOOL's statement, by a fool.
*and you were not subjected to double jeopardy since you were not tried for
*your original crime again after you were found innocent,
What a joke.
I committed no crime.
And, there was no jury trial in either instance, you kidnapping and
extortion criminal ally.
Found innocent meaning they were supposed to throw me in jail?
After fining me and taking money from me so many times?
I was excessively fined and excessively punished and I was subjected to
double jeopardy.
All you lazy assholes better stop attacking me.
You're traitors.
LOSERS!
*or had served out your sentence.
The sentence was violated by the government itself.
I was punished beyond the statute of limitations for a crime I was not
guilty of.
*You were also not subjected to excessive fines or
*excessive punishment.
Wrong, loser bitchboy hypocrite.
*You were found guilty of violating your
*probation,
Not at all, you anti-civilian warmongering criminal fool.
*a separate crime,
You have falsely accused me of a crime which I did not commit.
You are a fraud.
*and sentenced according to the law
None at all.
*and in
*accordance with your original sentence.
None at all.
You are a fraudulent, traitorous fool.
> I wasn't even given a jury trial.
*Did you demand one at the time?
Yes.
Wanna know why?
It is demanded by the Constitution itself.
There is no right of any judge or policeman or probation department employee
to neglect said right.
You're an ally of warmongers, and anti-liberty, anti-constitution criminals.
*All they would need to do is show
*that you violated probation, after all. And they have all the
*evidence on their side.
Bullshit.
The SCUMBAG ASSHOLE WHO FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF not cooperating was such a
COWARD that he did not appear at all to support the criminal assholes' case
against me.
I was denied my Constitutional rights and sent to jail for a crime I did not
commit.
> None of my due process rights were honored other than my right to counsel.
*More likely, you do not understand your due process rights, and your
*due process rights were honored.
You ARE A FOOL to say that.
I graduated from Furman Univeristy, "The Harvard of the South", with a major
in Mathematics
Wanna check the cost of attending Furman?
My nephew told me it is $40,000.00 per year now.
When will you disgruntled loser peons stop attacking those who are more
qualified than you?
*And what did your counsel have to say at the time?
What counsel?
I was shafted by criminals who have lesser educations than me.
I was deprived of my rights and mistreated by an unruly gang of criminals
who hate the USA and the law and the Constitution.
Read the DISCLAIMER again, and UNDERSTAND IT THIS TIME!
You *are* OBVIOUSLY an idiot to keep on acting like a dog who favors
treasonists above law-abiding knowledgeable citizens.
[snip]
Gwen Bennet
wrote:
> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>
> To visit you?
To serve your sentence when you're sentenced for the felony offence
for which you'll be convicted.
> Why would I do that?
You won't have any option - other than suicide - to escape it.
John D. Wentzky
> On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>>
>> To visit you?
>
> No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
I didn't attack any police officer.
I was ATTACKED by a 24-year old armed idiot who committed predatory crimes
against me.
>> Why would I do that?
>
> Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
> guilty.
No jury will be willing to lobby against themselves by ruling against me.
LOL!
PERIOD!
John D. Wentzky
news:lm09r3lt0iorpblmp...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:22:25 -0500, in alt.abortion, "John D.
> Wentzky" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>"Gwen Bennet" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> You're going to prison, criminal.
>>
>>To visit you?
>
> Gwen isn't indicted and isn't going to stand trial.
I bet that bothers you, too, because you are so anti-the people of the USA.
Still carrying that off-reservation indian anger against the USA?
> However you are going to stand trial for a felony charges
I won't.
You are an idiot and a fraud to assert such a lie.
> & from what you have said on usenet,
I am completely and perfectly justified and NOT GUILTY of any of the
charges.
> the State has a airtight, slam-dunk case.
Against themselves and the criminals who committed MULTIPLE CRIMES against
ME!
LOL!
> The Felony with guilt of the assumed consent DUI,
There is no felony on my part and their is no violation of any DUI statute
on my part.
> will give you about
> 5-7 years in prison.
Au contraire, ignorant fraud ally.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and fraud and perjury and intimidation and assault
against my Constitutional rights and kidnapping and extortion and petit
larceny and grand larceny are such that you really don't want to lobby
aganst me in these matters.
>>Why would I do that?
>
> You visit will be a more permanent basis.
Your false sense of security is what I letting you know is unsupportable.
LOL!
Still lobbying for taxes to arm predators who roam the streets bearing the
name of a government?
LOL!
Huh?
I don't.
Such bullshit violates the Constitutional rights of the people so many times
it is ridiculous to lobby for it.
TREASON is easy to discern when armed, tax-paid militants are roaming
society so frequently, assaulting, kidnapping and extorting property from
the people of the USA.
Roevwade is a ploy of treason, of crime.
It is all based on lies and accusations without any proof to support it.
You're fighting a losing battle that you can never win.
Mark Sebree
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>
> >> To visit you?
>
> > No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
>
> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
I have never tried to get onto the Comedy Channel.
> I didn't attack any police officer.
According to your own statements, you said that you slammed the cop to
the ground. That means you attacked a police officer, even if you
cannot understand the English that you write.
> I was ATTACKED by a 24-year old armed idiot who committed predatory crimes
> against me.
You have never shown that you were attacked by any such person? Did
the police take your statement when they arrived on the scene?
If you are talking about the cop just before you attacked him, you
have NEVER been able to explain how exactly you were supposedly
attacked. Therefore, there is no reason to think that you were
actually attacked. What's more, even in the unlikely event that the
cop did attack you, that does not give you an excuse to attack him.
>
> >> Why would I do that?
>
> > Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
> > guilty.
>
> No jury will be willing to lobby against themselves by ruling against me.
They will not be lobbying against themselves at all, and there is
nothing that will stop them from finding you guilty. You certainly
have never given anyone here a reason to think that you are innocent
of the crime, or that you will be found innocent.
> LOL!
> PERIOD!
That is the sound of the gavel when the judge finishes stating that
you have been found guilty, and that sentencing will take place at a
later date. You will then be lead to jail to await sentencing. After
sentencing, you are likely to be taken to prison for the next few
years.
Mark Sebree
John D. Wentzky
On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>
> To visit you?
*To serve your sentence when you're sentenced for the felony offence
*for which you'll be convicted.
LOL!
HAHAHHAAHHAHAHAA!
Guess what.
Your criminal nature is revealed by your errant predication of guilt without
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
My assertions are so solid it scares you into the hell you try to use to
sustain your criminal allegiance and associates who are required to pay
$$$$$$$$ according to law.
> Why would I do that?
*You won't have any option
I am required to visit you in prison?
Why?
* - other than suicide - to escape it.
To escape what?
To escape abortionist assholes and homosexual anal retentive criminals?
LOL!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!
Guess what, coward.
You can't beat me in any lawful manner.
If you try, you incur guilt.
If you commit an actual crime against me, you incur guilt.
I live on with complete and utter impunity and the integrity that comes from
NOT being stained with your personal baggage.
Understand why FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a LAW?
Understand why asking that peon who assaulted me if he was a homosexual is
LEGAL?
LOL!
HAHAHHAAHAHHAHAA!
I enjoy treating real idiots like the idiots they are.
I have always enjoyed putting lesser behaved idiots down.
I enjoy showing them the way.
LOL!
HAHAHAHAHHAA!
Prepare to enjoy the revelations that will expose you and yours of all the
shit you have tried to keep secret for decades.
You can't beat it.
It is an imminent thing that eminence will not allow to go unfulfilled.
Your pimp daddy got the cash to pay your way off?
You better start thinking about how you are going to get out of the hole you
are in by coming up with the CASH that is DEMANDED from you, because if you
don't you will later wish you did.
John D. Wentzky
I have no criminal records.
You are attributing full ownership of such things.
I must automatically order that all such records that do not agree with my
consent to be removed from public publication.
> You own statement of criminal history.
I made no such statements.
>>I never made such a DISCLAIMED record.
>
> It isn't disclaimed, you idiot.
WRONG, AGAIN, ILLITERATE FOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!
THE SEAL IS AFFIXED TO THE DISCLAIMER WHICH OVERRIDES ANY BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS BULLSHIT!
BADA BING, BADA BOOM!
Got a brain, yet?
Mark Sebree
> "Bob Officer" <boboffic...@127.0.0.7> wrote in message
>
> news:q219r3tuojhr55spf...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:14:27 -0500, in alt.abortion, "John D.
>
> >>"Tom S." <tscal...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>news:ffj4r3djlr0bjg25d...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:07:59 -0500, "John D. Wentzky"
>
> >>>>"The Chief Instigator" <patr...@io.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:szk1w7k...@eris.io.com...> >>>>>>"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Yes, you do.
> You are attributing full ownership of such things.
No, he is not.
> I must automatically order that all such records that do not agree with my
> consent to be removed from public publication.
You cannot order public records be removed from the public records.
Any clerk that follows such orders would lose his or her job and
commit a crime.
Your consent is not needed for the publication of your criminal
records, since such records are matters of public record.
>
> > You own statement of criminal history.
>
> I made no such statements.
Yes, you have.
>
> >>I never made such a DISCLAIMED record.
>
> > It isn't disclaimed, you idiot.
>
> WRONG, AGAIN, ILLITERATE FOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!
That would be you.
> THE SEAL IS AFFIXED TO THE DISCLAIMER WHICH OVERRIDES ANY BEHIND CLOSED
> DOORS BULLSHIT!
There is no "behind closed doors bullshit" with respect to your public
records. The disclaimer only applies to the online search engine, and
the possibility of transcription errors and computer errors. It has
no effect on the originals that the online records are taken from.
>
> BADA BING, BADA BOOM!
That is the sound of the prison doors closing behind you as you start
your sentence.
> Got a brain, yet?
Yes. When do you plan on getting one that works? Before or after you
go to prison?
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
Not at all. A simple search of the Google archive will show that you
have admitted that the records are accurate by admitting that those
things really did happen to you.
> You are still acting like an illiterate propagandist who refuses to stand up
> to the words that are in print and who refuses to honor the laws and the
> Constitutional rights of the citzenry.
No, that is you. I am acting like I am, an honest, highly literate,
law-abiding citizen that stands up for the constitutional rights of
others, and honors and obeys the laws.
>
> > I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
>
> *No, that is not correct.
>
> A total lie on your part.
Actually, a complete fact on my part.
> I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
No, you claim that their records are not accurate. The government
makes no such claim. It only says that in case of discrepancy, or for
any legal purposes, the originals have the final say.
> The government has made the disclaimer and I am affirming it in an entirely
> lawful manner.
However, you do not understand the disclaimer, as you insist on
proving. What you are "affirming" by that statement is that the
government shall be held blameless for any errors that the search
engine produces, and they shall be held blameless for computer and
transcription errors. That is what the disclaimer means, after all.
You, on the other hand, are making an entirely different and
irrational statement.
> Your rebellion against such overriding testimony of both the government and
> the citizenry is something that can not be sustained in this nation.
What rebellion? Your delusions do not make me in rebellion when I am
not. And I am a member of the citizenry, and I am agreeing with what
the government is actually saying, rather than what your
misinterpretations claim.
>
> *The government never states that their records are not truthful.
>
> Another lie.
No, a fact that you cannot accept.
> The government publicly states that their records are not
> guaranteed to be reliable or accurate or truthful or fit for any particular
> purpose.
No, they do not. They are saying that the records accessed from that
website are not guaranteed to be accurate. The originals are
accurate, however, and are not covered by the disclaimer since they
are not on the website.
> That means that they are unable to tax or fine the people via such
> disclaimed information because they have cast doubt upon all the records
> they use to tax and fine the people.
That is why they do not use the website for their legal records. They
use the physical records that are stored in your county courthouse.
That information is NOT disclaimed, since it is not on a computer in
its original form, and is legally binding in any case.
> The people are exempt from being taxed and/or fined by governments that do
> not guarantee their records.
That is why the government DOES guarantee their ACTUAL records.
>
> *And you have admitted that what is in the
> *records is accurate.
>
> Another lie.
Actually, you did. You have admitted that you have been charged with
DUI, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer, just as the
records state. You have admitted that you plead guilty to indecent
exposure, and then that you were charged with violating probation and
were sent to jail, just as your records state. You have admitted that
you plead no contest to disorderly conduct last year while out on
bail, just as your records state. You have basically admitted that
every pertinent fact in those records is accurate since those things
really did happen.
> I have admitted, in cooperation with the government, that their records are
> faulty.
No, you did not. Especially since the government has done no such
thing. You have claimed without any basis for that claim that the
government's records are faulty. The government is saying that their
records are accurate, and here they are on this website as proof.
> And, such can be proven via Constitutional process, if necessary, in a court
> of law;
Not by you, it cannot be. And not by that argument since it is
seriously flawed.
> however, such a trial is unnecessary since the Constitution itself
> requires every piece of information the goverment publishes to be truthful
> and accurate beyond a reasonable doubt,
Which it usually is.
> which reasonable doubt currently
> exists upon all of the information that has been disclaimed via a blanket
> disclaimer that attributes reasonable doubt to every piece of information
> that the disclaimer precedes.
No such reasonable doubt exists except in your mind, and you cannot
force the government to do anything with actually showing that the
records are faulty. The disclaimer does not precede the government
records. It precedes a search engine that accesses copies of the
government records from a government database. The originals are
unaffected by the disclaimer.
> You have nothing to support your position,
Actually, you are the one that cannot support your position. I have
facts, knowledge, the law, and case history.
> because the government, I, and
> the Constitution destroy your rebellion against the laws and the truth and
> the Constitution itself.
How can you destroy what does not exist? I support the laws, the
truth, and the Constitution. You are the one that opposes the
government, the law, and the Constitution.
Libel is always a civil suit. And it is the civil suits that net the
plaintiff money if their charges hold up.
> A civil suit against obstruction of justice criminals and frauds who rely on
> taxes and weapons to sustain their crimes against the people?
No. Criminals are tried in a criminal trial, as are frauds many
times. There is no evidence that anyone is obstructing justice, so
your reference is meaningless. Criminals and frauds also do not rely
on taxes to sustain their crimes against the people, since they don't
get any tax money. And criminals that use weapons in their crimes
against the people are tried in criminal court.
> Huh?
> How about some cooperation from people who have a bit of intelligence and
> ability to reason to correct this vastly egregious testament of government
> that fails to honor the constitutional rights of the people?
That leaves you out, since none of that describes you. You have not
shown that you have any intelligence or ability to reason. You have
not shown that the government is not honoring the constitutional
rights of the people. And that "testament" exists only in your
imagination.
Basically, why should anyone cooperate with your obviously ignorant
and frivolous lawsuit against the government for telling the truth
that you do not want people to know?
> Why is everything a litigous argumentative ploy to you?
Its not. If you remember, my original advise some time ago was that
you contact the county government and request that they correct your
public records if they are actually in error. I have also pointed out
that you need to take every reasonable measure to get the records
corrected BEFORE you try to sue the county. You are claiming that
they are libeling you, and that is actionable if it is true since the
government's public records about you can certainly be damaging if
they are false. You have no actual recourse, however, since they are
true.
> Are you still in that pigsty that thinks the peoples' contributions are here
> to support your personal lifestyle, and via an unequal measure basis?
There is no "unequal measure" basis. People that do similar jobs to
me get paid regionally adjusted for cost-of-living similar amounts.
And that "pigsty" exists only in your imagination. I have no idea
what "people's contributions" you are talking about, since I am not on
welfare.
> I do not support your agenda that is geared to sustain injustices and crimes
> against the people of the USA and against their Constitutional rights.
I would not support that agenda of yours either. I do not have such
an agenda to support in any case. My agenda is more geared towards
fighting injustices and crimes against the people of the USA and
defending and expanding their Constitutional rights.
If you want to say that you do not support something that does not
exist, be my guest. However, doing so only makes you look more like
the loon you are.
>
> *However, you will have to prove that
> *the on-line records do not match the court records,
>
> Totally unnecessary,
Actually, completely necessary.
> because the logical effect of the disclaimed
> information that has been presented to the public extends to the records
> under seal themselves.
No, they do not. Your "logic" as usual, is faulty. The basis of your
claim would be that the records as presented on the website are not
accurate, and that you have done everything reasonably and legally
possible to get them corrected, and that they have not been
corrected. To show that they are not accurate means that they have to
be shown to not match the originals.
> The seal of the COUNTY IS ON THE WEBSITE, IDIOT!
Which means that the county owns and maintains the website, idiot.
> PERIOD!
And you do not understand what the fact that the county seal is on the
website means.
> On one hand you act as if the seal can be used to support error and to stamp
> a DISCLAIMER;
That is your delusion and lack of reading comprehension. You have not
shown that the records are in error at all. In fact, you have
confirmed that they are accurate for the post part.
The county seal, by the way, cannot be used to support actual errors.
> while on the other hand you act as if that same seal that is
> affixed to records that the disclaimed information came from can be
> supported by contradicting the OVERRIDING and PRECEDING disclaimer that
> bears the COUNTY SEAL!
The disclaimer does not apply to the actual records. It applies to
the website and the search engine ONLY. The actual records override
what the website states.
> You are without credibility because you speak with a forked tongue.
No, that is your tongue. I have a lot of credibility because I tell
the truth that you cannot accept.
> Also, if it does occur that any of the information that is on file and not
> online disagrees with the website information then there is cause to correct
> the records that are published online;
Exactly (for once). That is what many people have been telling you
for some time now. Including me. The actual records are the master
copies.
> however, the disclaimer would still
> apply with would cast doubt on both the website record and the records that
> are on file.
The doubt case is miniscule. So miniscule, in fact, that a reasonable
and sane person would not doubt the information on the website in most
circumstances. And after a correction of some records, those records
have even less doubt attached to them since they have been double
checked and corrected.
> You do NOT understand the effect of the disclaimer.
Yes, I do. You are the one that is showing that you do not understand
the limited scope of the disclaimer.
> There is no record, either online or on file, that can be sustained at this
> point because the disclaimer casts reasonable doubt upon all those records.
No, it does not. The disclaimer does not affect the file copies at
all, and there is not any reasonable doubt about the online records.
> The blanket disclaimer has destroyed the entire plethora of records that
> have been presented to the public online and also to the copies of those
> records.
The disclaimer is not a blanket disclaimer, but a specific and
narrowly defined one. It does not affect the file copies at all.
And, with the exception of your delusions, there is no reasonable
doubt that the online records are erroneous since you have not shown
them to be so.
> Instead if acting like a paranoid psychotic illogical ineptitude advocate
> who is too afraId to serve the people,
Why would I be acting like you? I am a sane, logical, highly skilled
advocate that has already served the people more than you ever will in
your life, and I continue to do so.
> you must understand that their is
> much work to be done to aright the wrongs that created the necessity to
> publish such a disclaimer.
The disclaimer will never go away because people will always try to
misuse the information on the website, and those harmed by those
criminals will want to sue the county for it. The disclaimer protects
the county and keeps your taxes from increasing.
> Your education in CRIMINAL escapist OBSTRUCTION of justice fraud and deceit
> and lies and taxation without representation against the Constitutional
> rights of the people and in militant state police control, conflict of
> interest regime practices is insufficient to govern a nation that is founded
> and stands for liberty and justice for all.
Your not making any sense again. My education is completely opposite
of yours, since it is legal, supporting of justice, honest, for the
Constitutional rights of the people, against any police state, against
conflicts of interest, and supportive of liberty, justice, equality,
and freedom. You seem to be describing your education, not mine.
>
> *and that you took
> *every reasonable step to remedy the errors in your public records.
>
> I took very many reasonable steps to remedy the egregious violations that
> are in evidence.
Then there must not be any actual violations, since you have not
presented any evidence of any.
> There is no NEGLIGENCE on my part to use against me.
I was just advising you that you would have to show that you had
already tried everything before filing the lawsuit.
> The negligence is on the part of government that has failed to exercise the
> laws as they are written for MY BENEFIT!
The laws were not written for your benefit, they were written for the
benefit of the people as a whole. And you have not shown any
negligence of the part of the government. They are required to
publish public records, which includes criminal records, for anyone to
see that is interested in them.
>
> *However, there is no indication that the government has made any
> *errors, and you do not understand the disclaimer to start with.
>
> Bullshit, you ally of ignorance, fraud, deceit, ineptitude, crime and
> treason.
I am not an ally of yours. I am an ally of knowledge, truth, facts,
skill, justice, and patriotism.
>
> *And since you are not being libeled by the records,
>
> Another lie, by a propagandizing fraud, Sebree.
Where is the lie or the deceit or the propaganda, besides yours? My
statement is a statement of fact. Since the records are accurate,
they are not libel.
>
> *and you have not presented any words of a citizen that actually is being
> libeled by
> *those records,
>
> Another lie, by a fraudulent satanist fool Sebree.
You continue to lie about me. You are the liar, the fool, and the
fraud. And you have not presented any words by any citizen that was
actually libeled by those public records. You have not been libeled
by them since they are accurate with respect to you and what you have
done in the past.
>
> *there have been no words from a citizen that is being
> *libeled by your county's online public records to be saying anything
> *in opposition to.
>
> A lie that is countered by reality itself.
That is what happens to your myriad of lies. They are trounced by
reality.
> I am a citizen who trounces your fraud.
You cannot trounce what is not there. I have not practiced any deceit
since you have not been libeled by your county's records.
> I must be represented or you lose all your rights to representation.
You are being represented, and you cannot take away any of my rights.
You have neither the right nor the power. You will be represented in
court by your attorney at your trial, and you are represented by the
duly elected city, county, state, and national representatives and
officials for your region.
> Your agenda that goes against me, one citizen, is applicable to you.
The fact that my agenda is against you, a known criminal that is
awaiting trial on a felony charge, is meaningless overall. The truth
has always been applicable to me, just as your lies and delusions have
never been applicable to me.
>
> > > The probation contained certain conditions that YOU had to meet in order
> > > to continue walking the streets as a free man.
>
> > None of which conditions did I fail to comply with.
>
> *More likely you did fail to comply with some of the conditions of your
> *parole.
>
> What parole?
Wrong word. It should have said "probation".
>
> > > YOU ignored the conditions.
>
> > Bullshit.
> > What condition did I ignore, you fraud?!
>
> *You tell us.
>
> Got alzheimers already?
No, but you seem to have it.
> "None of which conditions did I fail to comply with."
You are a known liar, and the fact that you were charged with
violating probation indicates that you did fail to comply with some
conditions of your probation.
>
> *What were the conditions of your parole, to start with,
> *and what did you do or not do that violated them?
>
> Got alzheimers already?
> "None of which conditions did I fail to comply with."
Which means that you are not going to confess and that I will have to
have the county send me the court documents to get the truth. Your
claims do not agree with the facts, which is usual for you.
>
> > > The government therefore, revoked the probation
>
> > An illegal act which made the original sentence a lie.
>
> *There is nothing illegal about the judge revoking probation,
>
> Got alzheimers already?
> "None of which conditions did I fail to comply with."
> There was nothing to prove any violation on my part of any probationary
> condition.
I am sure that the court documents say something completely different,
and explain why you were charged with violation of your probation.
Since you cannot remember what you did to violate probation, it would
appear that you are the one with Alzheimer's.
>
> *since
> *probation is ALWAYS extended on your good behavior.
>
> The Constitution does not allow double jeopardy, you idiot.
There was not double jeopardy in your case.
> There is no Constitutional method to resentence anyone after their initial
> sentencing.
Actually, you were sentenced for another crime, violation of
probation. The government then made you serve out most of your
original sentence.
> There are Constitutional prohibitions on excessive fines and excessive
> punishments.
There is no indication that you were excessively fined or excessively
punished.
> You're a satanist asshole who hates people.
No, that is you.
> That is a fact.
No, that is your delusion and your lie, since I am not a satanist, an
asshole like you, nor do I hate people like you do.
> I never violated any terms of probation.
Your criminal record says otherwise.
> I wasn;t even required to be on probation.
Yes, you were. That was your sentence for your indecent exposure.
> I was NOT GUILTY of the crime I was charged with.
You were found guilty of that crime. And since you are a known liar,
it is more likely that you either were guilty of that crime, or you
were guilty of a more serious crime and plea bargained for a lesser
charge.
> You're a freaking loser who uses guns and taxes to attack the people in
> violation of their constituitonal rights and in violation of the law itself.
No, that is you. I do not own any guns, and I am not on welfare. I
support people's constitutional rights, and I support the law and
justice. Unlike you, I am a winner and reasonable successful in life.
> And, those records you rely on are corrupt and DISCLAIMED by the government.
No, they are not. You have not shown that they are corrupt at all,
and you have actually shown that your records are accurate since you
have admitted that those things that your criminal records state about
you actually happened. The fact that you do not like the truth about
your life and your actions being something that anyone can look at
without let or hinderance does not make them corrupt, and your lack of
understanding of the search engine disclaimer does not make the
records suspect.
> Your blatantly obvious warmongering allegiance is criminal.
It is also nonexistent except in your delusions. My allegiance is to
peace, not war.
>
> > > and threw YOU in jail to serve out your term.
>
> > Another criminal act performed against me by fraudulent
> > anti-Constitutional traitors.
>
> *No, that is your delusions.
>
> None, you anti-love peon.
I am not you, and your delusions are still your delusions. The people
that you claimed to exist do not, which means that they are your
delusions. Unlike you, I am compassionate, caring, "pro-love", and a
highly skilled professional. I.e. your opposite.
>
> *There was no criminal act performed
> *against you,
>
> Fraud!
Nope.
> There have been MUPLTIPLE CRIMES committed against me by self-serving
> criminals who have also conducted fraud against me.
You have failed to show that any crimes have been committed against
you. The only self-serving criminal who tries to conduct fraud in
your stories is you. Your claims of supposed crimes fall apart when
the actual facts are examined, and thus your attempts at deception are
made obvious.
>
> *and you are the only one that is fraudulent or anti-
> *Constitutional.
>
> Bullshit, you deceived charlatan of criminal propgandists.
Again, I am not you, so I am not deceive, and I have nothing to do
with charlatans, criminals, or propagandists like you.
>
> *It is perfectly legal and expected to incarcerate
> *someone that violates their probation.
>
> You're illiterate.
No, that is you. Unlike you, I am highly literate.
> At no time did I violate any terms of probation.
The court disagrees with you, and like most people, I will believe the
court before believing a known liar like you.
> You are allied with predatory criminal thieves and frauds who aren't
> producing anything for this nation other than burdens and woe.
Why do you keep claiming that I am your ally? I am against predatory
criminals, frauds, and thieves like you, just as I am against people
like you that do not produce anything for this nation other than extra
burdens and woe.
>
> > > There is only one person who is responsible for your time spend in the
> > > slammer and that person is YOU.
>
> > Another lie.
>
> *Only by you.
>
> Bullshit, you anti-liberty, anti-justice crime advocate.
That is still you. Unlike you, I am pro-liberty, pro-justice, and an
anti-crime advocate.
>
> > It was the government itself that violated its own terms and that violated
> > my constitutional rights to be free of double jeopardy, excessive fines
> > and excessive punishments.
>
> *There is no indication that the government violated any terms,
>
> Another FOOL's statement, by a fool.
And the fool is you and only you. Your claims are meaningless without
something far more substantial to support them.
>
> *and you were not subjected to double jeopardy since you were not tried for
> *your original crime again after you were found innocent,
>
> What a joke.
The only joke is you.
> I committed no crime.
You plead guilty of a crime in exchange for a plea bargain. That
means that you admitted to committing a crime.
> And, there was no jury trial in either instance,
When you plead guilty to a crime, no jury is needed. And since the
punishment for violating probation is to serve the sentence that you
would have originally gotten, there is no jury needed for that
either. Violation of probation is more administrative than anything
else.
>you kidnapping and extortion criminal ally.
I am not an ally of yours. I am against crimes of all sorts,
including kidnapping and extortion. Your delusions and lies do not
make me an ally of something that I am against.
> Found innocent meaning they were supposed to throw me in jail?
No, that would be if you were found guilty like you were.
> After fining me and taking money from me so many times?
They only fined you once. They put you on a payment plan so that you
would not have to come up with the entire amount immediately.
> I was excessively fined and excessively punished and I was subjected to
> double jeopardy.
You were not subjected to any of those things.
> All you lazy assholes better stop attacking me.
Why should we stop telling you the truth to counter your delusions?
You cannot do anything to us. Besides, you are the only lazy asshole
here.
> You're traitors.
Nope. Nobody here fits the definition of a traitor. Your delusions
and ignorance does not make us into something that we are not.
> LOSERS!
That is still you. You are the only loser here.
>
> *or had served out your sentence.
>
> The sentence was violated by the government itself.
No, it was not. You simply do not understand the law.
> I was punished beyond the statute of limitations for a crime I was not
> guilty of.
No, you were not. You were charged with your crime well before the
statue of limitations was up, which means that the statute of
limitations was not a factor in your trial. And since you plead
guilty, you admitted that you were guilty of that crime.
>
> *You were also not subjected to excessive fines or
> *excessive punishment.
>
> Wrong, loser bitchboy hypocrite.
That is still you. You have not shown that you were subjected to
excessive fines or punishment for your crime, and that is because you
cannot do so.
Here is what the current South Carolina law says about the punishment
for the crime of indecent exposure:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t16c015.htm
Section 16-15-130
SECTION 16-15-130. Indecent exposure; breastfeeding.
(A)(1) It is unlawful for a person to wilfully, maliciously, and
indecently expose his person in a public place, on property of others,
or to the view of any person on a street or highway.
(2) This subsection does not apply to a woman who breastfeeds her own
child in a public place, on property of others, to the view of any
person on a street or highway, or any other place where a woman and
her child are authorized to be.
(B) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (A)(1) is
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the
discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or
both.
You were fined $1000, payable in monthly installments, and put on
probation for a year, which you violated. Given that the law states
that you could have been imprisoned for 3 years, and implies that you
could have been fined far more money, you came no where near excessive
fines or punishments.
>
> *You were found guilty of violating your
> *probation,
>
> Not at all, you anti-civilian warmongering criminal fool.
You are still talking about your delusions and yourself. The court
records state that you were found to have violated your probation,
which means that you were. And since I AM a civilian, I am not going
to be anti-civilian. What's more, unlike you, I am a peaceful, law-
abiding and intelligent person.
>
> *a separate crime,
>
> You have falsely accused me of a crime which I did not commit.
I have not accused you of any crime that you did not commit. I am
relating what you have previously revealed about your past, and cross-
referencing it with what the public records say about you. You have
admitted that you were incarcerated for a probation violation, which
means that you violated probation.
> You are a fraud.
No, I am telling the truth that you want to hide and hide from. You
are the one that is trying unsuccessfully to be deceptive.
>
> *and sentenced according to the law
>
> None at all.
Yes, you were. I provided the law even. You do not understand the
law, however, and you cannot face your own mistakes. You actually got
off easy that time.
>
> *and in
> *accordance with your original sentence.
>
> None at all.
Yes, completely in accordance with your original sentence of $1000
fine and 1 year in prison. You stated that you only had to serve 8
months of that.
> You are a fraudulent, traitorous fool.
That is you, not me. You are the only one that is trying to be
deceptive, and you are the only fool here. Despite your ignorance and
delusions, nobody here is treasonous.
>
> > I wasn't even given a jury trial.
>
> *Did you demand one at the time?
>
> Yes.
> Wanna know why?
> It is demanded by the Constitution itself.
No, it is allowed by the Constitution. You have the right to decline
a jury trial.
However, since the court was simply reinstating your sentence, they
may have not seen the need for one.
> There is no right of any judge or policeman or probation department employee
> to neglect said right.
You were not on trial. That was an administrative hearing.
> You're an ally of warmongers, and anti-liberty, anti-constitution criminals.
I keep telling you that I am not an ally of yours. I am an ally of
peaceful, pro-liberty, pro-Constutition, law-abiding citizens.
>
> *All they would need to do is show
> *that you violated probation, after all. And they have all the
> *evidence on their side.
>
> Bullshit.
> The SCUMBAG ASSHOLE WHO FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF not cooperating was such a
> COWARD that he did not appear at all to support the criminal assholes' case
> against me.
There is no indication that he was like you at all. And since it was
an administrative hearing, he may not have been required to be there.
In all likelihood, you were not falsely accused on anything.
> I was denied my Constitutional rights and sent to jail for a crime I did not
> commit.
You had already plead guilty to the crime. Your Constitutional rights
were not denied, and the court was simply reinstating the sentence
that you had already been given.
>
> > None of my due process rights were honored other than my right to counsel.
>
> *More likely, you do not understand your due process rights, and your
> *due process rights were honored.
>
> You ARE A FOOL to say that.
No, I am intelligent to say what I did. I leave the foolish
statements to you.
> I graduated from Furman Univeristy, "The Harvard of the South", with a major
> in Mathematics
Too bad you did not use your supposed education to make something of
yourself.
> Wanna check the cost of attending Furman?
> My nephew told me it is $40,000.00 per year now.
And? Most private schools tend to be around that much. Check out
Rose Hulman or MIT sometime.
> When will you disgruntled loser peons stop attacking those who are more
> qualified than you?
Since you are the disgruntled loser peon that is attacking people more
qualified than you, you will have to tell us when you will stop
attacking us.
Just because you went to a private university does not make you more
intelligent or more qualified than anyone else. You have not shown
any of that supposed intelligence, nor have you shown any sign of
being qualified for anything. You constantly show that you do not
understand the law or the Constitution, and that you do not understand
much of what you read. You refuse to support your claims with
authoritative and independent sources, or any glimpse of intelligence,
logic, or reason. Your are hateful, disrespectful, arrogant,
deceitful, dishonest, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and libelous.
If you want people to take you seriously, stop your angry tirades and
SHOW that you want to be taken seriously. Stop calling everyone that
disagrees with you hateful names. Stop making meaningless threats.
Start supporting your claims with reason, logic, and verifiable facts.
You won't do any of this, and you will not understand what I have
tried to explain. I know this and I know that you are a lost cause.
However, I have enough compassion in me to continue to try to give you
chances to improve yourself, even if you do not want to.
>
> *And what did your counsel have to say at the time?
>
> What counsel?
The one that you had just said that you had. You said earlier in that
post "None of my due process rights were honored other than my right
to counsel." That means that you had a lawyer with you.
> I was shafted by criminals who have lesser educations than me.
No, you weren't. You were shafted by your own actions. You were
sentenced by a judge that had way more education than you had,
especially in the field of law.
> I was deprived of my rights and mistreated by an unruly gang of criminals
> who hate the USA and the law and the Constitution.
Nobody deprived you of your rights. And the people that mistreated
you, hate the USA, the law, and the Constitution were your fellow
inmates. The judge upholds the law and the Constitution, and likely
loves this country far more than you can understand.
> Read the DISCLAIMER again, and UNDERSTAND IT THIS TIME!
I do understand it, far, far more than you do. You are the one that
continues to prove that you do not understand it.
>
> You *are* OBVIOUSLY an idiot to keep on acting like a dog who favors
> treasonists above law-abiding knowledgeable citizens.
I am not acting like you. I am an intelligent citizen and patriot
that favors law abiding and knowledgeable citizens above ignorant
criminals like you.
>
> [snip]
I see that you could not face any more of the truth and the facts
about yourself and your life. You cannot run from the truth and the
facts forever. At your trial, they will come up and slap you across
the face good and hard. Perhaps they will then knock some sense into
you, but I doubt it.
Mark Sebree
John D. Wentzky
*Yes, you do.
How?
> You are attributing full ownership of such things.
*No, he is not.
Ridiculous.
Are they or are they not my records?
Seems to me the county claims ownership of their records.
> I must automatically order that all such records that do not agree with my
> consent to be removed from public publication.
*You cannot order public records be removed from the public records.
Are you still asserting that they are my records?
*Any clerk that follows such orders would lose his or her job and
*commit a crime.
Says someone who is errantly thinking that he or anyone else outside of the
jurisdiction on Anderson County, SC somehow has a right or privilege to view
things that you say are my personal belongings, ala "my records".
*Your consent is not needed for the publication of your criminal
*records, since such records are matters of public record.
Guess what.
Publishing errant and disclaimed information online about the people isn't
in line with the Constitutional provisions.
> > You own statement of criminal history.
>
> I made no such statements.
*Yes, you have.
Your anal retentiveness is showing, again.
> >>I never made such a DISCLAIMED record.
>
> > It isn't disclaimed, you idiot.
>
> WRONG, AGAIN, ILLITERATE FOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!
*That would be you.
Are you saying I published information and admitted that it was not
reliable?
> THE SEAL IS AFFIXED TO THE DISCLAIMER WHICH OVERRIDES ANY BEHIND CLOSED
> DOORS BULLSHIT!
*There is no "behind closed doors bullshit" with respect to your public
*records.
Bullshit.
That's what you behind closed doors people want people to think in your
clandestine espionage and smear campaigns you direct against the people.
*The disclaimer only applies to the online search engine,
It says NOTHING about any search engine, fraudboy.
*and the possibility of transcription errors and computer errors.
The disclaimer says nothing of any of those things.
The disclaimer disclaims the INFORMATION itself.
Are you still illiterate?
*It has no effect on the originals that the online records are taken from.
A big error in logic.
You are contradicting the words of the disclaimer as they pertain the to
INFORMATION itself.
How can you assert to the public that information that is disclaimed in one
publication can somehow be reliable when that information was derived from
another source?
You are contradcting yourself.
> BADA BING, BADA BOOM!
*That is the sound of the prison doors closing behind you as you start
*your sentence.
It really isn't.
> Got a brain, yet?
*Yes.
When will you learn how to use it without making yourself look like an ally
of error?
*When do you plan on getting one that works? Before or after you
*go to prison?
Still barking that same tune?
Still threatening criminal deprivation of liberty against a citizen of the
USA?
Mark Sebree
You committed crimes in the past, and those crimes are records in the
public records about you.
>
> > You are attributing full ownership of such things.
>
> *No, he is not.
>
> Ridiculous.
Not at all. Your lack of understanding of the English language is
what is ridiculous.
> Are they or are they not my records?
You are your records because they are about you. However, you have no
ownership rights over them since they are matters of public record.
They belong to the public at large, not to a single individual.
> Seems to me the county claims ownership of their records.
That does not make your criminal record any less yours.
>
> > I must automatically order that all such records that do not agree with my
> > consent to be removed from public publication.
>
> *You cannot order public records be removed from the public records.
>
> Are you still asserting that they are my records?
Yes, since they are about you. You are the one that is showing your
ignorance of the English language, not me.
>
> *Any clerk that follows such orders would lose his or her job and
> *commit a crime.
>
> Says someone who is errantly thinking that he or anyone else outside of the
> jurisdiction on Anderson County, SC somehow has a right or privilege to view
> things that you say are my personal belongings, ala "my records".
I NEVER said that your criminal record was among your personal
belonging. You are the only one showing any errant thinking. And I
do have the right and the privilege to view any public records about
you, and your county is required by law to allow me to do so, as well
as make me either certified or notarized copies of them if I so ask
and pay for.
>
> *Your consent is not needed for the publication of your criminal
> *records, since such records are matters of public record.
>
> Guess what.
> Publishing errant and disclaimed information online about the people isn't
> in line with the Constitutional provisions.
However, your public records are neither errant nor disclaimed. And
publishing public records in completely in line with the US
Constitution, as well as the law.
Your diversion does not detract from the fact that your consent is not
needed for the publication of your criminal records since they are
matters of public record.
>
> > > You own statement of criminal history.
>
> > I made no such statements.
>
> *Yes, you have.
>
> Your anal retentiveness is showing, again.
Your delusions do not make me anal retentive. And what you are
showing is that you cannot remember what you have stated in the past,
nor what those statement mean.
>
> > >>I never made such a DISCLAIMED record.
>
> > > It isn't disclaimed, you idiot.
>
> > WRONG, AGAIN, ILLITERATE FOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> *That would be you.
>
> Are you saying I published information and admitted that it was not
> reliable?
No. You are showing that you are an illiterate fool again. The
county publishes public records about you, and that information is far
more reliable than you have ever been.
>
> > THE SEAL IS AFFIXED TO THE DISCLAIMER WHICH OVERRIDES ANY BEHIND CLOSED
> > DOORS BULLSHIT!
>
> *There is no "behind closed doors bullshit" with respect to your public
> *records.
>
> Bullshit.
My statement is a statement of fact.
> That's what you behind closed doors people want people to think in your
> clandestine espionage and smear campaigns you direct against the people.
You are displaying your delusions again. The only "smear campaign"
that is going on is your unsuccessful one against me and every other
person that tells you the truth and the facts. Nobody is engaging in
espionage. And everyone here except you has been advocating an open
and transparent government, the opposite of a closed door policy. We
are the ones that want to records that you want to be kept secret to
be out in the open.
>
> *The disclaimer only applies to the online search engine,
>
> It says NOTHING about any search engine, fraudboy.
You are the only one that is trying to deceive anyone. The disclaimer
is ON the search engine, and you are supposed to read it before you
use it. The fact that it applies only to the search engine is implied
because of its location, as any intelligent and sane adult would
realize.
>
> *and the possibility of transcription errors and computer errors.
>
> The disclaimer says nothing of any of those things.
Yes, it does.
> The disclaimer disclaims the INFORMATION itself.
Not really. The disclaimer is narrowly focused, and only applies to
information retrieved by that search engine from that database, and it
does NOT apply to the original copies stored in the courthouse, and
from which notarized and certified copies are made.
> Are you still illiterate?
I am still highly literate. You are the one that is showing his
illiteracy.
>
> *It has no effect on the originals that the online records are taken from.
>
> A big error in logic.
On your part.
> You are contradicting the words of the disclaimer as they pertain the to
> INFORMATION itself.
No, I am not. I understand what the disclaimer is stating.
> How can you assert to the public that information that is disclaimed in one
> publication can somehow be reliable when that information was derived from
> another source?
Simple. I have a much greater knowledge of the world than you do, and
I am sane. The information on the online database is neither
notarized nor certified as being accurate. Such databases can have
errors creep in from any number of ways. There can be a glitch in the
system, a power spike or surge could munge some of the data, there
could be transcription errors, or any of a number of other things.
However, the original paper copies are not subject to these effects,
which means that they can be referred to when official copies are
requested, or when there are indications of something is in error with
a handful of the records.
> You are contradcting yourself.
No, I have not. I leave the self-contradiction to you.
>
> > BADA BING, BADA BOOM!
>
> *That is the sound of the prison doors closing behind you as you start
> *your sentence.
>
> It really isn't.
Close enough.
>
> > Got a brain, yet?
>
> *Yes.
>
> When will you learn how to use it without making yourself look like an ally
> of error?
40 years ago. That is why I keep correcting your many errors. When
do you plan on starting to use your brain?
>
> *When do you plan on getting one that works? Before or after you
> *go to prison?
>
> Still barking that same tune?
Your trial has not happened yet, so there is no reason for me to not
keep reminding you of the very likely outcome.
> Still threatening criminal deprivation of liberty against a citizen of the
> USA?
No, and I never have. The incarceration of a criminal after a fair
trial, which yours will be, is not a criminal act at all, but
necessary for the safety of the people as a whole. In fact, this is a
case of slavery that IS allowed by the Constitution, since it is due
to due process of law.
Mark Sebree
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 15:07:59 -0500, "John D. Wentzky"
><wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>"The Chief Instigator" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
>>news:szk1w7k...@eris.io.com...
>>> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprof...@msn.com> writes:
>>>>"Gwyneš Bennetdottir" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:82dfea1e-a678-4c90...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Dec 14, 1:36 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "G.B." <bennetwitho...@post.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:4551b590-34cf-4f20...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> > On Dec 14, 3:05 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>> >> <good...@rock.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> >>news:441e56fc-2236-4830...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> >> *Are there ways to determine if a minor consents to sex or not?
>>>>>> >> Yes. When they say, "You can do me."
>>>>>> >> You wanna start calling them liars?
>>>>>> > Do you have experience fucking under-aged people?
>>>>>> Why ask such an irrelevant question?
>>>>> ;-))
>>>>> Given that you have a history of sexual criminality, I thought it'd be
>>>>> worth poiting out your hypocrisy, in all of this.
>>>>I have no history of sexual criminality.
>>>>I am neither an abortionist, nor a whore not a whoremonger.
>>> No, you got busted for indecent exposure in 1996,
>>Oh, really?
>>How would you know?
> It is a part of your public record, aka rapsheet.
You're not supposed to point that out. ;-)
>>> pled guilty to a plea bargain,
>>Bullshit!
> And true
Truth and Wentzky parted ways a decade or two ago.
>>> got probation,
>>Really?
> really
Reality is his nemesis.
>>> violated the terms
>>BULLSHIT!
> By your own admission.
He has the memory span of a mayfly.
>>> and did a few months in jail (not to mention paying a fine) for
>>> your refusal to obey the court's order. That's part of your
>>> criminal record.
>>Look at the IDIOT SHOWING all of those ANTI-USA EXCESSIVE FINES AND
>>EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENTS OF A SATANIST CRIMINAL SYSTEM!
>>LOL!
>>LOOK AT THE FRAUD AND THE CRIMES OF THE ANTI-CONSTITUTION TREASON ASSHOLES
>>OF ROEVEWADE LAZY SHITFORBRAINS EXCESSIVE TAXATION ANTI-PRODUCTIVE
>>UNREPRESENTTIVE FREAKASS LOONS!
>>YOU ARE WHO GOT BUSTED WITH A STROKE, REMEMBER?
>> YOU HAVE NOTHING YOU CAN USE TO DEFEAT PEOPLE SUCH AS ME!
> Don't need anything. You defeat yourself without anyone's help.
><snip>
>
> Tom S.
He'll definitely be the last one to recognize it...if he understands
it at all.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Chicago 6, Houston 1 (February 13)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 15 vs. Iowa, 7:35
John D. Wentzky
*Not at all. A simple search of the Google archive will show that you
*have admitted that the records are accurate by admitting that those
*things really did happen to you.
Another vain attempt at lying against me.
> You are still acting like an illiterate propagandist who refuses to stand
> up
> to the words that are in print and who refuses to honor the laws and the
> Constitutional rights of the citzenry.
*No, that is you. I am acting like I am, an honest, highly literate,
*law-abiding citizen that stands up for the constitutional rights of
*others, and honors and obeys the laws.
False.
> > I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
>
> *No, that is not correct.
>
> A total lie on your part.
*Actually, a complete fact on my part.
None.
> I and the government both admit to their records' lack of truthfulness.
*No, you claim that their records are not accurate.
Many of them aren't accurate.
*The government makes no such claim.
Illiteracy on your part.
*It only says that in case of discrepancy, or for
*any legal purposes, the originals have the final say.
The disclaimer does NOT say that at all.
Your illiteracy is obvious.
> The government has made the disclaimer and I am affirming it in an
> entirely
> lawful manner.
*However, you do not understand the disclaimer, as you insist on
*proving.
None. You are who is showing that you are ILLITERATE and that you are
IMAGINING that which does not exist.
*What you are "affirming" by that statement is that the
*government shall be held blameless for any errors that the search
*engine produces, and they shall be held blameless for computer and
*transcription errors.
Another lie.,
The government is not capable of being held blameless for such errors.
*That is what the disclaimer means, after all.
It is a statement designed to protect criminals.
*You, on the other hand, are making an entirely different and
*irrational statement.
I am agreeing with the disclaimer as it pertains to their lack of
truthfulness in their dealings with the public.
I do not agree with their statement that attempts to shield them from the
laws or the Constitution or the responsibilities they incur when they commit
errors against the people they tax.
> Your rebellion against such overriding testimony of both the government
> and
> the citizenry is something that can not be sustained in this nation.
*What rebellion? Your delusions do not make me in rebellion when I am
*not. And I am a member of the citizenry, and I am agreeing with what
*the government is actually saying, rather than what your
*misinterpretations claim.
Bullshit.
You are agreeing with the criminal intent of unrepresentative type persons.
> *The government never states that their records are not truthful.
>
> Another lie.
*No, a fact that you cannot accept.
You are in error.
> The government publicly states that their records are not
> guaranteed to be reliable or accurate or truthful or fit for any
> particular
> purpose.
*No, they do not.
They do, and it is provably so.
*They are saying that the records accessed from that
*website are not guaranteed to be accurate.
The source of the information is of no effect as it pertains to its
testament to the public.
The INFORMATION itself is disclaimed.
Your allegiance to escapism via contradiction shows you to be an ally of
ineptitude and fraud.
*The originals are
*accurate, however, and are not covered by the disclaimer since they
*are not on the website.
Another error in logic on your part.
The INFORMATION which is presented to the public is DISCLAIMED!
The logical extension of that disclaimer applies to any matching information
regardless of its location.
The published information they disclaimed was derived from those originals.
You have no way of escaping the disclaimer without a purge of records.
If you had enough intelligence you would know that a purge would be
beneficial to the people and the government.
> That means that they are unable to tax or fine the people via such
> disclaimed information because they have cast doubt upon all the records
> they use to tax and fine the people.
*That is why they do not use the website for their legal records.
Saying their website is illegal there?
*They use the physical records that are stored in your county courthouse.
They publish what they disclaim from those records.
*That information is NOT disclaimed, since it is not on a computer in
*its original form, and is legally binding in any case.
Irrelevant to the requirements of goverment.
They have admitted that many of the records they have on file is deficient
by publishing the disclaimer.
> The people are exempt from being taxed and/or fined by governments that do
> not guarantee their records.
*That is why the government DOES guarantee their ACTUAL records.
They can't guarantee information they disclaimed to the public.
> *And you have admitted that what is in the
> *records is accurate.
>
> Another lie.
*Actually, you did. You have admitted that you have been charged with
*DUI, resisting arrest, and assaulting a police officer, just as the
*records state. You have admitted that you plead guilty to indecent
*exposure, and then that you were charged with violating probation and
*were sent to jail, just as your records state. You have admitted that
*you plead no contest to disorderly conduct last year while out on
*bail, just as your records state. You have basically admitted that
*every pertinent fact in those records is accurate since those things
*really did happen.
I have admitted the errors of the government that were committed against me,
while simultaneously confirming my complete innocence.
> I have admitted, in cooperation with the government, that their records
> are
> faulty.
*No, you did not.
Why do you lie so obviously?
*Especially since the government has done no such
*thing.
Repeat the above question.
*You have claimed without any basis for that claim that the
*government's records are faulty.
Another lie.
*The government is saying that their
*records are accurate, and here they are on this website as proof.
Another huge lie.
The government does not attest to your lie.
> And, such can be proven via Constitutional process, if necessary, in a
> court
> of law;
*Not by you, it cannot be.
Why?
Do you mean because you have guns to resist the truth?
*And not by that argument since it is
*seriously flawed.
It is your argument that falls on its face by the rules of logic.
> however, such a trial is unnecessary since the Constitution itself
> requires every piece of information the goverment publishes to be truthful
> and accurate beyond a reasonable doubt,
*Which it usually is.
'Usually' is insufficient.
Government must make an effort for their reports to be truthful at all
times.
Why do you expect the people who perform truthfully in their daily lives to
be subject to some hypocritical government that tries to charge them with
perjury and such crimes when that government does not guarantee its own
published data to the public they tax?
Why do you expect the people to perform their daily jobs truthfully and
punish them if they fail to do so if you are not for punishing the employees
in goverment that make the same errors?
> which reasonable doubt currently
> exists upon all of the information that has been disclaimed via a blanket
> disclaimer that attributes reasonable doubt to every piece of information
> that the disclaimer precedes.
*No such reasonable doubt exists except in your mind, and you cannot
*force the government to do anything with actually showing that the
*records are faulty.
It isn't only reasonable doubt that exists.
It is absolute, without a doubt certainty that some of their records are
untruthful.
*The disclaimer does not precede the government
*records.
The disclaimer is presented to the people before they access the actual
records.
*It precedes a search engine that accesses copies of the
*government records from a government database.
Which subjects the government to operating and maintaining adequate systems
such that they do not present unreliable information to the public.
*The originals are
*unaffected by the disclaimer.
Illogical; and false.
> You have nothing to support your position,
*Actually, you are the one that cannot support your position. I have
*facts, knowledge, the law, and case history.
You have nothing more than error and fraud and obstruction of justice to
uphold your errant position.
> because the government, I, and
> the Constitution destroy your rebellion against the laws and the truth and
> the Constitution itself.
*How can you destroy what does not exist?
Your secret ploy?
How can one destroy that which does not exist?
LOL!
It's simple to do that, in actuality.
Consider an empty cup and then filling it with water.
That which did not exist previously has been eliminated with something of
substance.
*I support the laws, the
*truth, and the Constitution. You are the one that opposes the
*government, the law, and the Constitution.
Another lie.
> A civil suit against criminal acts of government?
*Libel is always a civil suit. And it is the civil suits that net the
*plaintiff money if their charges hold up.
[snip]
> Huh?
> How about some cooperation from people who have a bit of intelligence and
> ability to reason to correct this vastly egregious testament of government
> that fails to honor the constitutional rights of the people?
*That leaves you out, since none of that describes you.
You're arguing against due diligence there.
[snip]
John D. Wentzky
> On Feb 14, 4:16 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>>
>> >> To visit you?
>>
>> > No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
>>
>> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
>
> I have never tried to get onto the Comedy Channel.
Maybe you should start thinking of trying so you can come up with some humor
instead of your constant argumentative nature.
>> I didn't attack any police officer.
>
> According to your own statements, you said that you slammed the cop to
> the ground.
Bullshit. I never said that.
> That means you attacked a police officer, even if you
> cannot understand the English that you write.
You're still relying on your imagination.
>> I was ATTACKED by a 24-year old armed idiot who committed predatory
>> crimes
>> against me.
>
> You have never shown that you were attacked by any such person?
Bullshit.
I have shown it in writing numerous times.
> Did the police take your statement when they arrived on the scene?
There were police there when I was attacked.
Who do you think attacked me?
> If you are talking about the cop just before you attacked him, you
> have NEVER been able to explain how exactly you were supposedly
> attacked.
A total lie.
> Therefore, there is no reason to think that you were
> actually attacked.
Another lie.
> What's more, even in the unlikely event that the
> cop did attack you, that does not give you an excuse to attack him.
What a hypocritical thing to tell the people of the USA!
The people of the USA and the USA itself is formed to repel such attackers
as the cop who attacked me in public.
>>
>> >> Why would I do that?
>>
>> > Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
>> > guilty.
>>
>> No jury will be willing to lobby against themselves by ruling against me.
>
> They will not be lobbying against themselves at all, and there is
> nothing that will stop them from finding you guilty.
Another lie.
You satanist hypocritical warmongering criminals are going to be repelled by
the people because the people are allied against you.
> You certainly have never given anyone here a reason to think that you are
> innocent
> of the crime, or that you will be found innocent.
A lie.
>> LOL!
>> PERIOD!
>
> That is the sound of the gavel when the judge finishes stating that
> you have been found guilty,
No judge would rule against me.
Ruling against me is equivalent to ruling against oneself.
> and that sentencing will take place at a later date.
What sentencing?
> You will then be lead to jail to await sentencing.
Not in the realm of possibility.
> After sentencing, you are likely to be taken to prison for the next few
> years.
Bullshit, you anti-USA idiot.
The people are unwilling to pay taxes to support the criminal activities you
espouse.
John D. Wentzky
On Feb 14, 11:20 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3f874c00-b550-425f...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 4:33 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's what you behind closed doors people want people to think in your
> clandestine espionage and smear campaigns you direct against the people.
*You are displaying your delusions again. The only "smear campaign"
*that is going on is your unsuccessful one against me and every other
*person that tells you the truth and the facts. Nobody is engaging in
*espionage. And everyone here except you has been advocating an open
*and transparent government, the opposite of a closed door policy. We
*are the ones that want to records that you want to be kept secret to
*be out in the open.
You are being smeared by your own allegiance.
[snip]
Gwen Bennet
> You better start thinking about how you are going to get out of the hole you
> are in by coming up with the CASH that is DEMANDED from you,
You won't see a dime of my money.
Ever.
Mark Sebree
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8a19c386-a4c5-4a8f...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 11:20 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:3f874c00-b550-425f...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 14, 4:33 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > That's what you behind closed doors people want people to think in your
> > clandestine espionage and smear campaigns you direct against the people.
>
> *You are displaying your delusions again. The only "smear campaign"
> *that is going on is your unsuccessful one against me and every other
> *person that tells you the truth and the facts. Nobody is engaging in
> *espionage. And everyone here except you has been advocating an open
> *and transparent government, the opposite of a closed door policy. We
> *are the ones that want to records that you want to be kept secret to
> *be out in the open.
>
> You are being smeared by your own allegiance.
>
> [snip]
How does my allegiance to the USA, to truth, to justice, to freedom,
to equality, and to liberty "smear" me?
Or are you talking about your imaginary allegiances that you
unsuccessful try to claim are mine?
Mark Sebree
John D. Wentzky
You have no allegiance to those things at this point.
> Or are you talking about your imaginary allegiances that you
> unsuccessful try to claim are mine?
I do not imagine the words in the US constitution.
They are actually there, weirdo.
Mark Sebree
Yes, I do. You cannot change my allegiances because you do not like
that I have them. Your lies about me do not make me like you.
You did not answer the question, by the way. How does my allegiance
to the USA, to truth, to justice, to freedom, to equality, and to
liberty "smear" me? Allegiances that you assign me that exist only in
your own head and are the opposite of my actual ones cannot smear me
at all.
>
> > Or are you talking about your imaginary allegiances that you
> > unsuccessful try to claim are mine?
>
> I do not imagine the words in the US constitution.
However, you do not understand them. And your statement does not
answer the question, except indirectly. Apparently, you were talking
about the imaginary allegiances that exist only in your head. Those
allegiances, since they do not actually exist, cannot actually smear
me.
> They are actually there, weirdo.
And unlike you, I understand them and support them.
Mark Sebree
Ray Fischer
>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>> On Feb 14, 4:16 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> >>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> >> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>>>
>>> >> To visit you?
>>>
>>> > No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
>>>
>>> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
>>
>> I have never tried to get onto the Comedy Channel.
>
>Maybe you should start thinking of trying so you can come up with some humor
>instead of your constant argumentative nature.
Maybe you should to to prison for your crimes and so that we won't
have to deal with your constant lies, racism, denial, and rank
stupidity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:08c3743d-323e-49a9...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 14, 4:16 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>
> >> >> To visit you?
>
> >> > No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
>
> >> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
>
> > I have never tried to get onto the Comedy Channel.
>
> Maybe you should start thinking of trying so you can come up with some humor
> instead of your constant argumentative nature.
You would be more of a hit on Comedy Central. You have the "dumb
southern hick" routine down pat. But then, for you it is not an act,
>
> >> I didn't attack any police officer.
>
> > According to your own statements, you said that you slammed the cop to
> > the ground.
>
> Bullshit. I never said that.
Yes, you did. March 26, 2007, in this very forum.
>
> > That means you attacked a police officer, even if you
> > cannot understand the English that you write.
>
> You're still relying on your imagination.
No, I do not use your sources. I am using the facts and YOUR own
statements. To slam a person to the ground is to attack them. Your
lack of understanding of the English language does not change the
meaning of your words.
>
> >> I was ATTACKED by a 24-year old armed idiot who committed predatory
> >> crimes against me.
>
> > You have never shown that you were attacked by any such person?
>
> Bullshit.
> I have shown it in writing numerous times.
No, you have shown that you attacked a police officer that was in the
process of arresting you. You have NEVER shown that he committed any
crimes against you.
>
> > Did the police take your statement when they arrived on the scene?
>
> There were police there when I was attacked.
Did they catch the person that attacked you? What crimes was he
charged with? When did this happen?
> Who do you think attacked me?
Someone other than a police officer from your description. The police
usually do not hire idiots, and certainly do not hire or retain
criminals.
If you were talking about your arrest, then you were lying through
your teeth again since you were the one that attacked the cop, and you
were the one that committed the crimes.
>
> > If you are talking about the cop just before you attacked him, you
> > have NEVER been able to explain how exactly you were supposedly
> > attacked.
>
> A total lie.
Only by you.
>
> > Therefore, there is no reason to think that you were
> > actually attacked.
>
> Another lie.
Only by you. You have never been able to give any actual reason why
anyone would think that you were actually attacked.
>
> > What's more, even in the unlikely event that the
> > cop did attack you, that does not give you an excuse to attack him.
>
> What a hypocritical thing to tell the people of the USA!
Not at all. It is the logical thing to say since it is illegal to
attack a cop in the performance of his duties. The place to confront
a cop is in the courtroom or the police board of inquiry.
> The people of the USA and the USA itself is formed to repel such attackers
> as the cop who attacked me in public.
You were the attacker in your arrest, not the cop, since you were the
one that attacked the cop. And there are far better ways to handle
that type of situation that are completely legal and don't result in
you committing a felony like you did.
Your distortions of what happened do not prevent people from seeing
through those distortions, by the way.
> >> >> Why would I do that?
>
> >> > Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
> >> > guilty.
>
> >> No jury will be willing to lobby against themselves by ruling against me.
>
> > They will not be lobbying against themselves at all, and there is
> > nothing that will stop them from finding you guilty.
>
> Another lie.
Actually, my statement is another fact that you cannot handle.
> You satanist hypocritical warmongering criminals are going to be repelled by
> the people because the people are allied against you.
The people in your imagination do not count. And you are the only
"satanist hypocritical warmongering criminals" in evidence since you
are the only one that is hypocritical and a criminal. You also seem
to favor the violent solution to your problems.
I am peaceful, law abiding, and honest, and there is no reason for
people to be allied against me since I defend the people and their
rights, freedoms, and liberty, as well as promote equality.
>
> > You certainly have never given anyone here a reason to think that you are
> > innocent of the crime, or that you will be found innocent.
>
> A lie.
No, a fact. You have admitted to committing the acts that you are
accused of. Why would anyone think that you are innocent of those
crimes, or think that you will be found innocent by a jury of your
peers?
>
> >> LOL!
> >> PERIOD!
>
> > That is the sound of the gavel when the judge finishes stating that
> > you have been found guilty,
>
> No judge would rule against me.
Actually, virtually every judge would rule against you, if they have
seen evidence that supports your claims about what happened, stripped
of your ad hominems, disparaging remarks, distortions, and weak
justifications.
> Ruling against me is equivalent to ruling against oneself.
No, ruling against you would be ruling against a criminal.
>
> > and that sentencing will take place at a later date.
>
> What sentencing?
The pronouncement of your punishment for committing the crimes that
you were found guilty of by a jury of 12 fellow residents of Anderson
County, SC.
>
> > You will then be lead to jail to await sentencing.
>
> Not in the realm of possibility.
More like in the realm of virtual certainty.
>
> > After sentencing, you are likely to be taken to prison for the next few
> > years.
>
> Bullshit, you anti-USA idiot.
You are the only one that is anti-USA and an idiot. I am pro-USA, and
very intelligent.
> The people are unwilling to pay taxes to support the criminal activities you
> espouse.
Since I do not espouse any criminal activities, I do not see why the
people have to worry about it. The "criminal activities" that you
imagine I espouse do not count as actually espousing criminal
activities since I do not actually espouse them.
Mark Sebree
John D. Wentzky
news:47b66f2b$0$36370$742e...@news.sonic.net...
What crimes?
What racism, NAACP criminal fool?
What lies, fetus killing fanatic?
What stupidity, treason boy?
The Chief Instigator
> You're going to prison, criminal.
You think? ;-)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Iowa 1, Houston 0 (February 15)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, February 17 vs. Iowa, 4:05
The Chief Instigator
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
> news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>>> To visit you?
>> No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
Obviously not, since you're going to be the joke of the prison system
you spend your sentence in.
> I didn't attack any police officer.
> I was ATTACKED by a 24-year old armed idiot who committed predatory crimes
> against me.
SC Code of Laws, Title 16, Chapter 9, §320. Choke on that fact.
>>> Why would I do that?
>> Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
>> guilty.
> No jury will be willing to lobby against themselves by ruling against me.
> LOL!
> PERIOD!
So, you're going to plead guilty again and hope you get off easy?
John D. Wentzky
On Feb 15, 1:45 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:08c3743d-323e-49a9...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 14, 4:16 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>
> >> >> To visit you?
>
> >> > No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
>
> >> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
>
> > I have never tried to get onto the Comedy Channel.
>
> Maybe you should start thinking of trying so you can come up with some
> humor
> instead of your constant argumentative nature.
*You would be more of a hit on Comedy Central.
I agree that i would be much more well-received.
*You have the "dumb southern hick" routine down pat.
If that is what you call it, you are bereft of understanding of Southern
culture and holding to a false notion that yankees have about persons in the
South who are smarter than them.
Dumb isn't what people such as me are.
We know an asshole when we see one.
LOL!
You falsehood wimps are too freaking stupid to know you are the real idiots.
*But then, for you it is not an act,
Why would I want to act when I know you're an idiot?
Remember silence of the lambs?
Your idiot wolfboys are exposed whether you talk or remain silent.
You're that stupid.
> >> I didn't attack any police officer.
>
> > According to your own statements, you said that you slammed the cop to
> > the ground.
>
> Bullshit. I never said that.
*Yes, you did. March 26, 2007, in this very forum.
You're a fraud. I never stated what you fraudulently assert that I stated.
You are a very dishonest person.
> > That means you attacked a police officer, even if you
> > cannot understand the English that you write.
>
> You're still relying on your imagination.
*No, I do not use your sources.
Because you are a 'Harry Potter boy'.
*I am using the facts and YOUR own
*statements.
You are using neither to fabricate your lies.
*To slam a person to the ground is to attack them.
I never stated what you fraudulently said.
*Your lack of understanding of the English language does not change the
*meaning of your words.
It is your lack of understanding of the English language that does try to
change the meaning of words and the actual wording and which makes you a
false witness.
You are a fraud. An idiot. A squirming peon of cowardice and lies.
You're an emotional basket case that lies more often than not.
You're a malicious fraud who lies.
> >> I was ATTACKED by a 24-year old armed idiot who committed predatory
> >> crimes against me.
>
> > You have never shown that you were attacked by any such person?
>
> Bullshit.
> I have shown it in writing numerous times.
*No, you have shown that you attacked a police officer that was in the
*process of arresting you.
Another lie on your part.
Your emotions are of no relevance.
Your fraud is obvious.
*You have NEVER shown that he committed any
*crimes against you.
Another lie on your part, the part of fraud.
> > Did the police take your statement when they arrived on the scene?
>
> There were police there when I was attacked.
*Did they catch the person that attacked you?
No. They were negligent in that duty.
They did not arrest the perpetrator of the crimes that were committed
against me.
*What crimes was he
*charged with? When did this happen?
Why don't you ask the mamby pamby peon crew that beat me with batons after I
was mugged from behind?
> Who do you think attacked me?
*Someone other than a police officer from your description.
I told you the cop who attacked me was acting like he was fasley
impersonating a police officer.
*The police usually do not hire idiots, and certainly do not hire or retain
*criminals.
You would think so, huh?
But, what kind of idiot does it take to walk around with GUNS on in the
civilian sector?
Huh?
*If you were talking about your arrest, then you were lying through
*your teeth again since you were the one that attacked the cop, and you
*were the one that committed the crimes.
A LIE of an ally of war crimes against the USA.
> > If you are talking about the cop just before you attacked him, you
> > have NEVER been able to explain how exactly you were supposedly
> > attacked.
>
> A total lie.
*Only by you.
None, you fool.
> > Therefore, there is no reason to think that you were
> > actually attacked.
>
> Another lie.
*Only by you. You have never been able to give any actual reason why
*anyone would think that you were actually attacked.
You are a fraud and an ally of fraud and you are dimaterically opposed to
the Constitution of the USA.
You are a loser.
> > What's more, even in the unlikely event that the
> > cop did attack you, that does not give you an excuse to attack him.
>
> What a hypocritical thing to tell the people of the USA!
*Not at all.
A COWARD AND A HYPOCRITE'S STATEMENT!
*It is the logical thing to say since it is illegal to
*attack a cop in the performance of his duties. The place to confront
*a cop is in the courtroom or the police board of inquiry.
You are a FRAUD!
Cops are harassing and threatening civilians.
They are scum.
They are criminal weapon-toting tax leeches that all you emotional paranoid
basket cases are lobbying for to commit crimes against the Constitution and
innocent persons.
> The people of the USA and the USA itself is formed to repel such attackers
> as the cop who attacked me in public.
*You were the attacker in your arrest,
A total lie.
*not the cop,
Another lie.
*since you were the
*one that attacked the cop.
Another lie.
The department of defense is not called the department of assault.
I conducted myself in perfect compliance with every statute that is designed
to protect the people of the USA against attackers.
*And there are far better ways to handle
*that type of situation that are completely legal and don't result in
*you committing a felony like you did.
I commited no crime, you reliant on predatory tax paid hired guns.
*Your distortions of what happened do not prevent people from seeing
*through those distortions, by the way.
I distorted nothing, you ignorant loon.
It was me who was assaulted, kidnapped, stolen from, held at ransom and who
exortion has been attempted against.
All these indictments are felonius and criminal and are punishable by
serious fines and sentences against the persons who have brought them
against me.
Your allegiance is doomed BY LAW!
Your allegiance to warmongering fraud and treason and larceny and assault
and kidnapping and extortion are destined for destruction.
> >> >> Why would I do that?
>
> >> > Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
> >> > guilty.
>
> >> No jury will be willing to lobby against themselves by ruling against
> >> me.
>
> > They will not be lobbying against themselves at all, and there is
> > nothing that will stop them from finding you guilty.
>
> Another lie.
*Actually, my statement is another fact that you cannot handle.
Bullshit.
Your statement is a statement of fools and frauds.
> You satanist hypocritical warmongering criminals are going to be repelled
> by
> the people because the people are allied against you.
*The people in your imagination do not count.
I do not imagine that the people are exempt from the criminal propaganda of
treason that you espouse.
*And you are the only "satanist hypocritical warmongering criminals" in
evidence since you
*are the only one that is hypocritical and a criminal. You also seem
*to favor the violent solution to your problems.
Bullshit.
While you lobby for the warmongers themselves you are lying about me.
*I am peaceful, law abiding, and honest, and there is no reason for
*people to be allied against me since I defend the people and their
*rights, freedoms, and liberty, as well as promote equality.
Bullshit.
If you were preaceful law abiding and honest you would be for me and against
the criminal gangsters.
> > You certainly have never given anyone here a reason to think that you
> > are
> > innocent of the crime, or that you will be found innocent.
>
> A lie.
*No, a fact.
A statement of an illiterate fool.
*You have admitted to committing the acts that you are
*accused of.
A statement of an illiterate fraud.
*Why would anyone think that you are innocent of those
*crimes, or think that you will be found innocent by a jury of your
*peers?
Because they are truthful statements on my part.
That is the problem with you idiotic assholes.
You do not believe the truth when it is told to you.
You're so wimpy and stupid that you do not believe the people who are NOT
carrying guns in the civilian sector.
What are you so INSANE as to go against the peaceful people while lobbying
for the treasonous acts of a thieving, lying criminal system?
> >> LOL!
> >> PERIOD!
>
> > That is the sound of the gavel when the judge finishes stating that
> > you have been found guilty,
>
> No judge would rule against me.
*Actually, virtually every judge would rule against you, if they have
*seen evidence that supports your claims about what happened, stripped
*of your ad hominems, disparaging remarks, distortions, and weak
*justifications.
None.
They would agree with me because they hate those guntoting assholes, too.
They know those guntoting assholes are off base and are not doing anything
other than presenting lethal threats to the people who are taxed.
They know that the peoples' rights and the Constitution require them to rule
against the warmongers who are carrying weapons in the civilian sector.
The treason is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
PERIOD!
> Ruling against me is equivalent to ruling against oneself.
*No, ruling against you would be ruling against a criminal.
Not at all.
Ruling against me is ruling against yourself.
You lose all your rights to protection by ruling against me.
You really do.
That's your big problem.
You are against persons who never caused you any harm at all.
You have no cause, no case, no merit to your allegiance when it goes against
me.
You have no way to justify the crimes that were committed against me.
> > and that sentencing will take place at a later date.
>
> What sentencing?
*The pronouncement of your punishment for committing the crimes that
*you were found guilty of by a jury of 12 fellow residents of Anderson
*County, SC.
I've never been found guilty of any crime(s) by any jury.
Plenty of biased government against the people types have fined me in the
past.
I am sick of the militant bullshit assholes who punish without just cause.
ASSHOLES!
PERIOD!
They are desitned to comply with the LAWS as the LAWS BENEFIT ME!
> > You will then be lead to jail to await sentencing.
>
> Not in the realm of possibility.
*More like in the realm of virtual certainty.
The law supports me, defends me, and it renders guilt to those who committed
crimes against me.
> > After sentencing, you are likely to be taken to prison for the next few
> > years.
>
> Bullshit, you anti-USA idiot.
*You are the only one that is anti-USA and an idiot.
BULLSHIT!
*I am pro-USA, and
*very intelligent.
Again, BULLSHIT!
You are anti-USA because you are ANTI-the people of the USA and you are for
stealing from them to arm traitors in society.
> The people are unwilling to pay taxes to support the criminal activities
> you
> espouse.
*Since I do not espouse any criminal activities, I do not see why the
*people have to worry about it. The "criminal activities" that you
*imagine I espouse do not count as actually espousing criminal
*activities since I do not actually espouse them.
The people are guaranteed many rights that trash your opinion and the crimes
that you espouse.
The Chief Instigator
wrote:
> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1b92e10b-0a93-4ca3...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>> To visit you?
> *To serve your sentence when you're sentenced for the felony offence
> *for which you'll be convicted.
> LOL! HAHAHHAAHHAHAHAA! Guess what.
That's pretty easy - either you're going to prison, or you're going to
the state funny farm.
> Your criminal nature is revealed by your errant predication of guilt without
> proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your guilt will likely be established beyond any reasonable doubt, in court.
> My assertions are so solid it scares you into the hell you try to use to
> sustain your criminal allegiance and associates who are required to pay
> $$$$$$$$ according to law.
No one else has to obey your powerless fantasy.
>> Why would I do that?
> *You won't have any option
> I am required to visit you in prison? Why?
She'll be visitng *you* in prison, Convict Wentzky.
> * - other than suicide - to escape it.
> To escape what? To escape abortionist assholes and homosexual anal
> retentive criminals? LOL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA! Guess what, coward.
You're still certifiably insane.
> You can't beat me in any lawful manner.
The court in which you will be tried will likely administer a Richter
9.9 spanking to you, so to speak - if you're unusually lucky.
> If you try, you incur guilt.
> If you commit an actual crime against me, you incur guilt.
> I live on with complete and utter impunity and the integrity that comes from
> NOT being stained with your personal baggage.
Be sure and tell that to the judge. S/he'll get a laugh out of your
delusions of competency.
> Understand why FREEDOM OF SPEECH is a LAW?
> Understand why asking that peon who assaulted me if he was a homosexual is
> LEGAL?
> LOL!
> HAHAHHAAHAHHAHAA!
> I enjoy treating real idiots like the idiots they are.
> I have always enjoyed putting lesser behaved idiots down.
> I enjoy showing them the way.
> LOL!
> HAHAHAHAHHAA!
Indeed, you are a real idiot, and yo'll show yourself the way to spend
the rest of your life confined in a cell.
> Prepare to enjoy the revelations that will expose you and yours of all the
> shit you have tried to keep secret for decades.
Why would anyone else worry about your feeble lies?
> You can't beat it. It is an imminent thing that eminence will not
> allow to go unfulfilled. Your pimp daddy got the cash to pay your
> way off? You better start thinking about how you are going to get
> out of the hole you are in by coming up with the CASH that is
> DEMANDED from you, because if you don't you will later wish you did.
You're going to be buried in a pauper's grave, if you're lucky.
Bob Officer
<pat...@io.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:22:56 -0800 (PST), Gwen Bennet <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're going to prison, criminal.
>
>You think? ;-)
If justice is served.
--
Ak'toh'di
Ray Fischer
>"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:47b66f2b$0$36370$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>> John D. Wentzky <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>>> On Feb 14, 4:16 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> >> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> >>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> >> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> To visit you?
>>>>>
>>>>> > No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
>>>>
>>>> I have never tried to get onto the Comedy Channel.
>>>
>>>Maybe you should start thinking of trying so you can come up with some
>>>humor
>>>instead of your constant argumentative nature.
>>
>> Maybe you should to to prison for your crimes and so that we won't
>> have to deal with your constant lies, racism, denial, and rank
>> stupidity.
>
>What crimes?
More rank stupidity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8fa44474-b5c2-4fd7...@72g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 15, 1:45 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:08c3743d-323e-49a9...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Feb 14, 4:16 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> > >>news:ff04e710-dc3f-4742...@q78g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> > On Feb 14, 12:22 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >> "Gwen Bennet" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> >>news:5ccc2d9f-c0bb-47de...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> >> > You're going to prison, criminal.
>
> > >> >> To visit you?
>
> > >> > No, to serve your sentence for attacking a police officer.
>
> > >> Still trying to get on the Comedy Channel?
>
> > > I have never tried to get onto the Comedy Channel.
>
> > Maybe you should start thinking of trying so you can come up with some
> > humor instead of your constant argumentative nature.
>
> *You would be more of a hit on Comedy Central.
>
> I agree that i would be much more well-received.
But not in the way that you would want to be.
>
> *You have the "dumb southern hick" routine down pat.
>
> If that is what you call it, you are bereft of understanding of Southern
> culture and holding to a false notion that yankees have about persons in the
> South who are smarter than them.
That leaves you out, since you are much less intelligent than anyone
else here. And I am calling it like you act it. I do understand the
Southern culture quite well, since my family is from the South and I
have worked in the South in the past. I am not holding to any false
notions. I know just how low your intelligence is, and I am not
generalizing your lack of intelligence to the general population of
your region.
Also, I live in the wrong part of the country to be a yankee in any
case.
> Dumb isn't what people such as me are.
Idiot, moron, imbecile all work just as well for you. You are
certainly bereft of intelligence.
> We know an asshole when we see one.
And that is what you are, an asshole.
> LOL!
> You falsehood wimps are too freaking stupid to know you are the real idiots.
Thanks for admitting that you are a wimp and too freaking stupid to
know that you are a real idiot. After all, you are the one that keeps
telling falsehoods and blatant lies.
>
> *But then, for you it is not an act,
>
> Why would I want to act when I know you're an idiot?
Because you are a liar, and you are the idiot. Therefore, you would
not have to act like an idiot.
> Remember silence of the lambs?
Never saw the movie. Never read that book.
> Your idiot wolfboys are exposed whether you talk or remain silent.
That is why you are exposed as an idiot and a criminal so often.
However, unlike you, I am not an idiot.
> You're that stupid.
No, you are the one that is stupid. You do not know when to remain
silent. I am intelligent enough to see right through your hateful
lies.
>
> > >> I didn't attack any police officer.
>
> > > According to your own statements, you said that you slammed the cop to
> > > the ground.
>
> > Bullshit. I never said that.
>
> *Yes, you did. March 26, 2007, in this very forum.
>
> You're a fraud. I never stated what you fraudulently assert that I stated.
> You are a very dishonest person.
No, you are the one that is dishonest. You have been shown your own
words where you admit your crime, and recently.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/fcd7bb28a51eafc1
"I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back in self-defense
after he used excessive force on me. "
Your posts, your EXACT words. You are the one that is dishonest, as
you continue to prove. You stated very clearly in that sentence that
you attacked a cop. Your adjectives are irrelevant to the fact that
you attacked a cop, as your your lame and irrelevant "justification".
You were not acting in "self-defense", no matter what you claim. Your
action is a felony in your state, and your perceptions and blinders do
not change that fact.
>
> > > That means you attacked a police officer, even if you
> > > cannot understand the English that you write.
>
> > You're still relying on your imagination.
>
> *No, I do not use your sources.
>
> Because you are a 'Harry Potter boy'.
No, that is because unlike you, I am intelligent, well educated, and I
am telling the truth. I use real world sources that are accurate,
relevant, and authoritative. I do not use your imagination as a
source because it has nothing to do with the real world.
>
> *I am using the facts and YOUR own
> *statements.
>
> You are using neither to fabricate your lies.
That is why I am not fabricating any lies. I am telling the truth. I
leave the fabrication of lies to you.
>
> *To slam a person to the ground is to attack them.
>
> I never stated what you fraudulently said.
Yes, you did, and I posted your words earlier in this very post with a
link to the article in which you said it. You slammed a cop to the
ground, which means that you assaulted a police officer.
>
> *Your lack of understanding of the English language does not change the
> *meaning of your words.
>
> It is your lack of understanding of the English language that does try to
> change the meaning of words and the actual wording and which makes you a
> false witness.
I have not been trying to change the meaning of the words at all.
Unlike you, I have an excellent understanding of the English language,
and I am using the actual meanings of the words. And since I am
telling the truth to counter your lies, I am not a false witness.
> You are a fraud. An idiot. A squirming peon of cowardice and lies.
Those are all your traits, not mine. I am an honest and truthful
person, highly intelligent, a highly skilled professional, standing
stalwart in defense of the truth and the facts.
> You're an emotional basket case that lies more often than not.
That is still you. I am an emotionally solid and strong person that
tells the truth.
> You're a malicious fraud who lies.
You are still describing yourself. You should quite trying to
attribute your traits to me. I am a caring and compassionate
individual that is forthright and that tells the truth. Your lies
cannot change the facts.
>
> > >> I was ATTACKED by a 24-year old armed idiot who committed predatory
> > >> crimes against me.
>
> > > You have never shown that you were attacked by any such person?
>
> > Bullshit.
> > I have shown it in writing numerous times.
>
> *No, you have shown that you attacked a police officer that was in the
> *process of arresting you.
>
> Another lie on your part.
No, another fact that you have admitted on my part.
> Your emotions are of no relevance.
That is why I am not relating any of my emotions. Unlike you, I am
relating the facts.
> Your fraud is obvious.
Actually, your attempts at deception are what are painfully obvious.
I am not trying to deceive anyone, which means that there is no fraud
on my part to be seen.
>
> *You have NEVER shown that he committed any
> *crimes against you.
>
> Another lie on your part, the part of fraud.
No, another fact on my part, the part of honesty, truth, and the
facts. Your claims are not born out by the facts, which means that
you have not shown that any actual crimes have been committed against
you.
>
> > > Did the police take your statement when they arrived on the scene?
>
> > There were police there when I was attacked.
>
> *Did they catch the person that attacked you?
>
> No. They were negligent in that duty.
Rather unlikely, given that no such person ever attacked you.
> They did not arrest the perpetrator of the crimes that were committed
> against me.
Probably because no crimes had been committed against you. There is
no reason why anyone should accept your delusions as fact.
>
> *What crimes was he
> *charged with? When did this happen?
>
> Why don't you ask the mamby pamby peon crew that beat me with batons after I
> was mugged from behind?
How can I ask people that do not exist anything? Since you were never
mugged, that "mamby pamby peon crew that beat me with batons" cannot
exist since they cannot do something after an event when the event
never happened.
The FACTS are that you were being arrested when you spun around and
attacked the cop that was arresting you, knocking him to the ground.
You did this in the presence of other police officers, who immediately
leaped in to subdue you and to take you into custody for the felony
that you had just committed as they are required to do by law. The
fact that they used batons meant that they did not consider you to be
a serious threat to them as a group.
>
> > Who do you think attacked me?
>
> *Someone other than a police officer from your description.
>
> I told you the cop who attacked me was acting like he was fasley
> impersonating a police officer.
You have also said that there were other cops present, and that he
took you to the station to be processed. He was also in a police
cruiser and wearing a police uniform. All those facts together, as
well as separately, show that he was not impersonating a cop at all.
He really was a cop, and you had no reason to think that he wasn't.
And he was acting like what he was, a police officer.
>
> *The police usually do not hire idiots, and certainly do not hire or retain
> *criminals.
>
> You would think so, huh?
I know so.
> But, what kind of idiot does it take to walk around with GUNS on in the
> civilian sector?
Depends on the person's job, and if there is a need for it on the
job. Cops need the firearms to protect themselves and law abiding
citizens from criminals because many criminals DO have guns and will
not hesitate to use them on a cop. Therefore, it is an intelligent
decision for police officers to be armed because of the people that
they have to deal with.
> Huh?
Apparently, you have never thought about the job of a police officer,
and how short his life expectancy would be if he was not armed.
>
> *If you were talking about your arrest, then you were lying through
> *your teeth again since you were the one that attacked the cop, and you
> *were the one that committed the crimes.
>
> A LIE of an ally of war crimes against the USA.
Which means me out, since I was telling the truth and I am an enemy of
all crimes. You are the only one that has been lying in this thread.
>
> > > If you are talking about the cop just before you attacked him, you
> > > have NEVER been able to explain how exactly you were supposedly
> > > attacked.
>
> > A total lie.
>
> *Only by you.
>
> None, you fool.
You are the only fool here, and you are the only one that considers
the truth to be a lie.
>
> > > Therefore, there is no reason to think that you were
> > > actually attacked.
>
> > Another lie.
>
> *Only by you. You have never been able to give any actual reason why
> *anyone would think that you were actually attacked.
>
> You are a fraud and an ally of fraud and you are dimaterically opposed to
> the Constitution of the USA.
I am not you. I am your opposite. That means that I am honest and
truthful, and that I am an enemy of deception and that I support and
work to uphold the Constitution of the USA.
> You are a loser.
No, I am not you. I am a winner.
Your lies about me do not change the fact that you have never been
able to give any actual reason why anyone would thing that you were
actually attacked.
>
> > > What's more, even in the unlikely event that the
> > > cop did attack you, that does not give you an excuse to attack him.
>
> > What a hypocritical thing to tell the people of the USA!
>
> *Not at all.
>
> A COWARD AND A HYPOCRITE'S STATEMENT!
You are the only coward and hypocrite in this thread. My statement is
a statement of fact.
>
> *It is the logical thing to say since it is illegal to
> *attack a cop in the performance of his duties. The place to confront
> *a cop is in the courtroom or the police board of inquiry.
>
> You are a FRAUD!
No, I am not trying to deceive anyone. I leave such idiocy for you.
> Cops are harassing and threatening civilians.
Cops are civilians as well. And they are not generally harassing
people, or threatening people without cause.
> They are scum.
No, they are brave defenders of the law abiding citizens of the
country.
> They are criminal weapon-toting tax leeches that all you emotional paranoid
> basket cases are lobbying for to commit crimes against the Constitution and
> innocent persons.
Cops are not people like you. They are law abiding and law enforcing,
hard working people that defend the general public from the people
that commit crimes against the general public. Your hatred of the
police does not make them people like you, just as your hated of me
does not make me like you.
>
> > The people of the USA and the USA itself is formed to repel such attackers
> > as the cop who attacked me in public.
>
> *You were the attacker in your arrest,
>
> A total lie.
You admitted that you attacked the cop, so you have admitted that you
were the attacker in your arrest. Your own words show that I am
telling the truth, even if you cannot understand what you said.
>
> *not the cop,
>
> Another lie.
Another fact on my part. You were not attacked by the cops until you
attacked one of the cops, and thus committed a felony.
>
> *since you were the
> *one that attacked the cop.
>
> Another lie.
My statement is a fact that you have admitted, and that I quoted back
to you earlier in this post.
> The department of defense is not called the department of assault.
The Department of Defense has nothing to do with your arrest since the
DoD has to do with the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast
Guard, and the police department is not a part of any of those
military branches.
> I conducted myself in perfect compliance with every statute that is designed
> to protect the people of the USA against attackers.
Except that you were the attacker in this case. You were belligerent
to the cop, you apparently tried to proposition him given that you
asked if he was homosexual, and you attacked him when he tried to
arrest you. The police were complying with the laws that are there to
protect the general population from dangerous and violent people like
you.
You came no where near being in compliance with the laws.
>
> *And there are far better ways to handle
> *that type of situation that are completely legal and don't result in
> *you committing a felony like you did.
>
> I commited no crime, you reliant on predatory tax paid hired guns.
You have admitted that you have committed crimes in this very forum,
even if you do not realize what you have said. You have admitted to
attacking a police officer while, as any REASONABLE person would
realize, you were in the process of being arrested. That means that
you resisted arrest, a crime, and you assaulted a police officer, a
crime and a felony.
>
> *Your distortions of what happened do not prevent people from seeing
> *through those distortions, by the way.
>
> I distorted nothing, you ignorant loon.
You are the one that is an ignorant loon. You try to distort
practically everything.
> It was me who was assaulted, kidnapped, stolen from, held at ransom and who
> exortion has been attempted against.
All distortions and outright lies. You assaulted a police officer,
were arrested, had your car searched and some items confiscated, held
for bail, and had your bail paid by your father. Your second sentence
shows your first sentence to be an outright lie.
> All these indictments are felonius and criminal and are punishable by
> serious fines and sentences against the persons who have brought them
> against me.
Again, you lie and distort the facts. None of the indictments against
you are against the law at all, and none of the people that brought
them against you can be punished for doing so since they were doing
the jobs that they were hired to do.
> Your allegiance is doomed BY LAW!
My allegiance is to the law. Therefore, it cannot be doomed by law.
> Your allegiance to warmongering fraud and treason and larceny and assault
> and kidnapping and extortion are destined for destruction.
Again, you lie about me. That allegiance only exists in your
imagination, and I do not hold any such allegiance. My allegiance is
to peace, truthfulness, patriotism, compassion, the USA, liberty,
freedom, equality, and justice. And it certainly is not doomed to
destruction.
Your entire rant shows that your first statement is a blatant lie on
your part.
>
> > >> >> Why would I do that?
>
> > >> > Because the judge said that you had to after the jury finds you
> > >> > guilty.
>
> > >> No jury will be willing to lobby against themselves by ruling against
> > >> me.
>
> > > They will not be lobbying against themselves at all, and there is
> > > nothing that will stop them from finding you guilty.
>
> > Another lie.
>
> *Actually, my statement is another fact that you cannot handle.
>
> Bullshit.
> Your statement is a statement of fools and frauds.
No, my statement is as I said it was, another fact that you cannot
handle.
>
> > You satanist hypocritical warmongering criminals are going to be repelled
> > by the people because the people are allied against you.
>
> *The people in your imagination do not count.
>
> I do not imagine that the people are exempt from the criminal propaganda of
> treason that you espouse.
Actually, you imagine that I espouse "criminal propaganda of treason",
something that I have never done and would never do. The people that
you claim that are allied against me exist only in your imagination.
>
> *And you are the only "satanist hypocritical warmongering criminals" in
> evidence since you
> *are the only one that is hypocritical and a criminal. You also seem
> *to favor the violent solution to your problems.
>
> Bullshit.
> While you lobby for the warmongers themselves you are lying about me.
However, I am not lobbying for warmongers, no matter what your
delusions dictate. And I have not been lying about you, as you have
shown and I have proven.
>
> *I am peaceful, law abiding, and honest, and there is no reason for
> *people to be allied against me since I defend the people and their
> *rights, freedoms, and liberty, as well as promote equality.
>
> Bullshit.
> If you were preaceful law abiding and honest you would be for me and against
> the criminal gangsters.
You are a criminal gangster. That is why I am against you. And as I
said, I am honest, peaceful, and law abiding. Your delusions and
imagination cannot change that.
>
> > > You certainly have never given anyone here a reason to think that you
> > > are innocent of the crime, or that you will be found innocent.
>
> > A lie.
>
> *No, a fact.
>
> A statement of an illiterate fool.
That would be your statement, since you are illiterate and a fool.
>
> *You have admitted to committing the acts that you are
> *accused of.
>
> A statement of an illiterate fraud.
That would be your statement, since you are illiterate and are trying
to be deceptive. I have proven again that you have admitted that you
have committed the acts that you are accused of by posting your words
and a link to where you said them near the top of this post.
>
> *Why would anyone think that you are innocent of those
> *crimes, or think that you will be found innocent by a jury of your
> *peers?
>
> Because they are truthful statements on my part.
Your statements actually contain many lies, and show your ignorance of
the law.
> That is the problem with you idiotic assholes.
You are the only idiotic asshole in this thread.
> You do not believe the truth when it is told to you.
Yes, I do. That is why I know when you are lying, because it
contradicts the truth.
> You're so wimpy and stupid that you do not believe the people who are NOT
> carrying guns in the civilian sector.
You are the one that is wimpy an stupid. Why should I believe a liar
like you over an honest cop, especially when the liar actually admits
to his wrong doing?
> What are you so INSANE as to go against the peaceful people while lobbying
> for the treasonous acts of a thieving, lying criminal system?
You are the one that is insane. You are not a peaceful person, and I
have never been lobbying for any treasonous acts, any thieving, any
lying, or any criminal system. I am supporting the peaceful people
and the justice system in wanting to see lawbreakers like you put into
jail for your crimes.
>
> > >> LOL!
> > >> PERIOD!
>
> > > That is the sound of the gavel when the judge finishes stating that
> > > you have been found guilty,
>
> > No judge would rule against me.
>
> *Actually, virtually every judge would rule against you, if they have
> *seen evidence that supports your claims about what happened, stripped
> *of your ad hominems, disparaging remarks, distortions, and weak
> *justifications.
>
> None.
Actually, all.
> They would agree with me because they hate those guntoting assholes, too.
That is why they would put you in jail, because you are a criminal
asshole. Judges LIKE the cops in general.
> They know those guntoting assholes are off base and are not doing anything
> other than presenting lethal threats to the people who are taxed.
That is why the judges support the police in their efforts to capture
criminals like you and lock those lethal threats away from the general
populous.
> They know that the peoples' rights and the Constitution require them to rule
> against the warmongers who are carrying weapons in the civilian sector.
And the judges make sure that the criminals get their Constitutional
rights to a lawyer and a fair trial after the police catch them. The
weapons that they use in their crimes are forfeited on their
conviction.
> The treason is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS!
Only in your imagination. You have not been able to show any actual
treason, despite your myriad of empty claims.
> PERIOD!
The "period" points in the opposite direction than you think.
>
> > Ruling against me is equivalent to ruling against oneself.
>
> *No, ruling against you would be ruling against a criminal.
>
> Not at all.
Yes, it would be.
> Ruling against me is ruling against yourself.
No, it would not be since I am not the one that committed the crime,
and I am not the one that was so stupid as to attack a police officer.
> You lose all your rights to protection by ruling against me.
No, I would not. You cannot cause me to lose any rights. You have
neither the power nor the authority to do so. I will retain all my
rights while you go to prison.
> You really do.
No, I really don't. Why should I lose any rights because of YOUR
mistakes?
> That's your big problem.
Then I have no problem, since that "problem" exists only in your
imagination.
> You are against persons who never caused you any harm at all.
Most people are against criminals like you. They are also against
liars like you, and people as hateful as you.
> You have no cause, no case, no merit to your allegiance when it goes against
> me.
Actually, I have lots of cause, merit, and case in going against you.
You are hateful, disrespectful, racist, egomaniacal, homophobic,
bigoted, misogynistic, dishonest, ignorant, and basically you stand
for everything that I am against.
> You have no way to justify the crimes that were committed against me.
Why should I try to justify things that do not exist? No crimes have
been committed against you.
>
> > > and that sentencing will take place at a later date.
>
> > What sentencing?
>
> *The pronouncement of your punishment for committing the crimes that
> *you were found guilty of by a jury of 12 fellow residents of Anderson
> *County, SC.
>
> I've never been found guilty of any crime(s) by any jury.
You will be found guilty by a jury of the more serious crimes that you
are currently indicted for, however. I was using the future tense,
not the past tense.
> Plenty of biased government against the people types have fined me in the
> past.
No, those people do not actually exist. They are government for the
people types that seek to uphold the law.
> I am sick of the militant bullshit assholes who punish without just cause.
I doubt that you have ever met any people like that. All your
punishments have been for just causes, even if you refuse to admit it.
> ASSHOLES!
Those would be people like you.
> PERIOD!
> They are desitned to comply with the LAWS as the LAWS BENEFIT ME!
They are not destined to obey your imagination. They are already
complying with the laws as they actually exist. There is no reason
that the laws should specifically benefit you, and there is no reason
for any justice or magistrate to show bias towards you and favor you
in a case.
>
> > > You will then be lead to jail to await sentencing.
>
> > Not in the realm of possibility.
>
> *More like in the realm of virtual certainty.
>
> The law supports me, defends me, and it renders guilt to those who committed
> crimes against me.
The law cannot render guilt against people that do not exist. Nobody
has committed any crimes against you. And the law condemns your
actions, and demands punishment for them if and when you are found
guilty of those actions in a court of law.
>
> > > After sentencing, you are likely to be taken to prison for the next few
> > > years.
>
> > Bullshit, you anti-USA idiot.
>
> *You are the only one that is anti-USA and an idiot.
>
> BULLSHIT!
Not at all.
>
> *I am pro-USA, and very intelligent.
>
> Again, BULLSHIT!
My statement is a statement of fact.
> You are anti-USA because you are ANTI-the people of the USA and you are for
> stealing from them to arm traitors in society.
Wrong on all counts, as usual. I am pro-USA because I am for the
people of the USA, and I seek to defend and enhance their freedoms,
liberty, and equality. I am against stealing from the people of the
USA, and I am against actual traitors. The people that you call
traitors are not traitors, or even violating the law in almost every
case.
>
> > The people are unwilling to pay taxes to support the criminal activities
> > you espouse.
>
> *Since I do not espouse any criminal activities, I do not see why the
> *people have to worry about it. The "criminal activities" that you
> *imagine I espouse do not count as actually espousing criminal
> *activities since I do not actually espouse them.
>
> The people are guaranteed many rights that trash your opinion and the crimes
> that you espouse.
Actually, those rights support my opinions and, as I said, I do not
espouse any crimes or criminal activity. You have NEVER been able to
show that I actually espouse any criminal activity or any treason.
Your lies and misperceptions and distortions and delusions do not
count as showing anything because you have no actual facts to support
your hateful claims.
Mark Sebree
John D. Wentzky
>
Nah, you uncultured thieving satanist loon.
You are a pro-CHOICE, HOMOSEXUAL ally of anti-USA treason.
You can't dissociate yourself from those reprehensible qualities by
defending them.
John D. Wentzky
news:slrnfre3fu....@eris.io.com...
>
Why don;t you take your anti-USA former soviet ass back to the FAILED USSR?
Ray Fischer
>news:06c63f34-fdce-43d9...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
>Nah, you uncultured thieving satanist loon.
Why aren't you in prison yet, you racist, lying, bigoted, loser and
criminal?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:06c63f34-fdce-43d9...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
I see that you could not stand facing the truth and the facts any
more, so you snipped them completely out.
>
> Nah, you uncultured thieving satanist loon.
I keep telling you that I am not you. I am the opposite of you. That
means that I am cultured, law-abiding, and sane.
> You are a pro-CHOICE, HOMOSEXUAL ally of anti-USA treason.
I am pro-choice and pro- gay rights, which means that I am also a pro-
USA patriot. I am an enemy of treason, and that will not change no
matter how many times you lie about me.
> You can't dissociate yourself from those reprehensible qualities by
> defending them.
What reprehensible qualities? The only reprehensible quality that you
named about me was a completely obvious lie. The fact that I am pro-
choice and pro-gay rights are positive qualities about me, as is the
actual fact that I am a pro-USA patriot. You just cannot stand the
facts.
Mark Sebree
John D. Wentzky
On Feb 17, 1:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:06c63f34-fdce-43d9...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
*I see that you could not stand facing the truth and the facts any
*more, so you snipped them completely out.
The newsgroup readers see that you are an excessively verbose, argumentative
prick who lied again.
> Nah, you uncultured thieving satanist loon.
*I keep telling you that I am not you.
You have to because you have an identity crisis.
*I am the opposite of you.
Really?
You're that bad?
*That
*means that I am cultured, law-abiding, and sane.
I guess if thinking that helps you get through the day.
> You are a pro-CHOICE, HOMOSEXUAL ally of anti-USA treason.
*I am pro-choice and pro- gay rights,
How uncultured can you be?
*which means that I am also a pro-
*USA patriot.
Really?
By being for killing the children of the USA before they are born and for
spreading HIV and AIDS?
*I am an enemy of treason, and that will not change no
*matter how many times you lie about me.
Your problem if you will not change from the treason you support.
> You can't dissociate yourself from those reprehensible qualities by
> defending them.
*What reprehensible qualities?
That stuff you support that is a threat upon the lives of the people of the
USA.
*The only reprehensible quality that you named about me was a completely
obvious lie. The fact that I am pro-
*choice and pro-gay rights are positive qualities about me,
What discussion group feeds you that load of crap?
*as is the actual fact that I am a pro-USA patriot. You just cannot stand
the
*facts.
That you're a pussied down coward who is allied with traitors?
It is hard to stand such reprehensible things.
Mark Sebree
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a61da401-afe8-4c74...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 1:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:06c63f34-fdce-43d9...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> *I see that you could not stand facing the truth and the facts any
> *more, so you snipped them completely out.
>
> The newsgroup readers see that you are an excessively verbose, argumentative
> prick who lied again.
Actually, they are seeing you as the prick that keeps lying. While I
may be verbose, I do so to explain things completely. You cannot
stand that because you cannot counter the facts, so you lie in order
to try to detract from the fact that you cannot support your claims.
However, you are a hateful liar, which makes your lies transparent.
>
> > Nah, you uncultured thieving satanist loon.
>
> *I keep telling you that I am not you.
>
> You have to because you have an identity crisis.
I do not have an identity crisis at all. You keep claiming that I am
you because you keep describing yourself when you make hateful claims
about my "traits".
>
> *I am the opposite of you.
>
> Really?
> You're that bad?
No, I am that good. If I was bad, I would be a lot more like you.
Hateful, ignorant, delusional, dishonest, disrespectful, homophobic,
misogynistic, intolerant, racist, and an all around nasty person.
>
> *That means that I am cultured, law-abiding, and sane.
>
> I guess if thinking that helps you get through the day.
Your lies and delusions seem to help you get through yours. You
cannot stand viewing and understanding the facts, after all.
>
> > You are a pro-CHOICE, HOMOSEXUAL ally of anti-USA treason.
>
> *I am pro-choice and pro-gay rights,
>
> How uncultured can you be?
I am very cultured. You are the one that comes across as uncultured,
not me.
>
> *which means that I am also a pro-
> *USA patriot.
>
> Really?
Yes.
> By being for killing the children of the USA before they are born and for
> spreading HIV and AIDS?
That is another of your lies, and a display of your ignorance. I am
not for either of those things.
>
> *I am an enemy of treason, and that will not change no
> *matter how many times you lie about me.
>
> Your problem if you will not change from the treason you support.
I do not support any treason, so why should I change that fact? You
do not know and understand what treason actually is.
>
> > You can't dissociate yourself from those reprehensible qualities by
> > defending them.
>
> *What reprehensible qualities?
>
> That stuff you support that is a threat upon the lives of the people of the
> USA.
That would be nothing. Therefore, I have no reprehensible qualities.
>
> *The only reprehensible quality that you named about me was a completely
> obvious lie. The fact that I am pro-
> *choice and pro-gay rights are positive qualities about me,
>
> What discussion group feeds you that load of crap?
I am not being fed any "crap", except by people like you. Life tells
me that my statements are true, as does the Constitution and the
ideals of the USA.
>
> *as is the actual fact that I am a pro-USA patriot. You just cannot stand
> *the facts.
>
> That you're a pussied down coward who is allied with traitors?
No, I am not you. I am an enemy of traitors, as well as being a brave
and caring individual.
> It is hard to stand such reprehensible things.
That is why people cannot stand you, since you are reprehensible. Or
perhaps you thing that good, kind, caring, intelligent people that
support and defend the Constitution, the USA, and the rights of the
people are reprehensible.
Mark Sebree
Ray Fischer
>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>news:a61da401-afe8-4c74...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 17, 1:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:06c63f34-fdce-43d9...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>
>*I see that you could not stand facing the truth and the facts any
>*more, so you snipped them completely out.
>
>The newsgroup readers see that you are an excessively verbose, argumentative
>prick who lied again.
Talking about yourself again, loser?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
Probably because I've been an American 100% of my life and never got
near the late USSR, Drunken Convicted Criminal Wentzky. Are you going
to attack UH for giving me my degree?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Iowa 3, Houston 0 (February 17)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, February 23 at Hamilton, 4:05
The Chief Instigator
>>You think? ;-)
> If justice is served.
I suspect that it'll be about as likely as a sunrise in the east.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2007-08 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
John D. Wentzky
On Feb 17, 5:15 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:a61da401-afe8-4c74...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 17, 1:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:06c63f34-fdce-43d9...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> *I see that you could not stand facing the truth and the facts any
> *more, so you snipped them completely out.
>
> The newsgroup readers see that you are an excessively verbose,
> argumentative
> prick who lied again.
*Actually, they are seeing you as the prick that keeps lying.
No, they don't.
They see you as the pro-choice fetus killing fanatic gunboy taxation
advocate who doesn't understand what civilized societies require in life.
*While I may be verbose, I do so to explain things completely.
You do little more than solidify your biases and prejudices against living
persons who cause no actual harm in society.
*You cannot stand that because you cannot counter the facts,
The facts you present are facts that go against your allegiance.
The lies you present go against you as well, because people know them to be
lies.
*so you lie in order to try to detract from the fact that you cannot support
your claims.
A propagandist cover of fraud loon such as yourself would accuse anyone that
exposes your vain attempts to support and defend crime of your personal
errors that you project in an attempt to sustain your allegiance to crime.
*However, you are a hateful liar, which makes your lies transparent.
Projecting your personal character traits my way isn't effective.
> > Nah, you uncultured thieving satanist loon.
>
> *I keep telling you that I am not you.
>
> You have to because you have an identity crisis.
*I do not have an identity crisis at all.
Of course you do.
Your an ally of fiction and you have to tell people that you are not them so
you can remember who you are.
*You keep claiming that I am you
Never been done by me.
*because you keep describing yourself when you make hateful claims
*about my "traits".
I am not describing myself when I tell you about your shortcomings.
> *I am the opposite of you.
>
> Really?
> You're that bad?
*No, I am that good.
Illogical.
*If I was bad, I would be a lot more like you.
You probably wouldn't.
*Hateful, ignorant, delusional, dishonest, disrespectful, homophobic,
*misogynistic, intolerant, racist, and an all around nasty person.
Gunboy loser talk from a taxation without representation ally.
> *That means that I am cultured, law-abiding, and sane.
>
> I guess if thinking that helps you get through the day.
*Your lies and delusions seem to help you get through yours. You
*cannot stand viewing and understanding the facts, after all.
Is the propagandist counseling you attended wearing off yet?
> > You are a pro-CHOICE, HOMOSEXUAL ally of anti-USA treason.
>
> *I am pro-choice and pro-gay rights,
>
> How uncultured can you be?
*I am very cultured.
'Harry Potter' is culture to you?
*You are the one that comes across as uncultured,
*not me.
You *ARE* very amiss in your assumption.
> *which means that I am also a pro-
> *USA patriot.
>
> Really?
*Yes.
What book and chapter of the 'Harry Potter' series tells you that?
> By being for killing the children of the USA before they are born and for
> spreading HIV and AIDS?
*That is another of your lies, and a display of your ignorance.
*I am not for either of those things.
Ridiculous.
You are for killing children of the USA before they are born.
That is a fact.
You are also a lobbyist for same-sex relations to be accepted in a
propagandist ploy of acceptance of behaviors that produce disease and
excessive costs to the people of the USA.
Your agenda is underling in nature and it depends on thievery and
unconstitutional schemes to attain the things that can be attained without
your criminal strategem.
> *I am an enemy of treason, and that will not change no
> *matter how many times you lie about me.
>
> Your problem if you will not change from the treason you support.
*I do not support any treason, so why should I change that fact?
You bark like a dog who can not rest without taxing the people to arm the
goverment in the Civilian sector against the people who are taxed.
*You do not know and understand what treason actually is.
Bullshit.
Treason is acts of war against the USA and it includes committing acts of
beligerence against the Constitutional rights of the people as were
committed against me last year by armed militant tax paid persons.
Assault, kidnapping, fraud, extortion and theft.
What you are supporting is treason and it is very similar to the Modadishu
warlords who were repelled because of their misbehavior.
When you go against me, you are going against a peaceful, well-educated
citizen who does not tax the people to arm himself against them or to prey
upon them in militant warmachines and who does not commit the fraud of
listing his personal address as being at a government militant installation
that deprives the people of their liberty.
You are NOT for the Constitutional rights of the people; and, you are an
ally of secrecy and fraud who is easily deemed to be a coward who is too
afraid to be treated as you lobby for the people to be treated.
> > You can't dissociate yourself from those reprehensible qualities by
> > defending them.
>
> *What reprehensible qualities?
>
> That stuff you support that is a threat upon the lives of the people of
> the
> USA.
*That would be nothing.
You act like you want the people to have nothing as you support taxing them
against their right to be free and safe and secure from a tyrannical
government that arms itself in the Civilian sector and that predates upon
them in their daily lives.
*Therefore, I have no reprehensible qualities.
Nah.
I can not support your allegiance to treason against the Constitution and
the people of the USA.
> *The only reprehensible quality that you named about me was a completely
> obvious lie. The fact that I am pro-
> *choice and pro-gay rights are positive qualities about me,
>
> What discussion group feeds you that load of crap?
*I am not being fed any "crap", except by people like you. Life tells
*me that my statements are true, as does the Constitution and the
*ideals of the USA.
Life tells you that or is it armed, hypocritical paranoid assailants that
are telling you that hypocritical stuff?
You would think much differently if you had no ability to arm yourself
against the people of the USA.
> *as is the actual fact that I am a pro-USA patriot. You just cannot stand
> *the facts.
>
> That you're a pussied down coward who is allied with traitors?
*No, I am not you.
That is what people who read your posts can tell, and that is what hurts
you.
*I am an enemy of traitors, as well as being a brave
*and caring individual.
Still resisting the domestic tranquility though, huh?
> It is hard to stand such reprehensible things.
*That is why people cannot stand you, since you are reprehensible.
Meaning you thought that government for the government only was somehow
proper in the USA?
*Or perhaps you thing that good, kind, caring, intelligent people that
*support and defend the Constitution, the USA, and the rights of the
*people are reprehensible.
Why would I think that when the Constitution is written in English?
You think it needs to be interpreted.
That must be because you are illiterate in English.
Ray Fischer
>"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>news:f3dd2541-dd50-4049...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 17, 5:15 pm, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a61da401-afe8-4c74...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 17, 1:46 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> > "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:06c63f34-fdce-43d9...@v3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> *I see that you could not stand facing the truth and the facts any
>> *more, so you snipped them completely out.
>>
>> The newsgroup readers see that you are an excessively verbose,
>> argumentative
>> prick who lied again.
>
>*Actually, they are seeing you as the prick that keeps lying.
>
>No, they don't.
>They see you as the pro-choice fetus killing fanatic gunboy taxation
>advocate who doesn't understand what civilized societies require in life.
Talking about yourself again, pervert?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net