# shook say's he'll act as his own council in Federal Court..
nevermore
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > <LOL > No lawyer would even take the case, Milt.... they don't like
> > getting laughed at...
>
> Why the hell would I need a lawyer? It's a pretty basic case.
<LOL> Milt's planning on going into a federal courtroom without legal
council...
Milt would be in serious trouble, he can't even prove he has a case to
his liberal Usenet buddies....
milt....@gmail.com
nevermore wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > <LOL > No lawyer would even take the case, Milt.... they don't like
> > > getting laughed at...
> >
> > Why the hell would I need a lawyer? It's a pretty basic case.
>
> <LOL> Milt's planning on going into a federal courtroom without legal
> council...
The word is "counsel," as that lady lawyer you claim is your girlfriend
should be able to tell you...
>
> Milt would be in serious trouble, he can't even prove he has a case to
> his liberal Usenet buddies....
You're kidding, right?
The few that haven't kill-filed you are laughing their asses off about
you...
milt....@gmail.com
milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> nevermore wrote:
> > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > > <LOL > No lawyer would even take the case, Milt.... they don't like
> > > > getting laughed at...
> > >
> > > Why the hell would I need a lawyer? It's a pretty basic case.
> >
> > <LOL> Milt's planning on going into a federal courtroom without legal
> > council...
>
> The word is "counsel," as that lady lawyer you claim is your girlfriend
> should be able to tell you...
Oh, yeah, and I never said "federal court." This wouldn't be a federal
court case.
Perhaps the lawyer you're supposedly screwing could tell you why...
Magg...@gmail.com
case? who is Milt, etc.
milt....@gmail.com
Magg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Might be nice if you explained what your post is about...... like what
> case? who is Milt, etc.
I'm Milt...
And here's the scenario I presented, in a nutshell...
I'm standing on a public street corner, handing out fliers complaining
about a particular store. All other laws are being complied with. The
store's owner decides he doesn't like the content, and has two goons
run me off the street, despite my First Amendment right to be there.
It's late in the day, so instead of calling the cops, I go to court the
next day and file a complaint. I name the local and state governments,
and the store owner, and will ask for an order to keep the guy away
from me in the future.
According to Canyon, I have no right to be there under the First
Amendment, and the judge will "laugh me out of court" for supposedly
bringing a case based on the First Amendment, because I name the store
owner.
Canyon thinks a judge will violate his Constitutional oath based on a
few cases and other items he mis-read. What's really remarkable is,
he's been keeping up this same line of "reasoning" for two years...
Welcome to Usenet...
steven...@yahoo.com
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > nevermore wrote:
> > > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > > <LOL > No lawyer would even take the case, Milt.... they don't like
> > > > > getting laughed at...
> > > >
> > > > Why the hell would I need a lawyer? It's a pretty basic case.
> > >
> > > <LOL> Milt's planning on going into a federal courtroom without legal
> > > council...
> >
> > The word is "counsel," as that lady lawyer you claim is your girlfriend
> > should be able to tell you...
>
> Oh, yeah, and I never said "federal court." This wouldn't be a federal
> court case.
>
> Perhaps the lawyer you're supposedly screwing could tell you why...
<ROTFLMAO> That's a keeper imndeed.....I've been hoping Milt would
say that.... Now he';s going to have to explain how a First Amendment
based case is going to be handled in anything other than a federal
court.... work on that a while, Shook.
steven...@yahoo.com
ROTFLMAO> You know when Shook knows that he's been beaten when he
starts bulding strawmen like that... No-one here claimed that Milt
didn;t have a right to be anywhere....
> Welcome to Usenet...
milt....@gmail.com
steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > Magg...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Might be nice if you explained what your post is about...... like what
> > > case? who is Milt, etc.
> >
> > I'm Milt...
> >
> > And here's the scenario I presented, in a nutshell...
> >
complaining
> > about a particular store. All other laws are being complied with. The
> > store's owner decides he doesn't like the content, and has two goons
> > run me off the street, despite my First Amendment right to be there.
> > It's late in the day, so instead of calling the cops, I go to court the
> > next day and file a complaint. I name the local and state governments,
> > and the store owner, and will ask for an order to keep the guy away
> > from me in the future.
> >
> > According to Canyon, I have no right to be there under the First
> > Amendment, and the judge will "laugh me out of court" for supposedly
> > bringing a case based on the First Amendment, because I name the store
> > owner.
> >
> > Canyon thinks a judge will violate his Constitutional oath based on a
> > few cases and other items he mis-read. What's really remarkable is,
> > he's been keeping up this same line of "reasoning" for two years...
>
> ROTFLMAO> You know when Shook knows that he's been beaten when he
> starts bulding strawmen like that... No-one here claimed that Milt
> didn;t have a right to be anywhere....
Canyon: Seriously, Milt, if you want to claim that your First Amendment
rights
are violated by this private citizen booting out from in front of his
store, you'll have to show where the First Amendment prohibits him
from doing that...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/ce921136721881da?dmode=source
The Canyon-engineered title of this thread says is all...
#Milt Shook claims the First Amendment gives him the right to stand
somewhere..
Canyon: Where does the First Amendment say that a judge cannot throw
you out of
court??
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/35f26149f9581750?dmode=source
Canyon: That was your chance to show me up, Milt. All you needed to do
is
show your proof that the First Amendment gives you the right to stand
on a street corner? Should have been a simple thing to do if indeed
you had some rudimentary knowledge of how the Constitution works and
what it means?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/f79ce8f12926b6f5?dmode=source
Canyon: <LOL> easily explained.... once again...where exactly in
the First
Amendment does it say that the store owner *doesn't* have the right to
run you off the sidewalk, Milt?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/5bef1545b67132bd?dmode=source
Canyon:
OK, since you're still claiming that your First Amendment rights are
being compromised here, I want you to explain the folowing:
where in the First Amendment does it say that you have a right to be in
front of this guys store?
where in the First Amendment does it say that this guy can't remove you
from in front of it?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/053168ed9330d0d7?dmode=source
Canyon: Milt, Milt, of course a private individual cannot lock you up
against
your will in a cage, but it's not because of the Bill of Rights that he
can't do it.
I'll repeat this just for you Milt... there is not a single element
of the Bill of Rights that
limits or prohibits any actions of private citizens, other than the
reference to civil lawuits in the seventh and even that is a limitation
on governmental powers....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/af1a59039377bf10?dmode=source
What a fool this guy is... this is only the tip of the iceberg...
>
> > Welcome to Usenet...
milt....@gmail.com
steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > nevermore wrote:
> > > > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > <LOL > No lawyer would even take the case, Milt.... they don't like
> > > > > > getting laughed at...
> > > > >
> > > > > Why the hell would I need a lawyer? It's a pretty basic case.
> > > >
> > > > <LOL> Milt's planning on going into a federal courtroom without legal
> > > > council...
> > >
> > > The word is "counsel," as that lady lawyer you claim is your girlfriend
> > > should be able to tell you...
> >
> > Oh, yeah, and I never said "federal court." This wouldn't be a federal
> > court case.
> >
> > Perhaps the lawyer you're supposedly screwing could tell you why...
>
> <ROTFLMAO> That's a keeper imndeed.....I've been hoping Milt would
> say that.... Now he';s going to have to explain how a First Amendment
> based case is going to be handled in anything other than a federal
> court.... work on that a while, Shook.
>
gee... this took me about 2 minutes to find...
-----------------------------------
http://www.west.net/~smith/smjuris.htm#Federal%20Courts%20Are%20Courts%20of%20Limited%20Jurisdiction
Congress has conferred upon federal courts jurisdiction to decide
federal questions i.e., cases or controversies arising under the
Constitution and laws of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and
cases or controversies between citizens of different states (diversity
jurisdiction). (28 U.S.C. § 1332.) There is a presumption against
federal jurisdiction. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction
generally must be demonstrated at the outset by the party seeking to
invoke it. (See FRCP 8) It cannot be conferred by consent of the
parties, nor can its absence be waived. (Friedenthal § 2.2) The rule
that a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States
only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action so
demonstrates is called the "well pleaded complaint rule."
----------------------------------
The First Amendment also applies to states, you dipshit; at leasy since
the 14th Amendment, which I'm pretty sure was ratified before you were
born. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a city
sidewalk.
>
> > > > Milt would be in serious trouble, he can't even prove he has a case to
> > > > his liberal Usenet buddies....
> > >
> > > You're kidding, right?
> > >
> > > The few that haven't kill-filed you are laughing their asses off about
> > > you...
And if they weren't laughing before, they are now....
steven...@yahoo.com
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > nevermore wrote:
> > > > > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > <LOL > No lawyer would even take the case, Milt.... they don't like
> > > > > > > getting laughed at...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why the hell would I need a lawyer? It's a pretty basic case.
> > > > >
> > > > > <LOL> Milt's planning on going into a federal courtroom without legal
> > > > > council...
> > > >
> > > > The word is "counsel," as that lady lawyer you claim is your girlfriend
> > > > should be able to tell you...
> > >
> > > Oh, yeah, and I never said "federal court." This wouldn't be a federal
> > > court case.
> > >
> > > Perhaps the lawyer you're supposedly screwing could tell you why...
> >
> > <ROTFLMAO> That's a keeper imndeed.....I've been hoping Milt would
> > say that.... Now he';s going to have to explain how a First Amendment
> > based case is going to be handled in anything other than a federal
> > court.... work on that a while, Shook.
> >
>
> gee... this took me about 2 minutes to find...
Gee thanks.. it saves me the trouble of finding a cite that says...
"Congress has conferred upon federal courts jurisdiction to decide
federal questions i.e., cases or controversies arising under the
Constitution and laws of the United States"
> -----------------------------------
> http://www.west.net/~smith/smjuris.htm#Federal%20Courts%20Are%20Courts%20of%20Limited%20Jurisdiction
>
> Congress has conferred upon federal courts jurisdiction to decide
> federal questions i.e., cases or controversies arising under the
> Constitution and laws of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and
> cases or controversies between citizens of different states (diversity
> jurisdiction). (28 U.S.C. § 1332.) There is a presumption against
> federal jurisdiction. The existence of subject matter jurisdiction
> generally must be demonstrated at the outset by the party seeking to
> invoke it. (See FRCP 8) It cannot be conferred by consent of the
> parties, nor can its absence be waived. (Friedenthal § 2.2) The rule
> that a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States
> only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action so
> demonstrates is called the "well pleaded complaint rule."
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> The First Amendment also applies to states, you dipshit; at leasy since
> the 14th Amendment, which I'm pretty sure was ratified before you were
> born. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a city
> sidewalk.
<LOL> It applies to states, you moron, that mens that states have to
obey it.... not that state courts have jurisdiction over it....
> > > > > Milt would be in serious trouble, he can't even prove he has a case to
> > > > > his liberal Usenet buddies....
> > > >
> > > > You're kidding, right?
> > > >
> > > > The few that haven't kill-filed you are laughing their asses off about
> > > > you...
>
> And if they weren't laughing before, they are now....
where are they?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>Magg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Might be nice if you explained what your post is about...... like what
>> case? who is Milt, etc.
>
>I'm Milt...
>
>And here's the scenario I presented, in a nutshell...
>
>I'm standing on a public street corner, handing out fliers complaining
>about a particular store. All other laws are being complied with. The
>store's owner decides he doesn't like the content, and has two goons
>run me off the street, despite my First Amendment right to be there.
>It's late in the day, so instead of calling the cops, I go to court the
>next day and file a complaint. I name the local and state governments,
>and the store owner, and will ask for an order to keep the guy away
>from me in the future.
My how that explantion has slowly morphed over time.
Reminds me of how childproof power tools became child resistant powert
tools became safety features on power tools.
>
>According to Canyon, I have no right to be there under the First
>Amendment, and the judge will "laugh me out of court" for supposedly
>bringing a case based on the First Amendment, because I name the store
>owner.
>
>Canyon thinks a judge will violate his Constitutional oath based on a
>few cases and other items he mis-read. What's really remarkable is,
>he's been keeping up this same line of "reasoning" for two years...
>
>Welcome to Usenet...
And say hello to one of the most blockheaded poster to grace the
bandwidth in years.
Hey Milt, how about we post some of the silliest things you've ever
sadi?
JSL
milt....@gmail.com
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Magg...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Might be nice if you explained what your post is about...... like what
> >> case? who is Milt, etc.
> >
> >I'm Milt...
> >
> >And here's the scenario I presented, in a nutshell...
> >
> >I'm standing on a public street corner, handing out fliers complaining
> >about a particular store. All other laws are being complied with. The
> >store's owner decides he doesn't like the content, and has two goons
> >run me off the street, despite my First Amendment right to be there.
> >It's late in the day, so instead of calling the cops, I go to court the
> >next day and file a complaint. I name the local and state governments,
> >and the store owner, and will ask for an order to keep the guy away
> >from me in the future.
>
> My how that explantion has slowly morphed over time.
It has never changed, Jeffrey, you liar.
>
> Reminds me of how childproof power tools became child resistant powert
> tools became safety features on power tools.
I never said "childproof power tools." I said "child resistant" or
"child proof" FEATURES on power tools.
Dishonest and stupid is no way to slog through life, Jeffrey...
>
> >
> >According to Canyon, I have no right to be there under the First
> >Amendment, and the judge will "laugh me out of court" for supposedly
> >bringing a case based on the First Amendment, because I name the store
> >owner.
> >
> >Canyon thinks a judge will violate his Constitutional oath based on a
> >few cases and other items he mis-read. What's really remarkable is,
> >he's been keeping up this same line of "reasoning" for two years...
> >
> >Welcome to Usenet...
>
> And say hello to one of the most blockheaded poster to grace the
> bandwidth in years.
Jeffrey, you don't waste nearly as much bandwidth as Canyon.
>
> Hey Milt, how about we post some of the silliest things you've ever
> sadi?
>
It's your First Amendment right, Jeffrey. I can't stop you...
I will warn you, though -- most of the things you think are "stupid,"
no one with a brain thinks are stupid, and you usually just embarrass
yourself with the dozen or so people who bother to read anything you
write...
> JSL
milt....@gmail.com
Uh huh? So you're giving up your argument that I have no First
Amendment case, are you?
I said the case would be based on the First Amendment, and I would ask
the court to reaffirm my right to be on the corner handing out fliers.
The Constitution won't kick in until the judge "laughs me out of
court."
By the way, did you read the next few lines, after your selective
editing job? I'll highlight them below...
> > -----------------------------------
> > http://www.west.net/~smith/smjuris.htm#Federal%20Courts%20Are%20Courts%20of%20Limited%20Jurisdiction
> >
> > Congress has conferred upon federal courts jurisdiction to decide
> > federal questions i.e., cases or controversies arising under the
> > Constitution and laws of the United States (28 U.S.C. § 1331) and
> > cases or controversies between citizens of different states (diversity
> > jurisdiction). (28 U.S.C. § 1332.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a presumption against federal jurisdiction. <<<<<<<<< > > The existence of subject matter jurisdiction
> > generally must be demonstrated at the outset by the party seeking to
> > invoke it. (See FRCP 8) It cannot be conferred by consent of the
> > parties, nor can its absence be waived. (Friedenthal § 2.2) The rule
> > that a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States
> > only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action so
> > demonstrates is called the "well pleaded complaint rule."
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> >
> > The First Amendment also applies to states, you dipshit; at leasy since
> > the 14th Amendment, which I'm pretty sure was ratified before you were
> > born. The federal government does not have jurisdiction over a city
> > sidewalk.
>
>
> <LOL> It applies to states, you moron, that mens that states have to
> obey it.... not that state courts have jurisdiction over it....
Main Entry: ju·ris·dic·tion
Pronunciation: "jur-&s-'dik-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English jurisdiccioun, from Middle French & Latin;
Middle French juridiction, from Latin jurisdiction-, jurisdictio, from
juris + diction-, dictio act of saying -- more at DICTION
1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the
power or right to exercise authority : CONTROL
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
<shakes head in disbelief at the ignorance, and the arrogance in that
ignorance>
>
> > > > > > Milt would be in serious trouble, he can't even prove he has a case to
> > > > > > his liberal Usenet buddies....
> > > > >
> > > > > You're kidding, right?
> > > > >
> > > > > The few that haven't kill-filed you are laughing their asses off about
> > > > > you...
> >
> > And if they weren't laughing before, they are now....
>
> where are they?
I told you... they're laughing.
See, here's the difference between you and me (okay, besides the fact
that I have a brain, and you obviously do not); I don't need
reassurance from others in order to know I'm correct. I do this shit
for a living, Canyon. I'm not a lawyer, but I have to know this shit...
There are VERY few cases that need to be filed in federal court. two
guys fighting over access to a local sidewalk would not be a federal
case. Could you imagin if it was?
steven...@yahoo.com
Sorry, Milt... The First Amendment is part of the Constitution and
here's the applicable code:
TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331
§ 1331. Federal question
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United
States.
See where it says "all civil actions arising under the Constitution?"
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>
>Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
>> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Magg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Might be nice if you explained what your post is about...... like what
>> >> case? who is Milt, etc.
>> >
>> >I'm Milt...
>> >
>> >And here's the scenario I presented, in a nutshell...
>> >
>> >I'm standing on a public street corner, handing out fliers complaining
>> >about a particular store. All other laws are being complied with. The
>> >store's owner decides he doesn't like the content, and has two goons
>> >run me off the street, despite my First Amendment right to be there.
>> >It's late in the day, so instead of calling the cops, I go to court the
>> >next day and file a complaint. I name the local and state governments,
>> >and the store owner, and will ask for an order to keep the guy away
>> >from me in the future.
>>
>> My how that explantion has slowly morphed over time.
>\
>It has never changed, Jeffrey, you liar.
>>
>> Reminds me of how childproof power tools became child resistant powert
>> tools became safety features on power tools.
>
>I never said "childproof power tools." I said "child resistant" or
>"child proof" FEATURES on power tools.
>
>Dishonest and stupid is no way to slog through life, Jeffrey...
Dishonest and stupid? Please Milt. Allow me to repost your own words
how you made it quite clear that child proof and child resistant are
the same thing:
"The definition of child-resistent, you stupid saps, is to make a
product unusable by children, but usable by adults. " -- Milt Shook.
nevermore
Hey, all that logic is just going to confuse, Milt...
milt....@gmail.com
steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > nevermore wrote:
> > > > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > steven...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > <LOL > No lawyer would even take the case, Milt.... they don't like
> > > > > > getting laughed at...
> > > > >
> > > > > Why the hell would I need a lawyer? It's a pretty basic case.
> > > >
> > > > <LOL> Milt's planning on going into a federal courtroom without legal
> > > > council...
> > >
> > > The word is "counsel," as that lady lawyer you claim is your girlfriend
> > > should be able to tell you...
> >
> > Oh, yeah, and I never said "federal court." This wouldn't be a federal
> > court case.
> >
> > Perhaps the lawyer you're supposedly screwing could tell you why...
>
> <ROTFLMAO> That's a keeper imndeed.....I've been hoping Milt would
> say that.... Now he';s going to have to explain how a First Amendment
> based case is going to be handled in anything other than a federal
> court.... work on that a while, Shook.
It's called common sense, Canyon. Something you and Jeffrey have been
unable to demonstrate in this thread.
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> Says Milt, the kook, Shook who is going to file a First
Amndment based suit against a non-government private party in a state
court... and this First Amendment based suit won't be based on the
First Amendmen unless and until he looses it....
Go back to your loony chat room friends with that nonsense, Milt, come
back when you've learned something about the Constitution.
milt....@gmail.com
Ever notice how Canyon demonstrates his ignorance e of the law just by
attempting to restate what I said.
I said I would take him to court in order to get an order to keep him
away from me. At the heart of the case will be the First Amendment,
because without a right to be there, I would have no case. I do have a
right to be there, so the case is based on the First Amendment, at
least in part. (I even explained this by pointing out that I would not
have a case, had the same circumstances occurred on his private
property.) It is not a Constitutional case; it is a case of me
demanding the state protect my rights. You, however, claim the judge
would "laugh me out of court." THAT would make it a Constitutional
case, because I have the right to be there, and the state has an
obligation to protect that right. But at the beginning, it's a dispute
over the street corner, which is a state matter.
The problem with people like you and Jeffrey is that you can only see
shit as black and white; all or nothing. One of the reasons there are
lawyers (much smarter on the law than I, of course) is because nothing
is EVER simply black or white or all or nothing. Every situation you
can think of is affected by multiple laws and multiple layers of law.
And your rantings on this thread demonstrate why lawyers make the big
bucks...
> Go back to your loony chat room friends with that nonsense, Milt, come
> back when you've learned something about the Constitution.
Like I said; irony in every Canyon post.
milt....@gmail.com
Logic? From Jeffrey? You must be drunk.
robx...@nowhere.com
The case could not rely on the First Amendment as that only applies to
interference by the government. If you attempted to that as the basis
of your claim, the case would be dismissed for having no foundation.
>(I even explained this by pointing out that I would not
>have a case, had the same circumstances occurred on his private
>property.) It is not a Constitutional case; it is a case of me
>demanding the state protect my rights. You, however, claim the judge
>would "laugh me out of court." THAT would make it a Constitutional
>case, because I have the right to be there, and the state has an
>obligation to protect that right.
The state has no obligation to hear a case without foundation.
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> Here are your own words, Shookie... you can run from them, but
they're still here...
"I am going to bring suit against the store owner. It is First
Amendment based, [...]
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/2011b7116c7c26d5?hl=en&
At the heart of the case will be the First Amendment,
> because without a right to be there, I would have no case. I do have a
> right to be there, so the case is based on the First Amendment, at
> least in part.
So your civil lawsuit against the storeowner is basd on the First
Amendment, which is part of the Constitution, and.... "The district
courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00001331----000-.html
(I even explained this by pointing out that I would not
> have a case, had the same circumstances occurred on his private
> property.) It is not a Constitutional case; it is a case of me
> demanding the state protect my rights.
Any case basd on the First Amendment is a Constitutional case, Milt...
You, however, claim the judge
> would "laugh me out of court." THAT would make it a Constitutional
> case, because I have the right to be there, and the state has an
> obligation to protect that right. But at the beginning, it's a dispute
> over the street corner, which is a state matter.
Milt is desperate to backpeddle from his original claim about how a
private person could "abrogate" his First Amendment rights... again,
Milt's own words....
"What I said was, [...] that the government has an obligation to
protect your First Amendment rights to the best of its ability, even
from a private party who would abrogate them."
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=N4Wdnfn1v6AJwDrdRVn-jg%40comcast.com&
> The problem with people like you and Jeffrey is that you can only see
> shit as black and white; all or nothing. One of the reasons there are
> lawyers (much smarter on the law than I, of course) is because nothing
> is EVER simply black or white or all or nothing. Every situation you
> can think of is affected by multiple laws and multiple layers of law.
> And your rantings on this thread demonstrate why lawyers make the big
> bucks...
<LOL> ...and why Milt doesn't make big bucks....