#Shook finally backs off his First Amendment claim...
nevermore
>My right to stand on the street corner was violated. It doesn't become
>a First Amendment violation, however, until the judge "laughs me out of court."
So he's totally backed off original claim (below) that he would sue
the store owner with a First Amendment suit...
"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&
It's been a long hard task, but I've finally managed to pound some
legal knowledge into Shook's head....
milt....@gmail.com
Okay, you're either incredibly stupid or a liar, and by virtue of the
evidence, probably both.
I am going to sue the store owner, and it WILL be based on the First
Amendment. My rights were violated, but the First Amendment will only
kick in if the judge "laughs me out of court," as you claim he or she
will do.
As anyone who can actually read knows, the statements above are in no
way contradictory.
But I also urge everyone to read the thread that produced the above
quote; that was NOT my "original claim;" I only acquiesced after Canyon
the liar insisted on using the word "against" repeatedly. What I
originally said was that I would take him into court and demand that
the government protect my First Amendment rights.
Here's a link to the thread. Not only is the quote above out of context
(despite the fact that it still doesn't contradict anything else I've
said), but it's in no way the "original claim."
">>>>>Milt says, "if you're standing on the corner,
>>>>>legally handing out flyers, speaking out against the store in
front of
>>>>>which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes your
fliers
>>>>>and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you
have
>>>>>the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the
fact
>>>>>that no government was involved."
Now, besides the bad spelling and the redundant use of "basis" and
"based," what about the above is even remotely controversial?
Seriously... this isn't that difficult.
steven...@yahoo.com
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> nevermore wrote:
> > Milt Shook now writes:
> >
> > >My right to stand on the street corner was violated. It doesn't become
> > >a First Amendment violation, however, until the judge "laughs me out of court."
> >
> > So he's totally backed off original claim (below) that he would sue
> > the store owner with a First Amendment suit...
> >
> > "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&
> >
> >
> > It's been a long hard task, but I've finally managed to pound some
> > legal knowledge into Shook's head....
>
> Okay, you're either incredibly stupid or a liar, and by virtue of the
> evidence, probably both.
Shook resists learning things... It makes his head hurt.
> I am going to sue the store owner, and it WILL be based on the First
> Amendment. My rights were violated, but the First Amendment will only
> kick in if the judge "laughs me out of court," as you claim he or she
> will do.
He's going to file a First Amendment based suit, but it's not a first
Amendment based suit until after he loses it....
Anybody can make Shook tie himself into a knot, but I've actually made
him tie himself into a double bowline...
<LOL> He also going to file his First Amendment based suit in a state
court....
> As anyone who can actually read knows, the statements above are in no
> way contradictory.
That reminds me of the little boy denying that he ate the chocolate
cake even though he has chocolate frosting all over his face....
> But I also urge everyone to read the thread that produced the above
> quote; that was NOT my "original claim;" I only acquiesced after Canyon
> the liar insisted on using the word "against" repeatedly.
I also insisted that Shook stop picking his nose and eating it, but he
wouldn't do that...
>What I
> originally said was that I would take him into court and demand that
> the government protect my First Amendment rights.
<LOL> Shook likes tieing himself into knots.. he thinks it makes him
attractive to his chatroom friends....
> Here's a link to the thread. Not only is the quote above out of context
> (despite the fact that it still doesn't contradict anything else I've
> said), but it's in no way the "original claim."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/browse_frm/thread/8d5e08f744846652/2011b7116c7c26d5?hl=en#2011b7116c7c26d5
>
> ">>>>>Milt says, "if you're standing on the corner,
> >>>>>legally handing out flyers, speaking out against the store in
> front of
> >>>>>which you're standing, and the owner comes out and takes your
> fliers
> >>>>>and has big guys remove you from in front of his building, you
> have
> >>>>>the basis for a Forst (sic) Amendment-based lawsuit, despite the
> fact
> >>>>>that no government was involved."
>
> Now, besides the bad spelling and the redundant use of "basis" and
> "based," what about the above is even remotely controversial?
>
> Seriously... this isn't that difficult.
I know... but too difficult for Shook.. see below:
"Suppressions of speech are not violations of the
First Amendment unless the State is does the suppressing. "
-http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
robx...@nowhere.com
>
>nevermore wrote:
>> Milt Shook now writes:
>>
>> >My right to stand on the street corner was violated. It doesn't become
>> >a First Amendment violation, however, until the judge "laughs me out of court."
>>
>> So he's totally backed off original claim (below) that he would sue
>> the store owner with a First Amendment suit...
>>
>> "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&
>>
>>
>> It's been a long hard task, but I've finally managed to pound some
>> legal knowledge into Shook's head....
>
>Okay, you're either incredibly stupid or a liar, and by virtue of the
>evidence, probably both.
>
>I am going to sue the store owner, and it WILL be based on the First
>Amendment. My rights were violated, but the First Amendment will only
>kick in if the judge "laughs me out of court," as you claim he or she
>will do.
>
If the judge dismisses because you don't have a case, there's no
violation at all...you couldn't make your case. Quit trying to have
it both ways.
>As anyone who can actually read knows, the statements above are in no
>way contradictory.
Yes they are.