Milt Shook says federal crimes don't count as long as long you're on a streetcorner
Steve
Milt says:
"You're arguing with someone who studies Constitutional Law as a
hobby. I read court cases as part of my job, but also for fun. "
--.Milt.Shook.. Jul 17 1997
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.usa/msg/e5aafcd491c9ecf5?hl=en&
but then he also says:
"The feds don't have jurisdiction on a street corner. "
--Milt.Shook... July 22, 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/28db971e38f80e7f
Milt Shook, too stupid to know that he's a moron....
Matt
> Milt says:
>
> "You're arguing with someone who studies Constitutional Law as a
> hobby. I read court cases as part of my job, but also for fun. "
>
> but then he also says:
>
> "The feds don't have jurisdiction on a street corner. "
>
> Milt Shook, too stupid to know that he's a moron....
Steve-o, too stupid to realize that everyone is laughing at HIM, not
Milt.
ROFLMAO. Another Republican idiot.
Matt
milt....@gmail.com
He really is too stupid to be believed. You'd think he'd at least
Google it and read something before posting...
Branson Hunter
> Milt says:
>
> "You're arguing with someone who studies Constitutional Law as a
> hobby. I read court cases as part of my job, but also for fun. "
> "The feds don't have jurisdiction on a street corner. "
>
> Milt Shook, too stupid to know that he's a moron....
Mit's Judgment and ability to act reasonable is seriously at issue:
Here is a guy who traveled with his family on a 800 mile trip WITH the
family DOG strapped to the top of the car because there wasn't enough
room inside. Then -- to add insult to pure stupidy -- he laughs it off
and defends his reckless behavior. How crass is that?
Would you want this guy for president?
Branson Hunter
Fred
> Then -- to add insult to pure stupidy -- he laughs it off
> and defends his reckless behavior. How crass is that?
> Would you want this guy for president?
>
We already have that guy for president
steven...@yahoo.com
Soooo, I guess dumb Milt has figured out that the feds do have
jurisdiction on the city streets... and thats another lsson Ive
taught him.
steven...@yahoo.com
Sooooo, dumber_than_Milt_Matt thinks the feds don't have jurisdiction
on a street corners, too
steven...@yahoo.com
Sooooo, dumber_than_Milt_Matt thinks the feds don't have jurisdiction
on a street corners, too
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
Dumbass...
Only states have geographical jurisdiction. The feds can only have
subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, and only under
specific circumstances.
Go read a book.
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
We're still laughing at you... just when I think you can't get any
dumber...
Matt
wrote:
Fine, Steve-o. Why don't you cite case law, or even Constiutional
basis, for such a claim?
Go ahead, Steve-o, we'll wait.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 23, 5:13 am, "stevencan...@yahoo.com" <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 22, 4:10 pm, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 22, 2:42 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 22, 12:34 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Milt says:
>
> > > > > "You're arguing with someone who studies Constitutional Law as a
> > > > > hobby. I read court cases as part of my job, but also for fun. "
> > > > > --.Milt.Shook.. Jul 17 1997http://groups.google.com/group/alt.current-events.usa/msg/e5aafcd491c...
>
> > > > > but then he also says:
>
> > > > > "The feds don't have jurisdiction on a street corner. "
> > > > > --Milt.Shook... July 22, 2007http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/28db971e38f...
>
> > > > > Milt Shook, too stupid to know that he's a moron....
>
> > > > Steve-o, too stupid to realize that everyone is laughing at HIM, not
> > > > Milt.
>
> > > > ROFLMAO. Another Republican idiot.
>
> > > > Matt
>
> > > He really is too stupid to be believed. You'd think he'd at least
> > > Google it and read something before posting...
>
> > Soooo, I guess dumb Milt has figured out that the feds do have
> > jurisdiction on the city streets... and thats another lsson Ive
> > taught him.
>
> Dumbass...
Irony anyone? not only is a political science degree totally
worthess... Milt didn't even learn anything about polical science....
> Only states have geographical jurisdiction. The feds can only have
> subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, and only under
> specific circumstances.
<ROTFLMAO> specific circumstances, Milt, like whenever a federal law
is involved.... as in lawsuits based on the First Amendment, as in
your totally ridiculous scenario where you claim you have a First
Amendment based case against a private person....
> Go read a book.
<LOL> Now it's totally clear why Shook never went to law school like
he claimed he was going to do and why he can't even find his way
beyond the hourly entry level paralegal job after ten years....
steven...@yahoo.com
"we???""" as in you and your imagnary friend, Biff?" ...and all
the other people you claim have Comcast accounts but have the same IP
address as you because they sneak onto your wifi server?
"I'm not Milt Shook"
-- .Milt.Shook. pretending to be "Biff
and replying to his own post.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/56c2899fdc3376e3?output=gplain
Header lines from "Biff's post:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
Header lines from Milt Shook's post:
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.55.111.77
X-Complaints-To: a...@comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: d...@comcast.net
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Odidnf_Se7ME51PdRVn-hQ%40comcast.co...
"If you knew anything about Comcast, you'd
know that everyone who posts from the same geographical area will have
the same IP address, unless they pay twice as much."
Milt.Shook...as "Biff.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/1c0c985824dcbbd8?hl=en&
"I have checked e-mails from at eight other people who live around
here and use Comcast, and two of them sport the same IP as me"
--Milt.Shook...
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407141830.56a3a1e%40posting.google.com
steven...@yahoo.com
Good lord, Matt, do you still not have enough brains to go and check
things out before challenging me?
There's lots of federal laws that apply to things that happen on city
streets... you can find one of them here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001705----000-.html
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 83 > § 1705
but do go on and look at the rest of Tiltle 18... even you might be
able to learn a little bit anyway...
Matt
> TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 83 > § 1705
>
> but do go on and look at the rest of Tiltle 18... even you might be
> able to learn a little bit anyway
Very good. The federal government DOES, in fact, have the right to
prosecute those that vandalize mail boxes,
since they are federal property and not, at all, a part of the city.
Now, a citation whereby the federal government has jurisdiction over
STATE land, please.
Matt
milt....@gmail.com
> TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 83 > § 1705
>
> but do go on and look at the rest of Tiltle 18... even you might be
> able to learn a little bit anyway...
You crack me up!!!
Does that mean, if you have a mailbox hanging next to your front door,
the feds have jurisdiction over your house? Your logical leaps are
astounding...
milt....@gmail.com
You're clinically insane. And you can't read, no matter how many small
words I use, and how slowly I write...
No matter what, you never will get that bringing a guy to court based
on my right to free speech, which is based on the First Amendment, is
absolutely different from bringing a First Amendment case against the
guy. Which, of course, I can't do.
milt....@gmail.com
I think this line proves he's clinically insane. Wonder why he thinks
the FBI isn't allowed to pursue a case unless and until something
takes it across state lines, or state authorities ask them to come
in...
steven...@yahoo.com
<ROTFLMAO> My gawd.... Matt has never seen a mailbox on a city
street? ...does Matt live in an instutution somewhere?????
Shit, Matt, there was one out in front of the old apartment building I
owned, there's one within my condo where I live now, and in all the
other condos on this street... there's mailboxes on the street, in
front of many houses in most suburbs, and if not, they are on the side
of the house by the door or a slot in the door... and in front of
virtually every home in rural areas.... and none of that is federal
property, you hapless moron.... and if you attack a U.S. postal
carrier on a city street or anywhere on his rounds, you'll soon be
before federal judge....
Matt is undoubtably one of the stupidist, uneducated individuals I've
ever come accoss..... what a moron....
steven...@yahoo.com
well, actually, Milt, if someone committs a federal crime in your
house, they do... but it has nothing to do with your mailbox, you
simple moron...
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> so now Milt is back to proclaiming that a First Amendment
based suit is somehow different from a First Amendment suit.....
and that a suit based on his right to free speech is different from a
First Amendment suit... and Milt wonders why nobody "gets" that....
What fun to watch Milt spin and twist in his pathetic attempt to deny
his own words.....
Milt lives in a vivid fantasy world where he apparently really
believed that he's going to law school, that he's dated famous women,
that he was getting married, that he's going to get his book
published, that he's buying a home, that he's been to St. Kitts, that
he is friends with famous and important people, that he can outrun
buckshot, that he has stock market accounts, and that he can have a
romatic relationship with women he's only exchanged internet messages
with....
steven...@yahoo.com
<ROTFLMAO> Commit forgery or attack your mailman and see how fast
federal agents will pursue the case, Milt.
Matt
Waiting patiently for the "proof" you offered, Steve-o?
Or are you too much of a coward to admit you were wrong? Why yes,
you are. What a surprise.
Canyon, wrong as usual.
Matt
milt....@gmail.com
Commit forgery against whom? In most cases, it's a state crime.
Let's face it; outside of the twin realms of mailbox vandalism and
mail carrier assault, even you're dry.
milt....@gmail.com
Apparently, Canyon hasn't looked in the mirror.
Tell you what, genius. Next time you're handing out fliers on a city
street, while sitting on a mailbox, and some asshole drives you off...
take the case to federal court and watch what happens...
This is even dumber than your usual.
milt....@gmail.com
Ahhh.... a FEDERAL CRIME... so, "subject-matter jurisdiction." The
NEVER have jurisdiction in your house, or the street corner. They have
jurisdiction over the SUBJECT MATTER. In a drug case, they have no
jurisdiction over the HOUSE. Their jurisdiction is the federal drug
laws.
Ya see, as I've explained to you repeatedly for three years -- THREE
YEARS!! -- there is no federal crime involved when the store owner
drives me off the sidewalk. I only have standing because I have a
right to be there, guaranteed by the First Amendment. (That's the
First Amendment basis.) But the beef with this guy is that he
interfered with my exercise of free speech on a public sidewalk, owned
by the city and state, and NOT the feds. The feds don't have a say
until the judge "laughs (me) out of court." Then, it becomes a
constitutional case, and the federal courts will take it.
Like I said; go look up "jurisdiction" and get back with us.
milt....@gmail.com
He doesn't know what the term "jurisdiction" means, and why the
federal government can never have jurisdiction over a street corner.
They used to have some jurisdiction over streets in DC, until they
granted DC Home Rule...
milt....@gmail.com
Matt...
Branson Hunter
Bush is known to have tortured animals as a child (as an adult, he
implemented torture of prisoners). Mitt only used bad judgment.
Branson Hunter
steven...@yahoo.com
I gave you proof, dummy, and you made the stupid, incorrect, and
totally illogical clam that all mailboxs are on f
federal property...
> Or are you too much of a coward to admit you were wrong? Why yes,
> you are. What a surprise.
>
> Canyon, wrong as usual.
>
> Matt
Errr, Matt.... do you really believe that all the mailboxes are on
federal property? OK, I'll make concessions to your stupidity and
offer you additional proof....
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001114----000-.html
Matt
You cited mailboxes, which is all your cite referred to. Mailboxes are
federal property, idiot. Now, cite or shut up.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
Actually, counterfeiting was the word I should have used instead of
forgery, although there's several foms of forgery that fall under
federal law...
> Let's face it; outside of the twin realms of mailbox vandalism and
> mail carrier assault, even you're dry.
Actually, assaut on any federal officer, ot just mail carriers,
impersonating certain federal officers, certain types of kidnapping,
forced slavery, drug trafficking, tax evasion, certain firearms laws,
conterfeting, certain act of forgery, many different conspiracy
crimes, espionage, and of course terrorist activities are federal
laws... there's plenty more as anybody who has ever seen the US
codes woud know....
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
It's not hard to see why you're still an entry level paralegal on
houry wages.... oo bad that you're not even 10% of what you pretend
to be, Milt... and if you're not seeing a therapist about your
problems, you should because you haven't progessed at all past the
problems you had in grade school.. what did they call you? Milt the
mouse?
steven...@yahoo.com
Errrrrr, what has the scenario above have to do with any of this?
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> and, as I've suggested to you many times... explain where
in the First Amendment is this gaurantee to be anywhere?.
But the beef with this guy is that he
> interfered with my exercise of free speech on a public sidewalk, owned
> by the city and state, and NOT the feds. The feds don't have a say
> until the judge "laughs (me) out of court." Then, it becomes a
> constitutional case, and the federal courts will take it.
>
> Like I said; go look up "jurisdiction" and get back with us.
<LOL> So why can't you find any cases of that happening?
Simple.. because it hasn't and never will....
steven...@yahoo.com
<ROTFLMAO> At this point, I can only conclude that Matt has only
recieved mail in a past office box.... ut that's OK, Matt, someday
perhaps you'll grow up, have a place to live of your very own, and
perhaps your very on mailbox.....
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> Set up counterfeit operaion in your home and see who comes
busting through the door....
or the street corner. They have
> jurisdiction over the SUBJECT MATTER. In a drug case, they have no
> jurisdiction over the HOUSE. Their jurisdiction is the federal drug
> laws.
Some of which cover things you might do in your home, you moron....
Matt
Right. Now, you claimed that feds have jurisdiction on streetcorners.
Perhaps you'll be kind enough to post some actual proof of this
statement.
No more evasions, insults, or nonsense. Just post your proof, or take
back
your statement. Everyone else is already aware you are wrong.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
Sure thing, Matt....
http://static.flickr.com/67/229767039_79d2e77643_o.jpg
> No more evasions, insults, or nonsense. Just post your proof, or take
> back
> your statement. Everyone else is already aware you are wrong.
>
> Matt
<LOL> Matt has a fantasy life too... he imagines that he speak for
everyone...
Matt
Yep, that's what I thought. Steve Canyon is a liar and an idiot.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> Matt is too stupid to notice his own stupidity....
Every mailbox is covered by the following law, Matt, you simple
moron...
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 83 > § 1705. Destruction of letter boxes
or mail
Whoever willfully or maliciously injures, tears down or destroys any
letter box or other receptacle intended or used for the receipt or
delivery of mail on any mail route, or breaks open the same or
willfully or maliciously injures, defaces or destroys any mail
deposited therein, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than three years, or both.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001705----000-.html
and there's a good many mailboxes that stand along the streets....
city streets, county roads, even state highways...
...and futhermore, you fool, every mail carrier on his route is under
the protection of federal law... and mail carriers use the streets....
milt....@gmail.com
Huh?
That doesn't even make sense.
The First Amendment doesn't guarantee your right to BE anywhere. But
it does guarantee that you will have free speech while you're on
PUBLIC property, providing that you're not breaking any other laws
designed to keep the peace.
>
> But the beef with this guy is that he
>
> > interfered with my exercise of free speech on a public sidewalk, owned
> > by the city and state, and NOT the feds. The feds don't have a say
> > until the judge "laughs (me) out of court." Then, it becomes a
> > constitutional case, and the federal courts will take it.
>
> > Like I said; go look up "jurisdiction" and get back with us.
>
> <LOL> So why can't you find any cases of that happening?
>
> Simple.. because it hasn't and never will....
As I've explained to you, you retard... ninety-nine percent of all
cases never make it into the law books. The main reason is, there is
nothing of controversy in the case. if I take some guy to court and
ask for an injunction demanding that this guy stop running me off the
public sidewalk, why would it make it into law books? It's a no-
brainer; I'll get the injunction. I mean, it doesn't get any more cut
and dried than that. Your ACTUAL argument is that I have no right to
be on the street corner, and this guy has a right to drive me off.
That's the end result of me taking him to court, and the judge
laughing me out of it. And as I pointed out, the only thing that
matters in any court case is the end result. That judge would not only
be embarrassed when I appealed, he'd likely be impeached for being
profoundly stupid.
Seriously, if I'd been getting my ass kicked on something this basic
for three years, I'd think about seeing that therapist you always talk
about...
milt....@gmail.com
You still don't know what jurisdiction is. Everything above is subject
matter jurisdiction. The feds simply don't have any sort of
jurisdiction based on geography. In fact, with most federal crimes on
state or private property, it's the state's discretion as to whether
the case is assigned to the feds.
You know all of those movies where the FBI comes in and says "We're
taking over!"? um... they're just like the torture in "24." they're
fanciful bullshit.
milt....@gmail.com
You STILL don't know what "jurisdiction" means. The feds NEVER have
jurisdiction over a street corner, you twit. No matter how many times
you try to extract yourself from this one, it's clear you don't know
what "jurisdiction" means.
What's amazing is the number of hoops you jump through in order to
AVOID knowing WTF you're talking about.
Matt
And Steve is too much of a liar to bother.
Mailboxes aren't corners, Steve-liar. Mailboxes aren't state property.
You lied, Steve. At first, it was just a mistake. But when you refuse
to admit that, it becomes clear you lied.
G'bye liar and idiot.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌdʒʊərɪsˈdɪkʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show
Spelled Pronunciation[joor-is-dik-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA
Pronunciation
–noun
1. the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and
determining controversies.
2. power; authority; control: He has jurisdiction over all American
soldiers in the area.
3. the extent or range of judicial, law enforcement, or other
authority: This case comes under the jurisdiction of the local police.
4. the territory over which authority is exercised: All islands to the
northwest are his jurisdiction.
> matter jurisdiction. The feds simply don't have any sort of
> jurisdiction based on geography.
The don't need any jurisdiction based on geography, Milt, because
they have all the jurisdiction they need anywhere a federal crme is
committed...
In fact, with most federal crimes on
> state or private property, it's the state's discretion as to whether
> the case is assigned to the feds.
<LOL> No Milt, a federal crime is always "assigned" to federal
officials...
> You know all of those movies where the FBI comes in and says "We're
> taking over!"? um... they're just like the torture in "24." they're
> fanciful bullshit.
>
>
>
> >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
>
> > It's not hard to see why you're still an entry level paralegal on
> > houry wages.... oo bad that you're not even 10% of what you pretend
> > to be, Milt... and if you're not seeing a therapist about your
> > problems, you should because you haven't progessed at all past the
> > problems you had in grade school.. what did they call you? Milt the
> > mouse?
"mamma's boy Milt?"
steven...@yahoo.com
this is really funny... Shook claims that the feds have no
jurisdiction on city streets or in your house... I show him a big
list of federal crimes that can be committed on city streets or in
your house..... and that the federal government has jurisdictional
power to come to the location that the crime was committed, arrest,
charge, and try people for... and now Milt is pulling his usual
word game denial attempt by claiming that he was talking about
geograpical jurisdiction...... sounds a lot lot like Milt's
attempt to claim that a First Amendment based case isn't a First
Amendment case.... and that there some other right to speech than the
one in the First Amendment..
It is, of course, part of Milt's disorder to refuse to admit a
mistake... and apparently that's caused him a lot of trouble throught
his life... along with his penchant for lying about his life....
Funny how all of Milt's "brags" turn ot to be nothing more than
wannabes.... like his book showing up on bookstore shelves....
steven...@yahoo.com
Errrr, what the heck is the fact that mailboxes aren't state property
have to do with the fact that one can commit a federal crime by
destroying one or stealing fom one?
Like I said, Matt is too stupid to notice his own stupidity.... but
I'll let him run away if he's too embarrased to acknowledge his
mistake.....
robxr4ti
Bush is "known to have tortured animals as a child"? Care to support
that silly claim?
steven...@yahoo.com
You're the one that said that your right to be there is guaranteed by
the First Amendment.. now you say it doesn't
> The First Amendment doesn't guarantee your right to BE anywhere. But
> it does guarantee that you will have free speech while you're on
> PUBLIC property, providing that you're not breaking any other laws
> designed to keep the peace.
<LOL> Actually, it only gaurantees that the government cannot
interfere with your speech, and since, in your scenario no goverment
inteferred with your speech, the First Amendment has nothing to do
with the situation....
If a law doesn't apply, you can't use it to sue someone.... as you
said you could do... and you got caught with that stupid claim and
have been trying to lie your way out of it ever since...
Simple fact... the First Amendment has nothing to do with the
scenario you described...
> > But the beef with this guy is that he
>
> > > interfered with my exercise of free speech on a public sidewalk, owned
> > > by the city and state, and NOT the feds. The feds don't have a say
> > > until the judge "laughs (me) out of court." Then, it becomes a
> > > constitutional case, and the federal courts will take it.
>
> > > Like I said; go look up "jurisdiction" and get back with us.
>
> > <LOL> So why can't you find any cases of that happening?
>
> > Simple.. because it hasn't and never will....
>
> As I've explained to you, you retard... ninety-nine percent of all
> cases never make it into the law books. The main reason is, there is
> nothing of controversy in the case. if I take some guy to court and
> ask for an injunction demanding that this guy stop running me off the
> public sidewalk, why would it make it into law books? It's a no-
> brainer; I'll get the injunction. I mean, it doesn't get any more cut
> and dried than that. Your ACTUAL argument is that I have no right to
> be on the street corner, and this guy has a right to drive me off.
<LOL> Typical leftist tactic...
> That's the end result of me taking him to court, and the judge
> laughing me out of it.
...which is what happens if you try to bring a First Amendment based
case aganst a private party in a state court....
And as I pointed out, the only thing that
> matters in any court case is the end result. That judge would not only
> be embarrassed when I appealed, he'd likely be impeached for being
> profoundly stupid.
>
> Seriously, if I'd been getting my ass kicked on something this basic
> for three years, I'd think about seeing that therapist you always talk
> about...
Isn't it about time for you to run off crying again?
Matt
Which has nothing to do with the statement at hand.
Let's try it again, liar.
You claimed feds have jurisdiction over corners. Prove it.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> The feds have jurisdiction (look it up here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=jurisdiction) over
federal crimes ANYWHERE THEY OCCUR in the country, you poor, sad
pathetic fool.... They can arrest you, cart you away, put you on
trial, and send you to prison for federal crimes you commit anywhere
in the country or it's territories, therefore the feds have
jurisdiction anywhere in the country or it's territories.
I'm not responsible for your inabilty to understad that fact...
perhaps your should blame your parents for your stupidity....
Matt
None of which has to do with streetcorners. You claimed they had
JURISDICTION over streetcorners, Steve-o.
That means geographic jurisdiction. That was your claim, back it up.
Federal crimes have nothing to do with streetcorners, they have to do
with people and actions.
Last shot, liar, put up or shut up.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
Ahhhhh, so now Matt wnts to pretend that "jurisdiction on
streetcorners" doen't mean "jurisdiction on streetcorners." not a
very good word-play distracton, Matt, but coming from you, I undertand
that it's probably the best you an do.... it's even dumber than
your earlier denial that there isn't any such thing as investable
indices or that the Europeans and Japan don't rely heavly on nuclear
power..
At any rate, having jurisdiction in steetcorners does not nessecarily
refer to geographic jurisdiction and your pathetic attempts to re-
define what I said is what Ive come to expect from an immature mind
like yours...
> Federal crimes have nothing to do with streetcorners, they have to do
> with people and actions.
Errrr, streetcorners don't often commit crimes, you fool.... that's
an *action* pretty much confined to *people*... and if a person
performs an action that constitutes fedral crime on a streetcorner,
the Feds do have the nessecary jurisdiction to arrest, try, and
convict that person...
> Last shot, liar, put up or shut up.
<shaking my head and smiling>
> Matt
Dmb Matt can't even present a rebuttal... all the fool con do is
pretend not to see the facts....
Matt
Got it, you can't back up your statement. End of discussion, you lose.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> Matt's a typical leftist moron.. he fails to make any point at
all, then runs away.. proclaiming victory
Matt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure Steve-o. You claimed the First Amendment doesn't apply on
streetcorners. When you were shown
THAT was wrong, you claimed Feds have some sort of automatic
jurisdiction on street corners, even though
they are state property and thus subject to the Tenth Amendment. When
THAT failed, you started making
up junk about mailboxes. You just keep making stuff up, being called
on it, and then going into insulting rants.
You are a waste of time and space, son. Hit the road.
Matt
steven...@yahoo.com
Now you're just lying... <LOL> how pathetic is that?
Matt
wrote:
Sure I did, Steve-o. After all, I started this thread, right?
You lie, Steve-o. Each and every time you open your little trap.
You are wrong, Steve-o, about everything you post on.
You have yet to show any proof of any claims you've made, Steve-o.
You are a waste of my time, and everyone else's bandwidth.
Sorry, Steve-o, you are a lying idiot.
Matt
Branson Hunter
The best evidence; direct testimony..
`We were terrible to animals,' recalled [Bush pal Terry] Throckmorton,
laughing. A dip behind the Bush borne turned into a small lake after a
good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. `Everybody would get
BB guns and shoot them,' Throckmorton said. `Or we'd put firecrackers
in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'
There was a 76-paragraph NEW YORK TIMES feature on the childhood of
Republican candidate for U.S. president George W. Bush, whereas all of
this was exposed.
http://www.all-creatures.org/aip/nl-3nov2000-frogs.html
So when he was a kid, George W. enjoyed putting firecrackers into
frogs, throwing them in the air, and then watching them blow up.
Should this be cause for alarm? How relevant is a man's childhood
behavior to what he is like as an adult? And in this case, to what he
would be like as president of the United States?
"Cruelty to animals is a common precursor to later criminal violence.
But in rural West Texas, where George W. grew up, it was not uncommon
for some boys to indulge in such cruelty.... "
http://www.davidcogswell.com/MediaRoulette/HighKilling.html
Revenge of the Bush Dynasty, by Elizabeth Mitchell published by
Hyperion Press, 2001 ISBN: 0786866306. Amazon.com: W: Revenge of the
Bush Dynasty: Books: Elizabeth MitchellThe premise of Elizabeth
Mitchell's W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty is that ... Hardcover: 320
pages; Publisher: Hyperion Books; 1st ed edition (October 2000 ...
www.amazon.com/W-Revenge-Dynasty-Elizabeth-Mitchell/dp/0786866306 -
159k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
George W. Is High on Killing - 8:24pmFor more about Bush's frog
killing see Revenge of the Bush Dynasty, by Elizabeth Mitchell
published by Hyperion Press, 2001 ISBN: 0786866306. ...
www.davidcogswell.com/MediaRoulette/HighKilling.html - 10k -
Branson Hunter