Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
J
City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
On the heels of last week's ruling legalizing same-sex marriages in
California, a city clerk in England is suing her employer for the right not
to officiate at homosexual weddings because of her faith.
"I feel strongly about maintaining my Christian beliefs and conscience,"
Lillian Ladele told the London Telegraph. "I can't go against what it says
in the Bible. I don't understand why the council can't use other people who
have no problem with the ceremonies."
Islington council in London informed the registrar she could be fired unless
she agrees to preside at the ceremonies.
Ladele claims "discrimination or victimization on grounds of religion or
belief."
Britain introduced its Civil Partnership Act in 2004, giving same-sex
couples the same rights as married couples. Ladele, who has worked at the
council since 1992, believes she should be given exemption.
The paper notes registrars of births, marriages and deaths had the freedom
to opt out of civil-partnership ceremonies until last year when a new law
changed their employment status.
A spokesman for the council said: "Islington council will be robustly
defending its position at the employment tribunal."
Rev. Michael Scott-Joynt, the bishop of Winchester, said it was important to
recognize objections on grounds of conscience.
But Ben Summerskill of the homosexual rights group Stonewall told the paper:
"Doctors and nurses can't choose who they treat, and nor should a registrar
be allowed to discriminate."
Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court trashed society's traditional
institution of marriage, opening it up for same-sex duos because retaining
the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state
interest."
Despite that decision, with a voter initiative drive already underway,
pro-family groups in California believe the battle over marriage in the
Golden State is far from over.
--
J
Jvis...@live.com
"How many human lives have you saved from death! Continue along this path
and do not be afraid, so that the smile of life may triumph on the lips of
all children and their mothers".
- His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
DanielSan
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
>
>
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
>
>
>
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
>
If she cannot do her job, then she needs to quit.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I was against gay marriage until I realized *
* that I didn't have to have one." *
* --James Carville *
****************************************************
Preventer of Work
> J wrote:
>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>>
>>
>
> If she cannot do her job, then she needs to quit.
>
Yep.
Putting her fantasy ahead of the needs of real live people is not the
way to keep a job.
DanielSan
Not even that. You cannot allow your own personal beliefs or standards
get in the way of your job.
For example, I process final paychecks for people leaving the company I
work for. I do not have the power to pick and choose which paychecks I
have to process. People have been let go from the company for reasons I
disagree with. If it were up to me, they would not have been let go.
But, I still have to process that paycheck.
If I did not, I would be fired for not doing my job. If I did not want
to process those final paychecks, I can quit.
It's as simple as that. Do your job or leave.
phillip brown
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
I thought she was officiating at civil ceremonies? Oh wait..she is!
So what the bible says has nothing to do with it.
phillip brown
John D. Wentzky
"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
news:1sq0e9....@news.alt.net...
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
>
>
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
>
>
>
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
Why does the government feel entitled to a fee for persons to do something
that does not violate their right to FREE exercise of religion?
I know this story mentions England, so my question is about our status as
persons in the USA.
Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights of
the people so much?
Uncle Vic
> On the heels of last week's ruling legalizing same-sex marriages in
> California, a city clerk in England is suing her employer for the
> right not to officiate at homosexual weddings because of her faith.
Non-sequitur.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Separator of Church and Reason.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Father Haskell
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
Does she eat ham? Shellfish? Cheeseburgers?
Does she wear mixed fibers? Do housework
on the sabbath?
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
*deletes posting*
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Patrick
> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights of
> the people so much?
John D. Wentzky
news:48327702$0$30161$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Why does the government feel entitled to a fee for persons to do something
that is in accordance with their right to FREE exercise of religion?
I know this story mentions England, so my question is about our status as
persons in the USA.
Why is it the people can not see that the government wants to know who you
are married to so they can sell your personal information online to
criminals who try to steal away a spouse and assets they did not work to
amass?
Gwen
>
> - Show quoted text -
People do it all of the time, especially jobs in service. In this
particular job, she can't. Thank Heavens. ;-)
Gwen
If there's sanity left in the world, they'll refuse her claim.
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
Too bad.
Gwen
Hahahahahaha, yes.
> phillip brown
Gwen
wrote:
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1sq0e9....@news.alt.net...
>
> >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> > City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> > Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> Why does the government feel entitled to a fee for persons to do something
> that does not violate their right to FREE exercise of religion?
She works for the public. Don't you think she has a job - a duty - to
serve the public legally and fairly?
Gwen
wrote:
> "John D. Wentzky" wrote> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights of
> > the people so much?
>
> Exactly which constitutional rights is the government infringing upon?
His perceived right to be an idiot.
Gwen
I think he meant that in general.
> --
> L. Raymond
Gwen
...or washes her backside with the wrong hand?
Who gives a flying fuck.
Nosterill
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> On the heels of last week's ruling legalizing same-sex marriages in
> California, a city clerk in England is suing her employer for the right not
> to officiate at homosexual weddings because of her faith.
This is exactly the same situation as certain Muslim employees of UK
supermarkets who refuse to process sales of alcohol on religious
grounds. In both cases, no one is forcing them to do something that is
against their religion but they shouldn't expect to get paid for a job
that they refuse to do.
MarkA
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
>
>
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
>
>
>
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
I guess she better start looking for a new job. Unless city clerks in
England get to overrule Parliament.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Nosterill
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
<snip>
> Ladele claims "discrimination or victimization on grounds of religion or
> belief."
This is an interesting new definition of "discrimination"! So now
"discrimination" means NOT being treated differently from everyone
else??? Not getting paid when she refuses to do her job is
victimization???
She needs to either knuckle down and do the job that she's paid to do,
or go elsewhere.
Bruce
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
>
The sue her lousy ass when she eats a ham sandwich, wears men's clothing
or any of the other silly things in the Book'o'Fables.
--
Anyway for an atheist you seem to have studied the bible a lot more than
me - lol.
Lord Turkey Cough - Sat, 22 Mar 2008 04:51:18 GMT
The Chief Instigator
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:52:32 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
><wxpprof...@msn.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> in SC really are slow.
No kidding...similar cases here in Houston get dealt with sooner than
Wentzky's, with sixteen times his county's population.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Rockford 5, Houston 2 (April 25)
NEXT GAME: The 2008-09 season opener in early October
Gwen
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:52:32 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
>
>
>
>
>
> <uNsYj.77120$%15.37...@bignews7.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >"J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in message
> in SC really are slow.
It's SC - what do you expect?
> --
> Pro-Choice is Pro-Freedom
>
> Every illegal alien is a criminal.
> No amnesty under any name or for any reason.
> Deportation upon identification, not work permit or citizenship.- Hide quoted text -
Carl
State as per The Constitution, I would say she has no right to impose her
religious views in a civil matter. She should quit if she feels that
strongly. But this is taking place in England. I don't believe the notion
of separation of Church and State exists in their body of written laws and I
think they have no formal written constitution.
Am I right about these things? And, if so, how might that impact upon this
woman's position?
DanielSan
She is saying that she doesn't want to do her job. And she's suing for
that permission.
I wonder if I can sue for permission to not do my job....
Carl
their court system to decide that matter. If you're an American, you may be
unconsciously imposing that value system on another culture. We tend to
forget that not every country has a formal Constitution or a Bill of Rights.
Carl
> Carl wrote:
>> phillip brown wrote:
>>> On May 20, 11:52 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>>>
>>>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>>>
>>>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>>>>
>>> I thought she was officiating at civil ceremonies? Oh wait..she is!
>>> So what the bible says has nothing to do with it.
>>>
>> In the U.S., where we at least pretend that there's separation of
>> Church and State as per The Constitution, I would say she has no
>> right to impose her religious views in a civil matter. She should
>> quit if she feels that strongly. But this is taking place in
>> England. I don't believe the notion of separation of Church and
>> State exists in their body of written laws and I think they have no
>> formal written constitution. Am I right about these things? And, if so,
>> how might that impact
>> upon this woman's position?
>
> She is saying that she doesn't want to do her job. And she's suing
> for that permission.
>
> I wonder if I can sue for permission to not do my job....
>
personally hold (I think a government worker should not be allowed to bring
religious beliefs into the job, just to be clear), but her position is a
little different than the absolute you're making it into.
Even during the Vietnam war, the U.S. government recognized some people as
"conscientious objectors" (CO) and gave them a deferment or re-assignment
based on that status. Sometimes we do make an effort to determine who the
"sincere" objectors to a government policy are if they can demonstrate a
particular moral pattern.
Personally, I hope she loses, but I understand her right to try to object if
her moral beliefs are so strong. Of course, if she were truly ethical, she
would quit the job.
SeahawkFan
"Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4832d61d$0$11601$607e...@cv.net...
A persons 1st amendment rights can cover many areas, including the work
place.
Example, where I work. Officers are not allowed to bring in any reading
material, period.
One officer sued because he was told he couldn't bring his bible in to work.
It wasn't a big book, just a pocket book.
The department lost, and now he is allowed to carry in his bible. Only the
bible though, no other books.
Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told it's
o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it during work
hours.
In her case, I don't know what to think yet. I don't think she should have
to quit, especially with today's economy. I'll sit back and see what
happens. She might win this .
Carl
a 1st Amendment, nor a Bill of Rights there. We tend to generalize our set
of 'rules' to everone else, but our rules don't always fit.
Mark K. Bilbo
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
And to hell with the Constitution (and the constitution), the rule of
law, respect for the courts, civil rights...
And they try to claim it's a religion of peace...
Mark K. Bilbo
Yah but. These radical Christianists want to keep the job *and* do what
they want with total disregard of the law...
John Locke
>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
>City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
>Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
Good. Then let's have some public stonings, beatings, torture,
murders and a few sacrifices as well just for good measure.
That woman is an idiot. In fact anyone who would live their
lives by that nonsense has severe mental problems.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Nosterill
> phillip brown wrote:
> > On May 20, 11:52 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> >> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> >> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> > I thought she was officiating at civil ceremonies? Oh wait..she is!
> > So what the bible says has nothing to do with it.
>
> In the U.S., where we at least pretend that there's separation of Church and
> State as per The Constitution, I would say she has no right to impose her
> religious views in a civil matter. She should quit if she feels that
> strongly. But this is taking place in England. I don't believe the notion
> of separation of Church and State exists in their body of written laws
Exactly the opposite! We have an established church. The Queen is the
head of the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury is
appointed - in her name - by the Prime Minister. The most senior
bishops of the Church of England can sit in the House of Lords, thus
ensuring a permanent Christian representation in the upper house.
Despite all that, the UK is generally far less church addled than the
US and there is no problem with politicians espousing atheism. Maybe
it is a result of making the church so directly subservient to the
political establishment that has effectively drawn its teeth.
Christopher A. Lee
They pretend can't tell the difference between Miss X, private
citizen, and Miss X, agent of the government performing a public duty.
The liars who want to preach creationism in schools, who pretend that
teaching evolution abridges their freedom of religion, are just the
same.
They pretend that their non-existent rights in this situation
supercede those of everybody else.
Christopher A. Lee
He has that right, makes use of it and is perceived to be one.
Dennis Kemmerer
news:pan.2008.05.20....@nowhere.com...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 21:52:07 -0400, J wrote:
>
>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>
>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>
>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> I guess she better start looking for a new job. Unless city clerks in
> England get to overrule Parliament.
You've got to feel sorry for the poor woman. I can't imagine what it's like
to be so strictly controlled by a sloppily put together bunch of
contradictory 2000 year old myths.
Seriously, though, if she's unable or unwilling to perform the duties
specified in her job description, then she should look for another job.
Martin
By coincidence ....
There was a program on Channel 4 last night called Despatches, this was
covering christian fundies here in the UK. In fact if you look for it it
make scary viewing. There was even a nutter who stated the earth was
about 4,000 years old because "no one is really sure". You should also
see what they about moslems.
I wish you'd keep them on your side of the Atlantic!
Anyway I digress (but it'll probably be on Bit Torrent for you by now or
4OD if you're in the UK).
There was also a bloke on who was a former vicar (IIRC) and he resigned
when the adoption laws changed. He tried to take his employer to an
Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and lost the case.
There would seem to be case law on this already.
>
>
>
Martin
> There was also a bloke on who was a former vicar (IIRC) and he resigned
> when the adoption laws changed. He tried to take his employer to an
> Employment Tribunal for unfair dismissal and lost the case.
>
> There would seem to be case law on this already.
I think I found the one. He was a magistrate not a vicar.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2719462.ece
"A Christian magistrate was forced to resign because he refused to place
children for adoption with gay couples, an employment appeal tribunal
was told yesterday. ..."
He appeared to be a horrible man with his attitude. I'm glad he isn't on
the bench anymore.
>>
>>
>>
Patrick
> "Patrick" wrote in message
>> "John D. Wentzky" wrote
>>> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights
>>> of the people so much?
>> Exactly which constitutional rights is the government infringing upon?
>
It doesn't.
If you wish to marry your girlfriend, your boyfriend
or your dog, please be my guest. Do it in the privacy
of your church. No one will stop you. However, once you
decide to attempt to collect special privileges given to
civilly married couples, then the government has every
right to determine fairness and equality. You and your
married dog should not be able to get social security benefits
as me and my wife can. My wife is a legal dependent. My
children are legal dependents. Your dog is not.
> I know this story mentions England, so my question is about our status as
> persons in the USA.
I live in the USA.
> Why is it the people can not see that the government wants to know who you
> are married to so they can sell your personal information online to
> criminals who try to steal away a spouse and assets they did not work to
> amass?
Why are you so paranoid as to think that the government conspires
against your personal privacy? If you don't want anyone to know
about your marriage, don't advertise it by getting government documents.
If you don't wish to pay taxes on property, don't own any. If you don't
wish to put money in the security of a bank, don't put it there. However,
don't expect to make silly claims that you own something, have money
somewhere, or deserve government benefits when you have no paperwork
to prove any of it. Proper ownership needs proper documentation.
Why do you pay taxes? Think about it.
Patrick
"Patrick" <Churchonthemend@stopthe whining.com>wrote:
> "John D. Wentzky" wrote
> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights of
> > the people so much?
>
> Exactly which constitutional rights is the government infringing upon?
His perceived right to be an idiot.
When you can't provide intelligent inputs, you insult the speaker?
John D. Wentzky
"Gwen" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b3a09c6-fb9e-4bb3...@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 12:52 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
wrote:
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1sq0e9....@news.alt.net...
>
>
> > City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> > Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
*She works for the public. Don't you think she has a job - a duty - to
*serve the public legally and fairly?
I am not disagreeing with the gentlelady's objection.
And, why are you INTOLERANT of her?
Why the bigotry?
John D. Wentzky
On May 19, 9:52 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
*If there's sanity left in the world, they'll refuse her claim.
Maybe she'll get a BIG PROMOTION!
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
*Too bad.
Bigotry.
John D. Wentzky
news:79930a3c-0157-4e60...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 20, 2:52 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>
>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>
>>
>> California, a city clerk in England is suing her employer for the right
>> not
>> to officiate at homosexual weddings because of her faith.
>
> This is exactly the same situation as certain Muslim employees of UK
> supermarkets who refuse to process sales of alcohol on religious
> grounds. In both cases, no one is forcing them to do something that is
> against their religion
Since when, commie boy?
> but they shouldn't expect to get paid for a job
> that they refuse to do.
As in becoming slaves for your personal agenda?
LOL!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Are you a racist who uses his race to refuse to perform any service or labor
or task?
Nosterill
> "Nosterill" <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:79930a3c-0157-4e60...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 20, 2:52 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> >> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> >> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> >> On the heels of last week's ruling legalizing same-sex marriages in
> >> California, a city clerk in England is suing her employer for the right
> >> not
> >> to officiate at homosexual weddings because of her faith.
>
> > This is exactly the same situation as certain Muslim employees of UK
> > supermarkets who refuse to process sales of alcohol on religious
> > grounds. In both cases, no one is forcing them to do something that is
> > against their religion
>
> Since when, commie boy?
They are not forced to work in that particular job.
>
> > but they shouldn't expect to get paid for a job
> > that they refuse to do.
>
> As in becoming slaves for your personal agenda?
I don't want slaves - I just expect people to do the work they are
PAID to do. No one is asking her to do anything illegal. No one is
forcing her to stay in that job.
> LOL!
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> Are you a racist who uses his race to refuse to perform any service or labor
> or task?
Ten guys all employed for the same job, same money, same terms and
conditions. Nine of them do everything it says in their contact - the
tenth says "I'll do most of it, but I don't agree to do certain parts
of the job because of my beliefs". You think the tenth guy should get
paid the same as all the others although he won't - through choice -
perform all the same tasks? I doesn't sound fair to me.
Carl
generalization to an entire group of people. We don't have evidence of that
here. Just one woman, not being supported (to my knowledge) by any
right-wing group. Do remember that I am personally opposed to her position.
Carl
> On May 20, 2:24 pm, "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>> phillip brown wrote:
>>> On May 20, 11:52 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>>>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>
>>>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>
>>>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>>
>>> I thought she was officiating at civil ceremonies? Oh wait..she is!
>>> So what the bible says has nothing to do with it.
>>
>> In the U.S., where we at least pretend that there's separation of
>> Church and State as per The Constitution, I would say she has no
>> right to impose her religious views in a civil matter. She should
>> quit if she feels that strongly. But this is taking place in
>> England. I don't believe the notion of separation of Church and
>> State exists in their body of written laws
>
> Exactly the opposite! We have an established church.
>
others) rights drilled into us for so long that we think it applies
everywhere. We can be a bit country-centric, can't we be? ;-)
>
Carl
case regarding marrying gay couples?
SeahawkFan
"Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
I hadn't read the story, just learned a little bit about it from what little
I read on it in this thread.
Martin
Dunno IANAL both made the case that they were being discriminated
against because of their religion, I don't see why not.
I'll bung a post into uk.l.m (m so as our resident troll doesn't cross
post and wind people up)
>
>
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:51:05 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
> Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told
> it's o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it
> during work hours.
Makes some sort of sense. Feel free to read it on your coffee break,
lunch, etc, just not on company time.
Christopher A. Lee
>Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told it's
>o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it during work
>hours.
So?
I wasn't allowed to read my model railroad magazines during working
hours.
Something to do with what they paid me to do.
What I did during the lunch hour was my own business however.
Including reading the magazines.
Gwen
> Gwen wrote:
> > On May 20, 12:52 am, "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprofessio...@msn.com>
>
> >>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> >>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> >> something that does not violate their right to FREE exercise of
> >> religion?
>
>
> their court system to decide that matter. If you're an American, you may be
> unconsciously imposing that value system on another culture. We tend to
> forget that not every country has a formal Constitution or a Bill of Rights.
I thought the UK, of all places, would frown upon such idiocy, in
general.
Gwen
wrote:
> "Gwen" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
because she's a bigot.
Gwen
wrote:
> "Gwen" <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:afd0a53e-7a12-42a2...@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 9:52 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>
> >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> > City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> *If there's sanity left in the world, they'll refuse her claim.
>
> Maybe she'll get a BIG PROMOTION!
There's too much of global insanity.
> > Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> *Too bad.
>
> Bigotry.
Yours.
Gwen
> "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4832e0b6$0$11636$607e...@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > SeahawkFan wrote:
> >> "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
What a blooming fool.
Gwen
wrote:
> His perceived right to be an idiot.
>
> When you can't provide intelligent inputs, you insult the speaker?
Why did you plagiarize me?
SeahawkFan
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:smibg5...@spankywork.localhost.net...
First: Officers don't get lunch breaks or coffee breaks. It's straight 8
hours, you eat when you can.
Second: What sense does it make to tell someone, it's o.k. to bring in a
certain book but you can't read it?
Some officers read on midnight shifts in order to prevent falling asleep, it
keeps them occupied.
The only reason they went with that policy was to avoid another law suit.
Cary Kittrell
> On May 20, 1:04=A0pm, "SeahawkFan" <deseahawk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:4832e0b6$0$11636$607e...@cv.net...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > SeahawkFan wrote:
> > >> "Carl" <croth...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
> > >>news:4832d61d$0$11601$607e...@cv.net...
> > >>> DanielSan wrote:
> > >>>> Carl wrote:
> > >>>>> phillip brown wrote:
> > >>>>>> On May 20, 11:52 am, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
> >
> > >>>>>>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
> >
> > >>>>>> I thought she was officiating at civil ceremonies? Oh wait..she
> > >>>>>> is! So what the bible says has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > >>>>> In the U.S., where we at least pretend that there's separation of
> > >>>>> Church and State as per The Constitution, I would say she has no
> > >>>>> right to impose her religious views in a civil matter. She should
> > >>>>> England. I don't believe the notion of separation of Church and
> > >>>>> State exists in their body of written laws and I think they have no
> > >>>>> formal written constitution. Am I right about these things? And,
> > >>>>> if so, how might that impact
> > >>>>> upon this woman's position?
> >
>
> > >>>> for that permission.
> >
> > >>>> I wonder if I can sue for permission to not do my job....
> >
> > >>> I don't want to get bogged down devil's-advocating for a position I
> > >>> don't personally hold (I think a government worker should not be
> > >>> allowed to bring religious beliefs into the job, just to be clear),
> > >>> but her position is a little different than the absolute you're
> > >>> making it into. Even during the Vietnam war, the U.S. government
> > >>> recognized some
> > >>> people as "conscientious objectors" (CO) and gave them a deferment
> > >>> or re-assignment based on that status. Sometimes we do make an
> > >>> effort to determine who the "sincere" objectors to a government
> > >>> policy are if they can demonstrate a particular moral pattern.
> >
> > >>> Personally, I hope she loses, but I understand her right to try to
> > >>> object if her moral beliefs are so strong. Of course, if she were
> > >>> truly ethical, she would quit the job.
> >
> > >> A persons 1st amendment rights can cover many areas, including the
> > >> work place.
> > >> reading material, period.
> > >> One officer sued because he was told he couldn't bring his bible in
> > >> to work. It wasn't a big book, just a pocket book.
> > >> The department lost, and now he is allowed to carry in his bible. Only
> > >> the bible though, no other books.
> > >> Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told
> > >> it's o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it
> > >> during work hours.
> >
> > >> should have to quit, especially with today's economy. =A0I'll sit back
> > >> and see what happens. =A0She might win this .
> >
> > > Please understand that this case is taking place in England. They don't
> > > have a 1st Amendment, nor a Bill of Rights there. We tend to generalize
> > > our set of 'rules' to everone else, but our rules don't always fit.
> >
> > I hadn't read the story,
>
> What a blooming fool.
But being, as Click 'n' Clack would put it, "unencumbered by the facts",
his posts can be that much more creative.
-- cary
SeahawkFan
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:v276341nfhog5tkdb...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:51:05 -0400, "SeahawkFan"
> <deseah...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told it's
>>o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it during
>>work
>>hours.
>
> So?
>
> I wasn't allowed to read my model railroad magazines during working
> hours.
Were you told it's o.k. to bring them in but you just couldn't read them?
>
> Something to do with what they paid me to do.
You're not getting it are you?
>
> What I did during the lunch hour was my own business however.
Officers don't get lunch hours, we don't get any scheduled breaks during a
shift.
>
> Including reading the magazines.
Mark K. Bilbo
No, it's naming a specific group of people.
> We don't have evidence of that
> here. Just one woman, not being supported (to my knowledge) by any
> right-wing group. Do remember that I am personally opposed to her position.
We don't know much of anything about her actually...
Syd M.
> On May 20, 3:02 am, "Patrick" <Churchonthemend@stopthe whining.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "John D. Wentzky" wrote> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights of
> > > the people so much?
>
> > Exactly which constitutional rights is the government infringing upon?
>
And have the goverment subsidize it.
PDW
Kelsey Bjarnason
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:smibg5...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:51:05 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
>>
>>> Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told
>>> it's o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it
>>> during work hours.
>>
>> Makes some sort of sense. Feel free to read it on your coffee break,
>> lunch, etc, just not on company time.
>
> Second: What sense does it make to tell someone, it's o.k. to bring in a
> certain book but you can't read it?
Again, depends on cases. In the example I gave, you can read it, just
not on company time.
Here's another. Suppose I'm going from home to work, then to Bible
group; isn't the most sensible thing, from my perspective, to bring my
Bible with me to work, toss it in a drawer or a glove compartment or a
locker, then take it with me when I leave? It's not in any manner
interfering with my work, but it is *at* work. Why would this be
disallowed? Doesn't mean I expect - or should expect - to be allowed to
read non-company or non-work materials on the company's dime.
SeahawkFan
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:20:07 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
>
>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:smibg5...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>>> [snips]
>>>
>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:51:05 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told
>>>> it's o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it
>>>> during work hours.
>>>
>>> Makes some sort of sense. Feel free to read it on your coffee break,
>>> lunch, etc, just not on company time.
>>
>> Second: What sense does it make to tell someone, it's o.k. to bring in a
>> certain book but you can't read it?
>
> Again, depends on cases. In the example I gave, you can read it, just
> not on company time.
>
> Here's another. Suppose I'm going from home to work, then to Bible
> group; isn't the most sensible thing, from my perspective, to bring my
> Bible with me to work, toss it in a drawer or a glove compartment or a
> locker, then take it with me when I leave?
Leave it in your car.
Look it's simple.
Policy states, no one can bring in ANY reading material. An officer sued
because he said his 1st amendment rights were violated when they said he
couldn't bring his bible in. Now, the policy changed and it says you can
bring in a bible, but you can't read it.
To me, it's silly. I can understand the Department is trying to protect
itself from another law suit, but it's just silly in my opinion.
The Chief Instigator
Beats me, but he's hiding out in northwest Ohio, from the domain...
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Rockford 5, Houston 2 (April 25)
NEXT GAME: The 2008-09 season opener in early October
The Chief Instigator
She's working for the State, which means her religious beliefs don't
excuse her from her assigned job responsibilities...
The Chief Instigator
> "Gwen" <bennetw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:afd0a53e-7a12-42a2...@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 9:52 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>
>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> *If there's sanity left in the world, they'll refuse her claim.
>
> Maybe she'll get a BIG PROMOTION!
Maybe you and Bubba can get paroled so you can go up there and get married.
>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> *Too bad.
>
> Bigotry.
Keep church and state separate.
*nemo*
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
>
>
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
>
>
>
>
If that's the case, the clerk needs to go looking for another job. The
Bible ain't paying her, the people are. If she can't do what she was
hired to do, fuck her. With a garden weasel preferably.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Lucifer
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 15:20:07 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
In the same vein, I'm allowed to take my bow and my arrows to lectures
so I can go straight to Archery afterwards, but I can't set it up and
shoot the lecturers, even in bloody stats lectures.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
DanielSan
> DanielSan wrote:
>> Carl wrote:
>>> phillip brown wrote:
>>>>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>>>>
>>>>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>>>>
>>>>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>>>>>
>>>> So what the bible says has nothing to do with it.
>>>>
>>> In the U.S., where we at least pretend that there's separation of
>>> Church and State as per The Constitution, I would say she has no
>>> right to impose her religious views in a civil matter. She should
>>> quit if she feels that strongly. But this is taking place in
>>> England. I don't believe the notion of separation of Church and
>>> State exists in their body of written laws and I think they have no
>>> formal written constitution. Am I right about these things? And, if so,
>>> how might that impact
>>> upon this woman's position?
>> She is saying that she doesn't want to do her job. And she's suing
>> for that permission.
>>
>> I wonder if I can sue for permission to not do my job....
>>
> I don't want to get bogged down devil's-advocating for a position I don't
> personally hold (I think a government worker should not be allowed to bring
> religious beliefs into the job, just to be clear), but her position is a
> little different than the absolute you're making it into.
>
> Even during the Vietnam war, the U.S. government recognized some people as
> "conscientious objectors" (CO) and gave them a deferment or re-assignment
> "sincere" objectors to a government policy are if they can demonstrate a
> particular moral pattern.
Agreed. She can be reassigned to some other position if she doesn't
want to leave the organization.
>
> Personally, I hope she loses, but I understand her right to try to object if
> her moral beliefs are so strong. Of course, if she were truly ethical, she
> would quit the job.
>
>
Oh, I'm not saying anything about her moral beliefs. I'm talking about
the job she's supposed to do.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I was against gay marriage until I realized *
* that I didn't have to have one." *
* --James Carville *
****************************************************
Kelsey Bjarnason
Pretty much, yeah, though one might hope for something as bulky as that
that you were using a locker, leaving them in your office, or some such.
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:14:16 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
>> Here's another. Suppose I'm going from home to work, then to Bible
>> group; isn't the most sensible thing, from my perspective, to bring my
>> Bible with me to work, toss it in a drawer or a glove compartment or a
>> locker, then take it with me when I leave?
>
> Leave it in your car.
What car?
> Look it's simple.
> Policy states, no one can bring in ANY reading material.
Which in itself is bizarre.
> An officer
> sued because he said his 1st amendment rights were violated when they
> said he couldn't bring his bible in. Now, the policy changed and it
> says you can bring in a bible, but you can't read it.
And?
> To me, it's silly. I can understand the Department is trying to protect
> itself from another law suit, but it's just silly in my opinion.
The only silly part is restricting it to the Bible. The rest of it makes
perfect sense.
Preventer of Work
>
> "Carl" <crot...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4832d61d$0$11601$607e...@cv.net...
>> object if her moral beliefs are so strong. Of course, if she were
>> truly ethical, she would quit the job.
>
> place.
> One officer sued because he was told he couldn't bring his bible in to
> work. It wasn't a big book, just a pocket book.
> The department lost, and now he is allowed to carry in his bible. Only
> the bible though, no other books.
> it's o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it
> during work hours.
>
> have to quit, especially with today's economy. I'll sit back and see
>
She should have to quit if she refuses to do here job, There is some
other person out there in need of a job and willing to do it, so it's
zero-sum in the job department.
That bible book rule qualifies for a prize of some sort. Is there
something like a Darwin Awards for non-fatal stupidity?
Frank Mayhar
> J wrote:
>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> If that's the case, the clerk needs to go looking for another job. The
> Bible ain't paying her, the people are. If she can't do what she was
> hired to do, fuck her. With a garden weasel preferably.
What did that poor weasel ever do to you, nemo?
(Yes, I know what a "garden weasel" is.)
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
SeahawkFan
> [snips]
>
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 17:14:16 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
>
>>> Here's another. Suppose I'm going from home to work, then to Bible
>>> group; isn't the most sensible thing, from my perspective, to bring my
>>> Bible with me to work, toss it in a drawer or a glove compartment or a
>>> locker, then take it with me when I leave?
>>
>> Leave it in your car.
>
> What car?
>
>> Look it's simple.
>> Policy states, no one can bring in ANY reading material.
>
> Which in itself is bizarre.
It's in a correctional institution.
>
>> An officer
>> sued because he said his 1st amendment rights were violated when they
>> said he couldn't bring his bible in. Now, the policy changed and it
>> says you can bring in a bible, but you can't read it.
>
> And?
And it's silly, in my opinion.
John D. Wentzky
news:4832f696$0$5708$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> "John D. Wentzky" <wxpprof...@msn.com> wrote ...
>> "Patrick" wrote in message
>>> "John D. Wentzky" wrote
>>>> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights
>>>> of the people so much?
>>> Exactly which constitutional rights is the government infringing upon?
>>
>> something
>
> It doesn't.
> If you wish to marry your girlfriend, your boyfriend
> or your dog, please be my guest. Do it in the privacy
> of your church. No one will stop you. However, once you
> decide to attempt to collect special privileges given to
> civilly married couples, then the government has every
> right to determine fairness and equality. You and your
> married dog should not be able to get social security benefits
> as me and my wife can. My wife is a legal dependent. My
> children are legal dependents. Your dog is not.
So, why are you for special privileges that violate the 14th amendment?
I do not favor extra rights or extra privileges based on marital status, as
in differing tax rates and differing insurance rates.
>> I know this story mentions England, so my question is about our status as
>> persons in the USA.
>
> I live in the USA.
As do I.
>> Why is it the people can not see that the government wants to know who
>> you are married to so they can sell your personal information online to
>> criminals who try to steal away a spouse and assets they did not work to
>> amass?
>
> Why are you so paranoid as to think that the government conspires
> against your personal privacy?
Paranoid?
Is it too hard for you to understand the 4th amendment's guarantees?
You in some madison avenue quadruple witching hour marketing group that
can't find a way to stop engaging in criminal espionage against the peoples'
rights to be safe and secure in their persons, possessions and effects
against unreasonable search and seizure?
> If you don't want anyone to know
> about your marriage, don't advertise it by getting government documents.
True; which allows me to say what right does a bank or other company have to
any assets of any person who did not contract any business with them? Ex: a
spouse gets a credit card and does not pay it off and the credit card
compnay tries to get the money from the other partner who wasn't even issued
the credit card.
> If you don't wish to pay taxes on property, don't own any.
Ridiculous.
The 4th Amendment disallows the usury of property taxes.
> If you don't wish to put money in the security of a bank, don't put it
> there.
Oh, goodie.
A run on the banks is your advice to the people.
Refer to 1929.
I agree with you.
The people should demand their money and we should destroy the current lazy
regime of debt, militants and inflation.
> However, don't expect to make silly claims that you own something, have
> money
> somewhere, or deserve government benefits when you have no paperwork
> to prove any of it. Proper ownership needs proper documentation.
A SSN is about all a person needs in the USA to qualify for most anything in
light of the Constitutional requirements.
Well, being born is about all that is needed; but, without a SSN how will
you participate in the USA and all it has to offer?
> Why do you pay taxes? Think about it.
I pay taxes because I am charged taxes.
Is there any other reason I pay them?
NO!
John D. Wentzky
*because she's a bigot.
You missed.
Why the BIGOTRY ON YOUR PART?
Why are you biased against her freedom to perform as she chooses?
Aren't you pro-CHOICE?
Why are you so intolerant of other persons' freedom to choose?
John D. Wentzky
news:lhb5341kvrhilfgie...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:52:32 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
> <wxpprof...@msn.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <uNsYj.77120$%15.3...@bignews7.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"J" <Jvis...@live.com> wrote in message
>>news:1sq0e9....@news.alt.net...
>>> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>>
>>
>>Why does the government feel entitled to a fee for persons to do something
>>that does not violate their right to FREE exercise of religion?
>>persons in the USA.
>>the people so much?
>>
>
> in SC really are slow.
Why are you trying to expose yourself as an anti-1st Amendment criminal
communist in the USA?
The Chief Instigator
Quit whining because a non-white judge gave you what you were asking for.
Carl
you interpreted what I wrote (which, admittedly, can be misconstrued).
"These radical Christianists" is a "specific group of people", as you state.
We agree. I didn't say otherwise. What I intended my post to mean was that
it's a generalization that ALL RADICAL CHRISTIANISTS "want to keep the job
*and* do what they want with total disregard of the law". We don't know
what "all radical Christianists" want to do.
Mark K. Bilbo
Dude, you're going to jail...
John D. Wentzky
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
news:8gudg5-...@75-104-203-24.cust.wildblue.net...
Do what?
You mean because I was assaulted in public on private property by a
guntoting tax leech who had no warrants, who I witnessed speeding without
any warning devices on and who 'blew my doors' and got caught at a traffic
light as I rolled up and he saw the person he blew by and sped up the road
in front of and then went berserk and criminally detained me?
Do you mean because a militant county employee who I pay taxes to enrich
perjured false charges against me?
Or, do you mean because I am NOT a drug dealer?
Or, do you mean because I am not gay or pro-choice?
Which reason are you picking to assume that I am supposed to go to jail?
Is your version of justice what they call CRIMINAL justice now?
Sad testament for someone who thinks he is for law.
Gwen
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarna...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:smibg5...@spankywork.localhost.net...
>
> > [snips]
>
> > On Tue, 20 May 2008 09:51:05 -0400, SeahawkFan wrote:
>
> >> Now, here is the part that doesn't make any sense. Officers are told
> >> it's o.k. to bring in the bible, but they are not allowed to read it
> >> during work hours.
>
> > Makes some sort of sense. Feel free to read it on your coffee break,
> > lunch, etc, just not on company time.
>
> First: Officers don't get lunch breaks or coffee breaks. It's straight 8
> hours, you eat when you can.
Well, if you're talking about a police officer, which you aren't, then
how do I explain that from to time I see the occassional officer,
including my friend with whom I once worked, a the Dunkin' Donuts
locations here and there, kind of often?
Mark K. Bilbo
No because you resisted arrest, assaulted an officer, and what was the
other charge?
Mark Sebree
> "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in messagenews:8gudg5-...@75-104-203-24.cust.wildblue.net...
>
>
>
> > John D. Wentzky wrote:
> >> "Attila" <<procho...@here.now> wrote in message
> >>news:lhb5341kvrhilfgie...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:52:32 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
> >>> <uNsYj.77120$%15.37...@bignews7.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1sq0e9....@news.alt.net...
> >>>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> >>>>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> >>>>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> >>>> Why does the government feel entitled to a fee for persons to do
> >>>> something
> >>>> that does not violate their right to FREE exercise of religion?
> >>>> I know this story mentions England, so my question is about our status
> >>>> as
> >>>> persons in the USA.
> >>>> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights
> >>>> of
> >>>> the people so much?
>
> >>> Does anyone know when this idiot is going to be put away? The courts
> >>> in SC really are slow.
>
> >> Why are you trying to expose yourself as an anti-1st Amendment criminal
> >> communist in the USA?
>
> > Dude, you're going to jail...
>
> Do what?
You are going to jail.
> You mean because I was assaulted in public on private property by a
> guntoting tax leech who had no warrants, who I witnessed speeding without
> any warning devices on and who 'blew my doors' and got caught at a traffic
> light as I rolled up and he saw the person he blew by and sped up the road
> in front of and then went berserk and criminally detained me?
No, he does not mean that since that never happened. You assaulted a
police officer during a traffic stop. The county roads are public,
not private, property, and that would not have mattered. The officer
is not a tax leech like you since he is not on welfare. Warrants are
not required when the officer witnesses the person committing a crime
like you did. What you think you "witnessed" the officer doing is
immaterial to your crime. The officer never went berserk. You were
never criminally detained. Your detention was completely legal.
> Do you mean because a militant county employee who I pay taxes to enrich
> perjured false charges against me?
No, since such a person does not exist except in your imagination and
no false charges were perjured against you. The testimony that lead
to the charges were accurate and the charges were sworn out in good
faith.
> Or, do you mean because I am NOT a drug dealer?
No, he does not mean that since that has nothing to do with you going
to jail.
> Or, do you mean because I am not gay or pro-choice?
No, since that has nothing to do with you going to jail.
> Which reason are you picking to assume that I am supposed to go to jail?
The fact that you assaulted a police officer, and you have confessed
to doing so in this forum. You are currently under indictment for
that charge, and your trial is likely to be within the next couple
months.
> Is your version of justice what they call CRIMINAL justice now?
In that it metes out justice to criminals like you, probably so. He
certainly does not mean your misdefinition of the phrase, but rather
the actual one.
> Sad testament for someone who thinks he is for law.
It is a sad testament for you. However, your actions and opinions are
not a sad testament to anyone else.
Mark Sebree
John Baker
Felony stupidity.
Mark Sebree
> John D. Wentzky wrote:
> > "Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
> >news:8gudg5-...@75-104-203-24.cust.wildblue.net...
> >> John D. Wentzky wrote:
> >>>news:lhb5341kvrhilfgie...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 00:52:32 -0400, "John D. Wentzky"
> >>>> <uNsYj.77120$%15.37...@bignews7.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>news:1sq0e9....@news.alt.net...
> >>>>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> >>>>>> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> >>>>>> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
> >>>>> Why does the government feel entitled to a fee for persons to do
> >>>>> something
> >>>>> that does not violate their right to FREE exercise of religion?
> >>>>> I know this story mentions England, so my question is about our status
> >>>>> as
> >>>>> persons in the USA.
> >>>>> Why does the government enjoy infringing upon the Constitutional rights
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> the people so much?
>
> >>>> Does anyone know when this idiot is going to be put away? The courts
> >>>> in SC really are slow.
> >>> Why are you trying to expose yourself as an anti-1st Amendment criminal
> >>> communist in the USA?
> >> Dude, you're going to jail...
>
> > Do what?
> > You mean because I was assaulted in public<SNIP>
>
> No because you resisted arrest, assaulted an officer, and what was the
> other charge?
DUI
Mark Sebree
Lucifer
Ok, bad example, but the theatres are usually around 1/3rd full for
geology, and they don't get in the way.
John D. Wentzky
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
Fraud.
> assaulted an officer,
I did not assault an officer; and, FYI, officers are bound by the 14th
amendment to no rights or privileges in exess of mine.
Self-defense against an assailant who attacks people in the back isn't
illegal; and, the elevated use of force against any attacker is dictated by
the police code itself.
I did not violate any code or law at all.
> and what was the other charge?
It doesn't matter what the charge was. I am NOT GUILTY of any of the
perjured charges levied against me by one cop in my home county.
You *ARE* without a doubt a very illogical type person who predicates guilt
without any evidence whatsoever.
Your assertions are meaningless because they go against the law and the
intent of law.
Proof to you is something you really don't like, I am sure.
Budikka666
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64699
>
> City clerk suing not to wed 'gays'
>
> Woman: 'I can't go against what it says in the Bible'
>
> California, a city clerk in England is suing her employer for the right not
> to officiate at homosexual weddings because of her faith.
>
> "I feel strongly about maintaining my Christian beliefs and conscience,"
> Lillian Ladele told the London Telegraph. "I can't go against what it says
> in the Bible. I don't understand why the council can't use other people who
> have no problem with the ceremonies."
>
> Islington council in London informed the registrar she could be fired unless
> she agrees to preside at the ceremonies.
>
> Ladele claims "discrimination or victimization on grounds of religion or
> belief."
>
> Britain introduced its Civil Partnership Act in 2004, giving same-sex
> couples the same rights as married couples. Ladele, who has worked at the
> council since 1992, believes she should be given exemption.
>
> The paper notes registrars of births, marriages and deaths had the freedom
> to opt out of civil-partnership ceremonies until last year when a new law
> changed their employment status.
>
> A spokesman for the council said: "Islington council will be robustly
> defending its position at the employment tribunal."
>
> Rev. Michael Scott-Joynt, the bishop of Winchester, said it was important to
> recognize objections on grounds of conscience.
>
> But Ben Summerskill of the homosexual rights group Stonewall told the paper:
> "Doctors and nurses can't choose who they treat, and nor should a registrar
> be allowed to discriminate."
>
> Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court trashed society's traditional
> institution of marriage, opening it up for same-sex duos because retaining
> the historic definition "cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state
> interest."
>
> Despite that decision, with a voter initiative drive already underway,
> pro-family groups in California believe the battle over marriage in the
> Golden State is far from over.
>
> --
> J
> Jvisi...@live.com
>
> "How many human lives have you saved from death! Continue along this path
> and do not be afraid, so that the smile of life may triumph on the lips of
> all children and their mothers".
>
> - His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
So how many witches has she killed? If she hasn't killed even one,
then she's already fallen foul of "what it says in the Bible". QED.
Budikka
John D. Wentzky
news:9297a602-16d0-498b...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Weird.
I'm not going to jail.
I am at home, you dumbass.
>> You mean because I was assaulted in public on private property by a
>> guntoting tax leech who had no warrants, who I witnessed speeding without
>> any warning devices on and who 'blew my doors' and got caught at a
>> traffic
>> light as I rolled up and he saw the person he blew by and sped up the
>> road
>> in front of and then went berserk and criminally detained me?
>
> No, he does not mean that since that never happened.
Wrong, liar.
I am a witness for the State.
> You assaulted a
> police officer during a traffic stop.
FRAUD!
Your criminal command and conquer allegiance is doomed by the law.
> The county roads are public,
> not private, property, and that would not have mattered.
Wrong, again, dumbass.
I wasn't on public property when the officer assaulted me in the back and
when I was subsequently beaten by more cops, kidnapped and held via fraud
and extortion.
Grand larceny and petit larceny were performed against me after I was
kidnapped.
> The officer is not a tax leech like you since he is not on welfare.
Another fraudulent statement designed to sustain non-fiduciary waste in the
USA.
> Warrants are not required when the officer witnesses the person committing
> a crime
> like you did.
No officer witnessed commiting any crime.
> What you think you "witnessed" the officer doing is
> immaterial to your crime.
I commited no crime, you idiot.
All the crimes committed are on the part of the ACSD against one law-abiding
citizen of Anderon, SC.
> The officer never went berserk.
Wrong, hate crime legislation idiot.
The officer went berserk after I caught up to him at a traffic light where
he was stuck after carousing in the peoples' patrol car.
He went extra berserk after I asked him if he was a homosexual and violated
the law against intimidation and assault in violation of my Constitutional
rights.
He effectively committed what a hate crime on the basis of sexual
orientation.
All you hypocritical loser criminal idiots are criminals, in fact.
> You were never criminally detained.
Wrong, again, fraudboy.
And, this isn't the first time that I have been assaulted and kidnapped and
criminally detained by militant cowards in the civilian sector in my home
county.
> Your detention was completely legal.
FRAUD!
ALL YOU COWARDLY MILITANT ASSHOLES ARE TRAITORS!
[snip]
Mark Sebree
Well, technically you will be going to prison after your trial.
> I am at home, you dumbass.
Prison will be your home for the duration of your incarceration and
sentence after your trial.
>
> >> You mean because I was assaulted in public on private property by a
> >> guntoting tax leech who had no warrants, who I witnessed speeding without
> >> any warning devices on and who 'blew my doors' and got caught at a
> >> traffic light as I rolled up and he saw the person he blew by and sped up the
> >> road in front of and then went berserk and criminally detained me?
>
> > No, he does not mean that since that never happened.
>
> Wrong, liar.
> I am a witness for the State.
You are the only liar here. And you will not be a witness for the
State, you will be a witness in your defense. And you will secure
your conviction if you tell the jury what you tell us here.
A piece of advice that your lawyer will echo, "Sit down, shut up, and
plead the Fifth Amendment".
>
> > You assaulted a police officer during a traffic stop.
>
> FRAUD!
> Your criminal command and conquer allegiance is doomed by the law.
An allegiance that exists only in your imagination cannot be doomed by
the law.
My statement is a fact that you have admitted in this forum.
>
> > The county roads are public,
> > not private, property, and that would not have mattered.
>
> Wrong, again, dumbass.
You are the only dumbass here. My statement is completely correct.
> I wasn't on public property when the officer assaulted me in the back and
> when I was subsequently beaten by more cops, kidnapped and held via fraud
> and extortion.
You were not anywhere when that happened since it never happened. You
are the one that assaulted the officer. The other cops assisted the
arresting officer because you just committed a violent felony. You
were arrested, incarcerated, and released on bail.
> Grand larceny and petit larceny were performed against me after I was
> kidnapped.
You were never kidnapped, and you were not subjected to any crimes.
>
> > The officer is not a tax leech like you since he is not on welfare.
>
> Another fraudulent statement designed to sustain non-fiduciary waste in the
> USA.
That would your statements. My statement is a statement of fact.
>
> > Warrants are not required when the officer witnesses the person committing
> > a crime like you did.
>
> No officer witnessed commiting any crime.
According to your own accounts, 4 or 5 officers witness you assaulting
a police officer. They include the officer that you assaulted, plus 3
or 4 other officers that were in the area. Your assault was also
captured on video tape.
>
> > What you think you "witnessed" the officer doing is
> > immaterial to your crime.
>
> I commited no crime, you idiot.
You are the idiot here, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. You
confessed that you assaulted a police officer. That is a crime
everywhere in the USA, and a felony in your state.
> All the crimes committed are on the part of the ACSD against one law-abiding
> citizen of Anderon, SC.
You have that backwards, as usual. All the crimes were committed by
one criminal citizen of Anderson, SC (that would be you) against one
law abiding and law enforcing county sheriff.
>
> > The officer never went berserk.
>
> Wrong, hate crime legislation idiot.
My statement is accurate, and you continue to show that you are the
only idiot here.
> The officer went berserk after I caught up to him at a traffic light where
> he was stuck after carousing in the peoples' patrol car.
None of which ever happened since the officer did not go berserk and
he was not carousing in a police car.
> He went extra berserk after I asked him if he was a homosexual and violated
> the law against intimidation and assault in violation of my Constitutional
> rights.
So you tried to provoke the sheriff. That explains why he thought you
were intoxicated. Your Constitutional rights were never violated.
You acted belligerent towards him, and he treated you as you turned
out to be, a violent and unstable person. He did not go berserk at
all.
> He effectively committed what a hate crime on the basis of sexual
> orientation.
No, he did not. He did not commit any crime, and your sexual
orientation had nothing to do with your treatment.
> All you hypocritical loser criminal idiots are criminals, in fact.
Since you are the only "hypocritical loser criminal idiots", or any
type of criminal for that matter, here, you are referring to yourself
again.
>
> > You were never criminally detained.
>
> Wrong, again, fraudboy.
My statement is factual and accurate.
> And, this isn't the first time that I have been assaulted and kidnapped and
> criminally detained by militant cowards in the civilian sector in my home
> county.
It still has not happened to you since those people do not exist
except in your imagination. You have never been criminally assaulted,
you have never been kidnapped, you have never been criminally
detained, and it is unlikely that there are any militant cowards in
your county.
>
> > Your detention was completely legal.
>
> FRAUD!
No, a fact that you do not want to face.
> ALL YOU COWARDLY MILITANT ASSHOLES ARE TRAITORS!
Which means you are describing yourself, or nobody. You are the only
coward or asshole here, and nobody here is a traitor. Telling you the
truth and the facts to counter your delusions does not make one a
coward, militant, an asshole, or a traitor, no matter what you
imagine.
Mark Sebree
Robibnikoff
"Mark K. Bilbo" <gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote in message
DUI, right?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
John D. Wentzky
What trial?
>> I am at home, you dumbass.
>
> Prison will be your home for the duration of your incarceration and
> sentence after your trial.
I am not going to jail.
Are you trying to solicit visitation from me after you and/or your criminal
boyfriends are thrown in the slammer?
>>
>> >> You mean because I was assaulted in public on private property by a
>> >> guntoting tax leech who had no warrants, who I witnessed speeding
>> >> without
>> >> any warning devices on and who 'blew my doors' and got caught at a
>> >> traffic light as I rolled up and he saw the person he blew by and sped
>> >> up the
>> >> road in front of and then went berserk and criminally detained me?
>>
>> > No, he does not mean that since that never happened.
>>
>> Wrong, liar.
>> I am a witness for the State.
>
> You are the only liar here.
I'm not a liar.
> And you will not be a witness for the
> State,
Why not, anti-SC, crimeboy?
> you will be a witness in your defense.
The State and I are not on the defensive, crimeboy.
The State and I are allied together against the perpetrators of crime in SC.
> And you will secure your conviction if you tell the jury what you tell us
> here.
The jury has no interest in behaving as you.
> A piece of advice that your lawyer will echo, "Sit down, shut up, and
> plead the Fifth Amendment".
You mean your buddies will go berserk if I testify in court to their crimes?
How does a witness on the witness stand shut up?
Does it bother you that witnesses sit down in court?
Also, the fifth amendment has the accuser in a bind because the accuser's
tactic is to try to get tjhe defense to testify against itself, a violation
of the defendant's fifth amendment rights.
And, the accuser has nothing to use against the defense in these matters
which will not cause the accuser guilt.
>>
>> > You assaulted a police officer during a traffic stop.
>>
>> FRAUD!
>> Your criminal command and conquer allegiance is doomed by the law.
>
> An allegiance that exists only in your imagination cannot be doomed by
> the law.
Your allegiance is criminal.
> My statement is a fact that you have admitted in this forum.
Untrue, liar.
Your statement is a fraudulent statement.
>>
>> > The county roads are public,
>> > not private, property, and that would not have mattered.
>>
>> Wrong, again, dumbass.
>
> You are the only dumbass here. My statement is completely correct.
To you the law never matters.
All that matters to you is committing crimes against people who know you are
criminal and then lying in your vain attempt to cover the crimes of your
anti-USA allegiance..
>> I wasn't on public property when the officer assaulted me in the back and
>> when I was subsequently beaten by more cops, kidnapped and held via fraud
>> and extortion.
>
> You were not anywhere when that happened since it never happened.
Reread the sentence I write, rebellious fraudboy.
> You are the one that assaulted the officer.
Untrue.
I did not assault any officer.
> The other cops assisted the
> arresting officer because you just committed a violent felony.
I committed no felony.
> You were arrested, incarcerated, and released on bail.
I was assaulted in the back and subsequently beaten by more cops on private
property, kidnapped, held via fraud and extortion before I was released.
>> Grand larceny and petit larceny were performed against me after I was
>> kidnapped.
>
> You were never kidnapped,
A LIE!
The law benefits me.
I was assaulted in the back and subsequently beaten by more cops on private
property, kidnapped, held via fraud and extortion before I was released.
> and you were not subjected to any crimes.
I was assaulted in the back and subsequently beaten by more cops on private
property, kidnapped, held via fraud and extortion before I was released.
>>
>> > The officer is not a tax leech like you since he is not on welfare.
>>
>> Another fraudulent statement designed to sustain non-fiduciary waste in
>> the
>> USA.
>
> That would your statements.
None.
The law is against you in these matters.
> My statement is a statement of fact.
Welfare has nothing to do with this case.
>>
>> > Warrants are not required when the officer witnesses the person
>> > committing
>> > a crime like you did.
>>
>> No officer witnessed me commiting any crime.
>
> According to your own accounts, 4 or 5 officers witness you assaulting
> a police officer.
None at all, you fraud.
> They include the officer that you assaulted,
Non-existent entity.
> plus 3 or 4 other officers that were in the area.
The Constitution compels them to testify in my favor.
> Your assault was also
> captured on video tape.
The original video confirms my assertions.
The altered video that was sent to my attorney is used to garner fraud and
obstruction of justice charges against the ACSD.
>>
>> > What you think you "witnessed" the officer doing is
>> > immaterial to your crime.
>>
>> I commited no crime, you idiot.
>
> You are the idiot here,
I am sure that Furman University is not liking the fraud and rebellion
against the law that has been occurring against me for so long.
> and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
That is why people such as me who have such high educations are not willing
to ignore the law while persons such as yourself who have limited education
are known to be negligent of the laws themselves.
> You confessed that you assaulted a police officer.
No, I didn't, you ignorance hypocrite.
> That is a crime everywhere in the USA, and a felony in your state.
I didn't assault a police officer; and, I am not harged with assaulting a
police officer, per se.
>> All the crimes committed are on the part of the ACSD against one
>> law-abiding
>> citizen of Anderon, SC.
>
> You have that backwards, as usual.
Fraud.
> All the crimes were committed by
> one criminal citizen of Anderson, SC (that would be you) against one
> law abiding and law enforcing county sheriff.
Fraud and slander.
>>
>> > The officer never went berserk.
>>
>> Wrong, hate crime legislation idiot.
>
> My statement is accurate, and you continue to show that you are the
> only idiot here.
I am not showing myself to be an idiot.
>> The officer went berserk after I caught up to him at a traffic light
>> where
>> he was stuck after carousing in the peoples' patrol car.
>
> None of which ever happened
Oh, how much would it feel like to be a cop at court and to hear the truth
related by me.
LOL!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> since the officer did not go berserk and
> he was not carousing in a police car.
Lies.
If you prefer the term raucously cavorting in the peoples' patrol vehicle,
then I am sure the court would be pleased to hear it.
>> He went extra berserk after I asked him if he was a homosexual and
>> violated
>> the law against intimidation and assault in violation of my
>> Constitutional
>> rights.
>
> So you tried to provoke the sheriff.
None at all, anti-freedom of speech criminal peon.
> That explains why he thought you
> were intoxicated.
Articulate speech grants no cause to suspect the people of being
intoxicated.
> Your Constitutional rights were never violated.
FRAUD!
> You acted belligerent towards him,
Your military codebook is condemned within the civilian sector.
You are insubordinate to a citizen who is some 21 years senior to the leo
who assaulted me in the back.
> and he treated you as you turned
> out to be,
You are out of order, again.
> a violent and unstable person.
Fraud.
The violent and unstable person in these matters is the violent and unstable
assailant, giovanni.
> He did not go berserk at
> all.
BUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHITTTTTTTTT, FRAUDBOY!
>> He effectively committed a hate crime on the basis of sexual
>> orientation.
>
> No, he did not.
He did, you shaking leaf, mouse of a man.
> He did not commit any crime,
FRAUD!
> and your sexual
> orientation had nothing to do with your treatment.
YOU LOST, again.
He committed a hate crime on the basis of homosexuality.
LOL!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!
>> All you hypocritical loser criminal idiots are criminals, in fact.
>
> Since you are the only "hypocritical loser criminal idiots", or any
> type of criminal for that matter, here, you are referring to yourself
> again.
giovanni committed a hate crime of violence and intimidation against me on
the basis of sexual orientation, the orientation being homosexuality.
And, you are resisting the codes you thought were designed to protect
homosexuals from hate crimes.
>>
>> > You were never criminally detained.
>>
>> Wrong, again, fraudboy.
>
> My statement is factual and accurate.
fraudulent and inaccurate.
>> And, this isn't the first time that I have been assaulted and kidnapped
>> and
>> criminally detained by militant cowards in the civilian sector in my home
>> county.
>
> It still has not happened to you since those people do not exist
> except in your imagination.
Your defenders are losing.
> You have never been criminally assaulted,
FRAUD!
I was criminally assaulted in high school by an african american homosexual.
You can't hide your or their crmes.
> you have never been kidnapped,
LIAR!
> you have never been criminally
> detained,
LIAR!
You're allied with thieves.
> and it is unlikely that there are any militant cowards in
> your county.
Contrary to your opinion there are more of those in Anderson that carry
weapons in the civilian sector at tax pauyer expense than there are
productive employees of Anderson COunty.
>>
>> > Your detention was completely legal.
>>
>> FRAUD!
>
> No, a fact that you do not want to face.
Wrong, anti-productive waste advocate.
>> ALL YOU COWARDLY MILITANT ASSHOLES ARE TRAITORS!
>
> Which means you are describing yourself, or nobody.
Wrong on both counts.
> You are the only coward or asshole here,
Why are you so fraudulent?
> and nobody here is a traitor. Telling you the
> truth and the facts to counter your delusions does not make one a
> coward, militant, an asshole, or a traitor, no matter what you
> imagine.
You're imagining things that are not in existence.
Mark Sebree
Your felony trial for your assault of a law enforcement officer,
resisting arrest, and DUI.
>
> >> I am at home, you dumbass.
>
> > Prison will be your home for the duration of your incarceration and
> > sentence after your trial.
>
> I am not going to jail.
Yes, you are. You do not have anything that will cast any significant
doubt on the police officers or the video from the jury's standpoint.
> Are you trying to solicit visitation from me after you and/or your criminal
> boyfriends are thrown in the slammer?
I am not soliciting anything, and since I am a law abiding citizen and
I do not have any criminal friends or relatives to start with, I will
not be thrown into the slammer.
>
>
>
> >> >> You mean because I was assaulted in public on private property by a
> >> >> guntoting tax leech who had no warrants, who I witnessed speeding
> >> >> without
> >> >> any warning devices on and who 'blew my doors' and got caught at a
> >> >> traffic light as I rolled up and he saw the person he blew by and sped
> >> >> up the
> >> >> road in front of and then went berserk and criminally detained me?
>
> >> > No, he does not mean that since that never happened.
>
> >> Wrong, liar.
> >> I am a witness for the State.
>
> > You are the only liar here.
>
> I'm not a liar.
Then why do you lie all the time, blatantly and badly at that.
>
> > And you will not be a witness for the
> > State,
>
> Why not, anti-SC, crimeboy?
Because you are the defendant at you trial.
>
> > you will be a witness in your defense.
>
> The State and I are not on the defensive, crimeboy.
The state is not on the defensive since they are the prosecutor. You
are the one that is the defendant since you are the one that is
accused of the crimes.
> The State and I are allied together against the perpetrators of crime in SC.
Then why haven't you plead guilty to the crimes that you have admitted
to committing?
The State and you are not allied since the State is pursuing your
conviction for your crimes.
>
> > And you will secure your conviction if you tell the jury what you tell us
> > here.
>
> The jury has no interest in behaving as you.
Why wouldn't the jury be interested in behaving like an intelligent,
educated, patriotic, knowledgeable person like me? They certainly do
not want to act like and ignorant and hateful criminal like you.
>
> > A piece of advice that your lawyer will echo, "Sit down, shut up, and
> > plead the Fifth Amendment".
>
> You mean your buddies will go berserk if I testify in court to their crimes?
What crimes? If you claim that I or anyone I know, none of whom you
would know, has committed any crimes in open court, you will have to
prove your statement to be true to the best of your knowledge and
present evidence to support your claim, or you will have a perjury
charge added to your other charges. I will then certainly have just
cause to sue you for slander as well.
And since you have no idea what I am talking about, I mean that if you
take the stand and try to testify in your defense, and especially if
you give a similar account of the events as you have given in this
newsgroup, you will be handing the prosecution your conviction on a
silver platter and with all the trimmings.
> How does a witness on the witness stand shut up?
By not taking the stand in the first place. This is always an option
for the defendant, and you really should exercise it.
> Does it bother you that witnesses sit down in court?
No. There is no reason that it should.
> Also, the fifth amendment has the accuser in a bind because the accuser's
> tactic is to try to get tjhe defense to testify against itself, a violation
> of the defendant's fifth amendment rights.
Actually, getting you to testify against yourself is not a violation
of your 5th Amendment rights. You always have the right to
voluntarily testify against yourself, which includes being tricked
into doing so. The 5th Amendment prohibits forcing you to take the
stand and using any coercion to get your testimony.
> And, the accuser has nothing to use against the defense in these matters
> which will not cause the accuser guilt.
Actually, the prosecutor/accuser as plenty that he can use. He can
use evidence that does not depend on the defendant, like other
witnesses, forensic evidence, and video evidence. He can also use
circumstantial evidence. If you are so stupid as to take the stand,
he can use trickery to get you to admit that you committed the crime
or make it appear that you did to the jury.
>
>
>
> >> > You assaulted a police officer during a traffic stop.
>
> >> FRAUD!
> >> Your criminal command and conquer allegiance is doomed by the law.
>
> > An allegiance that exists only in your imagination cannot be doomed by
> > the law.
>
> Your allegiance is criminal.
Why do you think that my allegiance to the USA, to the law, to
justice, to freedom, to liberty, and to equality is criminal? There
is nothing criminal about my allegiances.
>
> > My statement is a fact that you have admitted in this forum.
>
> Untrue, liar.
You are the only liar here.
> Your statement is a fraudulent statement.
My statement is a factual statement, and here is that statement with
the link to the post the you made the statement in.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/fcd7bb28a51eafc1
"I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back ... "
Your confession is very clear as to what you did.
> >> > The county roads are public,
> >> > not private, property, and that would not have mattered.
>
> >> Wrong, again, dumbass.
>
> > You are the only dumbass here. My statement is completely correct.
>
> To you the law never matters.
Actually, the law matters very much to me. That is why I keep trying
to explain what the law really is to you.
> All that matters to you is committing crimes against people who know you are
> criminal and then lying in your vain attempt to cover the crimes of your
> anti-USA allegiance..
Since I have not committed any crimes and my allegiance is pro-USA, I
have nothing to cover. That is why you have NEVER been able to
support your libel that I have committed any crimes. And since I am
not interested in committing any crimes and people know me as being a
law abiding citizen, the lie you told in the first part of your ad
hominem is also libelous.
You actually have no idea what matters to me.
>
> >> I wasn't on public property when the officer assaulted me in the back and
> >> when I was subsequently beaten by more cops, kidnapped and held via fraud
> >> and extortion.
>
> > You were not anywhere when that happened since it never happened.
>
> Reread the sentence I write, rebellious fraudboy.
I did. It does not fit the facts. You were pulled over in a traffic
stop, which means that you were almost certainly on a public road, a
fact that is made more likely by the fact that you have admitted that
you just went through a stop light. You have admitted that you
assaulted the police officer, which is why the rest of the cops dog
piled on you to subdue you, as is standard police procedure with
someone that just committed a violent felony like you did. Your
arrest was completely legal and required by law, which means that it
could not have been a kidnapping, something that is even more unlikely
since you were taken to a police station and placed into a jail cell.
Nothing was not extorted from you since bail is not extortion. When
you show up for your trial, your bail will be returned to your father
minus reasonable fees.
I am also not rebelling against anything.
>
> > You are the one that assaulted the officer.
>
> Untrue.
My statement is completely true, as your quote above shows.
> I did not assault any officer.
You admitted to doing so in the post that I quoted.
>
> > The other cops assisted the
> > arresting officer because you just committed a violent felony.
>
> I committed no felony.
You assaulted a police officer, which is a felony in your state.
>
> > You were arrested, incarcerated, and released on bail.
>
> I was assaulted in the back and subsequently beaten by more cops on private
> property, kidnapped, held via fraud and extortion before I was released.
Your delusions do not help your case. You were being arrested on a
public road after a traffic stop after acting belligerent to a law
enforcement officer (which is probably why he thought you were DUI in
the first place), when you spun around and threw the cop to the
ground, which is both a form of assault and resisting arrest. The
other cops present immediately rushed forward to subdue you since you
had just committed a violent felony. You were arrested and held for
arraignment, and which time bail was set for $70,000, of which your
father put up $7,000 and the bail bondsman put up $63,000. You were
then released on bail, and you are currently awaiting your trial.
>
> >> Grand larceny and petit larceny were performed against me after I was
> >> kidnapped.
>
> > You were never kidnapped,
>
> A LIE!
My statement is a fact. Kidnappers do not take their victims to a
police station.
> The law benefits me.
Not really. The law is what makes your actions illegal and the police
officer's legal.
> I was assaulted in the back and subsequently beaten by more cops on private
> property, kidnapped, held via fraud and extortion before I was released.
None of those things happened to you. Your lies and delusions will
not help your case.
>
> > and you were not subjected to any crimes.
>
> I was assaulted in the back and subsequently beaten by more cops on private
> property, kidnapped, held via fraud and extortion before I was released.
None of those things happened to you. Your lies and delusions will
not help your case.
> >> > The officer is not a tax leech like you since he is not on welfare.
>
> >> Another fraudulent statement designed to sustain non-fiduciary waste in
> >> the USA.
>
> > That would your statements.
>
> None.
> The law is against you in these matters.
No, it is not. The law makes assaulting a police officer a felony in
your state, and it requires the arrest of anyone that that the officer
witnesses committing a crime, as you did when you attacked him. The
law is with me in these matters and against you.
>
> > My statement is a statement of fact.
>
> Welfare has nothing to do with this case.
You claimed that the officer was a tax leech, which means that he is
on welfare like you, which he most certainly is not.
>
>
>
> >> > Warrants are not required when the officer witnesses the person
> >> > committing a crime like you did.
>
> >> No officer witnessed me commiting any crime.
>
> > According to your own accounts, 4 or 5 officers witness you assaulting
> > a police officer.
>
> None at all, you fraud.
You are the one that is trying to deceive people, and it is not
working. You claimed that 4 or 5 officers were present at your arrest
after you assaulted a police officer.
>
> > They include the officer that you assaulted,
>
> Non-existent entity.
Actually, a very real entity name Officer Giovanni.
>
> > plus 3 or 4 other officers that were in the area.
>
> The Constitution compels them to testify in my favor.
Where does the Constitution compel them to lie? The Constitution and
the law compels them to tell the truth, which is against you.
>
> > Your assault was also
> > captured on video tape.
>
> The original video confirms my assertions.
Actually, the original video denies your assertions, I am sure.
> The altered video that was sent to my attorney is used to garner fraud and
> obstruction of justice charges against the ACSD.
Your claims do not hold water. You do not have any evidence that the
video was altered, and neither the police nor the state prosecutor has
any reason to alter it. They were giving you a chance to see the most
damning evidence against you, so you would have the opportunity to
change your plea, save the state money, and possibly get a lighter
sentence. There was no fraud or obstruction of justice involved. In
fact, there are multiple safeguards to prevent the video from being
altered, and that make it clear that it was altered.
If you make that claim in court, you will be asked what proof you have
that it was altered. If all you have to say is that it does not match
your memory of the events that happened, your claim will be ignored by
the judge, and the jury will almost certainly see it as a desperate
act of a guilty man.
>
>
>
> >> > What you think you "witnessed" the officer doing is
> >> > immaterial to your crime.
>
> >> I commited no crime, you idiot.
>
> > You are the idiot here,
>
> I am sure that Furman University is not liking the fraud and rebellion
> against the law that has been occurring against me for so long.
Not only will Furman University not care, they will not see any fraud
or rebellion against the law occurring against you because there has
not been any. You have not been a student there for many years, they
are not involved in the case in any way, and you have a prior criminal
record to these charges. It is more likely that they will want
nothing to do with you.
>
> > and ignorance of the law is no excuse.
>
> That is why people such as me who have such high educations are not willing
> to ignore the law while persons such as yourself who have limited education
> are known to be negligent of the laws themselves.
Then why are you the one with the ignorance of the law and that are
known to be negligent of the law? I have a very high level of
education and knowledge, as I continue to show you, and I do not
ignore the law at all. You have never shown that you have much of an
education, and you are very ignorant of the law.
Basically, you claimed my traits as yours and projected your traits
onto me, i.e. you got your statement backwards, as usual.
>
> > You confessed that you assaulted a police officer.
>
> No, I didn't, you ignorance hypocrite.
I am neither ignorant nor a hypocrite. I quoted your confession
earlier in this very post.
>
> > That is a crime everywhere in the USA, and a felony in your state.
>
> I didn't assault a police officer; and, I am not harged with assaulting a
> police officer, per se.
You confessed that you assaulted a police officer by slamming him onto
his back, and you are currently charged by your state for the assault
of that police officer.
>
> >> All the crimes committed are on the part of the ACSD against one
> >> law-abiding citizen of Anderon, SC.
>
> > You have that backwards, as usual.
>
> Fraud.
No, a fact.
>
> > All the crimes were committed by
> > one criminal citizen of Anderson, SC (that would be you) against one
> > law abiding and law enforcing county sheriff.
>
> Fraud and slander.
My statement is factual, and the facts cannot be libel. (you need to
relearn the difference between slander and libel.)
>
>
>
> >> > The officer never went berserk.
>
> >> Wrong, hate crime legislation idiot.
>
> > My statement is accurate, and you continue to show that you are the
> > only idiot here.
>
> I am not showing myself to be an idiot.
Yes, you are. You obvious lies in the face of proof to the contrary
and your obvious libel against everyone that tells you the truth and
the facts, as well as your frequent displays of ignorance, show you to
be an idiot.
>
> >> The officer went berserk after I caught up to him at a traffic light
> >> where he was stuck after carousing in the peoples' patrol car.
>
> > None of which ever happened
>
> Oh, how much would it feel like to be a cop at court and to hear the truth
> related by me.
For you, it will feel terrible. It will be your prison cell door
slamming closed on you.
> LOL!
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
You are laughing at your own demise.
>
> > since the officer did not go berserk and
> > he was not carousing in a police car.
>
> Lies.
No, facts that you cannot accept.
> If you prefer the term raucously cavorting in the peoples' patrol vehicle,
Which would also be a lie, and have no bearing on your case.
> then I am sure the court would be pleased to hear it.
The court will not tolerant your lies and delusions, and they will
have the power to keep you on track if you are fool enough to testify.
>
> >> He went extra berserk after I asked him if he was a homosexual and
> >> violated the law against intimidation and assault in violation of my
> >> Constitutional rights.
>
> > So you tried to provoke the sheriff.
>
> None at all, anti-freedom of speech criminal peon.
You are the only one here that is a criminal peon. Asking the officer
if he was homosexual can be seen as a "come-on" and a proposal, which
is probably why he thought you were DUI. Sober people usually do not
ask such idiotic questions when pulled over for a traffic stop. It
could also be seen as an attempt to bribe the officer into letting you
go for sexual favors, which is also a crime. It was probably your
belligerence that you continued to display which resulted in him
drawing his firearm to get you to settle down and comply with his
lawful orders.
Your claims show that you certainly appeared to be tying to provoke
the officer, and attempts to provoke an officer of the law are not
examples of things that are protected by the First Amendment.
Therefore, your Constitutional rights were not violated.
>
> > That explains why he thought you
> > were intoxicated.
>
> Articulate speech grants no cause to suspect the people of being
> intoxicated.
Idiotic questions like asking the cop if he is homosexual, however, is
cause to suspect that a person is intoxicated or drugged.
>
> > Your Constitutional rights were never violated.
>
> FRAUD!
No, a fact.
>
> > You acted belligerent towards him,
>
> Your military codebook is condemned within the civilian sector.
I do not have a military code book. I am telling you the facts.
> You are insubordinate to a citizen who is some 21 years senior to the leo
> who assaulted me in the back.
I am not being insubordinate to anyone, especially to an inferior
specimen of humanity like you. Your age does not protect you from
your crimes, nor do your delusions. The officer that was arresting
you did not assault you. You have NEVER been able to describe what he
did that you consider to be an assault. Was he patting you down for
weapons? Or did he grab your write to handcuff you? Or perhaps he
kicked your feet farther apart in preparation for a patdown? None of
those are considered to be an assault. I am guessing the second one
or the third one.
>
> > and he treated you as you turned
> > out to be,
>
> You are out of order, again.
Telling you the truth is never out of order, which means that I have
never been out of order.
>
> > a violent and unstable person.
>
> Fraud.
No, a fact as you proved to the officers that night.
> The violent and unstable person in these matters is the violent and unstable
> assailant, giovanni.
Officer Giovanni was not the assailant at your arrest, you were, and
you were the violent and unstable assailant.
>
> > He did not go berserk at
> > all.
>
> BUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHITTTTTTTTT, FRAUDBOY!
Nope. My statement is a statement of fact that you do not want to
face.
>
> >> He effectively committed a hate crime on the basis of sexual
> >> orientation.
>
> > No, he did not.
>
> He did, you shaking leaf, mouse of a man.
That must make you the insect of a man than. I am not shaking at all,
except from laughter at your delusions and lies. Officer Giovanni did
not commit a hate crime because he did not commit a crime to start
with and he treated you just like he would treat anyone else that did
what you did.
>
> > He did not commit any crime,
>
> FRAUD!
No, a fact.
>
> > and your sexual
> > orientation had nothing to do with your treatment.
>
> YOU LOST, again.
I have not lost yet. You are the one that will lose, and it will be
your freedom that you will lose when you are convicted of the felony
that you committed.
> He committed a hate crime on the basis of homosexuality.
No, he did not. He did not commit any crime, and your arrest had
nothing to do with your homosexuality.
> LOL!
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!
Laughing at your doom again, I see.
>
> >> All you hypocritical loser criminal idiots are criminals, in fact.
>
> > Since you are the only "hypocritical loser criminal idiots", or any
> > type of criminal for that matter, here, you are referring to yourself
> > again.
>
> giovanni committed a hate crime of violence and intimidation against me on
> the basis of sexual orientation, the orientation being homosexuality.
No, he did not. He did not commit any crime when he arrested you, and
the fact that he drew his firearm was because of your belligerence
towards him and the fact that you appeared to be under the influence
of alcohol or a narcotic.
> And, you are resisting the codes you thought were designed to protect
> homosexuals from hate crimes.
I am not resisting any laws at all. Unlike you, I know and understand
the laws. Nothing that Officer Giovanni did was illegal, and
therefore nothing could be a hate crime.
>
>
>
> >> > You were never criminally detained.
>
> >> Wrong, again, fraudboy.
>
> > My statement is factual and accurate.
>
> fraudulent and inaccurate.
Those are your statements.
>
> >> And, this isn't the first time that I have been assaulted and kidnapped
> >> and criminally detained by militant cowards in the civilian sector in my home
> >> county.
>
> > It still has not happened to you since those people do not exist
> > except in your imagination.
>
> Your defenders are losing.
What defenders? I am defending myself far better than you can defend
yourself.
>
> > You have never been criminally assaulted,
>
> FRAUD!
No, a fact.
> I was criminally assaulted in high school by an african american homosexual.
Which has nothing to do with the case and actions under discussion.
> You can't hide your or their crmes.
What crimes? I have not committed any crimes, and neither has the
police officer that arrested you.
>
> > you have never been kidnapped,
>
> LIAR!
No, a fact. Unlike you, I have no reason to lie.
>
> > you have never been criminally
> > detained,
>
> LIAR!
> You're allied with thieves.
I am telling the truth, and I am allied AGAINST thieves.
>
> > and it is unlikely that there are any militant cowards in
> > your county.
>
> Contrary to your opinion there are more of those in Anderson that carry
> weapons in the civilian sector at tax pauyer expense than there are
> productive employees of Anderson COunty.
Police officers are productive employees of Anderson County. Police
officers and Sheriffs are neither militant nor cowards. They tend to
be among the bravest people that non-military people are ever likely
to meet since they willingly put themselves into harms way to protect
everyone else.
And you have never shown that there are any militant cowards on the
Anderson County, SC payroll. Therefore, there is no reason for me to
think that there are such people employed by the county.
> >> > Your detention was completely legal.
>
> >> FRAUD!
>
> > No, a fact that you do not want to face.
>
> Wrong, anti-productive waste advocate.
My statement is correct and accurate, and I am not an advocate of anti-
productive and wastes of persons like you.
>
> >> ALL YOU COWARDLY MILITANT ASSHOLES ARE TRAITORS!
>
> > Which means you are describing yourself, or nobody.
>
> Wrong on both counts.
It has to be one or the other since you are the only cowardly asshole
around and nobody here is either militant or a traitor.
>
> > You are the only coward or asshole here,
>
> Why are you so fraudulent?
I am not fraudulent at all. I tell you the truth and the facts that
you do not want to hear.
>
> > and nobody here is a traitor. Telling you the
> > truth and the facts to counter your delusions does not make one a
> > coward, militant, an asshole, or a traitor, no matter what you
> > imagine.
>
> You're imagining things that are not in existence.
That is what you are known for doing, not me. I am telling you want
reality is.
Mark Sebree
John D. Wentzky
*Your felony trial for your assault of a law enforcement officer,
*resisting arrest, and DUI.
False assertion.
> >> I am at home, you dumbass.
>
> > Prison will be your home for the duration of your incarceration and
> > sentence after your trial.
>
> I am not going to jail.
*Yes, you are.
Nah, emotional basket case.
Your criminal desires and the law are opposed to one another.
*You do not have anything that will cast any significant
*doubt on the police officers or the video from the jury's standpoint.
False assertion.
The law itself and the unaltered video prove all of my claims and it makes
me a hero in Anderson, SC, FOR THE PEOPLE of Anderson, SC.
> Are you trying to solicit visitation from me after you and/or your
> criminal
> boyfriends are thrown in the slammer?
*I am not soliciting anything, and since I am a law abiding citizen and
*I do not have any criminal friends or relatives to start with, I will
*not be thrown into the slammer.
Another reason you are seen as such a hypocrite.
> >> >> You mean because I was assaulted in public on private property by a
> >> >> guntoting tax leech who had no warrants, who I witnessed speeding
> >> >> without
> >> >> any warning devices on and who 'blew my doors' and got caught at a
> >> >> traffic light as I rolled up and he saw the person he blew by and
> >> >> sped
> >> >> up the
> >> >> road in front of and then went berserk and criminally detained me?
>
> >> > No, he does not mean that since that never happened.
>
> >> Wrong, liar.
> >> I am a witness for the State.
>
> > You are the only liar here.
>
> I'm not a liar.
*Then why do you lie all the time, blatantly and badly at that.
What lie?
> > And you will not be a witness for the
> > State,
>
> Why not, anti-SC, crimeboy?
*Because you are the defendant at you trial.
I'm at trial?
> > you will be a witness in your defense.
>
> The State and I are not on the defensive, crimeboy.
*The state is not on the defensive since they are the prosecutor.
FRAUD!
The State is NOT the prosecutor, illiterate fraudboy.
The State is the State.
The prosecutor is the prosecutor.
Everyone can see you have a problem discerning the obvious differences
between those two terms.
*You are the one that is the defendant since you are the one that is
*accused of the crimes.
The State's name is The State of South Carolina.
The prosecutor is a person.
The accuser is a person.
The State is not accusing me of any crimes.
> The State and I are allied together against the perpetrators of crime in
> SC.
*Then why haven't you plead guilty to the crimes that you have admitted
*to committing?
I told you already.
The State and I are allied together against the perpetrators of crime.
There is no way for me to be guilty via such a lawful alliance.
*The State and you are not allied since the State is pursuing your
*conviction for your crimes.
False assertion.
The State of South Carolina accuses me of no crimes at all.
> > And you will secure your conviction if you tell the jury what you tell
> > us
> > here.
>
> The jury has no interest in behaving as you.
*Why wouldn't the jury be interested in behaving like an intelligent,
*educated, patriotic, knowledgeable person like me?
The people of the State of South Carolina aren't as dumb as you.
*They certainly donot want to act like and ignorant and hateful criminal
like you.
The people of South Carolina are honest people who reject all government
personnels' association with a criminal justice system.
Criminal justice is treason to the State of South Carolina.
The people of South Carolina expect JUSTICE itself.
The people of South Carolina REJECT CRIMINAL justice!
The people of South Carolina reject crimnals.
That's more than 4,000,000 people against a very small number of criminals
who have committed crimes against me.
> > A piece of advice that your lawyer will echo, "Sit down, shut up, and
> > plead the Fifth Amendment".
>
> You mean your buddies will go berserk if I testify in court to their
> crimes?
*What crimes? If you claim that I or anyone I know, none of whom you
*would know, has committed any crimes in open court, you will have to
*prove your statement to be true to the best of your knowledge and
*present evidence to support your claim, or you will have a perjury
*charge added to your other charges. I will then certainly have just
*cause to sue you for slander as well.
You have no cause to sue me for any of my speech.
And, you are not in court.
Who cares what you think?
*And since you have no idea what I am talking about, I mean that if you
*take the stand and try to testify in your defense, and especially if
*you give a similar account of the events as you have given in this
*newsgroup, you will be handing the prosecution your conviction on a
*silver platter and with all the trimmings.
Impossible.
The people of South Carolina are constitutionally guaranteed equal rights
and equal privileges to all persons who are associated with the prosecution.
> How does a witness on the witness stand shut up?
*By not taking the stand in the first place. This is always an option
*for the defendant, and you really should exercise it.
Your attempt at censoring the law itself is another strike against you.
> Does it bother you that witnesses sit down in court?
*No. There is no reason that it should.
So, why are you acting like an anti-Constitutional censorship and anti-law
bigot?
> Also, the fifth amendment has the accuser in a bind because the accuser's
> tactic is to try to get tjhe defense to testify against itself, a
> violation
> of the defendant's fifth amendment rights.
*Actually, getting you to testify against yourself is not a violation
*of your 5th Amendment rights.
You forgot the 5th Amendment.
*You always have the right to voluntarily testify against yourself, which
includes being tricked
*into doing so.
You lost again.
You are reliant on trickery because you are against the law.
*The 5th Amendment prohibits forcing you to take the
*stand and using any coercion to get your testimony.
Why didn't you quote it?
> And, the accuser has nothing to use against the defense in these matters
> which will not cause the accuser guilt.
*Actually, the prosecutor/accuser as plenty that he can use.
False assertion.
*He can use evidence that does not depend on the defendant, like other
*witnesses, forensic evidence, and video evidence.
But, he has no constitutional right to do so.
The Constitution commands that COMPULSORY PROCESS TO OBTAIN *WITNESSES IN MY
FAVOR* BE ENJOYED BY ME!
The prosecution is in direct violation of that requirement by going against
me.
*He can also use circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is never enough to convict.
*If you are so stupid as to take the stand,
*he can use trickery to get you to admit that you committed the crime
*or make it appear that you did to the jury.
Actually, he/she can't.
They have no lawful ability to violate my Constitutional rights.
> >> > You assaulted a police officer during a traffic stop.
>
> >> FRAUD!
> >> Your criminal command and conquer allegiance is doomed by the law.
>
> > An allegiance that exists only in your imagination cannot be doomed by
> > the law.
>
> Your allegiance is criminal.
*Why do you think that my allegiance to the USA, to the law, to
*justice, to freedom, to liberty, and to equality is criminal?
That isn't your allegiance, $9 trillion lazy debt accusing fool who is
against the Constitution and the people of the USA.
*There is nothing criminal about my allegiances.
WRONG, YOU FOOL!
> > My statement is a fact that you have admitted in this forum.
>
> Untrue, liar.
*You are the only liar here.
You're feeing the pressure.
> Your statement is a fraudulent statement.
*My statement is a factual statement, and here is that statement with
*the link to the post the you made the statement in.
*http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/fcd7bb28a51eafc1
*"I slammed the disrespectful loser cop on his back ... "
FRAUD! AND A CRIMINAL VIOLATION OF MY 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS!
AND, SUBMITTING SUCH IN A COURT OF LAW IS A VIOLATION OF MY FIFTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS!
*Your confession is very clear as to what you did.
What confession?
> >> > The county roads are public,
> >> > not private, property, and that would not have mattered.
>
> >> Wrong, again, dumbass.
>
> > You are the only dumbass here. My statement is completely correct.
>
> To you the law never matters.
*Actually, the law matters very much to me.
Only because it pins you down so easily.
*That is why I keep trying
*to explain what the law really is to you.
Another lie.
You continually try to proagandize the people away from the law itself.
> All that matters to you is committing crimes against people who know you
> are
> criminal and then lying in your vain attempt to cover the crimes of your
> anti-USA allegiance..
*Since I have not committed any crimes and my allegiance is pro-USA, I
*have nothing to cover. That is why you have NEVER been able to
*support your libel that I have committed any crimes. And since I am
*not interested in committing any crimes and people know me as being a
*law abiding citizen, the lie you told in the first part of your ad
*hominem is also libelous.
Nah, fraudboy.
Freedom of Speech is a Constitutionally GUARANTEED right in the USA.
*You actually have no idea what matters to me.
I know what matters to you; and, it is criminally against the USA and its
people.
> >> I wasn't on public property when the officer assaulted me in the back
> >> and
> >> when I was subsequently beaten by more cops, kidnapped and held via
> >> fraud
> >> and extortion.
>
> > You were not anywhere when that happened since it never happened.
>
> Reread the sentence I wrote, rebellious fraudboy.
*I did. It does not fit the facts.
You have no facts then.
*You were pulled over in a traffic stop,
I was criminally detained by persons who I witnessed violating the laws of
SC.
*which means that you were almost certainly on a public road, a
*fact that is made more likely by the fact that you have admitted that
*you just went through a stop light.
Irrelevant to the FACT, which is recorded on video, that I was assaulted in
the back on private property by someone who had no warrants at all with
regard to me.
*You have admitted that you assaulted the police officer,
FRAUD!
*which is why the rest of the cops dog
*piled on you to subdue you,
Dog piled?
Are you an idiot?
I was beaten by cops.
I have medical records because of the injuries I incurred as a result of the
assault in the back and the beatings.
*as is standard police procedure with
*someone that just committed a violent felony like you did.
FRAUD!
I did not commit any violent felony.
*Your arrest was completely legal and required by law,
FRAUD!
I WAS KIDNAPPED BY ASSAILANTS!
*which means that it could not have been a kidnapping,
Wrong, ally of crime.
*something that is even more unlikely since you were taken to a police
station and placed into a jail cell.
I was held at ransom via fraud and extortion at that anti-civilian, militant
compound.
*Nothing was not extorted from you since bail is not extortion.
LIAR!
FRAUD AND EXTORTION WERE CONDUCTED AGAINST ME TO DEMAND A RANSOM FOR MY
RELEASE AFTER I WAS ASSAULTED AND KIDNAPPED AT NIGHT IN ANDERSON, SC ON
PRIVATE PROPERTY!
*When you show up for your trial, your bail will be returned to your father
*minus reasonable fees.
The illegally obtained funds are used as evidence against the ACSD and will
be returned along with penalties and interest added to the amount stolen
from my father.
The amount of time that the funds have been illegally taken and withheld
subjects the County of Anderson to much liability.
*I am also not rebelling against anything.
You're rebelling against me, against the law, and against your allies and
against the government itself.
> > You are the one that assaulted the officer.
>
> Untrue.
*My statement is completely true, as your quote above shows.
What quote, fraudboy?
> I did not assault any officer.
*You admitted to doing so in the post that I quoted.
Fraud.
> > The other cops assisted the
> > arresting officer because you just committed a violent felony.
>
> I committed no felony.
*You assaulted a police officer,
Wrong, again, liar.
*which is a felony in your state.
I committed no felony in any state.
To you jaywalking is a felony.
You're a fool.
> > You were arrested, incarcerated, and released on bail.
>
> I was assaulted in the back and subsequently beaten by more cops on
> private
> property, kidnapped, held via fraud and extortion before I was released.
[snip]
The Chief Instigator
Actually, DUI 2nd or subsequent.