#NY pig punches woman in face for showing court order

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-
face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/

Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For Challenging
NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
November 17, 2011
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.

After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti
Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order telling police
to allow the protesters back into the park. Instead, police ignored the
order and sealed the park. Protesters then responded by approaching the
park and demanded to be allowed back in. But the NYPD would not have none
of it. They refused to comply with the demands of the court and the
protesters.

Protesters were yelling at police and waving a copy of the court order in
front of them. That’s when it got ugly. One protester jumped inside the
park and retrieved an American flag. A woman then appeared at the
barricade and with a copy of the court order, began demanding that police
do their job and allow the protesters back into the park. Unprovoked, an
officer struck the woman in the face knocking her back onto the ground.
She sat stunned and she appeared to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up
and resumed protesting. The officer didn’t appear to be remorseful over
punching an unarmed non-threatening woman.


Here’s the video:

Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward and a
bully. It isn’t right for any man to hit a woman. The police clearly
don’t care what they do to protesters. It’s a game to them. I would love
to see that officer try to punch Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD
is too cowardly for that. They’d rather attack women instead.

--
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution
inevitable” -JFK

[David Hartung]

The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting the
police office.

IN the situation as portrayed in the video, the police were fulfilling
their instructions. The proper, and civil thing for the protesters to
have done, would have been for their attorney to present the police
scene commander with a copy of the "order". Had they done that, the
police would have had no option but to honor it. To wave a piece of
paper in the face of a street cop and demand that he disobey his orders
is beyond stupid.

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:19:50 +0000 (UTC), "6313 Dead, 1456 since
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-
>face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
>
>Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For Challenging
>NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
>November 17, 2011
>By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
>
>A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.

I don't think the cop hit her at all. I think the loon with the flag
backed into her...

It's OK for Jamieson to be bitter.. Really, it is, after all, he's
not going to get that free health care to go along with his welfare
and food stamps.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 17 Nov 2011 11:45:07p

Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.

In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was assaulting the
officer.

The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order, ANYTHING the
police did to block or prevent her from entering was an assault by them

It is clear that the flag carrier was assaulted, by the way, at the beginning
of the video.

>
> IN the situation as portrayed in the video, the police were fulfilling
> their instructions.

When that white shirted (commanding) officer was informed of that the people
had a court order, he should have contacted his own superior or had the
authority himself to recognize a legal court order. If he doesn't fulfill
that duty, he should (1) lose his job and (2) be held legally liable in the
first degree by any actions in violation of that court order committed by
officers under his command.

In any way, shape, and form, police officers cannot claim ignorance NOR THE
NUREMBERG DEFENSE that they were "just following orders."

Those police officers---EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM----swear first and
foremost to uphold the Constitution of the United States----NOT WHATEVER P.C.
Ray Kelly feels like at breakfast time. Any breach they make in upholding
the Constitution they should understand will COST THEM THEIR JOBS and
penalties under law amounting to fines and prison time.

> The proper, and civil thing for the protesters to
> have done, would have been for their attorney to present the police
> scene commander with a copy of the "order".

Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent them. They
were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform to your
particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does not mean
that they have to present the order according to you.

> Had they done that, the
> police would have had no option but to honor it.

NO!!! The police have a duty to obey a court order presented in the
legitimate manner, which is to produce a document with a judge's signature.

It appears the protesters did JUST that!!

The police either accept the order, or politely tell the protesters that they
need a few minutes to verify that order.

> To wave a piece of
> paper in the face of a street cop and demand that he disobey his orders
> is beyond stupid.

They would have LOVED your silly ass at Nuremberg, I can tell.


--
Whereas it has long been known and declared that
the poor have no right to the property of the rich,
I wish it also to be known and declared that the rich
have no right to the property of the poor.
-- John Ruskin

[Steve]

A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
policeman..

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:35:55a

If that court order is valid, then ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that police
officer does in violation of that order puts his job in IMMEDIATE JEOPARDY
and makes him subject to civil and criminal penalties, you imbecile.
There is no Nuremberg defense. That officer's first duty, you idiot, is
to the Constitution. Not to a white shirt. Nor to Ray Kelly. Nor to
Michael Bloomberg.

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:

> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent them. They
> were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform to your
> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does not mean
> that they have to present the order according to you.

How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate court
orders?

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:47:26a

Which is why the officers could tell those at the park entrance they need
but a few minutes to verify the validity of the order, and I am sure those
holding the order would have granted that time.

The ONUS is on the officers to prove the documents are invalid, NOT for the
protesters to prove they are valid in a way BEYOND what they already did,
which was to present what appears to be official documents with a judge's
signature or legal facsimile.

Alternatively, the officers, in complying with immediate necessity with what
appears to be a legitimate court order, could have allowed those holding the
order that they could enter the park immediately, but warned those entering
that if they discovered the order was invalid (including falsified or
counterfeit) in any way, that everyone would in the park would be subject to
IMMEDIATE ARREST and booking. Another reason anyone entering the park,
whether protester or not, could allow officers time to verify the order and
to stop an order of barring entry.

Police officers are or should be trained at recognizing valid court orders
anyway. If they are not, they need to get jobs in a field more appropriate
to their status, such as being go-fors or private security (muscle) for Koch
Brothers astroturf organizations.

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:47:06 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

<LOL> Hey, didja call the cops on 'em?

>There is no Nuremberg defense. That officer's first duty, you idiot, is
>to the Constitution. Not to a white shirt. Nor to Ray Kelly. Nor to
>Michael Bloomberg.

<chuckle> Waving a copy of a court order around and trying to force
their way in is not the way to do it, Dummy. That'd be like me
getting a court order to evict a renter and then physically dragging
them out into the street.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:11:38a

That's why those eviction orders usually specify the manner in which you
can evict the renter, you stupid ass!

An eviction order very likely tells you in the most explicit terms that
you cannot drag a renter out of the house yourself, or it writes the
statute---citing code and section---the means by which you can enforce the
order, which in the CIVILIZED (usually blue) of the 50
states---specifically means you yourself cannot enforce the order with
your fists or a shotgun or by another other means other than to petition
the court again for a sheriff or police agency, or to petition an
enforcement authority directly.

Of course, since you yourself clearly show that you have never been a
landlord of much of anything except the dog you probably abuse, you would
not know that.

You really don't know shit, do you?

[Gary DW]

In article <5-
adnbFcnIj5HVjTn...@giganews.com>, David
Hartung says...

>
> On 11/17/2011 03:19 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> > http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-
> > face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
> >
> > Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For Challenging
> > NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
> > November 17, 2011
> > By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
> >
> > A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
> >
> > After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti
> > Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order telling police
> > to allow the protesters back into the park. Instead, police ignored the
> > order and sealed the park. Protesters then responded by approaching the
> > park and demanded to be allowed back in. But the NYPD would not have none
> > of it. They refused to comply with the demands of the court and the
> > protesters.
> >
> > Protesters were yelling at police and waving a copy of the court order in

> > front of them. That?s when it got ugly. One protester jumped inside the

> > park and retrieved an American flag. A woman then appeared at the
> > barricade and with a copy of the court order, began demanding that police
> > do their job and allow the protesters back into the park. Unprovoked, an
> > officer struck the woman in the face knocking her back onto the ground.
> > She sat stunned and she appeared to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up

> > and resumed protesting. The officer didn?t appear to be remorseful over

> > punching an unarmed non-threatening woman.
> >
> >

> > Here?s the video:

> >
> > Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward and a

> > bully. It isn?t right for any man to hit a woman. The police clearly
> > don?t care what they do to protesters. It?s a game to them. I would love

> > to see that officer try to punch Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD

> > is too cowardly for that. They?d rather attack women instead.

>
> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting the
> police office.
>
> IN the situation as portrayed in the video, the police were fulfilling
> their instructions.

I am SHOCKED to see you type this!

The proper, and civil thing for the protesters to
> have done, would have been for their attorney to present the police
> scene commander with a copy of the "order".

So everyone needs an attorey to present a court order?
What law is this... Herr Fascist?

Had they done that, the
> police would have had no option but to honor it. To wave a piece of
> paper in the face of a street cop and demand that he disobey his orders
> is beyond stupid.

There is no law against being stupid, David.





--
Modern conservatism is a cult. Neither it nor its voters
can be reasoned with. Attempting to pragmatically
compromise with them in the hopes of
deflecting criticism, "changing Washington" and winning
"independent" voters is a waste of time.

-Digby

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 04:47 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:35:55a
>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:28:01 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American
>> Patriot"<Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 17 Nov 2011 11:45:07p
>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2011 03:19 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-i
>>>>> n-
>>>>> face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
>>>>>
>>>>> Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For
>>>>> Challenging NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
>>>>> November 17, 2011
>>>>> By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
>>>>>
>>>>> A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
>>>>>
>>>>> After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from
>>>>> Zuccotti Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order
>>>>> telling police to allow the protesters back into the park. Instead,
>>>>> police ignored the order and sealed the park. Protesters then
>>>>> responded by approaching the park and demanded to be allowed back in.
>>>>> But the NYPD would not have none of it. They refused to comply with
>>>>> the demands of the court and the protesters.
>>>>>
>>>>> Protesters were yelling at police and waving a copy of the court

>>>>> order in front of them. That’s when it got ugly. One protester

>>>>> jumped inside the park and retrieved an American flag. A woman then
>>>>> appeared at the barricade and with a copy of the court order, began
>>>>> demanding that police do their job and allow the protesters back into
>>>>> the park. Unprovoked, an officer struck the woman in the face
>>>>> knocking her back onto the ground. She sat stunned and she appeared
>>>>> to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up and resumed protesting. The

>>>>> officer didn’t appear to be remorseful over punching an unarmed
>>>>> non-threatening woman.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here’s the video:

>>>>>
>>>>> Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward and a

>>>>> bully. It isn’t right for any man to hit a woman. The police
>>>>> clearly don’t care what they do to protesters. It’s a game to

>>>>> them. I would love to see that officer try to punch Marine Sgt.

>>>>> Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD is too cowardly for that. They’d rather

>>>>> attack women instead.
>>>>
>>>> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting the
>>>> police office.
>>>
>>> Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.
>>>
>>> In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was assaulting the
>>> officer.
>>>
>>> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order, ANYTHING the
>>> police did to block or prevent her from entering was an assault by them
>>
>> A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
>> policeman..
>

> If that court order is valid.

In the context of the posted video, how were the officers in question to
know that the paper being waved in their face was a valid court order?
How were they to know that these papers were not phony?

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 05:03 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:47:26a
>
>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>
>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent them.
>>> They were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not
>>> conform to your particularly disturbed idea of what a process server
>>> looks like does not mean that they have to present the order according
>>> to you.
>>
>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate court
>> orders?
>
> Which is why the officers could tell those at the park entrance they need
> but a few minutes to verify the validity of the order, and I am sure those
> holding the order would have granted that time.

My guess is that had they been approached in a civil manner, such would
have happened.

> The ONUS is on the officers to prove the documents are invalid, NOT for the
> protesters to prove they are valid in a way BEYOND what they already did,
> which was to present what appears to be official documents with a judge's
> signature or legal facsimile.

No, the burden is on those with the "order" to show that it is legitimate.

> Police officers are or should be trained at recognizing valid court orders
> anyway.

Which is difficult to do when you are being mobbed by people who have no
interest in allowing you to do your job.

[Gary DW]

In article
<sbWdnRDkesG5CljT...@giganews.com>, David
Hartung says...

>
> On 11/17/2011 04:47 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> > Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:35:55a
> >
> >> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:28:01 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American
> >> Patriot"<Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 17 Nov 2011 11:45:07p
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/17/2011 03:19 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> >>>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-i
> >>>>> n-
> >>>>> face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For
> >>>>> Challenging NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
> >>>>> November 17, 2011
> >>>>> By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from
> >>>>> Zuccotti Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order
> >>>>> telling police to allow the protesters back into the park. Instead,
> >>>>> police ignored the order and sealed the park. Protesters then
> >>>>> responded by approaching the park and demanded to be allowed back in.
> >>>>> But the NYPD would not have none of it. They refused to comply with
> >>>>> the demands of the court and the protesters.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Protesters were yelling at police and waving a copy of the court

> >>>>> order in front of them. That�s when it got ugly. One protester

> >>>>> jumped inside the park and retrieved an American flag. A woman then
> >>>>> appeared at the barricade and with a copy of the court order, began
> >>>>> demanding that police do their job and allow the protesters back into
> >>>>> the park. Unprovoked, an officer struck the woman in the face
> >>>>> knocking her back onto the ground. She sat stunned and she appeared
> >>>>> to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up and resumed protesting. The

> >>>>> officer didn�t appear to be remorseful over punching an unarmed
> >>>>> non-threatening woman.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here�s the video:

> >>>>>
> >>>>> Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward and a

> >>>>> bully. It isn�t right for any man to hit a woman. The police
> >>>>> clearly don�t care what they do to protesters. It�s a game to

> >>>>> them. I would love to see that officer try to punch Marine Sgt.

> >>>>> Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD is too cowardly for that. They�d rather

> >>>>> attack women instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting the
> >>>> police office.
> >>>
> >>> Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.
> >>>
> >>> In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was assaulting the
> >>> officer.
> >>>
> >>> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order, ANYTHING the
> >>> police did to block or prevent her from entering was an assault by them
> >>
> >> A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
> >> policeman..
> >
> > If that court order is valid.
>
> In the context of the posted video, how were the officers in question to
> know that the paper being waved in their face was a valid court order?
> How were they to know that these papers were not phony?

So she deserved to get punched because the papers MAY
have been phony?

How much of a fascist ARE you anymore these days, David?

You don't even try to hide it anymore!

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 05:21 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:

> You really don't know shit, do you?

In truth, your postings demonstrate that it is you who knows nothing.

[Sid9]

"David Hartung" <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
news:EK2dnY0o8sZjE1jT...@giganews.com...

Cops handle these types of papers every day in the course of their duties.
See if you figure out a dumber question to ask.

On a scale of 0 to 100 this is as least and 85,

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:22:12a

> On 11/17/2011 04:47 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:35:55a
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:28:01 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American
>>> Patriot"<Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 17 Nov 2011 11:45:07p
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2011 03:19 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman
>>>>>> -i n-
>>>>>> face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For
>>>>>> Challenging NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
>>>>>> November 17, 2011
>>>>>> By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from
>>>>>> Zuccotti Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order
>>>>>> telling police to allow the protesters back into the park. Instead,
>>>>>> police ignored the order and sealed the park. Protesters then
>>>>>> responded by approaching the park and demanded to be allowed back
>>>>>> in. But the NYPD would not have none of it. They refused to comply
>>>>>> with the demands of the court and the protesters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Protesters were yelling at police and waving a copy of the court

>>>>>> order in front of them. That’s when it got ugly. One protester

>>>>>> jumped inside the park and retrieved an American flag. A woman then
>>>>>> appeared at the barricade and with a copy of the court order, began
>>>>>> demanding that police do their job and allow the protesters back
>>>>>> into the park. Unprovoked, an officer struck the woman in the face
>>>>>> knocking her back onto the ground. She sat stunned and she appeared
>>>>>> to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up and resumed protesting.

>>>>>> The officer didn’t appear to be remorseful over punching an
>>>>>> unarmed non-threatening woman.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here’s the video:

>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward and

>>>>>> a bully. It isn’t right for any man to hit a woman. The police
>>>>>> clearly don’t care what they do to protesters. It’s a game to

>>>>>> them. I would love to see that officer try to punch Marine Sgt.

>>>>>> Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD is too cowardly for that. They’d

>>>>>> rather attack women instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting
>>>>> the police office.
>>>>
>>>> Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.
>>>>
>>>> In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was assaulting
>>>> the officer.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order, ANYTHING
>>>> the police did to block or prevent her from entering was an assault
>>>> by them
>>>
>>> A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
>>> policeman..
>>
>> If that court order is valid.
>
> In the context of the posted video, how were the officers in question to
> know that the paper being waved in their face was a valid court order?

The same way any citizen on his property must know that when a cop shows
up with a piece of paper he calls a "search warrant" that it too is valid
and that he must permit entry immediately. In fact, in the case of a
search warrant, if the citizen fails to permit immediate entry and the
warrant is valid, he will be charged with the offense---probably a
felony---of interfering with a police officer and likely be convicted.

Police officers are and should be held to the same standard. If they fail
to yield to a valid court order---having the power of a search warrant, as
any court order---they too subject themselves to interfering with a
citizen engaging in lawful activity. Just as the citizen risks arrest and
punishment for failing to yield IMMEDIATELY to the presentation of a
search warrant, a police officer should face punishment for failing to
IMMEDIATELY comply with any valid court order, that punishment being loss
of job and being named in a civil tort and/or criminal complaint.

MOREOVER, as special statutes define aggravating circumstances in which
citizens who commit crimes against those operating under the color and
badge of authority---being law enforcement agents----are given additional
penalties and punishments, the reverse should be true: those operating
under the color and badge of authority must also pay extra penalties for
committing illegal and possibly criminal acts against citizens.

> How were they to know that these papers were not phony?

How does a citizen on his own property, facing a phalanx of police
officers and demanding his rights under the Fourth Amendment, know that a
search warrant---ALSO A COURT ORDER---is not phony??

There is the answer to your question.

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

And the cop had no business punching the woman in the face whether her
papers were in order or not.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:25:02a

> On 11/17/2011 05:03 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:47:26a
>>
>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>> them.
>>>> They were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not
>>>> conform to your particularly disturbed idea of what a process server
>>>> looks like does not mean that they have to present the order
>>>> according to you.
>>>
>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate
>>> court orders?
>>
>> Which is why the officers could tell those at the park entrance they
>> need but a few minutes to verify the validity of the order, and I am
>> sure those holding the order would have granted that time.
>
> My guess is that had they been approached in a civil manner, such would
> have happened.

And we are all to suppose that YOU are the final arbiter on what "being
approached in a civil manner" is???

When police officers show up with a search warrant---also a court order---do
you think they knock on the door politely and possibly give time to the
resident(s) inside to dispose of the criminal evidence??

No, that order pretty much gives them the right ram the door down with guns
drawn and tell everyone to get down on their bellies with hands
outstretched, just like on the TV cop shows.

As to your "guess"es, those who have experiences with your posts immediately
realize they have zero value.

>> The ONUS is on the officers to prove the documents are invalid, NOT for
>> the protesters to prove they are valid in a way BEYOND what they
>> already did, which was to present what appears to be official documents
>> with a judge's signature or legal facsimile.
>
> No, the burden is on those with the "order" to show that it is
> legitimate.

NO. Are you reading what I have posted?? I said that the protesters do not
have to prove the validity "...BEYOND what they already did."

Are you expecting the protesters to call the judge on his mobile, and tell
the judge to show up at the park with black robes on?

Are you THAT MUCH of a Nazi????

In fact, the police should have immediately complied, as a citizen must do
when police show up with a search warrant, and then later determine whether
the order was valid or not.

The police can warn those in the park that if the police later discover the
order was falsified and NOT valid at the time of presentation, then everyone
in the park would be subject to immediate arrest and booking. That would
give the protesters the ability to decide if the risk of entering was worth
it, assuming they were not convinced of validity.

>> Police officers are or should be trained at recognizing valid court
>> orders anyway.
>
> Which is difficult to do when you are being mobbed by people who have no
> interest in allowing you to do your job.

Well, that's your usual right wing opinion, which means it has NO connection
or relation to the truth or to fact. It is more helpful to your cause and
case when the text of your replies contain elements of the truth and/or
fact, rather than just your whining about what you believe are people who
are "not being nice" to the police, and who just happen to be people with
whom you have severe differences in political opinion and philosophy.

When people are not nice to the police, it is likely that those people were
the victims of the police "not being nice" to them. Humans are like all
other relatively sentient members of Kingdom Animalia: if you abuse and/or
mistreat them (unlawfully and criminally), they will snarl back and "not be
nice" to you.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:26:54a

> On 11/17/2011 05:21 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>
>> You really don't know shit, do you?
>
> In truth, your postings demonstrate that it is you who knows nothing.

That, from a known Usenet moron....

(Can I get your words on a certificate?)

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:25:02 -0600, David Hartung wrote:

> On 11/17/2011 05:03 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:47:26a
>>
>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>> them.
>>>> They were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not
>>>> conform to your particularly disturbed idea of what a process server
>>>> looks like does not mean that they have to present the order
>>>> according to you.
>>>
>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate
>>> court orders?
>>
>> Which is why the officers could tell those at the park entrance they
>> need but a few minutes to verify the validity of the order, and I am
>> sure those holding the order would have granted that time.
>
> My guess is that had they been approached in a civil manner, such would
> have happened.

So if cops are not treated with proper deference and politeness, they are
free to punch the living fuck out of young women?

Interesting manners you got down there in Mississippi. Sorta amazing any
of your women folk live long enough to breed.

>
>> The ONUS is on the officers to prove the documents are invalid, NOT for
>> the protesters to prove they are valid in a way BEYOND what they
>> already did, which was to present what appears to be official documents
>> with a judge's signature or legal facsimile.
>
> No, the burden is on those with the "order" to show that it is
> legitimate.
>
>> Police officers are or should be trained at recognizing valid court
>> orders anyway.
>
> Which is difficult to do when you are being mobbed by people who have no
> interest in allowing you to do your job.

[David Hartung]

Did I say that?

The truth is, all we have from the video which indicates that the
officer struck the woman was the wild, emotional claims of the
protesters. Frankly, given their conduct, I want more credible evidence.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

"6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011
01:51:54a

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:25:02 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2011 05:03 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:47:26a
>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>>> them.
>>>>> They were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not
>>>>> conform to your particularly disturbed idea of what a process server
>>>>> looks like does not mean that they have to present the order
>>>>> according to you.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate
>>>> court orders?
>>>
>>> Which is why the officers could tell those at the park entrance they
>>> need but a few minutes to verify the validity of the order, and I am
>>> sure those holding the order would have granted that time.
>>
>> My guess is that had they been approached in a civil manner, such would
>> have happened.
>
> So if cops are not treated with proper deference and politeness, they are
> free to punch the living fuck out of young women?

Poster "David Hartung" probably wishes he had been born in Germany just at
the end of World War I, which would make him a young and aspiring cadet for
the Totenkopf SS in the late 1930s.

> Interesting manners you got down there in Mississippi. Sorta amazing any
> of your women folk live long enough to breed.

Oh, he lives in (and was raised in?) Mississippi? I suppose that explains a
great deal then, although the majority of that state's voters had the sense
to vote down that personhood proposition which was a direct expression of
contempt for the United States Constitution. I don't imagine he was a
'nea' voter (one voting against the personhood proposition).

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 05:34 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:22:12a
>
>> On 11/17/2011 04:47 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:35:55a
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:28:01 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American
>>>> Patriot"<Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 17 Nov 2011 11:45:07p
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/17/2011 03:19 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman
>>>>>>> -i n-
>>>>>>> face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For
>>>>>>> Challenging NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
>>>>>>> November 17, 2011
>>>>>>> By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from
>>>>>>> Zuccotti Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order
>>>>>>> telling police to allow the protesters back into the park. Instead,
>>>>>>> police ignored the order and sealed the park. Protesters then
>>>>>>> responded by approaching the park and demanded to be allowed back
>>>>>>> in. But the NYPD would not have none of it. They refused to comply
>>>>>>> with the demands of the court and the protesters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Protesters were yelling at police and waving a copy of the court

>>>>>>> order in front of them. That’s when it got ugly. One protester

>>>>>>> jumped inside the park and retrieved an American flag. A woman then
>>>>>>> appeared at the barricade and with a copy of the court order, began
>>>>>>> demanding that police do their job and allow the protesters back
>>>>>>> into the park. Unprovoked, an officer struck the woman in the face
>>>>>>> knocking her back onto the ground. She sat stunned and she appeared
>>>>>>> to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up and resumed protesting.

>>>>>>> The officer didn’t appear to be remorseful over punching an
>>>>>>> unarmed non-threatening woman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here’s the video:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward and

>>>>>>> a bully. It isn’t right for any man to hit a woman. The police
>>>>>>> clearly don’t care what they do to protesters. It’s a game to

>>>>>>> them. I would love to see that officer try to punch Marine Sgt.

>>>>>>> Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD is too cowardly for that. They’d

>>>>>>> rather attack women instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting
>>>>>> the police office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.
>>>>>
>>>>> In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was assaulting
>>>>> the officer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order, ANYTHING
>>>>> the police did to block or prevent her from entering was an assault
>>>>> by them
>>>>
>>>> A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
>>>> policeman..
>>>
>>> If that court order is valid.
>>
>> In the context of the posted video, how were the officers in question to
>> know that the paper being waved in their face was a valid court order?
>
> The same way any citizen on his property must know that when a cop shows
> up with a piece of paper he calls a "search warrant" that it too is valid
> and that he must permit entry immediately.

Suppose the "order" was phony? What then?

Believe it or not, the officers in question were doing their jobs, or at
least they were trying to do their jobs. Had a supervisor been given the
chance to examine the "order", the entire incident would never have
happened.

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:21:22 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

<LOL> Actually, the eviction must be performed by the authorities. My
waving a copy of it around serves no purpose just as that silly old
fool waving around the court order served no purpose.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 02:02:28a

Then you are the silly old fool as we all know you are, since if all court
orders are to be enforced BY law enforcement, that includes court orders
TO law enforcement!

In other words, you have just argued that the police in the park should
have IMMEDIATELY complied with the order upon its presentation.

You have any more imbecilic defense to make?

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:57:32a

>>>>>>>> order in front of them. Thatโค?s when it got ugly. One protester

>>>>>>>> jumped inside the park and retrieved an American flag. A woman
>>>>>>>> then appeared at the barricade and with a copy of the court
>>>>>>>> order, began demanding that police do their job and allow the
>>>>>>>> protesters back into the park. Unprovoked, an officer struck the
>>>>>>>> woman in the face knocking her back onto the ground. She sat
>>>>>>>> stunned and she appeared to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up

>>>>>>>> and resumed protesting. The officer didnโค?t appear to be

>>>>>>>> remorseful over punching an unarmed non-threatening woman.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Hereโค?s the video:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward

>>>>>>>> and a bully. It isnโค?t right for any man to hit a woman. The
>>>>>>>> police clearly donโค?t care what they do to protesters. Itโค?s a

>>>>>>>> game to them. I would love to see that officer try to punch
>>>>>>>> Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD is too cowardly for that.

>>>>>>>> Theyโค?d rather attack women instead.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting
>>>>>>> the police office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was
>>>>>> assaulting the officer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order,
>>>>>> ANYTHING the police did to block or prevent her from entering was
>>>>>> an assault by them
>>>>>
>>>>> A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
>>>>> policeman..
>>>>
>>>> If that court order is valid.
>>>
>>> In the context of the posted video, how were the officers in question
>>> to know that the paper being waved in their face was a valid court
>>> order? How were they to know that these papers were not phony?
>>
>>
>>
>> So she deserved to get punched because the papers MAY
>> have been phony?
>
> Did I say that?
>
> The truth is, all we have from the video which indicates that the
> officer struck the woman was the wild, emotional claims of the
> protesters.

So a citizen on his own property, demanding his 4th Amendment rights, has a
search warrant presented to him.

He interferes with the police nonetheless.

In the court room, the judge asks him why he interfered with the officers,
and he says that "all I had was the wild, emotional claims of the police
officers about their right to search my property."

That oughta go over well with the judge.

> Frankly, given their conduct, I want more credible evidence.

Right...that citizen under the order of a search warrant wants more
"credible evidence" of the right of police officers to execute that warrant.

Seriously...are you REALLY THAT DENSE?????

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 02:01:02a

> On 11/17/2011 05:34 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:22:12a
>>
>>> On 11/17/2011 04:47 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>> Steve<steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:35:55a
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:28:01 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American
>>>>> Patriot"<Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 17 Nov 2011
>>>>>> 11:45:07p
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/17/2011 03:19 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:

>>>>>>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-wom
>>>>>>>> an -i n-
>>>>>>>> face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video
>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For
>>>>>>>> Challenging NYPD With Court Order (VIDEO)
>>>>>>>> November 17, 2011
>>>>>>>> By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from
>>>>>>>> Zuccotti Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order
>>>>>>>> telling police to allow the protesters back into the park.
>>>>>>>> Instead, police ignored the order and sealed the park. Protesters
>>>>>>>> then responded by approaching the park and demanded to be allowed
>>>>>>>> back in. But the NYPD would not have none of it. They refused to
>>>>>>>> comply with the demands of the court and the protesters.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Protesters were yelling at police and waving a copy of the court

>>>>>>>> order in front of them. That’s when it got ugly. One protester

>>>>>>>> jumped inside the park and retrieved an American flag. A woman
>>>>>>>> then appeared at the barricade and with a copy of the court
>>>>>>>> order, began demanding that police do their job and allow the
>>>>>>>> protesters back into the park. Unprovoked, an officer struck the
>>>>>>>> woman in the face knocking her back onto the ground. She sat
>>>>>>>> stunned and she appeared to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up

>>>>>>>> and resumed protesting. The officer didn’t appear to be

>>>>>>>> remorseful over punching an unarmed non-threatening woman.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Here’s the video:

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward

>>>>>>>> and a bully. It isn’t right for any man to hit a woman. The
>>>>>>>> police clearly don’t care what they do to protesters. It’s a

>>>>>>>> game to them. I would love to see that officer try to punch
>>>>>>>> Marine Sgt. Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD is too cowardly for that.

>>>>>>>> They’d rather attack women instead.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting
>>>>>>> the police office.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was
>>>>>> assaulting the officer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order,
>>>>>> ANYTHING the police did to block or prevent her from entering was
>>>>>> an assault by them
>>>>>
>>>>> A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
>>>>> policeman..
>>>>
>>>> If that court order is valid.
>>>
>>> In the context of the posted video, how were the officers in question
>>> to know that the paper being waved in their face was a valid court
>>> order?
>>
>> The same way any citizen on his property must know that when a cop
>> shows up with a piece of paper he calls a "search warrant" that it too
>> is valid and that he must permit entry immediately.
>
> Suppose the "order" was phony? What then?

I know you have reading comprehension problems, but I described the very
case of the order not being valid...and that is of the power of the police
to immediately arrest and book everyone in the park, and then declare
before the judge that they were presented with a falsified order. If the
citizen who presented the order fails to produce it (knowing it to have
been falsified), the police action would be upheld.

> Believe it or not, the officers in question were doing their jobs, or at
> least they were trying to do their jobs.

No, that was NOT what the video showed. They were presented with a
document that was said to be a valid court order, and not one officer
showed any interest in examining the order. Every officer involved in
barring entry was failing in his/her first duty: to uphold the United
States Constitution.

> Had a supervisor been given the
> chance to examine the "order", the entire incident would never have
> happened.

The video showed a white-shirted officer, and he seemed to show no
interest whatsoever in the order. In fact, he was probably giving orders
to his charges to annoy and harass the protesters.

The fact is, a police officer does not have to have supervisor status to
examine and comply with the order. Every police officer is sworn to
uphold the United States Constitution, and their training must include
thinking on their feet especially when it comes to court orders. If an
officer tells me that he has no training or authority to recognize and to
comply with valid court orders, that means everyone up and down the chain
of command, to P.C. Ray Kelly, should lose their jobs with immediate
effect.

If an officer tells me as well that his white-shirted supervisor was
ordering him NOT to examine and/or comply with the document presented at
the park as a valid court order, then the officer is attempting to use the
I-was-just-following-orders defense, an invalid defense in every instance.
If the white-shirted supervisor had ordered his charge to draw his weapon
and shoot a protester, especially the one presenting the valid court
order, would he have done it??? Unlikely, because the lowest ranking cop
there knows what a lawful order from his supervisor is. That
white-shirted cop was in fact undermining his own authority---a la Tony
Bologna---by showing his contempt for the United States Constitution in
front of the officers he commands. This demoralizes the rank and file of
police officers when their commanders behave like Nazis.

Your assertion that the supervisor had no "chance" to examine the order is
obtuse and further evidence of your monumental stupidity.

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:46:34 +0000 (UTC), "6313 Dead, 1456 since
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:31:35 -0500, Sid9 wrote:
>
>> "David Hartung" <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
>> news:EK2dnY0o8sZjE1jT...@giganews.com...
>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>> them. They
>>>> were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform to
>>>> your
>>>> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does
>>>> not mean
>>>> that they have to present the order according to you.
>>>
>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate court
>>> orders?
>>
>> Cops handle these types of papers every day in the course of their
>> duties. See if you figure out a dumber question to ask.
>>
>> On a scale of 0 to 100 this is as least and 85,
>
>And the cop had no business punching the woman in the face whether her
>papers were in order or not.

Mebbe so, but it was fun to watch anyway.

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:50:16 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American
Patriot" <Franz...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:

>David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 01:25:02a
>
>> On 11/17/2011 05:03 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:47:26a
>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>>> them.
>>>>> They were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not
>>>>> conform to your particularly disturbed idea of what a process server
>>>>> looks like does not mean that they have to present the order
>>>>> according to you.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate
>>>> court orders?
>>>
>>> Which is why the officers could tell those at the park entrance they
>>> need but a few minutes to verify the validity of the order, and I am
>>> sure those holding the order would have granted that time.
>>
>> My guess is that had they been approached in a civil manner, such would
>> have happened.
>
>And we are all to suppose that YOU are the final arbiter on what "being
>approached in a civil manner" is???

I don't imagine that anyone cares what YOU suppose...

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:08:55 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

<chuckle> A citizen brandishing a court order serves no purpose..

>In other words, you have just argued that the police in the park should
>have IMMEDIATELY complied with the order upon its presentation.

<SNICKER>

>You have any more imbecilic defense to make?

Defense??? against what?

[Gary DW]

In article <4cadnccpL5
_xAljTnZ2dn...@giganews.com>, David Hartung

Pretty much yea... here it is here:


...quote...

> IN the situation as portrayed in the video, the police
were fulfilling
> their instructions.

...end quote....


Punching gals in the face is now "fulfilling their
intructions" in Bizarro-fascist-David world.

>
> The truth is, all we have from the video which indicates that the
> officer struck the woman was the wild, emotional claims of the
> protesters. Frankly, given their conduct, I want more credible evidence.

I am glad you are not a cop.

Or on any jury panel.. like EVER!

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 02:29:31a

Well, of course, you would think that way.

Hey, a "Sieg Heil" to you and your brown-shirted chums, by the way.

>
>>In other words, you have just argued that the police in the park should
>>have IMMEDIATELY complied with the order upon its presentation.
>
> <SNICKER>
>
>>You have any more imbecilic defense to make?
>
> Defense??? against what?

Against the embarrassing display of your monumental stupidity, for
starters.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 02:27:00a

Certainly not disturbed Internet stalkers like yourself...

LOL

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:50:58 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

You are insignificant.. beyond the entertainment value you provide.

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:49:25 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

Actually, the law works that way.. sorry that you don't approve...

>Hey, a "Sieg Heil" to you and your brown-shirted chums, by the way.

Private citizens do not have the authority to process court orders..

[Sid9]

"David Hartung" <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message

news:sbWdnRDkesG5CljT...@giganews.com...

It's a cop's JOB to KNOW.
Cops deal with court orders every day. They know VERY WELL what they look
like

[Steve]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 20:45:47 -0500, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>

>>>>>>> order in front of them. That’s when it got ugly. One protester

>>>>>>> jumped inside the park and retrieved an American flag. A woman then
>>>>>>> appeared at the barricade and with a copy of the court order, began
>>>>>>> demanding that police do their job and allow the protesters back into
>>>>>>> the park. Unprovoked, an officer struck the woman in the face
>>>>>>> knocking her back onto the ground. She sat stunned and she appeared
>>>>>>> to be bleeding. Courageously, she got up and resumed protesting. The

>>>>>>> officer didn’t appear to be remorseful over punching an unarmed
>>>>>>> non-threatening woman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here’s the video:

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Simply put, this officer just assaulted a woman. He is a coward and a

>>>>>>> bully. It isn’t right for any man to hit a woman. The police
>>>>>>> clearly don’t care what they do to protesters. It’s a game to

>>>>>>> them. I would love to see that officer try to punch Marine Sgt.

>>>>>>> Shamar Thomas. But the NYPD is too cowardly for that. They’d rather

>>>>>>> attack women instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The video actually seems to indicate that the woman was assaulting the
>>>>>> police office.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your willful right-wing blindness would indicate that.
>>>>>
>>>>> In NO WAY could it ever be interpreted that the woman was assaulting
>>>>> the
>>>>> officer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order, ANYTHING
>>>>> the
>>>>> police did to block or prevent her from entering was an assault by them
>>>>
>>>> A court order does not give a person the right to interfere with a
>>>> policeman..
>>>
>>> If that court order is valid.
>>
>> In the context of the posted video, how were the officers in question to
>> know that the paper being waved in their face was a valid court order? How
>> were they to know that these papers were not phony?
>
>It's a cop's JOB to KNOW.
>Cops deal with court orders every day. They know VERY WELL what they look
>like

A private citizen brandishing a court order serves no purpose...
Private citizens have no authority to process court orders.

[David Hartung]

Once again you show your willingness to form judgments base on
incomplete and inaccurate information.

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 05:46 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:31:35 -0500, Sid9 wrote:
>
>> "David Hartung"<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
>> news:EK2dnY0o8sZjE1jT...@giganews.com...
>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>> them. They
>>>> were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform to
>>>> your
>>>> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does
>>>> not mean
>>>> that they have to present the order according to you.
>>>
>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate court
>>> orders?
>>
>> Cops handle these types of papers every day in the course of their
>> duties. See if you figure out a dumber question to ask.
>>
>> On a scale of 0 to 100 this is as least and 85,
>
> And the cop had no business punching the woman in the face whether her
> papers were in order or not.

At this point, we have no credible evidence that any cop punched anyone.

[Not Sure]

On Nov 17, 2:28 pm, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKa...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
> David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Thu 17 Nov 2011 11:45:07p
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/17/2011 03:19 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> >>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-

Sure it could, clown. You're really not handling the OWS morons and
dipshits being hated and despised by huge majorities of Americans very
well at all, are you? :)

>
> The fact is, if that woman was holding a legal court order, ANYTHING the
> police did to block or prevent her from entering was an assault by them
>

> It is clear that the flag carrier was assaulted, by the way, at the beginning
> of the video.

>
>
>
> > IN the situation as portrayed in the video, the police were fulfilling
> > their instructions.
>

> When that white shirted (commanding) officer was informed of that the people
> had a court order, he should have contacted his own superior or had the
> authority himself to recognize a legal court order.  If he doesn't fulfill
> that duty, he should (1) lose his job and (2) be held legally liable in the
> first degree by any actions in violation of that court order committed by
> officers under his command.
>
> In any way, shape, and form, police officers cannot claim ignorance NOR THE
> NUREMBERG DEFENSE that they were "just following orders."
>
> Those police officers---EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM----swear first and
> foremost to uphold the Constitution of the United States----NOT WHATEVER P.C.
> Ray Kelly feels like at breakfast time.  Any breach they make in upholding
> the Constitution they should understand will COST THEM THEIR JOBS and
> penalties under law amounting to fines and prison time.
>
> > The proper, and civil thing for the protesters to
> > have done, would have been for their attorney to present the police
> > scene commander with a copy of the "order".

>
> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent them.  They
> were holding valid court orders.  Just because they do not conform to your
> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does not mean
> that they have to present the order according to you.
>

> > Had they done that, the
> > police would have had no option but to honor it.
>
> NO!!!  The police have a duty to obey a court order presented in the
> legitimate manner, which is to produce a document with a judge's signature.
>
> It appears the protesters did JUST that!!
>
> The police either accept the order, or politely tell the protesters that they
> need a few minutes to verify that order.
>
> > To wave a piece of
> > paper in the face of a street cop and demand that he disobey his orders
> > is beyond stupid.
>
> They would have LOVED your silly ass at Nuremberg, I can tell.

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

Why don't you watch the video?

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:51:43a

Are you groping to say that I am not as good at this as you?

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:52:15a

At the beginning of the video, the cop CLEARLY shoved the flag carrier, who
noted correctly that it was an assault.

How much more convincing does a blithering idiot like yourself require to
understand that?

[Foxtrot]

"6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/

>
>Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For Challenging

>A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
>
>After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti
>Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order telling police
>to allow the protesters back into the park. Instead, police ignored the
>order and sealed the park. Protesters then responded by approaching the
>park and demanded to be allowed back in. But the NYPD would not have none
>of it. They refused to comply with the demands of the court and the
>protesters.

!! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !!

Note how the cameraman kept saying "Let me get the shot" *before*
the nonexistent punch. He knew what was going to happen. Note how
the camera started shaking *before* the nonexistent punch. Note how
the idiot with the flag intentionally obstructed the camera's view
*before* the nonexistent punch. Note how she immediately turned
toward the camera after the fake punch.

Trying to destroy a cop's career just to get a phony photo op. Tsk

[mastodon]

On 11/17/2011 03:21 PM, Gary DW wrote:
> There is no law against being stupid, David.
>
>
If there were you'd be in stir.

[mastodon]

On 11/17/2011 04:36 PM, Gary DW wrote:
> I am glad you are not a cop.
>

You have issues with cops, don't you?

[Sid9]

"6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:ja4eoi$n1s$2...@dont-email.me...

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:52:15 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2011 05:46 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:31:35 -0500, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David Hartung"<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:EK2dnY0o8sZjE1jT...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>>>> them. They
>>>>>> were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform
>>>>>> to your
>>>>>> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does
>>>>>> not mean
>>>>>> that they have to present the order according to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate
>>>>> court orders?
>>>>
>>>> Cops handle these types of papers every day in the course of their
>>>> duties. See if you figure out a dumber question to ask.
>>>>
>>>> On a scale of 0 to 100 this is as least and 85,
>>>
>>> And the cop had no business punching the woman in the face whether her
>>> papers were in order or not.
>>
>> At this point, we have no credible evidence that any cop punched anyone.
>
> Why don't you watch the video?
>
>

..
.
.
As long as he doesn't watch the video it never happened.

Mississippi Hartung lives in a different reality

[NoBody]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:19:50 +0000 (UTC), "6313 Dead, 1456 since
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-
>face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/

Tell us where in the video it is shown she was punched in the face.
Oddly it doesn't seem to be there. I can see her shoving the cop and
him appropriately shoving her back. No punch thrown.

[Steve]

<LOL> The flag carrier was going where he was told not to go. He was
pushed back to where he should not have ventured from... Too bad he
didn't break a leg...

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 02:10:46p

Yes, the cop doing the shoving was in violation of a court order, and the
flag carrier should file a complaint with a citizen's review board and make
sure that cop no longer has a badge.

> Too bad he
> didn't break a leg...

It would have ensured trouble for the pushy cop.

>>How much more convincing does a blithering idiot like yourself require
>>to understand that?

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

NoBody <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:37:56p

She shoved the cop?

So why didn't he arrest her for assaulting an officer?

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 10:40 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:51:43a

No, I don't have enough information to reach such a conclusion.

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 08:09 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:52:15 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2011 05:46 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:31:35 -0500, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David Hartung"<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:EK2dnY0o8sZjE1jT...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>>>> them. They
>>>>>> were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform
>>>>>> to your
>>>>>> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does
>>>>>> not mean
>>>>>> that they have to present the order according to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate
>>>>> court orders?
>>>>
>>>> Cops handle these types of papers every day in the course of their
>>>> duties. See if you figure out a dumber question to ask.
>>>>
>>>> On a scale of 0 to 100 this is as least and 85,
>>>
>>> And the cop had no business punching the woman in the face whether her
>>> papers were in order or not.
>>
>> At this point, we have no credible evidence that any cop punched anyone.
>
> Why don't you watch the video?

I did.

[David Hartung]

On 11/17/2011 10:41 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:52:15a
>
>> On 11/17/2011 05:46 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:31:35 -0500, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>>> "David Hartung"<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:EK2dnY0o8sZjE1jT...@giganews.com...
>>>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>>>> them. They
>>>>>> were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform to
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like does
>>>>>> not mean
>>>>>> that they have to present the order according to you.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate court
>>>>> orders?
>>>>
>>>> Cops handle these types of papers every day in the course of their
>>>> duties. See if you figure out a dumber question to ask.
>>>>
>>>> On a scale of 0 to 100 this is as least and 85,
>>>
>>> And the cop had no business punching the woman in the face whether her
>>> papers were in order or not.
>>
>> At this point, we have no credible evidence that any cop punched anyone.
>
> At the beginning of the video, the cop CLEARLY shoved the flag carrier, who
> noted correctly that it was an assault.

No, it doesn't. There is no video which clearly shows anyone being hit
or shoved. There is video which indicates that someone could have been
hit or shoved, but it could just as easily have been something else.

[David Hartung]

On 11/18/2011 06:37 AM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> NoBody<NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:37:56p
>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:19:50 +0000 (UTC), "6313 Dead, 1456 since
>> 1/20/09"<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-
>>> face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
>>
>> Tell us where in the video it is shown she was punched in the face.
>> Oddly it doesn't seem to be there. I can see her shoving the cop and
>> him appropriately shoving her back. No punch thrown.
>
> She shoved the cop?
>
> So why didn't he arrest her for assaulting an officer?

Keep going, with every post you look sillier and sillier.

[David Hartung]

Does anyone remember this sort of lawlessness during Tea Party rallies?

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:16:44 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

<LOL> never happen..

>> Too bad he
>> didn't break a leg...
>
>It would have ensured trouble for the pushy cop.

I doubt it..

[Matt]

On Nov 18, 5:16 am, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKa...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 02:10:46p

Actually, its a little more specific than that. You see, you are under
no
requirement to obey a police officer UNLESS the orders given by that
officer are lawful. If he tells you to do something, and has no lawful
reason
for doing so, you are completely within your rights to ignore him. If
he then
grabs or pushes you, well, self-defense applies in all states.

>
> >   Too bad he
> > didn't break a leg...
>
> It would have ensured trouble for the pushy cop.

NY cops are under a lot of stress, I'll cut him a little slack.
However, the one
that shoved the lady is probably going to lose his badge. Unlike
Floriduh,
NY doesn't put up with Lentils.

Matt

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:34:41p

It really annoys you right wing scum when logic works against you, doesn't
it?

I love it.

[David Hartung]

On 11/18/2011 08:55 AM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:34:41p
>
>> On 11/18/2011 06:37 AM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>> NoBody<NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 12:37:56p
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:19:50 +0000 (UTC), "6313 Dead, 1456 since
>>>> 1/20/09"<de...@gone.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-woman-in-
>>>>> face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order-video/
>>>>
>>>> Tell us where in the video it is shown she was punched in the face.
>>>> Oddly it doesn't seem to be there. I can see her shoving the cop and
>>>> him appropriately shoving her back. No punch thrown.
>>>
>>> She shoved the cop?
>>>
>>> So why didn't he arrest her for assaulting an officer?
>>
>> Keep going, with every post you look sillier and sillier.
>
> It really annoys you right wing scum when logic works against you, doesn't
> it?

Where do you get the idea that I am annoyed? I find your foolishness to
be somewhat amusing.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Matt <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:45:05p

Without question, a citizen is in the right at the moment and after it.

But in practice, it's probably a bad idea to assert that you are right when
the guy opposite you has a gun, no matter what type of bad guy he is...one
with a uniform and a badge, or one with a rap sheet.

The time to assert that you are right is with the press---TV cameras, the
New York Times reporter, in front of a judge when you file a claim or
lawsuit against the city (also naming the cop), and filing a complaint with
the proper municipal department that deals with rotten cops who should be
kicked off the force.

Make sure you have friends with video cameras and quick access to YouTube
too (thank the heavens we live in the Internet age...much less fascist
thuggery from the right wing).

>
>>
>> >   Too bad he
>> > didn't break a leg...
>>
>> It would have ensured trouble for the pushy cop.
>
> NY cops are under a lot of stress, I'll cut him a little slack.
> However, the one
> that shoved the lady is probably going to lose his badge.

I have to agree with the cartoon character on this one though. It was a
shove that didn't result in any lasting and visible injury, and was probably
low on the ticker that is the rotten cop scale. Higher on that ticker was
the acts of the juvenile named Tony Baloney who ran around macing law-
abiding protesters...and he didn't really get punished as he should have
been.

> Unlike
> Floriduh,
> NY doesn't put up with Lentils.

We'd like to hope so.

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

David Hartung <david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 03:24:49p

Many months ago I could not understand why many of the liberals in these
newsgroups were viciously attacking you, characterizing you as
exasperatingly stupid.

Now I understand.

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

Ah. So you're just lying. Thank you. You may sit down now.

[David Hartung]

Actually, from what I saw, it is you who is either lying, or very gullible.

[Lee Curtis]

David Hartung wrote:

> On 11/17/2011 10:51 PM, Foxtrot wrote:
> >"6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09"<de...@gone.com> wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/17/police-officer-punches-wom
> > > an-in-face-after-raid-on-ows-for-challenging-nypd-with-court-order
> > > -video/
> > >
> > > Police Officer Punches Woman In Face After Raid On OWS For
> > > Challenging
> >
> > > A woman, after being punched in the face by an NYPD officer.
> > >
> > > After the NYPD evicted the Occupy Wall Street protesters from
> > > Zuccotti Park on Tuesday morning, attorneys secured a court order
> > > telling police to allow the protesters back into the park.
> > > Instead, police ignored the order and sealed the park. Protesters
> > > then responded by approaching the park and demanded to be allowed
> > > back in. But the NYPD would not have none of it. They refused to
> > > comply with the demands of the court and the protesters.
> >
> > !! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !! PHONY !!
> >

> > Note how the cameraman kept saying "Let me get the shot" before

> > the nonexistent punch. He knew what was going to happen. Note how

> > the camera started shaking before the nonexistent punch. Note how

> > the idiot with the flag intentionally obstructed the camera's view
> > *before* the nonexistent punch. Note how she immediately turned
> > toward the camera after the fake punch.
>
> Does anyone remember this sort of lawlessness during Tea Party
> rallies?

Nope.

Easy to see why, too.....




Tea Party Rally Draws 30 People in South Carolina

May 20, 2011

A Tea Party rally that was supposed to include an
appearance by Donald Trump drew only 30 people in
Columbia, South Carolina.

Even though the rally still included Gov. Nikki
Haley according to The State only 30 people showed
up. The Columbia Tea Party was expecting as many as
2,000 people to show up, but once Donald Trump bailed
on them they couldn’t draw three dozen.
http://tinyurl.com/3mtah4h

[Steve]

It's an honor to be insulted by leftists...

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

You didn't see it then. Would you like me to repost the video so others
can judge for themselves?

[David Hartung]

Now who is being disingenuous?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests

[...]
On September 12, 2009, Tea Party protests were held in various cities
around the nation. In Washington, D.C., Tea Party protests gathered to
march from Freedom Plaza to the United States Capitol. Estimates of the
number of attendees varied, from "tens of thousands" to "in excess of
75,000".
[...]

[Lee Curtis]

Speaking of amusing foolishness what do you think
of your guy Cain imploding daily?






Morning Mix: Is Cain “Disappearing”?
November 18, 2011

.Herman Cain has struggled to regain his campaign footing
ever since he became embroiled in scandal and media frenzy.
So, what’s the best way to avoid bad press?

Don’t talk to the press at all.

Cain reportedly blew off New Hampshire’s biggest newspaper,
first cutting their editorial board meeting down to a mere
20 minutes and refusing to allow them to video tape. The
Cain campaign justified their short timing, as well as the
request that there be no video taping. One spokesperson
said, “I think 20 minutes is sufficient for an editorial
board. And there was no need for video because it’s a
newspaper.”

But despite the requests being agreed to, the campaign
was a no show. With no warning that they wouldn’t even
be coming, one board member quipped, “If Cain is more
than 30 minutes late for our interview, is our next one
free?”

Others on the board were less magnanimous. “I think it’s
crazy for a guy who want to be a major presidential
candidate here in New Hampshire not to take the opportunity
for a full length interview with the state’s largest newspaper,”
said Joe McQuaid, the publisher of the Union-Leader. “I don’t
think the guy is going anywhere now anyway.”


http://www.care2.com/causes/morning-mix-is-cain-disappearing.html

[David Hartung]

You can do whatever you wish, it will not change the facts.

[David Hartung]

Imploding? Not likely.

The convention is still a long way off, anything can happen.

[Steve]

<LOL> The fools that staged the fake hit weren't very good....

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 07:51:12p

Isn't that what you called it---honor---when you had gay sex with your
fellow right wingers?

[Matt]

On Nov 18, 11:47 am, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<FranzKa...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV.invalid> wrote:
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011 07:51:12p

Nothing would have sex with the Lentil. If it isn't illegal to sleep
with vegetables,
it should be.

She offered her honor.
He honored her offer.
And all night long, it was on her and off her.

Matt

[Lee Curtis]

Bingo!

You just made my point.

Your Tea Party protests dwindled from 75,000 two
years ago to just a couple of dozen this year, and
none since the Palin "Pay Attention To Me" bus tour
collapsed.

By contrast the OWS movement has spread ALL OVER
THE WORLD.



Sydney Occupy Wall Street protesters to stay
Oct 11 2011
http://tinyurl.com/3l3bjg6


OWS Protests in Berlin
16 October 2011
http://tinyurl.com/7e3dm4y


Occupy Manila: Filipino protesters express solidarity
Oct 13 2011
http://tinyurl.com/6wxlnwe

[Doug Bashford]

Occupy Wall Street (humor)

> Nailed it!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmusrhoEPyU
>

The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:10:04 -0600, "Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yesterday he needed coaching from the crowd in Southern Florida to
figure out if he was for or against Cuba.

--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all" -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.

[Doug Bashford]

in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, about: Re: #NY pig punches woman
in face for showing court order;

Did any of you guys see this?
on Occupy Wall Street (humor)

[Lee Curtis]

David Hartung wrote:

> On 11/18/2011 12:10 PM, Lee Curtis wrote:
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/18/2011 08:55 AM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
> >>>David Hartung<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote on Fri 18 Nov 2011
> 03:34:41p
> > > >
> >

> > Speaking of amusing foolishness what do you think
> > of your guy Cain imploding daily?
>
> Imploding? Not likely.
>
> The convention is still a long way off, anything can happen.

Cain has become a joke, best you find
a new candidate to pine for.

[David Hartung]

For how long?

[Steve]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 18:47:33 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

<ROTFL> I do love it when the lefterloons get so angry at me that
they start tossing out the same insults that people have been throwing
at them...

[Steve]

Poor dumb Matt.. still miffed because I knew about Microsoft then he
did.. <LOL> and he's an employee....


Here's matt's ignorant claims...

"Steve, are you saying that the NT 5.1 in your header
refers to your OPERATING SYSTEM?
--Matt Telles
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/79a81af7d0288a0b?hl=en

[Sid9]

"Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rZSdnbQQEr_5KFvT...@giganews.com...

Obama needs Cain....He could be Obama's Goldwater!

[Lee Curtis]

> > > > > > intentionally obstructed the camera's view before the

Longer than any of your Fox-generated Tea Party protests.

[Gary DW]

In article
<ct2dnbrI66b5AlvT...@giganews.com>, David
Hartung says...

> > on them they couldn?t draw three dozen.

> > http://tinyurl.com/3mtah4h
>
> Now who is being disingenuous?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests
>
> [...]
> On September 12, 2009, Tea Party protests were held in various cities
> around the nation. In Washington, D.C., Tea Party protests gathered to
> march from Freedom Plaza to the United States Capitol. Estimates of the
> number of attendees varied, from "tens of thousands" to "in excess of
> 75,000".
> [...]

2009.. 2011.

Yup.

Same thing.

Anyone want to pay attention to 2009's Obama ratings
now?

Ahh nobody is that stupid.

Never mind.



--
Modern conservatism is a cult. Neither it nor its voters
can be reasoned with. Attempting to pragmatically
compromise with them in the hopes of
deflecting criticism, "changing Washington" and winning
"independent" voters is a waste of time.

-Digby

[Gary DW]

In article <ja4qu7$ie4$6...@dont-email.me>, mastodon
says...


>
> On 11/17/2011 04:36 PM, Gary DW wrote:
> > I am glad you are not a cop.
> >
>
> You have issues with cops, don't you?



Just the ones that exceed their authority.

You wouldn't understand.

[6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09]

I've got a copy of the NHL standings for April, 2008. Looks like the
Ottawa Senators are going to the Stanley Cup...

[Foxtrot]

Thirty people in SC three years after the Tea Party movement began
compared to 25 people in Manhattan eight weeks after OWS began.

Are you sure you want to make popularity comparisons?

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-protesters-plan-move/story?id=14959906#.Tscj0ZnKxw9

[Gary DW]

In article <ja6op2$e17$1...@dont-email.me>, Sid9 says...

Walter Mondale is praying... "PLEASE CAIN... WIN THE
NOMINATION."

(As righties remain clueless and cult-like)

[mastodon]

On 11/18/2011 06:58 PM, Gary DW wrote:
> In article<ja4qu7$ie4$6...@dont-email.me>, mastodon
> says...
>
>
>>
>> On 11/17/2011 04:36 PM, Gary DW wrote:
>>> I am glad you are not a cop.
>>>
>>
>> You have issues with cops, don't you?
>
>
>
> Just the ones that exceed their authority.
>
> You wouldn't understand.
>

Oh I bet you find ones like that real often, doncha?

[mastodon]

On 11/18/2011 08:18 PM, Gary DW wrote:
> Walter Mondale is praying..

I think he's an atheist actually...

[Winston Smith, American Patriot]

Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote on Sat 19 Nov 2011 12:58:17a

Most of my liberal colleagues would chasten me for taking a give-as-good-as-
get-from-right-wing-scum-like-you attitude, especially if it is to descend
to the level of you juveniles who constantly resort to name-calling and
making some reference to gay sex to the liberal you are shouting and
screaming at like an infant.

But as you can see, I don't have any problem with name-calling and insults
as a response to the usual tantrum-throwing right-wing children like
yourself. And I thought I would test the "gay sex" torment with you, since
you are nowhere near adult enough to make the correct response, as you have
shown.

[Steve]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:50:50 +0000 (UTC), "Winston Smith, American

<BIG CHUCKLE> Here's a clue, it's generally only leftist losers like
yourself, whose self image is so dependant upon what others say to
them, to be hurt by your childish attempts at <LOL> "torment."

That you think that tactic would have any effect on me, only serves to
announce what things have that effect upon you.

[Gary DW]

In article <ja7bng$fgu$8...@dont-email.me>, mastodon
says...

>
> On 11/18/2011 08:18 PM, Gary DW wrote:
> > Walter Mondale is praying..
>
> I think he's an atheist actually...

Are you trying to be funny, or just stupid?

....quote...




Walter Mondale was raised as a Methodist, the son of a
Methodist minister.

Walter Mondale was a Presbyterian as an adult. He was a
member of the Westminster Presbyterian congregation.


...end quote....

[Chuck Norris]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:37:15 -0800, mastodon <m...@in.valid> wrote:

>On 11/17/2011 04:36 PM, Gary DW wrote:
>> I am glad you are not a cop.
>>
>
>You have issues with cops, don't you?

No, but I have issues with shitheads who keep nym-shifting to avoid
killfiles.
--

In a discussion about the "heavily edited" Acorn tapes:

"Video tap[e] does not lie.."

From: Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 06:56:27 -0400
Message-ID: <fq32479tvvn4k6fm3...@4ax.com>

[NoBody]

BTW Zippo, you said Cain would be in single digits by now.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

I must have missed your apology...

[NoBody]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:11:12 +0000 (UTC), "6313 Dead, 1456 since
1/20/09" <de...@gone.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:21:56 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>
>> On 11/17/2011 08:09 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:52:15 -0600, David Hartung wrote:
>>>

>>>> On 11/17/2011 05:46 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:31:35 -0500, Sid9 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "David Hartung"<david@hotmai*l.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:EK2dnY0o8sZjE1jT...@giganews.com...
>>>>>>> On 11/17/2011 04:28 PM, Winston Smith, American Patriot wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those protesters have NO OBLIGATION to have an attorney represent
>>>>>>>> them. They
>>>>>>>> were holding valid court orders. Just because they do not conform
>>>>>>>> to your
>>>>>>>> particularly disturbed idea of what a process server looks like
>>>>>>>> does not mean
>>>>>>>> that they have to present the order according to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you know that the papers they were holding were legitimate
>>>>>>> court orders?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cops handle these types of papers every day in the course of their
>>>>>> duties. See if you figure out a dumber question to ask.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On a scale of 0 to 100 this is as least and 85,
>>>>>
>>>>> And the cop had no business punching the woman in the face whether
>>>>> her papers were in order or not.
>>>>
>>>> At this point, we have no credible evidence that any cop punched
>>>> anyone.
>>>

>>> Why don't you watch the video?
>>
>> I did.
>
>Ah. So you're just lying. Thank you. You may sit down now.

Tell us exactly where in the video the woman is punched in the face by
a cop.
>

[NoBody]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:32:10 -0600, "Lee Curtis" <clee...@gmail.com>

I just saw "Occupy Harrisburg" and it was two tents....

[Lee Curtis]

> intentionally obstructed the >> > > > camera's view before the

Where is the Tea Party rallying these days?