Hossage

I could call you a liar and a sophist, but the world is full of them, and that would probably make you attempt to rebut me, which would be painful to read. Beyond that, you dont get to hijack this topic. As far as the original intent of the subject, I think we have reached a point of globalization and income disparity that make borders and nation states less important than the larger struggle battle between the ruling elite and have nots. The ruling elites are international and have an incentive to protect each other, and no real incentive to represent us.

I thought he was more of a runner and less of a fullback in college, but I really dont know much about him. Is he an H-back sort of guy, or a special teamer?

Suffering god is that dolphin with a helmet on totally asinine.

Sometimes I marinade my salmon in a heavy pino noir based cava or champagne.

Yeah, this post is trash.

Clearly it is an m4. same thing.

I would go for the porn star who goes by the handle petite damita, among others. I would post a pic or a link, but I couldnt find one of her wearing clothes.

I dunno, noisemakers are already banned at the Ralph.

Will we keep Schouman in a sort of H-back or wing back type role? I just dont know.

It would be hotter if they had them take on a new name, like american gladiators or strippers. I would like the one called Ice or Jazmyn.

It seems odd that someone with an avatar of a woman holding an ar-15 objects to being called a gun nut in a somewhat fecetious manner.

Brown certainly impressed me last year.

I dont mind right wing gun nuts, especially if they are in militias.

It is one example among many. The criminal standards are derived from the same powers. The point is that in some instances trials may only proceed with the consent of the defendant, and that is established in case law as well as derived from at least as far back as the declaration of independence. I'm not a lawyer, and I've been drinking whiskey through the last several posts. What I wanted to express is that part of the game the government plays is to fine you small amounts and hit you with court fees for something that is too scary and complicated for most people to address as a means of profiting from you.

Standing is derived from the same powers in any case, and criminal is more restrictive than civil. Because in civil law when you contract with the government or another person you accept their terms as part of the contract.

The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) New York State is not a person. One of two requirements for standing is: “A plaintiff must allege personal injury…” Has the “State of New York” (a fiction) alleged I have caused a “personal injury” by not wearing a seatbelt, etc? Of course not: that’s one essential element missing, The pretended plaintiff “is [not] entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). Allegations or not, there is no injury to anyone if I don't wear a seatbelt, speed, etc.

No, Levi, that is wrong. The State of New York is legally a corporate fiction that a person may contract with, but has limited legal standing. Please research the issue of legal standing. Courts frequently rule that the defendant does not consent to trial. The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Jim, it is not my approach to the law, it is the law.

Wrong. In criminal law, an accuser must be brought forward for a jury to convict. The government can only have legal standing if it is acting to secure the rights of others. Normally that language is similar to the following in the Declearation of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Please research the issue of legal standing. Courts frequently rule that the defendant does not consent to trial.

I don't know what the issue of legal standing in this case has to do with a cop failing to do his job for me. Perhaps you were trying to insult me instead of explaining this legal matter to me. You are wrong to think that I have seen the wrong side of law enforcement and wrong to accuse me of doing drugs. You are ignorant of what powers the government has and from from whence they are derived. Please research the requirements for legal standing, the powers of a grand jury, and the powers of the legal fiction which is government. From the Supreme Court: The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984) More explicit, standing requires the violation of a legally (government) recognized right. The Declaration of Independence proves this: “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” And from the Arizona “constitution”: “governments…are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”

Try and report a cop for speeding. See how far you get. That shows that they are not concerned about motorist safety; they arent working for us, they are working to get themselves paid. The police and courts are paid partly out of the fines they asses. BB27, you have stated that because you are ignorant of my argument about the legal standing of police and speeders, my logic is flawed. Standing to invoke a courts jurisdiction requires the allegation that a right has been violated.

Jim, you seem to have this image of me as some kind of rebellions communist/hippie who is doing this for spite. That isnt the case at all. I think our government is doing more harm than good in many different ways, and I want to say so. Its not personal. The potential for harm doesnt bring forward an accuser with legal standing. If I were a lawyer or a law enforcement agent, there is no way I would feel that way I do now, because I would be supported by this system. If a lawyer argues the legal standing of a cop, they are immediately shunned, because they are working against the money making legal system. The legal system exists for itself, not for you.

It is true that the courts dont often work the way they are supposed to. It is also highly improbable that a law enforcement officer is going to examine the legal basis for the law he enforces and find it lacking. Government is a gun to your head.

Endangering them isnt harming them.

Strawberry on the rump or what?