Wow. You quoted the post and then asked if it was my outrage I was referring to when I said “your outrage”. Wow. That’s a serious disconnect you have goin’ on there.
I admit that somtimes the laughter gives way to gaping surprise; somtimes the stupid is just overwhelming in your posts like that.
Unfortunately, I do and it’s a lot less fun usually. This is a nice change of pace, being able to laugh at him instead of having to patiently explain AGAIN why what they’re saying makes little or no sense.
It took essentially one post. What has persisted is my difficulty understanding why you think you have a point. Perhaps you’re just wallowing in stupidity?
As an exploration, consider the fact that many courts obligate fathers to pay child support. Did you know that many of those fathers do not do so? The fact that they do not has no bearing on the legitimacy of the decision of the court.
I’m not interested in hearing about your personal life, but thanks for sharing.
I asked questions, you treated the questions as a statement of fact, you provided answers but not to the questions I had ask, and now you blame me for making you look like an ass. I can’t take any credit for that.
Really? The “I’m rubber and you’re glue” gambit? No wonder you seem to have a third grader’s grasp of legal issues! Now I feel bad for mocking you. Go in peace, my retarded little buddy.
The word “law,” in the United States validly refers to three things:
The common law.
Statutory law.
Case law.
It also can refer to regulations made in accordance with the statutory law. For example, the statute may say that prohibited contraband is “All substances determined by the Attorney General to be ‘dangerous narcotics’ and published on Schedule C.” The issuance of Schedule C is regulatory in nature, but serves as the basis for the criminal law’s substance.
You were close; I had my crazy uncle look it over tho and he says it should be: “ADMIRALITY Law as interpreted by FREEMEN, of the FAMILY, on THE LAND”
He says that randomly capitalizing words is key to really understanding what someone is saying. I mentioned that they were already capitalized and he said “see? and that’s how you know he means the same thing that you do.” I told him this made no sense but he just muttered “goddamn hippy fascist liberals” and resumed his whittling. He wouldn’t answer any questions about the colors, tho; I assume it’s some sort of code.
That’s some serious regression you’re experiencing (or a poor attempt at cyberbullying). Schoolhouse Rock? Rubber and glue? I think it’s important for you to know that I do not hold you responsible for the LAPD, LA county’s prosecutors office, LA city council, the California State Attorney’s office, or the California legislators apparent disregard of the Grigg ruling. Nobody is blaming you. It’s going to be OK. Just hang in there.
I didn’t mind your inability to recognize my questioning why the LAPD hadn’t incorporated the Grigg ruling after seven years. I’m sure you’re a busy guy and probably overlooked the obvious. Your multiple responses to my question didn’t answer my question but I’m sure they answered yours.
Maybe you can answer this question - Considering what you now know about the Watts debacle and the LAPD’s response, what legal advice would you give Watts? For instance, would you advise Watts to verbally provide her name to the officer?
Having the losers pay court costs as is done in some other jurisdictions would go some way towards remedying this. It makes it less costly to sue, and the cops will know this, so in equilibrium it makes them do less false arresting. Of course it is not a panacea. People like Larry Hiibel probably don’t want to recover money so much as lost … respect, or something.
Good luck to us in getting that. Would that be covered by statute, or would it take changes to state constitutions?
