If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ninnyboy Kane Whines Awhile
On 15 Jul 2004 13:27:30 -0700, Kane
wrote: On 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote: http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. . You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state. In court you could plead insanity though. Write it down so you don't forget. Eyy, eyy ninnyboy. -- Just Say NO to Miss Information |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ninnyboy Kane Whines Awhile
Fern wrote
Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. Kane wrote You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state. Is that your legal opinion, Kane? Legal in your state? Next you'll be saying that reading of the Constitution is only for properly trained individuals to interpret, right? All hail the priesthood of the law. The modern Pharisees who paid Judas to maintain their power. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What if CPS caseworker brings police along?
Kane wrote
You could also be open for civil suit should a homeowner refuse entry and be hurt in the process. A legal opinion from Kane saying that somebody elses legal opinion is illegal to disseminate? Ha! By that same logic, a parent who totally rolls over when caseworkers come to their door could sue you! Naa! You aren't hard to trace down should someone wish to. I understand a certain public figure in the entertainment industry's people know who and were you are. Probably just rumor. Or intestinal gas. Have you found a way to bottle it and save it on your shelf along with your yellow jars and little brown balls you rolled? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Whore pushes NO LAW government....was...... Ninnyboy Kane Whines Awhile
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What if CPS caseworker brings police along?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What if CPS caseworker brings police along?
"Kane" wrote in message m... It's estimated that on average everyone emits intestinal gas about 11 to 12 times a day. Even the beautiful people. Class, now pay attention, obviously this Kane Asshole knows what it is talking about. Mrs. Grif. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What if CPS caseworker brings police along?
On 18 Jul 2004 10:53:28 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
He just gave legal advice over the Internet. Giving advice NOT to give Legal advice is Legal advice itself. So sue me. R R R R R R And remember, those that sue immediately open themselves up for counter suit. FIRST AMENDMENT, Rights PREVAIL.. Of course they do, as long as you don't yell "Fire" when there isn't one. You needed to tell that person to seek LEGAL advice, not take actions blindly against LEOs showing up at their door. YOU did that, Punkin' Head. Let's put my advice to you not to give legal advice and my advice to the poster you were responding to to seek legal advice, and even ask for a warrant up against YOUR ADVICE TO REFUSE ENTRY TO A POLICE OFFICER, and see which of us prevails. I've already run it by my attorney. How about you? I am not an attorney. Then why did you tell someone, anonymously, to risk the very serious consequences, both legally, to their person, to their family, and physcially to their own personal safety? Officers under authority to gain entry under two different methods that are most common could concievably use physical force to gain entry and arrest the person for any number of things. I am telling him or her to damn well find out about the law in their state BEFORE they take actions that could well be illegal THAT YOU SUGGESTED. At no point did I attempt to interpret the laws of his or her state, only offering the same general information, speculatively, that the person might be in violation of their own laws. On the other hand, here is what YOU said: From: (Fern5827) Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking Date: 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: What if CPS caseworker brings police along? Message-ID: http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. Be polite. http://www.profane-justice.org Colorado Website of Suzanne Shell. Early advocate for families against DHS, DSS. end message The Question Subject field: " What if CPS caseworker brings police along? ' Your response: "Do not admit to home." Tell them to be "polite," by the way, does NOT abrogate your responsibility for advising someone to do something that could be, if the officer is acting legally, illegal in their state. In addition you are urging the to sue, suggesting they are in a position to do so, legally in any attempt for a police officer to act in their official capacity. You assholes take HUGE chances with other people's children, families, and their LIVES. See the difference, Fruitcake? Neither are you. Checkmate. And I was very careful to give only advice that was not "legal." Only pointed them to search for legal advice....very fully. "Do not admit to home," if flat out legal advice. If the party wishes to take legal action against you, should they follow your advice and be injured in any way, up to and including a criminal complaint, I'll be happy to assist. I think some of you assholes need slowing down very badly I note the advice the Christines took, as per legal matters, and where they are today...and how very close someone came to being killed. He might have killed two people and gotten himself killed as well. Brian had a very close call....anyone that uses a gun in a criminal action where they point and threaten to shoot is considered, last I heard, ARMED AND DANGEROUS, and police searching for them will of course take precautions to ensure no one gets shot but the perp, if it comes to that. YOU are about as useful as those assholes that suggested Brian's actions to him. I have a raft of your posts that support your nitwittery, such as supporting various illegal actions by others......including recently the assualt on an elderly foster parent, kidnapping or whatever it's called in that state. This is just one more in a long continuous string of such vicious things you have done. Keep it up, and eventually you might have to pay for them. This one was especially dangerous for others. On 18 Jul 2004 10:53:28 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote: He just gave legal advice over the Internet. Giving advice NOT to give Legal advice is Legal advice itself. So sue me. R R R R R R And remember, those that sue immediately open themselves up for counter suit. FIRST AMENDMENT, Rights PREVAIL.. Of course they do, as long as you don't yell "Fire" when there isn't one. You needed to tell that person to seek LEGAL advice, not take actions blindly against LEOs showing up at their door. YOU did that, Punkin' Head. Let's put my advice to you not to give legal advice and my advice to the poster you were responding to to seek legal advice, and even ask for a warrant up against YOUR ADVICE TO REFUSE ENTRY TO A POLICE OFFICER, and see which of us prevails. I've already run it by my attorney. How about you? I am not an attorney. Then why did you tell someone, anonymously, to risk the very serious consequences, both legally, to their person, to their family, and physcially to their own personal safety? Officers under authority to gain entry under two different methods that are most common could concievably use physical force to gain entry and arrest the person for any number of things. I am telling him or her to damn well find out about the law in their state BEFORE they take actions that could well be illegal THAT YOU SUGGESTED. At no point did I attempt to interpret the laws of his or her state, only offering the same general information, speculatively, that the person might be in violation of their own laws. On the other hand, here is what YOU said: From: (Fern5827) Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking Date: 15 Jul 2004 18:47:27 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Subject: What if CPS caseworker brings police along? Message-ID: http://www.profane-justice.org/html/faq.html#letcwin Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. Be polite. http://www.profane-justice.org Colorado Website of Suzanne Shell. Early advocate for families against DHS, DSS. end message The Question Subject field: " What if CPS caseworker brings police along? ' Your response: "Do not admit to home." Telling them to "be polite," by the way, does NOT abrogate your responsibility for advising someone to do something that could be, if the officer is acting legally, illegal in their state. In addition you are urging them to sue, suggesting they are in a position to do so, legally, in any attempt for a police officer to act in their official capacity. That IS legal advice. You assholes take HUGE chances with other people's children, families, and their LIVES. See the difference, Fruitcake? Neither are you. And I was very careful to give only advice that was not "legal." Only pointed them to search for legal advice....very fully. "Do not admit to home," if flat out legal advice. If the party wishes to take legal action against you, should they follow your advice and be injured in any way, up to and including a criminal complaint, I'll be happy to assist. I think some of you assholes need slowing down very badly I note the advice the Christines took, as per legal matters, and where they are today...and how very close someone came to being killed. He might have killed two people and gotten himself killed as well. Brian had a very close call....anyone that uses a gun in a criminal action where they point and threaten to shoot is considered, last I heard, ARMED AND DANGEROUS, and police searching for them will of course take precautions to ensure no one gets shot but the perp, if it comes to that. YOU are about as useful as those assholes that suggested Brian's actions to him. I have a raft of your posts that support your nitwittery, such as supporting various illegal actions by others......including recently the assualt on an elderly foster parent, kidnapping or whatever it's called in that state. This is just one more in a long continuous string of such vicious things you have done. Keep it up, and eventually you might well have to pay for them. This one was especially dangerous for others. Checkmate. Sorry, you made an unallowed move...your checkmate is recinded. And your King is forfeit....and dead, which is what Checkmate actually means. . You have never really been in the game at all, Muskmelon. About all you've done for years is babble nonsense...some of it questionable, and some of it potentially dangerous if it is followed as advice. Now tell me again I gave legal advice and prove it? A person's attorney may well advise, "Do not admit to home," but YOU sure as hell better not. And the attorney is very likely to say much more about how to do this and be protected, like "wait for me to to get there," "or ask politely for a warrant," etc. As you said was, "Do not admit to home." Kane |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Whore pushes NO LAW government....was...... Ninnyboy Kane Whines Awhile
Kane,
I have read at least one high court opinion very noteable for ALLOWING advocates to dispense legal advice without acting as an attorney. The LOUSY state of affairs with public defenders doing the JUDAS act is widely known and some of this has become caselaw. It was either about Suzanne Shell or part of the caselaw that Suzanne Shell used to defend herself. Basically, anybody can do legal research, it would be just plain unAmerican to tell people that they could not research it or tell what they had found. This is NOT the same as pretending to be an attorney. Somebody once posted that early Americans actually prohibited Barristers (Lawyers) from flooding into the new world. Barristers/Lawyers were much hated even then. Do you think Abraham Lincoln ever had to go to law school or pass a BAR EXAM before he practiced law? I highly doubt that the US Constitution was meant to stifle grass roots efforts to understand our laws, now convoluted beyond even the abilities of barristers. Despite that old expression that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." now'days it is sort of a nonsense comment. It takes a giant COMPUTER to track "the law" and all of the corrolaries, caselaw, precedent, etc. The Judge in the decision I refer to above could not get around the value of such research and advocacy. Put even simpler, it seemed like the CPS and their attorneys were being GIANT CRYBABIES in trying to pretend that providing legal research was in fact providing legal advice. It was a desperate tactic used by desperate prosecutors. In another case CPS actually PROTESTED in court that an advocate group had helped a mother find a home and a job! (As if it was somehow UNFAIR!) The Judge was not happy with CPS that day. Prosecutors do often try some pathetic tactics. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Whore pushes NO LAW government....was...... Ninnyboy Kane Whines Awhile
On 18 Jul 2004 16:31:54 -0700, (Greg Hanson)
wrote: Kane, I have read at least one high court opinion very noteable for ALLOWING advocates to dispense legal advice without acting as an attorney. Then cite and post please. For some reason I have trouble taking your word for things. The LOUSY state of affairs with public defenders doing the JUDAS act is widely known and some of this has become caselaw. Boy, this Plant just told someone to refuse entry to police officer. Not that may NOT result in any untoward outcomes, but would YOU want to follow that advice, without first taking to an attorney in your state, or at the very least looking up the statutes in your state and county, as well as city, to see just what a police officers choices are in such matters? The Plant seems perfectly willing, as usual, and as YOU do, to dispense advice or misleading information that could result in very serious consequences for those taking that advice or using that information. It was either about Suzanne Shell or part of the caselaw that Suzanne Shell used to defend herself. R R R R .... Exactly my point. Basically, anybody can do legal research, Yes, and that IS what I recommended. The Plant said to refuse entry to a police officer. And said this what NO caveats whatsoever, leaving the reader, or who ever It was responding to, to assume it is possible to do this regardless of the circumstances at the time of the events. it would be just plain unAmerican to tell people that they could not research it or tell what they had found. This is NOT the same as pretending to be an attorney. Please point out were I told someone not to research. In fact I did exactly the opposite, you ****in' mindless parasite. I told them NOT to take advice from a pack of self serving sick little ****s like you on the Web, and go get REAL legal advice, and REAL information. You want to defend telling them to refuse entry to a police officer, be my guest, but know that you place OTHERS in jeapordy by such advice. Somebody once posted that early Americans actually prohibited Barristers (Lawyers) from flooding into the new world. Barristers/Lawyers were much hated even then. Now there's a usual piece of information for 2004 decision making. Do you think Abraham Lincoln ever had to go to law school or pass a BAR EXAM before he practiced law? There are, I believe, about 6 states, that still allow for NOT attending an accredited college of law and take the bar exam. Preparation, as A. Lincoln did, is called "Reading the Law." It is usually done, I'm told, by actually working in a law office, likely as a clerk or para, and then taking the bar. My understand was there was no such thing as a bar exam in Lincolns time but he met the criteria common to all in those days. Just as todays ambitious want to be legal beagles must. But that isn't the issue. The Plant has NO "Reading the Law" experience It has shared with us, and the perfect example of It's ignorance is posted from time to time here, and THIS example was a perfect one. An advice to refuse entry to a police officer. I highly doubt that the US Constitution was meant to stifle grass roots efforts to understand our laws, Nope. You are free to study the Constituion however you wish. Go read it. You have 24 hours to prepare for a quiz. now convoluted beyond even the abilities of barristers. No, Constitution is anything but convoluted. I has hardly changed except for some additions that were a natural outgrowth of an evolving society of humans. Despite that old expression that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." now'days it is sort of a nonsense comment. No, it isn't. That still stands as fact. Ignorance will NOT excuse you from charges. It might help you in court. You see, assbrain, you and The Plant and some others who have haunted this ng from time to time have spouted tons of garbage on legal issues, failing to even discriminate between the branches of government...constantly mixing up their duties and responsibilities to spread your whining complaining stupid **** around. The law of the land in THIS country is a wonderfully fine and simple document....The United States Constitution. I'll bet you've never even read it through, including the BOR and the rest of the amendments, now have you? It takes a giant COMPUTER to track "the law" and all of the corrolaries, caselaw, precedent, etc. Yer babbling, as usual. Go to a law library. People on foot will go to the stacks for you and pull out exactly what you are looking for without resorting to a computer. There sometimes is a small fee for copying. The attempts to make the law complicated are typical of jailhouse lawyers, those guilty of crimes, caught or not, that want to avoid the simple facts in the law. Start standing around little naked girls taking showers again and watch what happens to you, dummy. The Judge in the decision I refer to above could not get around the value of such research and advocacy. There is no case mentioned "above." What ARE you babbling about again? Stop snipping attributions and maybe you'd make some sense. Put even simpler, it seemed like the CPS and their attorneys were being GIANT CRYBABIES in trying to pretend that providing legal research was in fact providing legal advice. Totally incoherent garbage. I know of nothing in this thread that would explain you mumbling whine. It was a desperate tactic used by desperate prosecutors. What case are you referring to? You've completely obscured any case by NOT citing the previous posts that have that content. I will not discuss a case with you unless you actually have the prior referances to it so I know WHICH ****in' case you are talking about. Other people have lives, couch croucher, and haven't time to keep with five or six of you babblers and your subject matter. In another case CPS actually PROTESTED in court that an advocate group had helped a mother find a home and a job! Citation please, and source access. (As if it was somehow UNFAIR!) The Judge was not happy with CPS that day. How do YOU know they though it unfair, other than from the opinion of some asshole anti CPS freak? Prosecutors do often try some pathetic tactics. Prosecutors try lots of things, inluding the truth about ****heels such as you. You are one of the luckiest ****ers in Iowa to have gotten away with what you did. Now you are doing the con number, trying to deflect people from YOUR viscous treatement of a child and her mother. Go **** yourself, asshole. Because of your innate dishonesty, and weaselly tactics I've had to do your work for you, and so I've pasted the post you are responding to below. You are a very serious passive agressive, aren't you, asshole, in addition to being a narcissistic twit. Kane (Kane) wrote in message . com... On 17 Jul 2004 12:18:33 -0700, (Greg Hanson) wrote: Fern wrote Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later. Kane wrote You just gave legal advice. That's illegal in your state. Is that your legal opinion, Kane? Nope, just an opinion. My own lawyer told me so. Legal in your state? To tell someone not to give legal advice....sure. Is it legal to give legal advice in your state if you are not a lawyer? If not, don't do it. It's not in The Plant's. Next you'll be saying that reading of the Constitution is only for properly trained individuals to interpret, right? Why would I say that? Can't imagine me doing anything so stupid, but you, on the other hand, might just be stupid enough to encourage The Plant to NOT actually site the constitution and just babble. It did not say "here is the law" or "go find out what the law is in your state." Instead it risked THE OTHER PERSON'S SAFETY AND CHILD AND FAMILY. See why I am such a millstone around the collective neck of you evil vicious thugs? Now take a look at that sentence of It's. It says: "Do not admit to home. Grounds for lawsuits later." The first sentence provides NO caveat...such as "unless...etc....." And there one hell of a lot of "unless" and "etc." when a sworn law enforcement officer presents him or herself at your door and requests entry. The correct, and NON-legal advice should be, "ask politely if the officer has a warrant to serve to to see it." I think even the nutso anti government anit cps crusader organizations know to do that. Now look at the next sentence. "Grounds for lawsuit later." The Brazil Nut doesn't have the slighest idea of what constitutes grounds for a lawsuit. .... especially in that the homehomer cannot know, while reading that piece of LEGAL ADVICE, if such a situation will even present itself. Do YOU know the kind of advice Ruth and Brian Christine got.....and that their chidren are being raise by their parents now, and both are in jail for many years because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE? And Brian damn near murdered someone, because of BAD ****IN' LEGAL ADVICE? That is EXACTLY what nailed them. All hail the priesthood of the law. Sonny, you couldn't drive three blocks and not get killed without "the priesthood of the law." The traffic laws require enforcment to work, legislation to determine them, and a judicial to apply sanctions against having broken them. What system would YOU suggest to replace LAW? Law are nothing more than the rules we make between us to stay alive, less injured, and have much more fun...like being able to work for a living and be responsible for oursel.....oppps! Sorry. I forgot about you and your "situation." The modern Pharisees who paid Judas to maintain their power. Please point out how my suggesting that The Plant NOT give legal advice, and my personal advice to the inquirer that he or she DO seek competent legal advice equates to that nonsense ... Or could it just be we are all being treated sigh once again, to a segue into YOUR particularly sordid mess that destroyed a loving family by YOUR actions and that mother's stupid choice to take YOU over her own daughter? Kane |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What if CPS caseworker brings police along? | Kane | Spanking | 11 | July 19th 04 06:19 AM |
What if CPS caseworker brings police along? | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | July 15th 04 07:47 PM |
FW: CO Teen's family called LE 50x last 3 yrs | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | July 14th 03 04:54 PM |